Posted by zbrent716 on 5/21/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 5/21/2014 12:38:00 PM (view original):
16 loss teams don't deserve postseason berths.

They do over sim-coached teams with RPIs in the triple digits.

I agree btw in general with your POV zbrent (poking fun at you a bit up there, didn't want you to take it wrong) - I wanted a .400 floor or no floor, but it probably is not an easy fix to have it only apply to D1...

Posted by dacj501 on 5/21/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/21/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 5/21/2014 12:38:00 PM (view original):
16 loss teams don't deserve postseason berths.

They do over sim-coached teams with RPIs in the triple digits.

I agree btw in general with your POV zbrent (poking fun at you a bit up there, didn't want you to take it wrong) - I wanted a .400 floor or no floor, but it probably is not an easy fix to have it only apply to D1...

I do appreciate the clarification, actually, because I did take it wrong.

Relevant to the topic, it certainly isn't a hard "fix."

From the first thread that started this whole conversation (which was about a minimum percentage at D1 *only*):

Is there a way that there can be a .500 restriction for D1 only? Or would it have to effect all three divisions?
5/12/2014 5:00 PM	Customer Support
It's possible to have a DI-only restriction, but we generally try to keep things as consistent as possible between divisions.

I'd forgotten or missed that - good to know. In that case I am much more inclined to agree that this particular issue should be DI specific...

and I gotta start using emoticon winkeys or something...I just figure if we've been in a conference at some point in the past (and I actually remember that fact) then its ok for me to bust balls, but then I read it back after refreshing and saw it might come off wrong :)

Posted by stinenavy on 5/21/2014 12:38:00 PM (view original):
16 loss teams don't deserve postseason berths.

Here's a team to watch in Wooden: Ramapo.   It just went Sim-AI and has all human recruited scholarship players and 2 walks.  71 Proj; 55 RPI; 8 SOS with 3 to play against the #1 RPI conference in D3 (which is not an admission that it's better than the MIAC).  That's the same boat as S. Indiana (from above).  There's no chance that team gets to the NT without winning the CT, but no chance at a PI berth for that team if it wins 1 more game against that competition?  

I think an AD message should be created to remind coaches that are scheduling games (or accepting challenges) that the team needs to target 12 wins to be eligible for the PI and 14 to have any chance at the NT.  For instance, "Just got a challenge from UNC, that team is ranked #3 this year!  I'm not sure we want to play them on the road next season, do you want to?"

I'm not shedding any tears of 16 loss teams not making the postseason. Apparently many people are.

very well put stinenavy. 

Posted by stinenavy on 5/21/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I'm not shedding any tears of 16 loss teams not making the postseason. Apparently many people are.

don't be so dramatic. nobody is crying because 16 loss teams aren't making it. its all a question of preference, there is no need to sensationalize. if you noticed, half the people in your poll were against it - so maybe, just maybe, that suggests there is reasonable merit on both sides? as is the case with most 2 sided issues...

if you also noticed, even people against the .500 limit (such as myself, who first suggested we try something like .400 or .450 in your thread, as a compromise) were willing to work with you guys, even though most didn't feel a limit was needed. largely because of this willingness to compromise from the "other side", there is now a limit in place. thats at least a partial victory for you, isn't it? there is no need to be divisive, you are acting like the wonderful politicians of this country... we reached a compromise that not everyone is happy with, but hopefully, that most people can live with. i mean seriously what are you expecting? i don't want any limit, but can live with .425. it would be nice to get my way about everything but its not gonna happen and im not gonna sit here saying you are crying over some crap mid major who beat precisely nobody all year missing the post season. 

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):
very well put stinenavy. 

it was terribly put, of 20 pages of comments, it might even be the worst put, given that it came after a PIT limit was put in place, when a full half of the people rejected the idea of a limit in the first place, which presumably would have killed it on the spot. you just can't please some people... encouraging those people is not going to help anyone.

The voting was 53% for and 41% against. Idiot.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/21/2014 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):
very well put stinenavy. 

it was terribly put, of 20 pages of comments, it might even be the worst put, given that it came after a PIT limit was put in place, when a full half of the people rejected the idea of a limit in the first place, which presumably would have killed it on the spot. you just can't please some people... encouraging those people is not going to help anyone.

not everyone wants to write a symposium on every (or any) issue. it perfectly summed up the issue, as seen by those of us who think its ridiculous to have a team with 16 losses in the post season solely by virtue of balancing a cupcake non-con with a terrible in-conference performance. 

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/21/2014 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):
very well put stinenavy. 

it was terribly put, of 20 pages of comments, it might even be the worst put, given that it came after a PIT limit was put in place, when a full half of the people rejected the idea of a limit in the first place, which presumably would have killed it on the spot. you just can't please some people... encouraging those people is not going to help anyone.

not everyone wants to write a symposium on every (or any) issue. it perfectly summed up the issue, as seen by those of us who think its ridiculous to have a team with 16 losses in the post season solely by virtue of balancing a cupcake non-con with a terrible in-conference performance. 

what part of suggesting others are crying about 16 loss teams getting in, perfectly sums up anything? please, elaborate, because that makes no sense at all. its an absolutely ridiculous, child like way of characterizing the situation - the only thing it sums up is just how immature and close minded some of you have been about this issue. besides, its the ones who didn't want the 16 loss teams getting in, who started the fuss. good grief. i guess i should be glad we only have like 5% of folks like you here, most people for and against the issue are willing to compromise, while a few have to get into BS like saying people are crying about it, or suggesting the folks against the limit are being ultra selfish, trying to lord their BCS advantages over everyone. yeah, that *really* helps a constructive dialogue.

All of that discussion and voting was prefaced with the explicit disclaimer that this would apply only to D1.

That's my issue with how it was all framed. The discussion and initial vote was explicitly for D1 only. The subsequent poll question was framed in such a way to imply a minimum was coming - not a "do you want it" question but a "what should it be" question.

But fine, you up at D1 who have to deal with Big 6 inequities can do whatever you (as a majority or as a developer) want. But don't f*ck with us who enjoy playing D2/D3 where there are no mid-major owners crying "unfair" about the current system.

Posted by rogelio on 5/21/2014 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 5/21/2014 12:38:00 PM (view original):
16 loss teams don't deserve postseason berths.

Here's a team to watch in Wooden: Ramapo.   It just went Sim-AI and has all human recruited scholarship players and 2 walks.  71 Proj; 55 RPI; 8 SOS with 3 to play against the #1 RPI conference in D3 (which is not an admission that it's better than the MIAC).  That's the same boat as S. Indiana (from above).  There's no chance that team gets to the NT without winning the CT, but no chance at a PI berth for that team if it wins 1 more game against that competition?  

I think an AD message should be created to remind coaches that are scheduling games (or accepting challenges) that the team needs to target 12 wins to be eligible for the PI and 14 to have any chance at the NT.  For instance, "Just got a challenge from UNC, that team is ranked #3 this year!  I'm not sure we want to play them on the road next season, do you want to?"

Really that Ramapo team has 0 top fifty wins, it's best 2 wins are against 74 rpi simai team and 84 rpi sim ai team, then a 105 and 109 RPI , then 164,168and higher.  It is somewhat a perrfect example of a team that is only in position to be a PIT team because it lost to a whole bunch of good teams.  With 0 top 50 wins how is it in position to even be mentioned as a postseason team with a losing record.  Just because it lost to 13-16 really good teams does not mean it belongs.  now if they were 10-13 and 2-3 of there wins were really good wins then maybe there is something to say, but that team right there is perfect example of a team that should not be in postseason play unless they finish strong.

And just because a 20-8 team beat 19 Sim AI teams and 1 human coach (or whatever) doesn't mean THEY deserve to be in the post-season. And round-and-round we go.