Minimum Win% for PIT Topic

clarebear
Posts: 16 (0)
Hall of Famer
27 1 92
Prospect
In real life seriously, who do you think would get picked?
5/21/2014 2:14 PM
stewdog
Posts: 297 (0)
Hall of Famer
27 45 1 173 1
Prospect
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/21/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Just for possible future reference - 

With only two games left, the #30 team on the projection report (Wisconsin, Parkside) - a "LOCK" for the NT if they had a .500 winning percentage - may end up with no post-season play at all.

Just wanted to make sure you realize the impact of this beyond D1, because I feel like the discussion has focused solely on the Big 6 issue.

At the D2/D3 level, if you're in a top-level conference filled with people and you have a good-but-not-great team, you now pretty much *have* to schedule 10 easy wins in OOC. There's no benefit to playing other humans (with respect to making post-season play, not enjoyment) and there is a very real risk of not only missing the NT, but also the PIT.
Agree with this,,,
But this applies to d1 as well as d2 and d3.

I like .425 but do not at all like the "this is step one, we might make it a higher %" approach.

I'm afraid this will make teams schedule more cupcakes than they already do.
This will take AWAY from the game if we mess with it more, and would be a foolish idea, IMO.
5/21/2014 2:17 PM
stewdog
Posts: 297 (0)
Hall of Famer
27 45 1 173 1
Prospect
Posted by clarebear on 5/21/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):
In real life seriously, who do you think would get picked?
In real life the sim coached teams would likely get beaten pretty easily.

:)
5/21/2014 2:19 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by clarebear on 5/21/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):
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.
with all the comments recently, i do think the record vs top 50 and top 100 might not quite count for enough, when its totally awful. it seems important on the higher end, but even some mid level NT teams, i've felt the record vs top X didn't count for enough, in terms of holding them back. beating a couple top 50 teams is great... but not when you also lost to 10 of them :) i think the people with good records get compared in a pretty constructive way, like points are being added or something and they are being added well. but maybe points are just not being taken away for awful records, like 0-2 and 0-10 might just be 0 points - which would not be balanced.
5/21/2014 2:21 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by clarebear on 5/21/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):
In real life seriously, who do you think would get picked?
in real life, there would be twice the number of coaches with basic competency, and this issue would most likely not come up at all ;)
5/21/2014 2:21 PM
wildcat98
Posts: 759 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 3 2 79 17 1
Prospect
Posted by stewdog on 5/21/2014 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by clarebear on 5/21/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):
In real life seriously, who do you think would get picked?
In real life the sim coached teams would likely get beaten pretty easily.

:)
Additionally, conferences in real life HAVE no "Sim AI" equivalent teams. Real life has the HD-equivalent of completely full conferences. If that were the case, I'd have NO problem with the proposed changes.
5/21/2014 2:22 PM
rogelio
Posts: 1122 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 355 18 19
Pro
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. 
This debate doesn't require histrionics.  We're talking about PI invitations, after all.  My concern is that there are consequences to making the cutoff too high.  No one is arguing that an 8, 9 or 10 win team should make it.  The debate is between an 11 win or 12 win team that has been beaten up by great opponents getting left off in favor of a much worse team that has played a complete cupcake schedule.

I expect that jtt's example would probably be eliminated by that the projection rankings alone.  The teams really at issue are the ones that didn't schedule a cupcake non-conference when, according the new rule, they should have.  Perhaps that's not an unintended consequence, jtt and stine might believe that this will empty the bottom-end of big 6 or full (D2/D3) conferences in favor of less full conferences.  My concern is that they might get their wish!
5/21/2014 2:26 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by clarebear on 5/21/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):
In real life seriously, who do you think would get picked?
In real life there is not nearly the concentration of talent that exists in D2/D3 of most Worlds. 

Tark GLV has 12 humans, no sims. 6 ranked teams, lowest team on projection report at 83.
Tark Lone Star has 11 humans, 1 sim. 3 ranked teams, lowest team on projection report at 82.
Tark Cal. CAA has 12 humans, no sims. 2 ranked teams, lowest team on projection report at 237, 8/12 at 69 or higher.

Tark CVAC has 3 humans, 9 sims (including all sims in the East). No ranked teams, no teams above 74 on projection report (74, 164, 165, 173, 174, 187, 231, 234, 240, 242, 262, 276).
Tark CACC has 5 humans, 6 sims. 1 ranked team, that same team at 21 on projection report. The rest are 86, 110, 144, 150, 179, 219, 238, 257, 263, 267, 269.

Note, I didn't select the two worst conference, just the first two alphabetically as examples.
5/21/2014 2:28 PM
hogstench
Posts: 173 (0)
Hall of Famer
145 4 1
Prospect

If you're 11-15 at seasons end, and have a shot at a PI bid .. prove it and win a CT game, 12-16 will still get you in.  Main reason I voted for a .425 record.  Keep seeing people saying a 16 loss teams can't make it in, yes, YES a 16 loss team can!  I think that is the perfect cut-off. 

Goodness gracious, you're in power-conference, have a team that can get 8-10 Non-Conference wins and you can't win 1-4 conference games or 1 game in the CT.  Don't get rewarded a PI Bid.  I fully believe .425 was the right call.

5/21/2014 2:46 PM
taniajane
Posts: 811 (0)
Hall of Famer
97 55 11
Prospect
Posted by hogstench on 5/21/2014 2:46:00 PM (view original):

If you're 11-15 at seasons end, and have a shot at a PI bid .. prove it and win a CT game, 12-16 will still get you in.  Main reason I voted for a .425 record.  Keep seeing people saying a 16 loss teams can't make it in, yes, YES a 16 loss team can!  I think that is the perfect cut-off. 

Goodness gracious, you're in power-conference, have a team that can get 8-10 Non-Conference wins and you can't win 1-4 conference games or 1 game in the CT.  Don't get rewarded a PI Bid.  I fully believe .425 was the right call.

I agree
5/21/2014 2:50 PM
jtt8355
Posts: 593 (0)
Hall of Famer
201
Prospect
Posted by rogelio on 5/21/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
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. 
This debate doesn't require histrionics.  We're talking about PI invitations, after all.  My concern is that there are consequences to making the cutoff too high.  No one is arguing that an 8, 9 or 10 win team should make it.  The debate is between an 11 win or 12 win team that has been beaten up by great opponents getting left off in favor of a much worse team that has played a complete cupcake schedule.

I expect that jtt's example would probably be eliminated by that the projection rankings alone.  The teams really at issue are the ones that didn't schedule a cupcake non-conference when, according the new rule, they should have.  Perhaps that's not an unintended consequence, jtt and stine might believe that this will empty the bottom-end of big 6 or full (D2/D3) conferences in favor of less full conferences.  My concern is that they might get their wish!
if you look at the conferences i'm currently in, this new rule should actually hurt me more than help me; my d2 conferences are arguably the best - at a minimum second best - in their respective worlds. my d1 conference now has 10 coaches...9 of whom are extremely competent (the 10th just wanted to be in a conference with his brother and can't stand having a d1 team). i am literally looking at this issue from having been in the most talented conferences and thinking, how on earth can a team that can't compete be rewarded? AND (as i've posted a number of times in this forum and others) there is the added benefit of rewarding the lesser conferences in prestige and recruiting cash, which should hopefully generate more interest in those conferences, making them more likely to be filled. 
5/21/2014 2:51 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rogelio on 5/21/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):
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. 
This debate doesn't require histrionics.  We're talking about PI invitations, after all.  My concern is that there are consequences to making the cutoff too high.  No one is arguing that an 8, 9 or 10 win team should make it.  The debate is between an 11 win or 12 win team that has been beaten up by great opponents getting left off in favor of a much worse team that has played a complete cupcake schedule.

I expect that jtt's example would probably be eliminated by that the projection rankings alone.  The teams really at issue are the ones that didn't schedule a cupcake non-conference when, according the new rule, they should have.  Perhaps that's not an unintended consequence, jtt and stine might believe that this will empty the bottom-end of big 6 or full (D2/D3) conferences in favor of less full conferences.  My concern is that they might get their wish!
if you look at the conferences i'm currently in, this new rule should actually hurt me more than help me; my d2 conferences are arguably the best - at a minimum second best - in their respective worlds. my d1 conference now has 10 coaches...9 of whom are extremely competent (the 10th just wanted to be in a conference with his brother and can't stand having a d1 team). i am literally looking at this issue from having been in the most talented conferences and thinking, how on earth can a team that can't compete be rewarded? AND (as i've posted a number of times in this forum and others) there is the added benefit of rewarding the lesser conferences in prestige and recruiting cash, which should hopefully generate more interest in those conferences, making them more likely to be filled. 
I mean no disrespect, really, but do you honestly believe that any one conference or another is going to being significantly impacted positively or negatively by the addition or loss of a couple PIT games? I do not, personally as the effects at that level (even in D1) are minute.
5/21/2014 2:59 PM
taniajane
Posts: 811 (0)
Hall of Famer
97 55 11
Prospect
Or if you are 11-15 and scheduled 8 or 9 wins in non conference and went 3-13 or 2-14 in conference. I don't think you should be in without a good showing in CT.
5/21/2014 3:00 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 2:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 5/21/2014 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hogstench on 5/21/2014 2:46:00 PM (view original):

If you're 11-15 at seasons end, and have a shot at a PI bid .. prove it and win a CT game, 12-16 will still get you in.  Main reason I voted for a .425 record.  Keep seeing people saying a 16 loss teams can't make it in, yes, YES a 16 loss team can!  I think that is the perfect cut-off. 

Goodness gracious, you're in power-conference, have a team that can get 8-10 Non-Conference wins and you can't win 1-4 conference games or 1 game in the CT.  Don't get rewarded a PI Bid.  I fully believe .425 was the right call.

if you are 11-15 and win that first round game you have to play again. Lose and you are now 12-17 and out. if you are 11-15 and have a shot at a PIT you need to win 2+ CT games.
do CT losses count as 2? jk  check your math!!!!
harumph...note to self, stop trying to do math....nothing to see here, move along. 
5/21/2014 3:01 PM
jtt8355
Posts: 593 (0)
Hall of Famer
201
Prospect
when the recruiting cash gap is so big, giving a non-Big 6 team the opportunity to advance through the PIT would be a relatively huge boost to what they are otherwise getting.  
5/21/2014 3:01 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Minimum Win% for PIT Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.