Not entirely sure what I think of these - especially considering that these are going to go into effect as Allen enters the postseason.

But in general, these seem OKish.

The colonels fix.

In general I feel good about these.  The two I question are the reduced variance in turnovers and shooting.  Those things do seem to vary pretty significantly among mid-level scorers (ie. elite scorers and poor scorers are often relatively consistent, but average scorers may go off one game and then struggle the next).  And I would hope that the "reduced variance in fouls" still takes into significant consideration the quality of the opposition...  The last thing I want is for my guys to foul a crappy shooter just as often as they foul a great shooter who can't hit from the line.

I would think it would more mean the random part of these rather than the skill based;  in other words, I was thinking it mean "If you simulated the same game six times the variation in fouls between those simulations woudl be less now than it used to be.

I don't think anything is wrong with more consistency...........but, I hope we don't get a classic overcorrection where the better team always wins (or even wins like 90% of the time).  Upsets should, and need, to still happen, and I have a feeling that they will, I just hope that they aren't every once-in-a-blue moon.  I usually have pretty solid teams so fewer upsets would tend to benefit me personally, but at the same time I don't think ANYONE wants the game to become too predictable.  If done correctly, this could be a very positive change with the results accurately reflecting the ratings even more than they currently do, but I don't want to be spoonfed.  We get waaaay too much of that already..........

See I like his idea that he is trying to find the right set up and is trying.  He seems open to ideas to benifit the game which is nice

To clarify, this change shouldn't greatly affect the averages that you see now.  Instead it will basically help produce results that are more in line with expectations.  In other words, it will pull results of each game closer to the average.  There will definitely still be upsets, and over the course of a season it won't change a whole lot, but it should cut down on those games where a team or player produces an extreme result that defies ratings/gameplans/etc.

In addition to the changes to reduce variance, the change to the fatigue penalty is significant.  From my research into boxscores, I believe that it had more of an effect that you guys probably realized.  For example a guy that was in the blue or yellow was being penalized a bit too much, and that was in turn skewing results.  It was hard to detect because fatigue only displays every 4 minutes so you can't always tell what's going on with it.

You won't see any drastic immediate changes in results from this release, but I think over time you'll be happier with game-to-game results. I understand that it's important to see that you have discernible control over outcomes and this should be a step further in that direction.

Nice job seble

not sure we needed reduced variance on all those fronts, especially since the tweek to fatigue might de facto do that on its own.... but I suppose we'll find out.

this seems like good news!

overall this looks like a good idea, as long as it is not overcorrected. 

at the DIII level, wider variances (than DI and DII) should still be there.  there is a reason these guys end up at a DIII school.  on any night a guy could go 12-14 from the field, but the next night be "somewhere else" and go 2-14 on the same shots. 

I'm waiting for someone to come in and say how it's a matter of the rich getting richer, and that somehow these changes will mean death to all low-level D1 teams.

I really love this. The last few Knight National Tournaments have been way to random (You might have heard me complain about this before). Hopefully NT seeding is next.