Posted by oldresorter on 8/13/2010 8:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seabreeze on 8/13/2010 7:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/12/2010 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/12/2010 9:29:00 PM (view original):
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.

Breezy, I gotta ask, what's with all the hate and discontent lately?  This isn't the cbriese I remember from earlier days......

I think this game is terrific. The whining about possible deficiencies before anyone can see their effect is what brings everyone down.

cb - you have this issue all wrong - it is the whining about those who are trying to help the game that is bringing this game down - your type of self rightous blind banter has always harmed this game the most - it is the trap tarek fell into & probably cost him his job, and is what seble is starting to become susceptible to - discourse cannot bring any entity down, but censorship can

Posted by namshub on 8/13/2010 11:08:00 AM (view original):
OR, I definitely respect your well-thought out analysis and strongly agreed with you prior to the introduction of engine changes and during the course of beta testing that to many changes at once may be going to far (which, I agree, they have).  I simply do not agree with the anti-recruit generation argument and the effect it will have on the game.  I did not like playing seasons where so many teams had maxed out players in cores and elsewhere.  That was truly ridiculous, in my opinion.  The paradigm has now changed.  I just recruited a class at Vanderbilt (C+ prestige) that I normally would've recruited at DII.  I got 6 guys and I'm going to try and mold them into a unit that can compete in the future.  I am up to the challenge.  In my opinion, until more concrete results are in as the seasons play out its simply to early to tell.  Anything else is pure speculation.

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 7:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/12/2010 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/12/2010 9:36:00 PM (view original):
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. 

As the defending D2 champion in Knight, I thought it worked out just fine!!    You don't think it's possible that some of those "random upsets" were simply a matter of the "better" team getting outcoached?  That's not even a possibility?  And it is kind of disrespectful, if you think about it, to those coaches who did win over the last couple of seasons to say that the reason they won was simply due to the outcomes being too random.

Is there randomness?  Of course.  But I would submit that it's not nearly as much as you think (and I know you've got CT randomness conspiracy theories also), simply because you see the same coaches making deep runs over and over and over.  If it truly was as random as you think, we wouldn't be seeing anything like that.  In fact, when that's a coach's sole excuse for poor performance, it comes off sounding petty, and frankly, like a crutch for failures to make adjustments on their part.

was that d2 champion the team that lost as a 68 pt favorite to a sim at home?

interestingly, the word "outcoached" wasn't used when you were whining about that game

Who are you, exactly?  And if I recall, you yourself used the word "ridiculous" to describe that game, right?  You seem to take an extreme interest in the specifics of my teams, glad to see I have a fan....or a stalker.

that game was ridiculous, is that contrary to something i'm saying here?

i'm just surprised (lol not really) the guy who posted it is now crying that variance is being reduced

Posted by emy1013 on 8/12/2010 7:23:00 PM (view original):
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..........

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 3:31:00 AM (view original):
Okay, let's start from scratch and get some basic info out of the way.  How would you determine who the top ten teams are (in your opinion)?  What criteria would you use to decide that Team A is top 10 material, but team B is only, say, top 25?  What factors would you take into consideration when you decided who you thought was a top 10 team that was deserving of a title?  Not trying to be a smartass here, I'm really curious as to what you would look at or take into account. 

Anyone else following this, how would you as an unbiased observer determine a top 10 if you had to do a coaches poll?  I think the answers could be very interesting here........

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/13/2010 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 3:31:00 AM (view original):
Okay, let's start from scratch and get some basic info out of the way.  How would you determine who the top ten teams are (in your opinion)?  What criteria would you use to decide that Team A is top 10 material, but team B is only, say, top 25?  What factors would you take into consideration when you decided who you thought was a top 10 team that was deserving of a title?  Not trying to be a smartass here, I'm really curious as to what you would look at or take into account. 

Anyone else following this, how would you as an unbiased observer determine a top 10 if you had to do a coaches poll?  I think the answers could be very interesting here........

I just looked at every team in the NT last season and VT was not one of the top 10 teams rating wise. Im not sure where exactly they fell but i know it wasnt 11 or 12. 

Posted by cbriese on 8/13/2010 1:30:00 PM (view original):
tmacfan, I don't think it is ever that simple. You have to account for minutes played, how suitable the players are to their respective offense and defense, and how well the coach maximizes those players' skills within that offense and defense.

Then there comes a time in every season where you have a 90 LP guy shooting 35% or a 15 PE guy hitting 45% of his threes, and say, screw the ratings, I am giving this guy more/less distribution. Whether that has to do with the opponents, the offense, teammates' skills or simply a bad draw from the RNG, I cannot always say.

But simply looking at the Top 10 teams ratings-wise (not even taking into account the ratings of the starting five, or redshirts, or ineligibles or  how many walk-ons there are) is never a good predictor of anything.

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 7:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/12/2010 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/12/2010 9:36:00 PM (view original):
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. 

As the defending D2 champion in Knight, I thought it worked out just fine!!    You don't think it's possible that some of those "random upsets" were simply a matter of the "better" team getting outcoached?  That's not even a possibility?  And it is kind of disrespectful, if you think about it, to those coaches who did win over the last couple of seasons to say that the reason they won was simply due to the outcomes being too random.

Is there randomness?  Of course.  But I would submit that it's not nearly as much as you think (and I know you've got CT randomness conspiracy theories also), simply because you see the same coaches making deep runs over and over and over.  If it truly was as random as you think, we wouldn't be seeing anything like that.  In fact, when that's a coach's sole excuse for poor performance, it comes off sounding petty, and frankly, like a crutch for failures to make adjustments on their part.

was that d2 champion the team that lost as a 68 pt favorite to a sim at home?

interestingly, the word "outcoached" wasn't used when you were whining about that game

Oh, and guy-who-has-an-unhealthy-obsession with my teams, I get outcoached all the time.  In fact, I could probably name about 50 coaches right off the top of my head that I would consider FAR better at this game than I am.  Pretty sure you wouldn't make that list though.  Well, maybe if trolling the forums was one of the top criteria, otherwise......naaaah.

it's cute how defensive you're getting considering i wasn't even really attacking you

your d2 champ lost to a 250 rpi sim at home, we both know you didn't get outcoached because sims are a joke, the game was too random

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 3:05:00 PM (view original):
i deliberately used the word outcoached because it didn't apply in either situation, its just amusing that a bad team beats you because the games broken, but when you beat better teams its great coaching

how you could read it any other way is baffling, professor reading comprehension

Isnt this were you answer?