Lots of people complaining... I know there was originally an issue with HCA but once that was fixed I just don't see it.   And now there is going to be less variability?  Great.   Here is the top 25 in Naimsmith-  Lots of predictability out there (in DI)  if you ask me.

1.	California, Riverside	16-1	1157	2
	Last Game: W 42-78 v. California, Santa Barbara (8/24)
2.	Kansas	17-0	1148	1
	Last Game: W 86-71 at Colorado (8/24)
3.	Michigan	15-1	1143	4
	Last Game: W 56-71 v. #22 Michigan St. (8/24)
4.	Syracuse	16-1	1137	5
	Last Game: W 59-91 v. #17 W. Virginia (8/24)
5.	Wake Forest	15-2	1120	3
	Last Game: L 58-72 at #23 Clemson (8/24)
6.	Texas	15-2	1102	8
	Last Game: W 46-59 v. Oklahoma (8/24)
7.	Oregon	14-2	1102	6
	Last Game: W 81-72 at Arizona St. (8/24)
8.	Providence	15-2	1101	10
	Last Game: W 71-82 v. #12 Louisville (8/24)
9.	Arizona	16-1	1099	7
	Last Game: W 64-72 v. Cal (8/24)
10.	Maryland	14-3	1086	11
	Last Game: W 72-82 v. Miami (FL) (8/24)
11.	Florida	14-2	1085	9
	Last Game: W 93-63 at S. Carolina (8/24)
12.	Texas A&M	14-3	1082	15
	Last Game: W 60-80 v. Texas Tech (8/24)
13.	Mississippi St.	15-2	1078	16
	Last Game: W 88-55 at Kentucky (8/24)
14.	Louisville	13-4	1061	12
	Last Game: L 71-82 at #10 Providence (8/24)
15.	Georgia Tech	12-4	1057	13
	Last Game: L 53-50 v. UNC (8/24)
16.	Duke	14-2	1056	14
	Last Game: L 76-79 at Virginia (8/24)
17.	Connecticut	12-4	1052	19
	Last Game: W 65-81 v. St. Johns (8/24)
18.	Illinois	12-5	1050	21
	Last Game: W 91-45 at Penn St. (8/24)
19.	W. Virginia	12-5	1047	17
	Last Game: L 59-91 at #5 Syracuse (8/24)
20.	Clemson	13-4	1047	23
	Last Game: W 58-72 v. #3 Wake Forest (8/24)
21.	Temple	15-2	1045	18
	Last Game: L 69-79 at Charlotte (8/24)
22.	W. Kentucky	17-0	1044	20
	Last Game: W 51-69 v. Bradley (8/24)
23.	Columbia	15-1	1034	24
	Last Game: W 99-78 at Dartmouth (8/24)
24.	Louisiana St.	13-4	1029	-
	Last Game: W 55-76 v. Mississippi (8/24)
25.	Morris Brown	16-1	1024	-
	Last Game: W 75-53 at Morgan St. (8/24)

you just wanted an excuse to post that your team is #1, didn't you?

For sure...why didnt he do it yesterday?  Also, the bigger question here is how is his team ranked #1?  Check who his only loss was to...The rankings thats HD's biggest problem.

ok ok- you got me.... seriously though-  I haven't seen the upsets that people complaining about- and if anything things seem to be way too predictable.   Wronoj- do you notice a difference between dIII and di?

mccabe, the thing i think is weird is the high number of games in which both teams shoot like 52% and 56%, without a lot of weird FB layups or whatnot. I've both won and lost these games, but think they are FAR more frequent than in the old engine. It's just weird to look at a box score and see that you shot 55% and lost because you gave up 61%.

I've not thought upsets were too bad since the tweak middle of last season (?)... probably better than they've ever been since i started playing, to be honest. I think things are running pretty smoothly, sim-wise.

as for differences at the different levels, not too much, no. I've had one loss i thought was horrific at State (it was at least on the road), 2 i didn't like at low-d1, and maybe 2 between my 2 d3 teams.

I'm not a stats wizard, but I know a thing or two about stats and probability, I would expect out of 30 games, approx 20 average games, 5 bad sims, and 5 great ones - I am pretty sure if the curve does not look 'something' like that, i.e. 5 bad - 20 ok - 5 great ones, that the engine won't work right.  By the way, this same curve applies to the 6 game NT, 1 ugly sim, 4 avg ones, and 1 lucky great one.  

Posted by oldresorter on 8/24/2010 5:58:00 PM (view original):
I'm not a stats wizard, but I know a thing or two about stats and probability, I would expect out of 30 games, approx 20 average games, 5 bad sims, and 5 great ones - I am pretty sure if the curve does not look 'something' like that, i.e. 5 bad - 20 ok - 5 great ones, that the engine won't work right.  By the way, this same curve applies to the 6 game NT, 1 ugly sim, 4 avg ones, and 1 lucky great one.  

OR, it's just a good thing for you that the one lucky great one seems to occur in the championship game a lot. Now at least I understand what's been happening for the last several years.

this is what im getting tired of this game quickly because, fact is, it does not matter if your a good coach or not, just make sure to get better players and your Probability will be higher to win.  

the fg% are definitely out of whack...   I've see a few games where rebs break unrealistically as well... but those seem to be happening much less often...  

obvisously, recruiting should matter- but there should also be enough variablility to make upsets possible....  ideally those upsets would be generated by "clever" game planning.     I never see teams going -5 or +5 anymore- and that's too bad imo.

i was never really happy, old engine or new, with the box scores I'd see in upsets.   but i just don't know that adding less variablity is good for the game.   fix what we "see" in the upset, not the upset.

Bobby Bowden was being interviewed yesterday and was asked what went wrong the last several years which caused FSU's fall from the elites.  His answer was the talent.  He said the team with the best players is going to win the most games and FSU had failed at recruiting.  He is right, recruiting always has been and always should be the most important aspect of the game.  Yes, upsets should occur and coaching def. matters. Its what makes the difference between someone like me who can consistantly build good teams, go deep in the NT but fails to close and someone like OR or Lost who "get" the system and know what tweeks to make when playing teams better than theirs or equal.  If someone is going to suggest that recruiting should not the most import aspect of the game, then this game is probably not for them. 

Posted by johncaluk on 8/24/2010 7:03:00 PM (view original):
this is what im getting tired of this game quickly because, fact is, it does not matter if your a good coach or not, just make sure to get better players and your Probability will be higher to win.  

At one point did being a good coach not include recruiting?

Posted by johncaluk on 8/24/2010 7:03:00 PM (view original):
this is what im getting tired of this game quickly because, fact is, it does not matter if your a good coach or not, just make sure to get better players and your Probability will be higher to win.  

Lol, yes, if you have better players, you will have a higher probability of winning. All else being equal, that is a true statement. Should it be that better players don't give you a worse chance?

But to think coaching doesn't play a role is to ignore reality. There are coaches who consistently win regardless of where they are -- with veteran teams and inexperienced teams, with stacked rosters and with rebuilds.

Of course talent plays a role, and I'm open to the notion that recruiting plays too large a role in the current game. But to say coaching doesn't matter simply isn't true.

Posted by johncaluk on 8/24/2010 7:03:00 PM (view original):
this is what im getting tired of this game quickly because, fact is, it does not matter if your a good coach or not, just make sure to get better players and your Probability will be higher to win.  

...wow