Tourney Seeding. Wow Topic

girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by isack24 on 10/21/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
"The bottom line is that the HD selection committee (such as it is) operates in a way that is diametrically opposed from the real selection committee, and that's unfortunate and illogical."

Occasionally, the real life selection committee is illogical.  Each situation should be independently reviewed for logic, both in real life and HD.  Frankly, I think the difference isn't that the selection processes are "diamterically opposed " - they're not - it's that you can actually watch the teams in real life to know how good they are.  Here, we have no choice but to rely on some sort of ranking formula.

My major problem with the seeding is that it too heavily weights CT results. 

As an aside, RPI is a flawed metric, and weighting it heavily in seeding is a bad idea.

isack, my "diametrically opposed" comment wasn't meant to apply to the whole seeding process, but merely how the respective committees treated weak schedule/high win teams vs. how they treated tough schedule teams w. a few more losses.

And the reality on that aspect is that they are diametrically oppoosed. HD clearly favors the weak schedule/higher win teams. While the real committee has been very open (both in the media and in the seedings) re: placing on emphasis on teams that play tough schedules and have quality wins. Time after time they have rewarded those types of teams and penalized those that didn't play high quality schedules.

I agree with you on CT results being weighed too heavily. That seems easy enough to tweak. And while I also agree that RPI can be a flawed metric, the problem in HD is what you stated -- committee members don't have the luxury of actually watching teams play -- so you have to rely more on that kind of thing than you'd probably like.
10/21/2011 2:28 PM (edited)
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
seble has stated that this facet of the game will be altered in the upcoming release(s), but until then it sounds like you know how to fix this issue already - you said so yourself -
What I am saying is that  had a made an easier schedule and won maybe 3-4 more games but had a worse RPI I would be better off.

Also, seedings (since they are mostly fubar in some way) don't really matter all that much. IMO at D 2 and D 3 especially in most worlds probably any of the top 40 or so teams have a legit chance to win it all. Your team is talented, just go knock down whomever is in front of you...
10/21/2011 2:20 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by girt25 on 10/21/2011 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 10/21/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
"The bottom line is that the HD selection committee (such as it is) operates in a way that is diametrically opposed from the real selection committee, and that's unfortunate and illogical."

Occasionally, the real life selection committee is illogical.  Each situation should be independently reviewed for logic, both in real life and HD.  Frankly, I think the difference isn't that the selection processes are "diamterically opposed " - they're not - it's that you can actually watch the teams in real life to know how good they are.  Here, we have no choice but to rely on some sort of ranking formula.

My major problem with the seeding is that it too heavily weights CT results. 

As an aside, RPI is a flawed metric, and weighting it heavily in seeding is a bad idea.

isack, my "diametrically opposed" comment wasn't meant to apply to the whole seeding process, but merely how the respective committees treated weak schedule/high win teams vs. how they treated tough schedule teams w. a few more losses.

And the reality on that aspect is that they are diametrically oppoosed. HD clearly favors the weak schedule/higher win teams. While the real committee has been very open (both in the media and in the seedings) re: placing on emphasis on teams that play tough schedules and have quality wins. Time after time they have rewarded those types of teams and penalized those that didn't play high quality schedules.

I agree with you on CT results being weighed too heavily. That seems easy enough to tweak. And while I also agree that RPI can be a flawed metric, the problem in HD is what you stated -- committee members don't have the luxury of actually watching teams play -- so you have to rely more on that kind of thing than you'd probably like.
Gotcha.  I agree to a large extent, although I think real life is a little less simplistic (e.g. big six bias).  But yeah, a low-major, high-win team has a much better shot in HD for just the reason you stated.

I totally agree about RPI.  It's a necessity in HD.  I think that people place too much of an emphasis on it, however, and expect that seedings should specifically correlate to RPI.  RPI is easy to manipulate, even in HD. 
10/21/2011 2:28 PM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
As this is a make believe game any sort of ranking seeding process is difficult.  And as is always said in the forums RL comparisons cannot be made for that reason.  The point I was trying to make is that despite what is said in FAQ's and on the forums rankings do seem to play a role in seeding, and yes CT's play too large of a role. 

And to the point I could have moved up maybe two seeds, that is a big deal as i would be playing a 3 or 4 in round 2, not the 2 seed.  That's huge.
10/21/2011 2:53 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by cburton23 on 10/21/2011 2:53:00 PM (view original):
As this is a make believe game any sort of ranking seeding process is difficult.  And as is always said in the forums RL comparisons cannot be made for that reason.  The point I was trying to make is that despite what is said in FAQ's and on the forums rankings do seem to play a role in seeding, and yes CT's play too large of a role. 

And to the point I could have moved up maybe two seeds, that is a big deal as i would be playing a 3 or 4 in round 2, not the 2 seed.  That's huge.
It's not the rankings that's playing a role, it's the 20-9 record. 20-9 record prevented you from being ranked, despite the high rpi, and the 20-9 record is dropping you to a lower seed. 
10/21/2011 3:03 PM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
If that is the case why is the team I am playing a 10 seed?  They won 21 games?  And Grand Canyon who I mentioned earlier won 21 games and got a 4 seed.
10/21/2011 3:07 PM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
If that is the case why is the team I am playing a 10 seed?  They won 21 games?  And Grand Canyon who I mentioned earlier won 21 games and got a 4 seed.
10/21/2011 3:08 PM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
i went 19-9 and had RPI 18, and got a 10-seed (d3 Wooden). I am also playing a rematch of the only non-con game I lost this season... I was fully expecting a drop from RPI-valued 5-seed to a 7, maybe an 8, but not a 10.
10/21/2011 4:50 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by cburton23 on 10/21/2011 3:08:00 PM (view original):
If that is the case why is the team I am playing a 10 seed?  They won 21 games?  And Grand Canyon who I mentioned earlier won 21 games and got a 4 seed.
Only 3 wins against rpi 1-50 and 4 wins against rpi 51-100, lost in 2nd round of CT. You have 6 wins vs rpi top 50 and 5 against 51-100. 

NT seeding is based on rpi, wins against rpi 1-50, 50-100, CT success and wins. As far as I know, being ranked does not raise your seeding. Most time you see ranked teams seeded higher because they generally have more wins and more quality wins. 
10/21/2011 8:01 PM (edited)
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
But what about when they don't? Like GC. Or a few other teams I mentioned.
10/21/2011 8:22 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by cburton23 on 10/21/2011 8:24:00 PM (view original):
But what about when they don't? Like GC. Or a few other teams I mentioned.
What's wrong with Grand Canyon being a 4 seed?

They won their CT, 4 wins against rpi 1-50, and 4 wins against rpi 50-100.

If you won you CT, you would be at 22 wins and probably be a 3 or 4 seed. 
10/21/2011 8:59 PM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
Ok so they over weight the CT then as we have said. There is little to no difference between us other than that. And my CT is much more difficult to win. Not to mention I beat them, which I know isn't taken into account, but it's still a valid point.
10/21/2011 9:18 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by cburton23 on 10/21/2011 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Ok so they over weight the CT then as we have said. There is little to no difference between us other than that. And my CT is much more difficult to win. Not to mention I beat them, which I know isn't taken into account, but it's still a valid point.
CT has weight in real basketball as well. And you have to realize that him winning the CT also means he won more games, which also helps seeding.

And no, you beating him is not a valid point. By that logic, if your team is 1-26 but beats the #1 ranked team, you should be in the NT right, and be ranked ahead of the #1 ranked team? Transitive properties do not apply in sports. 


10/21/2011 10:37 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by wronoj on 10/21/2011 4:50:00 PM (view original):
i went 19-9 and had RPI 18, and got a 10-seed (d3 Wooden). I am also playing a rematch of the only non-con game I lost this season... I was fully expecting a drop from RPI-valued 5-seed to a 7, maybe an 8, but not a 10.
4-9 vs. top 50 rpi. That sums up.
10/21/2011 11:05 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by tianyi7886 on 10/21/2011 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cburton23 on 10/21/2011 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Ok so they over weight the CT then as we have said. There is little to no difference between us other than that. And my CT is much more difficult to win. Not to mention I beat them, which I know isn't taken into account, but it's still a valid point.
CT has weight in real basketball as well. And you have to realize that him winning the CT also means he won more games, which also helps seeding.

And no, you beating him is not a valid point. By that logic, if your team is 1-26 but beats the #1 ranked team, you should be in the NT right, and be ranked ahead of the #1 ranked team? Transitive properties do not apply in sports. 


No, tianyi, obviously that doesn't override everything. But if the rest of the resumes are pretty comparable, then I think that does have a place in the argument.
10/21/2011 11:06 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Tourney Seeding. Wow 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.