I understand the arguement of playing a tough schedule, but how competative can a team with 7 wins show that they should be on the bubble ahead of anyone.  At some point you do have to win some games right?  So a team could theoretically go 0-27, play really close slow-down losses against the number one SOS, and in the new system theoretically be chosen for the PIT ahead of a 25-2 team that played a weak schedule.

Your team's RPI is not directly factored in, but opponent RPI for each game is.

Strength of schedule is important.  What would your team's record be playing FSU's schedule and vice versa? 

The logic is definitely open to some tweaking, but it may take some time to identify the weaknesses.  There will always be arguments because everyone evaluates a team's resume differently.  My goal is to get the best teams into the postseason, not necessarily the teams that won the most games or were able to schedule strategically to boost their RPI.

Well then I am done playing your game because no 7-20 team should ever be considered over a 22-5 team, that is just illogical and favors the power conferences so much that it will be in every DI in all worlds will have big 6 conferences full of humans and all other conferences will be sim ai full.  that makes no sense I have never seen in real life a 7-20 team be considered for any postseason tourney from high school up because someone thought they were a better team.  I will call up Joe Lunardi and ask him how the Selection committee would consider these 2 resumes because I am pretty sure he would say 7-20 you got to be kidding me right?

I will take a closer look at this scenario and make any necessary tweaks, but remember we're only talking PIT here.  NT requires .500 record, so those teams wouldn't make the cut anyway.

Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 2:09:00 PM (view original):
I will take a closer look at this scenario and make any necessary tweaks, but remember we're only talking PIT here.  NT requires .500 record, so those teams wouldn't make the cut anyway.

Yeah, but that's not really the point.  By your new formula, a 7-20 team has one of the top 80 or so resumes in the country.  You have to see how people will have a problem with that, right?

In general the HD population is kind of clamoring for less power for the major conferences, not more. 

I'd love to see a requirement that you have a .500 record in your conference to make the NT.  In my world teams that are 5-11 in conference regularly make the NT, and that drives me nuts.  Their RPI and SOS are great, but they lost so many games.   The way college hoops is today with VCU/Butler/etc. mid majors should be getting more love instead of less.

Posted by isack24 on 12/2/2011 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 2:09:00 PM (view original):
I will take a closer look at this scenario and make any necessary tweaks, but remember we're only talking PIT here.  NT requires .500 record, so those teams wouldn't make the cut anyway.

Yeah, but that's not really the point.  By your new formula, a 7-20 team has one of the top 80 or so resumes in the country.  You have to see how people will have a problem with that, right?

Seble, you've got to realize that this isn't a slight glitch in the new formula - it's a major problem with the new formula.  RPIs of 68 (Loyola-MD) and 60 (Manhattan) are currently right on the bubble to miss the postseason entirely while a team that went 1-15 in conference play is going to be comfortably into the NT... because it's in a great conference.

This is going to make the bottoms of the power conferences stronger, which is, I believe, universally agreed on as the exact opposite of what needs to happen.


The bright side is that that FSU team has got to be the worst-case scenario for the formula.  FSU had a KILLER schedule - an incredibly brutal non-con played all on the road against over-.500 opps, followed by the ACC schedule in conference play.  And yes, at 714 OVR, they've probably got NIT talent at least (maybe better).

But at a certain point we've got to say that twenty-loss teams shouldn't be in the postseason.

Posted by dedelman on 12/2/2011 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/2/2011 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thethrill10 on 12/2/2011 7:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/1/2011 2:15:00 PM (view original):
Couple of comments:

- The projection report won't show correct ordering of teams until the next game cycle (this afternoon or tomorrow am) runs for each world.
- I hadn't thought about the issue of recruiting a player above your class max before cutting a current player.  Maybe instead of a complete restriction, I'll just add a prominent warning.  The goal of that change was just to prevent people from spending money on a player before realizing they couldn't sign him.
- FT potential was overlooked.  I'll try to get that in soon.
- I'll look into switching the colors to help the color-blind. 

So now that the projecctions report is supposed to be working I feel I am going to have major issues with it.  In Naismith this morning an 11-17 UNC with an RPI of 90ish that lost in their conference tourney is a bubble team in the mid 60's of the projections.  While my Manhattan team that is 22-5 still alive with an RPI of 60 is rated #95 and listed out.  If my team doesn't even make the PIT because of this change I am going to be demanding some sort of reimbursement of this season's payment and never playing again.

Talk about melodramatic overreaction. . . . if one season doesn't go the way you want because of a change, you quit?  Also.  11 - 17 any team will not make it in.  Although it woudl probably be useful if the report accounted for that and just moved the team with the losing record to the first 'out' position or somesuch.

 

 

It may be dramatic-- but (a) the 11-17 team CAN go to the PIT, which is the tournament he's talking about, and (b) if a team from the ACC now makes the NT (or PIT) over a low-major team despite a 30 position discrepancy in RPI, that's going to make life really difficult in the low-major conferences.  It significantly changes the strategy for getting from D2 to a BCS-conference D1 job if it's much harder than it used to be to get an at-large bid from 18 or so conferences in D1.

It's ticket-worthy, worth asking seble if that's how the change is meant to work.

Ticket worthy, sure.  And it needs orrection, but sheez.  Talk about overreaction from the FIRST attempt of a run of the REPORT.

Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 1:20:00 PM (view original):
A couple more comments:

- There was an issue with the player profile that has been fixed.  If you see any issues going forward please submit a ticket.

- There was an issue with DI coaches not seeing all the recruits.  That has also been fixed, so if you see any issues going forward please submit a ticket.

- The potentials you see on the practice plan may not match what you got in the Player Thoughts email.  I think there is some funky logic in the Player Thoughts that causes some inaccuracies.  The practice plan page is correct and up-to-date.  I will most likely remove the Player Thoughts now unless there is some reason to keep it around.

- If you have specific issues with tournament logic you can submit a ticket.  I will try to continue monitoring the forums as much as possible, but I'm more likely to see a ticket.  One general point though.  The new logic isn't going to overvalue a tough schedule.  Just because a team plays a bunch of good teams doesn't mean it's a good team.  You need to actually win some games against those good teams, or at the very least be consistently competitive.  But on the flip side, a good win/loss record doesn't mean a whole lot if there aren't any impressive wins.

I would tend to agree that, whatever the logic, it should preclude a 7 - 20 team from even being in the running for even a PT, however that may be accomplished.  I think even the PT should have a "Not worse than 500" marker.\

How about, instead of a hard and fast rule. . . however the formula calculates the ranking, add or subtract a certain number from it at the end of the calculation if the team is under 500 which would knock them down a good bit in the ratings.   I could take 16 - 14 with wins and losses against strong teams as viable. . but it DOES need to be WINS and losses.

Posted by reinsel on 12/2/2011 2:18:00 PM (view original):
In general the HD population is kind of clamoring for less power for the major conferences, not more. 

I'd love to see a requirement that you have a .500 record in your conference to make the NT.  In my world teams that are 5-11 in conference regularly make the NT, and that drives me nuts.  Their RPI and SOS are great, but they lost so many games.   The way college hoops is today with VCU/Butler/etc. mid majors should be getting more love instead of less.

In Allen, teams that are 7-9 and 6-10 in conference play are making the Elite 8. It makes sense to you to make them play in the PIT?

Posted by arssanguinus on 12/2/2011 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 1:20:00 PM (view original):
A couple more comments:

- There was an issue with the player profile that has been fixed.  If you see any issues going forward please submit a ticket.

- There was an issue with DI coaches not seeing all the recruits.  That has also been fixed, so if you see any issues going forward please submit a ticket.

- The potentials you see on the practice plan may not match what you got in the Player Thoughts email.  I think there is some funky logic in the Player Thoughts that causes some inaccuracies.  The practice plan page is correct and up-to-date.  I will most likely remove the Player Thoughts now unless there is some reason to keep it around.

- If you have specific issues with tournament logic you can submit a ticket.  I will try to continue monitoring the forums as much as possible, but I'm more likely to see a ticket.  One general point though.  The new logic isn't going to overvalue a tough schedule.  Just because a team plays a bunch of good teams doesn't mean it's a good team.  You need to actually win some games against those good teams, or at the very least be consistently competitive.  But on the flip side, a good win/loss record doesn't mean a whole lot if there aren't any impressive wins.

I would tend to agree that, whatever the logic, it should preclude a 7 - 20 team from even being in the running for even a PT, however that may be accomplished.  I think even the PT should have a "Not worse than 500" marker.\

There are teams that have won the PIT going into it with a sub .500 record. Punishing a team for not playing cupcakes is not a good suggestion.

Posted by stinenavy on 12/2/2011 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 12/2/2011 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 1:20:00 PM (view original):
A couple more comments:

- There was an issue with the player profile that has been fixed.  If you see any issues going forward please submit a ticket.

- There was an issue with DI coaches not seeing all the recruits.  That has also been fixed, so if you see any issues going forward please submit a ticket.

- The potentials you see on the practice plan may not match what you got in the Player Thoughts email.  I think there is some funky logic in the Player Thoughts that causes some inaccuracies.  The practice plan page is correct and up-to-date.  I will most likely remove the Player Thoughts now unless there is some reason to keep it around.

- If you have specific issues with tournament logic you can submit a ticket.  I will try to continue monitoring the forums as much as possible, but I'm more likely to see a ticket.  One general point though.  The new logic isn't going to overvalue a tough schedule.  Just because a team plays a bunch of good teams doesn't mean it's a good team.  You need to actually win some games against those good teams, or at the very least be consistently competitive.  But on the flip side, a good win/loss record doesn't mean a whole lot if there aren't any impressive wins.

I would tend to agree that, whatever the logic, it should preclude a 7 - 20 team from even being in the running for even a PT, however that may be accomplished.  I think even the PT should have a "Not worse than 500" marker.\

There are teams that have won the PIT going into it with a sub .500 record. Punishing a team for not playing cupcakes is not a good suggestion.

7 - 20 though?  7 - 20 shouldn't be going to any postseason, regardless of schedule.

If you dont think a sub .500 team should even make the PIT then you clearly have never played in a dominant conference before. Most of those under .500 squads from dominant conferences would be the top 1-2 teams in alot of the other conferences. Why should someone be penalized for playing in a really tough conference or scheduling a hard non-conf schedule. The sub .500 rule is great for the NT, but invoking it for the PIT would be taking it way too far.

Posted by girt25 on 12/1/2011 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Potential isn't perfect, but I think it's vastly superior to the fully predictable, linear improvement that was literally the same for all players at all positions in all categories. That was way worse, imho.

The vast majority of users who left after it was introduced may differ with that.