KMason - I get all that human factor stuff, honestly I do.

My point is a technical one, MOV is not a selection criteria in real life.

I did a little research on the web, I am no longer as sure of that as I thought this am, and when it comes to how teams are selected or seeded, seems like nobody exactly knows, but it also seems like the starting document is RPI, and nothing else is used except talking, Bilas called it who you beat and where.

But most importantly, although I do think I am right, that MOV is not a criteria, certainly from looking around the web, it is pretty clear that the majority of the posts indicate that MOV ought to be.  So, it seems Seble's including a small component of MOV in the computer formula represents popular real world thinking, even if it is not used in the actual selections.

i'm mulling about what the use of MOV and these other changes mean for tactics

- uncheck the boxes for using the bench to run up the score?  but that does somewhat reduce improvement by the bench guys and expose starters to more risk of injury....I think I uncheck them

- schedule differently?  a smidge harder? 

I've got a little feedback experiment for you guys.  Take a look at the following two teams.  First thing you'll notice is the RPI/SOS discrepancy.  But take a closer look at the actual results game by game, including margin.  I'd like to hear thoughts on how these teams stack up for the postseason.

Messiah
Mount St. Mary

First blush, they look fairly similar. . . .yes MSM played more good teams. . but they didn't exactly compete against them, so I'm not sure that is relevant.

Messiah: RPI 86, CT winner. 24-5: 0-1 against top-10 RPI, 17-1 against RPIs worse than 150.  The terrible loss was 84-80 at home to 10-17, RPI 216 Lawrence.  7-3 against all other teams:




Mount St. Mary: RPI 35, CT runner-up.  22-7: 0-1 against top-10 RPI, 15-0 against RPIs worse than 150.  No terrible losses.  7-6 against all other teams:

one thing is MSM is already two games into the post season, which cornfused may have missed, so part of their 35 RPI is 2-0 in the PI vs top 100 RPI teams, which would make them 9-6 vs all other teams.

They also went 0-5 vs top 10 to 28 teams & 1-1 vs 62 RPI and 2-0 vs 90 RPI, while the second best team Messiah played was a 74 RPI team and they were 4-2 vs teams in the 70's thru 90's.

I would not have looked at margin of win until you asked, but my first impression was not much difference, until I looked at the games vs bad teams, in which case Messiah really romped on people, then I noticed they FCP'd, which will tend to stomp bad competition.

Overall, in this example, my gut says RPI seems to have it just about right, or as right as anything.

A formula that I used to use, was (RPI + Rank)/2, so a 12th ranked team with a 4 rpi would be the 8th best team in the country.  A 25 th ranked team with a 50 RPI would be the 37th or 38th best team in the country.  It is a second set of eye, maybe you do something like that already????

Go look at the tark div 3 projection report.  in the top 100 most of the sim teams listed run FCP defense,  It's a small sample and i only looked at sim teams because that takes away the good coach bad coach factor but it looks like with this logic FCP teams are at a big advantage.

...and fb offenses.

Actually, in top 100 in DIII Tark, the breakdown is like this (including sim and human):

2-3: 13
3-2: 5
FCP: 35
HCP: 7
Man: 40

Offense:
Fastbreak: 5
Flex: 25
Motion: 47
Triangle: 23

Tempo:
Fast: 28
Normal: 62
Slow: 10

Any more feedback on the two teams posted above?  Specifically how you would rank them for the postseason.  This is important, so please take a minute to look if you're concerned with the tournament logic.  Thanks.

Well.  Messiah had two games they won by less than six and three games they lost by less than six. . . .

MSM had nine games they won by less than five -  that that they could have easily lost.  None of their losses were close.

So arguably Messiah was closer to having a better season and there was a good bit of luck around MSM's season.

I would rank MSM ahead of Messiah.  Thier SOS impressed me more then Messiah whooping up on weak teams.

The problem is. . did MSM DO anything with their stronger schedule?  Did they beat any of the strong parts of it?

 

seble, it's an interesting example.

Messiah played no one. To me they are a PIT team and can't be a NT team because they haven't beaten anyone to show the actually belong.
MSM is interesting. They played a tough schedule, but basically lost by double digits to every good team they played. RPI indicates a NT tournament team, but the resume doesn't. There's very little question in my mind that in the real world, they'd be on the outside looking in once the NT started.

I would certainly place MSM ahead of Messiah --Messiah simply hasn't done a damn thing to warrant being moved ahead of MSM -- but not by as much as the rpi's indicate. MSM had the bigger margin of victory, but against a really weak schedule, so it's just not all that meaningful to me. (And as OR pointed out, they are a press team and they tend to eat up poor teams moreso than other defenses.) 

I also think that the difference in margin of victory here is not terribly significant

My Hood team in Naismith benefited as much as any with the new selection process. We are at the other end of the spectrum from Mount St. Mary (a good team with some good results rather than a bad team with unimpressive results).

Hood

Talentwise, I think we were a top 25 team (20-25) this season; however, our RPI at the end of the CT was in the 56-58 range. We won our first two NT games, so the RPI has improved. Normally, we would have been left out of the NT, but I assume the new process gave us more credit for our results. Instead of being left out, we were a 6-seed. We had one bad home loss by 2 points and another home loss that wasn't great.