33 RPI misses NT? Topic

tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 6/11/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 6/11/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 6/11/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
And, even if you know what the formula is, it seems to me that more deserving teams are getting in with this new system.  For example, the maj's team that started this thread doesn't even have a top-30 win, but would have been an 8/9 under the old system.  That seems like an upgrade to me.
You do realize that the new system significantly values your opponents' (60% of which are your conf mates) rpi right? Instead of you manipulating rpi, you want your conf mates to manipulate rpi to boost your # of games/wins against top 25/50/100 rpi. That's pretty much the entire change, which explains why BCS conf teams are getting all the at large bids. 

We've had this discussion before.  Neither of us know the formula, so I don't know that it's "significant," nor do I know exactly how you are using it.

Even if the new system overvalues SOS or games against high-RPI teams, that still requires some serious human coordination to pull off.  I'd rather have that than picking out the sim teams with 8 seniors on their roster, scheduling them on the road, beating them by 45, having a top-25 RPI, and a top-4 seed, all without ever playing a real team.

Really doesn't require that much human coordination once you get to BCS in D1. Almost every coach in BCS conf (save the few who should be fired) knows to schedule the best team they can beat in nonconf. Once conf play starts, you have 16-19 games against teams with 8-10 wins in nonconf, and by the end of conf play, almost everyone will have rpi sub 50 (minus 1 or 2 who lose most of conf games, but even they have rpi between 50-70). This results in BCS teams getting bubbled in as at large, while the 2nd best human team in a minor conf bubbled out. 

For example, just look at my team. The non-conf is super soft and if this team was in a 3 human coached MVC or OVC, it's not getting into the tournament unless it wins the CT. But with my conf mates scheduling smartly, I have lined up 16 games against t100 rpi competition, and probably 12+ rpi 50 or better by the time conf play ends. As long as I get to 14 wins, I'm a lock for the NT:
http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Schedule.aspx?tid=4500
6/11/2012 2:50 PM (edited)
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
If you're in the BCS, this doesn't change what you do for a second on the scheduling side.  If you're in the MAC, good luck getting in even the PIT as an at-large.       
6/11/2012 3:31 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by jslotman on 6/11/2012 3:31:00 PM (view original):
If you're in the BCS, this doesn't change what you do for a second on the scheduling side.  If you're in the MAC, good luck getting in even the PIT as an at-large.       
+1. Full human conf scheduled the same as they would in both the old and new systems. With the new systems devaluing your rpi while boosting the value of your opponent's rpi (via wins against rpi1-25, 50, 100, etc.) full human conf (mostly BCS) are getting more team bubbled into the NT/PIT while the 2nd best team in the MAC is bubbled out. 
6/11/2012 3:44 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 293 18
Pro
It's also making it tougher on D2/D3 teams in emptier conferences.  Which makes me a little bit sad, but I can't say that the old way (empty conference = 15+ conference wins including conference tourney, easily, plus schedule 10 uber-tough teams in non-con and don't worry about winning the games and you'll get in virtually every year) was better, or even remotely as good.  It was very easy to make the NT every year in D2/D3 under the old system without beating a single quality team.  I don't think that was good at all.
6/11/2012 4:14 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Agree with dahs, the old system rewarded simply playing really good teams without regard for beating them. Now if you don't beat good teams, you don't get to the NT. Puts a bigger burden on non-BCS schools to schedule tougher, which is how it should be. You shouldn't be an at-large team simply because you beat a bunch of bad teams.
6/11/2012 5:19 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I think the new system is probably (relatively) fine for D2 and D3.  It's not fine for DI though, and not even really that close to being fine. 
6/11/2012 5:37 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
OP, how close were you? were you one of the first 4 out? how many CT upsets were there across all conferences? Did an unusual number of weaker conferences end up with more than 1 bid due to a surprise CT upset? If you were very close, this seems about right. I don't think your team's resume is bad like some folks seem to be indicating, just sort of pretty good...and sometimes the pretty good teams get left out...in RL and HD
6/11/2012 5:41 PM
gomiami1972
Posts: 4545 (1)
Hall of Famer
18 1 1 555 49 141
Pro
Posted by kmasonbx on 6/11/2012 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Agree with dahs, the old system rewarded simply playing really good teams without regard for beating them. Now if you don't beat good teams, you don't get to the NT. Puts a bigger burden on non-BCS schools to schedule tougher, which is how it should be. You shouldn't be an at-large team simply because you beat a bunch of bad teams.
Interesting.  My feelings are the exact opposite, although I respect your opinion.  The bigger burden should be on the BCS teams.  They already have enormous advantages with prestige, recruit generation, conference affiliation.  Those are the teams that should carry the weight.  IMHO, a BCS team is not worthy of an at-large bid because they go 10-0 in the non con and follow that up with a 4-12 conference record.  If beating a bunch of bad teams is not NT worthy, neither is losing to a bunch of good teams in conference play.

Somewhere, there needs to be a happy medium.
6/11/2012 5:46 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by jslotman on 6/11/2012 5:37:00 PM (view original):
I think the new system is probably (relatively) fine for D2 and D3.  It's not fine for DI though, and not even really that close to being fine. 
Why should a mid-major with no 0 or 1 wins and multiple bad losses be in over a team with less overall wins but who has actually beaten good teams? 

Honestly, I can't even fathom an argument for a system that is rooted in RPI-based seeding.  If you don't like the current system, fine, but propose something else.  The old one was terrible.
6/11/2012 5:53 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/11/2012 5:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kmasonbx on 6/11/2012 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Agree with dahs, the old system rewarded simply playing really good teams without regard for beating them. Now if you don't beat good teams, you don't get to the NT. Puts a bigger burden on non-BCS schools to schedule tougher, which is how it should be. You shouldn't be an at-large team simply because you beat a bunch of bad teams.
Interesting.  My feelings are the exact opposite, although I respect your opinion.  The bigger burden should be on the BCS teams.  They already have enormous advantages with prestige, recruit generation, conference affiliation.  Those are the teams that should carry the weight.  IMHO, a BCS team is not worthy of an at-large bid because they go 10-0 in the non con and follow that up with a 4-12 conference record.  If beating a bunch of bad teams is not NT worthy, neither is losing to a bunch of good teams in conference play.

Somewhere, there needs to be a happy medium.
Completely agree.  But therein lies the question: is this a viable formula for seeding once all those other things are fixed?  I think it's the best we've had so far.  So basically what people are asking is to make the formula worse and include less deserving teams because another part of the game is broken. 

Why don't we all make a push to get seble to fix the real problems instead of making this aspect of the game worse to mask other problems?
6/11/2012 5:55 PM
teamrc
Posts: 70 (0)
Hall of Famer
77
Prospect
Posted by colonels19 on 6/11/2012 11:39:00 AM (view original):
This seems a bit ridiculous, you would think that a 33 RPI is a lock.

33 isn't a lock nor is it ridiculous to see it miss the NT when the projection report has Creighton as the #65 team.
Maj said he hasn't been around lately, and may not even be aware of the importance of the projection report now... and the lack of importance of the RPI, now.
He could have simply called OR and he'd have told him he was PIT bound before the seeds came out.

6/11/2012 6:15 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Why don't we all make a push to get seble to fix the real problems instead of making this aspect of the game worse to mask other problems?
6/11/2012 7:04 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Posted by jslotman on 6/11/2012 3:31:00 PM (view original):
If you're in the BCS, this doesn't change what you do for a second on the scheduling side.  If you're in the MAC, good luck getting in even the PIT as an at-large.       
If you're a very good to elite BCS school, I agree with you. But if you're a marginal/bubble type BCS team, then I'd disagree. I've had several of the latter type of schools of late. Under the old system, I was always a virtual lock for the NT, because I'd schedule the 10 road sims, and have an RPI good enough for the NT, even with only 4-6 conference wins.

That approach no longer works. I've ended up in the PT more often than not, because if you know you're only winning 4-6 games in conference, you can't schedule too tough in the non-conference or you won't win enough games to qualify for the NT; too easy, and you won't have sufficient quality wins to make the NT. It's a tenuous balancing act. I like the new system much better than the old, but I would say it's made it tougher not only for the mid-major schools, but also for marginal BCS schools as well.
6/11/2012 8:44 PM
abitaamber
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 102 5
Prospect
a BCS team is not worthy of an at-large bid because they go 10-0 in the non con and follow that up with a 4-12 conference record

Please provide examples of 14-12/4-12 teams making the NT under the new system.  I haven't seen one yet.

I agree with Prof, all this talk about the BCS teams benefitting heavily from the new system is just that...talk, at least in terms of what he's saying.  The lower-end BCS teams are not bubbling in with bad conference records as some suggest...they are actually getting left out more than they did before.  It is very rare to see a team with less than  6 conference wins make the NT...in fact, I might suggest it isn't happening at all.
6/12/2012 9:14 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 667 3
Pro
While I am not really on that side of the issue ... look at the Big East in Wooden.

Granted, its sixteen games into the season, but look at, for example, Georgetown.


School Coach Conf.
W-L		 Overall
W-L		 Home
W-L		 Road
W-L		 Top 25
W-L		 Last 10 STRK RPI SOS
#4 St. Johns kimball 6-0 14-2 4-1 10-1 7-1 10-0 W10 1 3
#10 Syracuse hofhof 4-2 13-3 1-1 12-2 3-3 8-2 W2 3 10
#12 Villanova jetsons 4-3 13-4 3-1 10-3 2-4 7-3 W4 4 6
Connecticut playmaker 3-3 13-3 6-1 7-2 3-3 7-3 L2 31 68
Seton Hall weavelove 3-4 11-6 3-3 8-3 4-3 5-5 L2 14 1
Georgetown knappj 1-5 10-6 4-2 6-4 1-5 5-5 W1 40 31
 
 
 
 
 
West Standings
 
School Coach Conf.
W-L		 Overall
W-L		 Home
W-L		 Road
W-L		 Top 25
W-L		 Last 10 STRK RPI SOS
#3 Louisville fairbanka 6-1 16-1 4-1 12-0 2-0 9-1 W4 15 37
#21 W. Virginia kevbo65 5-2 12-5 3-1 9-4 4-4 7-3 W2 7 5
#14 Cincinnati oldresorter 4-3 14-3 5-2 9-1 2-3 7-3 L3 39 90
#18 Rutgers amsiegel 2-5 12-5 5-1 7-4 1-4 5-5 L1 23 20
Pittsburgh jbohrman 2-5 11-6 2-4 9-2 1-4 5-5 L2 46 40
Providence Sim AI 0-7 6-11 5-6 1-5 0-7 3-7 L7 105 12
6/12/2012 9:42 AM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
33 RPI misses NT? 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.