.500 Record Requirement for D1 Postseason(Poll) - Page 6 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 523 (0)

Hall of Famer

94 26 19

Rookie

Posted by taniajane on 5/13/2014 7:54:00 PM (view original):
So if they play on the road against SIMs which usually have bad Home Field they get adjusted higher?

It doesn't matter who they play as far as the home/road adjustment goes. A road win counts for 1.4 wins and a road loss counts for 0.6 losses..period. That is precisely why you see teams loading up on road games. It is a way to game the RPI formula and get a higher RPI than maybe they deserve based on results.

The point I've tried to make, though, is that their higher RPI doesn't necessarily help them in the Projection Report. As we saw, this particular team was 90th in that report despite the 67 RPI. The PR 'sees' that they've only beaten one top-100 team and downgrades them for it.

5/13/2014 8:08 PM

taniajane

Posts: 811 (0)

Hall of Famer

97 55 11

Prospect

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/13/2014 6:29:00 PM (view original):
My Nova team made it at 13-14. We had an RPI of around 65ish, and sat at around 55-57 on the projection report. (This is all from memory.) We got an 8-seed, which indicates we were one of the last 4 in.

well golly gee! You made it last year Wildcat with this:

72

wildcat98

13-15

4-5

9-9

0-1

6-10

63

43

C+

PI (1st Round)

And you went up in prestige for that....from a C to a C+...impressed

5/13/2014 8:13 PM (edited)

stinenavy

Posts: 4004 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 330 1

All Star

Posted by metsmax on 5/13/2014 7:37:00 AM (view original):
there is a .500 requirement for NT

in my opinion, .500 would be too strict for the PIT,

BUT there should be more value given to wins, so that a record like that discussed in OP doesnt get into the PIT

It's not a bad idea. I think there would be some unintended consequences with this idea though. You'd see more 20+ win teams that were hardly challenged getting NT berths, I'm sure that would rub some people the wrong way. It would have a much more drastic effect then eliminating Big 6 bottom feeders from making the PIT.

Maybe we should try it.

5/13/2014 8:43 PM

stinenavy

Posts: 4004 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 330 1

All Star

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/13/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):
why is the poll limited to D1? i understand that the biggest evil that people are trying to correct is seemingly undeserved recruiting cash to a team with a sub-.500 record (and its conference mates), but why not have a rule applicable across the divisions? why should the GLV's of the world benefit from the 10-0 non-con team that can't hit 4-13 in conference?

I posted a link to the previous thread (about a year ago) in the original post. There was more support to break it into D1 only, than there was to break it into all 3 divisions.

5/13/2014 8:46 PM

stinenavy

Posts: 4004 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 330 1

All Star

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/13/2014 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't have much sympathy for the "but we can't HELP our terrible RPI/SOS, since we're in mostly sim conferences" crowd. You CAN and SHOULD fix that issue by scheduling tough (and smart) in the non-con. In other words, schedule mostly road games (wins count more in the RPI formula, and losses hurt less), and schedule more humans, though not ALL humans, at least in my opinion. That formula got me several PIT bids when I was at Campbell and would get upset in the CT.

The other option is to complain about how rough you have it, and try to get WIS to change things so that it's easier for you to get in.

I know this wasn't directed towards me, but since I created the thread, I'll just answer that I've been in every possible D1 scenario:

Championship contender
Big 6 bottom feeder who gets to the postseason with a losing record
Mid-Major regular participant in postseason
Low-Major rack up wins vs garbage teams

There's plenty more scenarios, and I've probably been involved it whatever you can come up with. I feel this change will have a positive effect on gameplay. It would hurt me more than help. My Oklahoma Naismith team will make the PIT with a losing record this season, and if they make it where that can't happen*... Good.

*Obviously if they did make a change at some point it wouldn't effect this season's team, but you get the point.

5/13/2014 8:54 PM

gillispie1

Posts: 5030 (0)

Hall of Famer

95

Veteran

with only half of coaches voting yes (last i checked), similar to last time, i'm assuming this is not gonna happen, as written. im curious, would the folks pushing for .500 be satisfied with .450 or .400 required for PIT? and would the folks against .500 be interested in a lower limit, like .450 or .400?

examples:
.450 makes - 12-14, 13-14, 13-15
.450 misses - 11-15, 12-15, 13-16

.400 makes - 11-15, 11-16, 12-17, 12-18 (9-17 then 3-1 in CT, very unlikely)
.400 misses - 10-16, 10-17, 11-17

i think most of the no people could probably live with 10-17 and 11-17 teams not being PIT eligible (at the .400 level), but im not positive. i also think most yes .500 limit people could live with 12-14 or 13-15 teams making it (.450 level), but less positive on that one :) and i suppose to the yes folks, .400 is at least better than nothing, isn't it? it gets rid of the most egregious cases, and its not like most 11-15 teams are going to actually make it. i feel the .450 level might be too tight, i still want to see a team who plays an insanely hard schedule and beats some tough teams, coming in at say 12-16, make it over some fluff team who beat nobody all year, and even lost to some total crap teams - assuming the projection report says the former team is better, of course! im thinking most of the "no" folks are going to be against .450, too, but i think there could be some value at .400 (although im not sure it would be worth the time for seble to do it, at that point).

we could test this with another survey, do you support .400 limit?
1) yes
2) yes - but only because i can't get any better
3) no - i want the .500 and its not even worth doing .400
4) no

these would give some advanced data on where people stand, much better than yes and no, it seems to me. i just was throwing these numbers out there as round numbers, but one of the cases even was a 40% exactly, someone could definitely go through the data points and rank them and draw the line somewhere that is not round, to find a better compromise. actually... i guess ill do it real quick. will follow up in another post, most likely. curious on peoples thoughts on all this though still...

5/13/2014 9:04 PM

gillispie1

Posts: 5030 (0)

Hall of Famer

95

Veteran

Posted by stinenavy on 5/13/2014 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/13/2014 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't have much sympathy for the "but we can't HELP our terrible RPI/SOS, since we're in mostly sim conferences" crowd. You CAN and SHOULD fix that issue by scheduling tough (and smart) in the non-con. In other words, schedule mostly road games (wins count more in the RPI formula, and losses hurt less), and schedule more humans, though not ALL humans, at least in my opinion. That formula got me several PIT bids when I was at Campbell and would get upset in the CT.

The other option is to complain about how rough you have it, and try to get WIS to change things so that it's easier for you to get in.
I know this wasn't directed towards me, but since I created the thread, I'll just answer that I've been in every possible D1 scenario:

Championship contender
Big 6 bottom feeder who gets to the postseason with a losing record
Mid-Major regular participant in postseason
Low-Major rack up wins vs garbage teams

There's plenty more scenarios, and I've probably been involved it whatever you can come up with. I feel this change will have a positive effect on gameplay. It would hurt me more than help. My Oklahoma Naismith team will make the PIT with a losing record this season, and if they make it where that can't happen*... Good.

*Obviously if they did make a change at some point it wouldn't effect this season's team, but you get the point.

i think its clear you are not part of that crowd :) i tend to agree that plenty of people have legitimate reasons for wanting the .500 limit, but also that a good portion are just upset because of their particular situation, and have never been on the other side of the coin. while everyone's opinion has value intrinsically, i guess i just place a much greater value on the people who have been on both sides, and have seen for themselves, what the dynamics of those situations are.

5/13/2014 9:06 PM

stinenavy

Posts: 4004 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 330 1

All Star

There's not a wide enough gap in the poll to make a change. Here's my newest response and my reply to the support ticket:

5/13/2014 9:10 PM	Customer Support
The main problem I have with it, is how arbitrary it would be. I don't think .500 makes sense, because that would greatly dilute the field. I could probably be persuaded to implement something like .400 or above, but in reality that's not going to do much. That would only eliminate two of the 9 teams you pointed out. I don't put much stock in the argument that a change should be made because of postseason money or firings. Those are separate issues, and need a much broader discussion and solution. If the poll was more convincing, then I'd have no problem adding that limitation. I'll give it some more time and see how things play out before making a decision.
5/13/2014 9:19 PM	stinenavy
Fair enough. Thanks for taking it for consideration. There's a suggestion to increase the value of wins on the Postseason Projection Report. I believe that has some merit. A slight tweaking would have teams like Virginia Tech fall off but could keep a strong 13-14 in the postseason. So perhaps instead of nine teams below .500 making it, it could be like 2-4 teams.

5/13/2014 9:22 PM

taniajane

Posts: 811 (0)

Hall of Famer

97 55 11

Prospect

Not sure I follow this: "There's a suggestion to increase the value of wins on the Postseason Projection Report."

Would that change the gaming of schedules for the upper division teams? (there is nothing wrong with that, but it does cause a MORE unfair distribution of even the measly PI wealth)

5/13/2014 10:03 PM

dahsdebater

Posts: 10036 (0)

Hall of Famer

284 270 18

Pro

Posted by taniajane on 5/13/2014 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by killbatman on 5/13/2014 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I would argue 20-7 (took off a loss to make the total games even above) against a 275 SOS is pretty darn mediocre too..probably more so than Team A's record.

To make a fair, and probably impossible, comparison it would need to actually look at who they played (and home or away) and how they did in those games.

This doesn't really make sense to me. Isn't that exactly what RPI and the Projection Report do? Maybe not perfectly, but the numbers are what they are.
Yes I could be wrong Killbatman or maybe not. Here is an example of one team in one of the 'Super' Conferences. Non conference schedule 10 SIMS, Only 3 of which today have a winning record 21-2, 16-10, and 11-10. They won 9 of the 10 SIM games (losing to the 21-2 SIM).

Conference they are 2-9. They have a RPI with that of 67 and SOS of 55. A PIT team? They are 11-10. They probably will get in even though they very well may finish 13-13 in regular season. and 3-13 in conference. I do believe that the RPI weighs heavily on the Conference Schedule.

Those numbers of games played by opponents could never possibly exist simultaneously. If you're going to make up an example to try to support your point, just say so. And if you have to lie, at least make it remotely believable.

5/13/2014 10:49 PM

taniajane

Posts: 811 (0)

Hall of Famer

97 55 11

Prospect

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/13/2014 10:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by taniajane on 5/13/2014 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by killbatman on 5/13/2014 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I would argue 20-7 (took off a loss to make the total games even above) against a 275 SOS is pretty darn mediocre too..probably more so than Team A's record.

To make a fair, and probably impossible, comparison it would need to actually look at who they played (and home or away) and how they did in those games.

This doesn't really make sense to me. Isn't that exactly what RPI and the Projection Report do? Maybe not perfectly, but the numbers are what they are.
Yes I could be wrong Killbatman or maybe not. Here is an example of one team in one of the 'Super' Conferences. Non conference schedule 10 SIMS, Only 3 of which today have a winning record 21-2, 16-10, and 11-10. They won 9 of the 10 SIM games (losing to the 21-2 SIM).

Conference they are 2-9. They have a RPI with that of 67 and SOS of 55. A PIT team? They are 11-10. They probably will get in even though they very well may finish 13-13 in regular season. and 3-13 in conference. I do believe that the RPI weighs heavily on the Conference Schedule.
Those numbers of games played by opponents could never possibly exist simultaneously. If you're going to make up an example to try to support your point, just say so. And if you have to lie, at least make it remotely believable.

what numbers? I gave Killbatman the team.......and those numbers they have....if you do not believe it? OK.... It is True NO matter what YOU Believe. If he wishes to share them FINE. But Don't call me a LIAR when you have Zero Information jerk. That is only ONE team I could show.

5/13/2014 11:15 PM (edited)

stinenavy

Posts: 4004 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 330 1

All Star

Posted by taniajane on 5/13/2014 10:05:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I follow this: "There's a suggestion to increase the value of wins on the Postseason Projection Report."

Would that change the gaming of schedules for the upper division teams? (there is nothing wrong with that, but it does cause a MORE unfair distribution of even the measly PI wealth)

No. Under a scenario where teams get more credit for wins, it would help teams that get more wins, and negatively effect teams that got less wins. So the 8, 10, 12 win team would have have a tougher time making the PIT.

I just have to say that if you're on board with a scenario where there is a change that negatively effects .500 teams, that you should stay out of the conversation. I would gather than some that read this thread would vote "No" on the basis of your poor arguments and the way you've been treating people that disagree with you.

5/13/2014 11:44 PM

wildcat98

Posts: 759 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 3 2 79 17 1

Prospect

Posted by stinenavy on 5/13/2014 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/13/2014 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't have much sympathy for the "but we can't HELP our terrible RPI/SOS, since we're in mostly sim conferences" crowd. You CAN and SHOULD fix that issue by scheduling tough (and smart) in the non-con. In other words, schedule mostly road games (wins count more in the RPI formula, and losses hurt less), and schedule more humans, though not ALL humans, at least in my opinion. That formula got me several PIT bids when I was at Campbell and would get upset in the CT.

The other option is to complain about how rough you have it, and try to get WIS to change things so that it's easier for you to get in.
I know this wasn't directed towards me, but since I created the thread, I'll just answer that I've been in every possible D1 scenario:

Championship contender
Big 6 bottom feeder who gets to the postseason with a losing record
Mid-Major regular participant in postseason
Low-Major rack up wins vs garbage teams

There's plenty more scenarios, and I've probably been involved it whatever you can come up with. I feel this change will have a positive effect on gameplay. It would hurt me more than help. My Oklahoma Naismith team will make the PIT with a losing record this season, and if they make it where that can't happen*... Good.

*Obviously if they did make a change at some point it wouldn't effect this season's team, but you get the point.

I've been on multiple sides as well. I've never coached a high-major championship contender, but I've been at the high-major struggling to get into the PIT and at the low-major seeing a potential PIT birth go to a team with a losing record. The reason I say I have no sympathy for MOST people that bring this up is that there's a very simple solution to the problem: schedule better in the non-con. Not one game, but the entire 10 games. Be strategic about it, so that if the team is upset in the CT, they still have a good chance at a PIT birth. If more low-major coaches did that, there wouldn't even BE a need for a "lower limit" on records--the low-major teams with a 21-7 record (or whatever) would have an RPI in the 50s or 60s, with an SOS in the 80s or 90s, and would be a shoo-in for the PIT.

5/14/2014 1:30 AM

bhansalid00

Posts: 713 (0)

Hall of Famer

104 189 6 1

Prospect

wildcat68, the exact same argument applies to the bottom-feeders in the most powerful conferences. Expect to go 3-13 in your conference, yet still somehow feel you deserve a post-season berth? Schedule 10 games you can actually win in non-conf. I don't think that's too much to ask when you have the recruiting cash and baseline benefits of being in a top conference. (And yes, I was at a mid-major, did schedule aggressively, and went to 3 staight postseasons, including upsetting a Pac-10 school in the NT. So I understand the flip side well.)

5/14/2014 1:39 AM (edited)

bhansalid00

Posts: 713 (0)

Hall of Famer

104 189 6 1

Prospect

By the way, my ideal would be a 10- or 12-win minimum at all levels to get to the PIT - sort of a hedge between the current system and a .500 requirement. I think that would do a better job of balancing teams in elite conferences (at all levels) with teams that win a ton of games with an average / mediocre schedule.

5/14/2014 1:42 AM

Forums

.500 Record Requirement for D1 Postseason(Poll) Topic

Search Criteria