All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Should there be a min .500 record rqmt for PIT?
5/17/2013 10:26 PM
Posted by namshub on 5/17/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
If you can't win half your games you shouldn't be in the post-season unless you win your conference tourney.  Realistically, if you can win 7 non-conf. games you still don't have to finish .500 in your own conference to reach .500 overall.  If you can't do that you either don't know how to schedule or you're not good enough to play in the post-season.  If you know your in some mega-conference then schedule 9 or 10 wins so you only have to win 4 or 5 conference games.  The arguments put up against a .500 requirement that have been posted so far are very weak imo, especially at the DI level.  The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams then they already do in the NT. 

Actually seems like a no-brainer.
The "learn how to schedule better" argument is equally weak.

The PIT should be for the best remaining teams, not the teams that did the best to game their way into the NT through scheduling, but were bad enough that they not only failed to game their way into the NT, but actually put themselves on the PIT bubble. 

If you find yourself on the outside of the PIT bubble, I don't know that there's much room to complain about anything.
5/17/2013 10:49 PM
Posted by ike1024 on 5/17/2013 10:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/17/2013 9:23:00 PM (view original):
The only real impact this would have would be to screw owners who are in very tough conferences with only decent or good teams, rather than great.

My lone team at the moment is in Tark, GLV. It has been the toughest Tark D2 conference for as long as I can remember, and has to be in the competition for toughest D2 (or even overall) conference, regardless of World.

This past season, all 12 teams made the postseason. Basically, those who were above .500 made the NT.

Those of us below .500 were ineligible for the NT (though RPI/projection would have had a couple of us in), so we were sent to the PIT. The D2 PIT final four this past season was 4 GLV teams.

We each had solid teams, much better teams than most owners in sim-filled conferences, and when we played them in the PIT, it showed. But, because we had so many very good/great teams in conference, it becomes nearly impossible for everyone to stay above .500.

So, because we're in an extremely strong conference, we're "penalized" by not being eligible as under-.500 teams for the NT, and that's fine. To go this step further and make us ineligible for ANY postseason tournament in favor of lesser teams who played weak schedules is absurd.
Exactly.
Here, here!
5/18/2013 12:08 AM
Posted by rogelio on 5/17/2013 8:01:00 PM (view original):
I'm totally against this.  A minimum of .500 record to make the NT, absolutely.  The PIT, no way.  The PI tourney should be trying to reward the best teams that do not make the NT.  That's it.  Making the PI tourney reward playing a garbage schedule would benefit SimAI primarily!  There would be a gang of teams excluded from competitive conferences, that actually scheduled against quality opponents in order to include teams that had never played a quality team.  
+1, well said.
5/18/2013 1:27 AM
Posted by namshub on 5/17/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
If you can't win half your games you shouldn't be in the post-season unless you win your conference tourney.  Realistically, if you can win 7 non-conf. games you still don't have to finish .500 in your own conference to reach .500 overall.  If you can't do that you either don't know how to schedule or you're not good enough to play in the post-season.  If you know your in some mega-conference then schedule 9 or 10 wins so you only have to win 4 or 5 conference games.  The arguments put up against a .500 requirement that have been posted so far are very weak imo, especially at the DI level.  The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams then they already do in the NT. 

Actually seems like a no-brainer.
So we're going to reward coaches who know how to schedule instead of coaches who can build better teams?
5/18/2013 2:32 AM (edited)
The day they implement the WBI we can implement a .500 requirement for the PIT. As it is now the best records get the NT and often very good teams end up in the PIT just because of what zbrent posted (and yes, I am one of the 4 that made the PIT F4 from the GLV Tark. I've also won the PIT in D III Allen with my teams from the NAC that went 10-0 in NC and could only find 3 wins in the ridiculousness that is the NAC...

AND its the PIT for **** sake. Who even really wants to be in it anyway? The best part about the PIT is it a least its not a dead week off where I check out til recruiting starts... (that said, I voted for NO - if for no other reason I'd rather be in the PIT than sitting with my thumb up my ***)


ETA: In that GLV situation, we got caught by the RNG in one of our NC games, ended up losing a close game (a couple starters picked up early silly fouls and messed with our rotation badly, leading to some fatigue issues and a 5 or 6 pt loss). If not for that one loss we'd have had the .500 record and made the NT. This proposal means that team should be left out of everything? No thanks.

5/18/2013 11:59 AM
Posted by tkimble on 5/18/2013 1:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by namshub on 5/17/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
If you can't win half your games you shouldn't be in the post-season unless you win your conference tourney.  Realistically, if you can win 7 non-conf. games you still don't have to finish .500 in your own conference to reach .500 overall.  If you can't do that you either don't know how to schedule or you're not good enough to play in the post-season.  If you know your in some mega-conference then schedule 9 or 10 wins so you only have to win 4 or 5 conference games.  The arguments put up against a .500 requirement that have been posted so far are very weak imo, especially at the DI level.  The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams then they already do in the NT. 

Actually seems like a no-brainer.
So we're going to reward coaches who know how to schedule instead of coaches who can build better teams?
if your definition of a good team is one that can't win half of there games then i guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  guess i'm striving for a little more when i build my teams.  would never be offended if i couldn't qualify for the post-season without a .500 record.
5/18/2013 12:02 PM
Posted by namshub on 5/18/2013 11:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 5/18/2013 1:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by namshub on 5/17/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
If you can't win half your games you shouldn't be in the post-season unless you win your conference tourney.  Realistically, if you can win 7 non-conf. games you still don't have to finish .500 in your own conference to reach .500 overall.  If you can't do that you either don't know how to schedule or you're not good enough to play in the post-season.  If you know your in some mega-conference then schedule 9 or 10 wins so you only have to win 4 or 5 conference games.  The arguments put up against a .500 requirement that have been posted so far are very weak imo, especially at the DI level.  The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams then they already do in the NT. 

Actually seems like a no-brainer.
So we're going to reward coaches who know how to schedule instead of coaches who can build better teams?
if your definition of a good team is one that can't win half of there games then i guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  guess i'm striving for a little more when i build my teams.  would never be offended if i couldn't qualify for the post-season without a .500 record.
If you think teams that go under .500 in top conferences aren't sometimes better than teams that win 20 games playing Sims, then you have no sense of this game at all and aren't dealing with a full deck.

EDIT - and judging from your record, you have a good sense of this game, so I can only assume you're just trying to be difficult.
5/18/2013 12:07 PM
Posted by namshub on 5/18/2013 11:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 5/18/2013 1:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by namshub on 5/17/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
If you can't win half your games you shouldn't be in the post-season unless you win your conference tourney.  Realistically, if you can win 7 non-conf. games you still don't have to finish .500 in your own conference to reach .500 overall.  If you can't do that you either don't know how to schedule or you're not good enough to play in the post-season.  If you know your in some mega-conference then schedule 9 or 10 wins so you only have to win 4 or 5 conference games.  The arguments put up against a .500 requirement that have been posted so far are very weak imo, especially at the DI level.  The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams then they already do in the NT. 

Actually seems like a no-brainer.
So we're going to reward coaches who know how to schedule instead of coaches who can build better teams?
if your definition of a good team is one that can't win half of there games then i guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  guess i'm striving for a little more when i build my teams.  would never be offended if i couldn't qualify for the post-season without a .500 record.
Wow, that answer is just so wrong...A teams wins do not indicate the strength of the team, I thought that was quite obvious, guess not.
5/18/2013 12:30 PM
Posted by kcsundevil on 5/17/2013 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 5/17/2013 6:42:00 PM (view original):
Not to nitpick, but wouldn't 13-14 be under .500 in ANY poll?
I'm glad you asked. I thought people might get distracted debating whether a 13-13 regular season record should be good enough, so I tried to prevent that.
I see, understood.
5/18/2013 12:39 PM
Posted by ike1024 on 5/17/2013 10:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/17/2013 9:23:00 PM (view original):
The only real impact this would have would be to screw owners who are in very tough conferences with only decent or good teams, rather than great.

My lone team at the moment is in Tark, GLV. It has been the toughest Tark D2 conference for as long as I can remember, and has to be in the competition for toughest D2 (or even overall) conference, regardless of World.

This past season, all 12 teams made the postseason. Basically, those who were above .500 made the NT.

Those of us below .500 were ineligible for the NT (though RPI/projection would have had a couple of us in), so we were sent to the PIT. The D2 PIT final four this past season was 4 GLV teams.

We each had solid teams, much better teams than most owners in sim-filled conferences, and when we played them in the PIT, it showed. But, because we had so many very good/great teams in conference, it becomes nearly impossible for everyone to stay above .500.

So, because we're in an extremely strong conference, we're "penalized" by not being eligible as under-.500 teams for the NT, and that's fine. To go this step further and make us ineligible for ANY postseason tournament in favor of lesser teams who played weak schedules is absurd.
Exactly.
Well said.
5/18/2013 2:01 PM (edited)
Posted by ike1024 on 5/17/2013 10:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by namshub on 5/17/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
If you can't win half your games you shouldn't be in the post-season unless you win your conference tourney.  Realistically, if you can win 7 non-conf. games you still don't have to finish .500 in your own conference to reach .500 overall.  If you can't do that you either don't know how to schedule or you're not good enough to play in the post-season.  If you know your in some mega-conference then schedule 9 or 10 wins so you only have to win 4 or 5 conference games.  The arguments put up against a .500 requirement that have been posted so far are very weak imo, especially at the DI level.  The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams then they already do in the NT. 

Actually seems like a no-brainer.
The "learn how to schedule better" argument is equally weak.

The PIT should be for the best remaining teams, not the teams that did the best to game their way into the NT through scheduling, but were bad enough that they not only failed to game their way into the NT, but actually put themselves on the PIT bubble. 

If you find yourself on the outside of the PIT bubble, I don't know that there's much room to complain about anything.
I disagree about the purpose of the PIT. I think it should be a "little dance" that gives all teams something to play for, regardless of what conference they are in. It should be more than just a consolation prize, and should NOT be a tool for power conferences to pad their recruiting budgets as a reward for fielding a full-human conference. 

I could live without the .500 requirement (though I certainly support it) if all regular season champs were guaranteed a slot in the PIT if they're upset in the conference tourney. It's extremely unrealistic for any sub-.500 team to make the PIT, much less 6 or 7 as DI Allen had this season, so I'm not overly concerned if it makes it harder for the bottom 1/3 of any particular conference to play in the postseason.

ETA - also wanted to highlight the most important thing said so far in the thread, IMO: "The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams than they already to in the NT." It's a mistake to assume support for this kind of measure has anything to do with "butt-hurt". I think it will be an overall positive in terms of game satisfaction for most players.

5/18/2013 4:18 PM
I can see an argument for needing something like this at D1. Regardless, I definitely do not think this should be done in the lower divisions, since there is not the same level of problem of power conferences.
5/19/2013 3:01 PM
Posted by dabears307 on 5/18/2013 4:18:00 PM (view original):
I can see an argument for needing something like this at D1. Regardless, I definitely do not think this should be done in the lower divisions, since there is not the same level of problem of power conferences.
I agree that the actual issue currently is more concentrated within D1. If I recall correctly, when the Smith seeds were recently announced, there were six D1 teams with losing records who got PIT invites, compared to zero in D2 and one in D3.

However, I made the poll simple on purpose, to see if the idea of sub-.500 teams getting bids was itself problematic, regardless of division.

And I must say, I thought the results would be very clear in one direction or the other... though I didn't know which direction. Instead, it's a pretty close vote. One side has been in front the whole time, but not by enough to indicate there's any consensus in either direction.
5/19/2013 3:59 PM
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/17/2013 9:23:00 PM (view original):
The only real impact this would have would be to screw owners who are in very tough conferences with only decent or good teams, rather than great.

My lone team at the moment is in Tark, GLV. It has been the toughest Tark D2 conference for as long as I can remember, and has to be in the competition for toughest D2 (or even overall) conference, regardless of World.

This past season, all 12 teams made the postseason. Basically, those who were above .500 made the NT.

Those of us below .500 were ineligible for the NT (though RPI/projection would have had a couple of us in), so we were sent to the PIT. The D2 PIT final four this past season was 4 GLV teams.

We each had solid teams, much better teams than most owners in sim-filled conferences, and when we played them in the PIT, it showed. But, because we had so many very good/great teams in conference, it becomes nearly impossible for everyone to stay above .500.

So, because we're in an extremely strong conference, we're "penalized" by not being eligible as under-.500 teams for the NT, and that's fine. To go this step further and make us ineligible for ANY postseason tournament in favor of lesser teams who played weak schedules is absurd.
It's incredibly easy for schools to get to .500, regardless of how tough their conference is.  Know what you can do?  Stop scheduling for "good" losses in the non con.  If you're not good enough to win basketball games, you shouldn't be in the post season.  
5/19/2013 4:06 PM
At least this team would get in...

of 7
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Should there be a min .500 record rqmt for PIT?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.