All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Knight > Mega-Ultra-Super-Duper-Uber Challenge
10/12/2013 9:58 AM
Posted by rogelio on 10/12/2013 1:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 10/11/2013 8:54:00 PM (view original):
The best use of our collective creative abilities might be to figure out a more reflective seeding system. If the seedings were nearly accurate reflections of a club's strength would that alleviate some concerns?
The easiest thing to do is to predict the best team in the conference for the next season.  That is, any method of seeding the upcoming season is going to get far more skewed as you ask for it to predict beyond the top 2 or 3 seeds in each conference.  The team that is chosen as the sixth best could actually be the tenth or worse.  Those teams that are selected as the #1 seed are probably either 1 or 2.

Some balk because these are already the Top 6 conferences in Knight (or very likely so).  For most, the goal of the non-conference is to come closest to guaranteeing an at-large bid, taking the conference schedule level of difficulty as a given.   Most coaches don't want to risk finishing the season with a Top 20 SOS and a sub .500 record.  Hello PIT!  However, straight line seeding brings that dreaded possibility into play.   Probably that fear is overblown, but coaches certainly may feel that they need to adjust their scheduling of the last 5 non-con games to compensate for the brutality of the first 5.   

That's why I favor a method that assigns the most difficult schedule to the best teams, but not the most difficult possible schedule.   I tend to see having a somewhat more mixed/heterogeneous schedule as a benefit as well.  Maybe that's just a matter of taste, but I'm not convinced that having no inter-tier play really generates more accurate results for comparison.  Assuming the seeds are accurate, the lowest seeds would still have the easiest schedules, and there may be a way to make the home/away assignments compensate for the biggest mismatches (I haven't puzzled all the way through that).
It is because of the fact the easiest seed to get correct is the #1 seed that makes me think that having all those #1s play each other is fair. rogelio, I believe you are making my point for me. If the #1 seeds are all pretty much unquestionably the top teams in their conferences, and these are in fact the top conferences, it makes sense to me that all these top teams might just be similar enough in talent that they will have good, fair match-ups. The #6 from a shallow conference, as you point out, may really only be as good as the #10 from a deeper conference. That shallow 6 is already facing the challenge of playing a team that might be 4 seeds "better" than they are - and your proposed system would have them face a #3 seed, which they ought to have very little chance to defeat. 

For MUSDUC I (which was using the 2 yr average conference wins for seeding, which we all agree is not terribly good a predicting team strength, but its all I have for data to go by at this young point in the MUSDUC history) the 6 #1 seeds were: Stonehill (2-3 in MUSDUC I, 19-10 overall, NT 1st rd), Cal, Davis (2-3, 19-10, NT 1), NC Central (4-1, 25-7, S16), Grand Valley St (4-1, 21-9, NT 2), TAMU, Commerce (1-4, 21-9, NT 2) and Incarnate Word (2-3, 15-14, PI 2). All of them BUT Incarnate Word made the NT. And, I am not sure it is fair to blame the failure of Inc Word to make the big dance on the MUSDUC, as the coach didn't make a peep all season, didn't schedule any games for this season, and left for D 1 without comment after the season. Maybe he was already on is way out or whatever, I just don't know. It doesn't seem to me that participating negatively impacting anyone definitively... As seeding gets better, this should be even more true. 

My point is that the #1 seeds are all pretty damn good and are likely going to make the NT regardless of the results of 5 MUSDUC games. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say that the 3, 4, or 5 seeds for instance might not be as strong as the #1s, so a MUSDUC where they play a few higher seeded teams (maybe even those #1s, here they ought to be double digit underdogs I'd guess) and get their ***** kicked certainly isn't helping those teams (who, lets face it, are likely on the bubble from day 1) make the NT. 

I really think that this issue is not as dire as some folks think. Of course, I've never been a #1 seed either (and frankly, as a 4 a couple times and a projected 3 next time, I'd rather not have to face them myself either...) It just doesn't make sense to me that if the seeding is close, why should the best teams (ie the #1 seeds) have an easier road then the #5 seeds or any other seed...especially when there isn't really any evidence available yet to show that those teams are negatively affected...

I agree that I can't say with certainty that having no inter-tier play truly does generate more accurate results for comparison as you say, but I think it is fairer competition for everyone. 

Either way, (and no offense - I truly value the input and effort of folks commenting) there are really only about 4 or 5 people talking about this, out of a participating pool of over 50 coaches, so until there is more input I wouldn't be in favor of making any changes of this nature...
10/12/2013 10:02 AM
Posted by a_in_the_b on 10/11/2013 10:50:00 PM (view original):
If we could get people to do it, a conference "vote" listing what each member thinks the top six teams for next season are? The evaluation of he coaches in conference is likely to lead to truer seeds than any formula ... Of course, it might be impractical ...
this has the potential to be better, IF coaches are willing to put in the effort to actually do a fair evaluation of all the participating teams in their conference (and if they are also any good at predicting the quality of a team for next season). Whether or not the resulting seeds would actually be better than any other method isn't clear, but at least everyone involved would perhaps feel that the seeds were better that way for having input into setting them... To be clear, conferences currently have the option of doing this if they so desire. For MUSDUC II half the conferences submitted their own ranking list for seeds, the other half went with the default WOPR rankings. 
10/13/2013 12:25 PM (edited)
Out.  I'll make my own schedule in the future.

If the Central goes with yazooyokel's seeding idea (on the cc), I'll continue.
10/12/2013 4:46 PM
I enjoy it dac.  You are doing a great job.
10/14/2013 3:54 AM
results are live on MUSDUC.com
10/14/2013 4:04 AM
Separate from the format issues being discussed, there are 2 other rules related things that I'd like to consider changing.

The first is to change when the games occur. A coach mentioned that because the games are first thing teams might not have a real feel for team settings so early. While gameplanning for my 1st game I had the same desire, especially since my game 1 for had no exhibition games, so I had nothing to go from but rosters. If there are no objections, I'd like to make the MUSDUC games occur primarily from games 3-7, starting with MUSDUC IV in 2 seasons.

The second didn't come into play, but it nearly did. As the bylaws are constructed the conference with the most combined wins gets the crown, the conference with the fewest wins gets relegated. The existing system says that ties will be broken first by total margin of victory. I think that the first tie break should be Head-to-Head record (if more than 2 conferences are tied we'd create a mini-conference like HD does for CT seeding) and if that fails to resolve the tie(s) then we could go to margin of victory. It just makes sense to me that if Conference A and Conference B are tied for last and facing relegation, the one that beat the other more should get to stay...


10/18/2013 7:12 PM
MUSDUC III Schedule posted on MUSDUC.com
10/18/2013 8:37 PM
Dac, I screwed up and scheduled a game in week 3 already. I'll send Texas a&am c an invite for season 6.
11/7/2013 7:23 AM
Dac, New to the CAA and already scheduled, will participate next season
11/9/2013 8:21 PM
i'm in


 
11/12/2013 6:45 AM
New to Cal CAA and I'll participate if my conference needs it.
11/13/2013 6:47 PM
WOPR rankings for MUSDUC IV

CCAA GLIAC HEARTLAND LONE STAR NORTH AMERICAN PENN ST
CAL, DAVIS FINDLAY LINCOLN TAMU, COMMERCE CENTRAL ST BLOOMSBURG
DOMINGUEZ HILLS GRAND VALLEY ST ST EDWARD'S TARLETON ST W VIRGINIA WESLEYAN LOCK HAVEN
SAN BERNARDINO WAYNE ST MONTEVALLO MIDWESTERN ST SLIPPERY ROCK CLARION
BAKERSFIELD MICH TECH W FLORIDA NORTHEASTERN ST ALASKA, ANCHORAGE E STROUDSBURG
SAN FRAN ST FERRIS ST ST MARY'S TAMU, KINGSVILLE STONEHILL CALIFORNIA
GRAND CANYON NORTHWOOD ROCKHURST SW OKLAHOMA ST W OREGON SHIPPENSBURG
11/14/2013 7:24 AM (edited)
I have modified the WOPR formula so that it now takes into account the number of each class returning, rather than just providing an average value for that class. I feel this will more accurately reflect team strength. This resulted in a new order for the WOPR. I'll post the new RWOPR rankings, and conferences can decide to use the new, the old or something else entirely. Starting next season I'll only be providing the new RWOPR. Keep in mind that the RWOPR isan average of the OVR values of current classes, multiplied by a value based upon class (3 for current juniors, 2 for current sophomores). In the past this value was then divided by the number of players in the class, so basically one 700 rated junior counted as heavily as if a team had 4 700 rated juniors. This new formula should help correct that, and it gives weight to teams that return more players. However, it is still based on OVR (not the best way to value a player), obviously gives no value to incoming freshmen (since I have no idea what they will be) and does not take into account the value of the coach of the team. I suspect that if a conference gets together and physically ranks next season's team's on their own by looking at them and factoring in those things my formula does not that they would achieve a more accurate prediction of relative power, but in the absence of that I think this revised formula will do a better job than the current one.

 
RWOPR Ratings MUSDUC IV:

CCAA GLIAC HEARTLAND LONE STAR NORTH AMERICAN PENN ST
CSU, BAKERSFIELD GRAND VALLEY ST ROCKHURST NORTHEASTERN ST W OREGON CLARION
SONOMA ST NORTHWOOD N ALABAMA TAMU, KINGSVILLE SLIPPERY ROCK LOCK HAVEN
CAL POLY POMONA WAYNE ST ST. MARY'S TAMU, COMMERCE CENTRAL ST CALIFORNIA
SAN FRAN ST FINDLAY ST. EDWARD'S MIDWESTERN ST W VIRGINIA WESLEYAN SHIPPENSBURG
CAL, DAVIS MICHIGAN TECH MONTEVALLO TARLETON ST ALASKA, ANCHORAGE E STROUDSBURG
SAN BERNARDINO FERRIS ST W ALABAMA SW OKLAHOMA ST STONEHILL BLOOMSBURG
CSU, LA   LINCOLN E CENTRAL   MILLERSVILLE
CSU, STANISLAUS   VALDOSTA ST      
GRAND CANYON   OPSU      
UCSD   INCARNATE WORD      
DOMINGUEZ HILLS   W FLORIDA      
CSU, CHICO   DRURY      
 
 
ROCKHURST HEARTLAND 14928
CLARION PENN ST 14925
N ALABAMA HEARTLAND 13797
NORTHEASTERN ST LONE STAR 13683
LOCK HAVEN PENN ST 13677
TAMU, KINGSVILLE LONE STAR 13531
ST. MARY'S HEARTLAND 13024
CSU, BAKERSFIELD CCAA 12873
SONOMA ST CCAA 12752
CAL POLY POMONA CCAA 12745
CALIFORNIA PENN ST 12650
W OREGON NORTH AMERICAN 12500
ST. EDWARD'S HEARTLAND 12044
GRAND VALLEY ST GLIAC 12015
SLIPPERY ROCK NORTH AMERICAN 12000
SHIPPENSBURG PENN ST 11710
SAN FRAN ST CCAA 11649
CENTRAL ST NORTH AMERICAN 11495
MONTEVALLO HEARTLAND 10770
CAL, DAVIS CCAA 10753
W VIRGINIA WESLEYAN NORTH AMERICAN 10732
SAN BERNARDINO CCAA 10642
TAMU, COMMERCE LONE STAR 10534
W ALABAMA HEARTLAND 10532
CSU, LA CCAA 10082
MIDWESTERN ST LONE STAR 9962
LINCOLN HEARTLAND 9955
CSU, STANISLAUS CCAA 9386
TARLETON ST LONE STAR 9366
NORTHWOOD GLIAC 9105
VALDOSTA ST HEARTLAND 9081
GRAND CANYON CCAA 8966
ALASKA, ANCHORAGE NORTH AMERICAN 8844
WAYNE ST GLIAC 8763
OPSU HEARTLAND 8625
SW OKLAHOMA ST LONE STAR 8255
FINDLAY GLIAC 8196
INCARNATE WORD HEARTLAND 8177
UCSD CCAA 8094
E STROUDSBURG PENN ST 8073
DOMINGUEZ HILLS CCAA 8048
MICHIGAN TECH GLIAC 8028
W FLORIDA HEARTLAND 7596
STONEHILL NORTH AMERICAN 7464
DRURY HEARTLAND 7191
BLOOMSBURG PENN ST 7102
MILLERSVILLE PENN ST 7074
FERRIS ST GLIAC 6321
CSU, CHICO CCAA 5922
E CENTRAL LONE STAR 5159
 
11/14/2013 2:39 PM (edited)
MUSDUC III - Season 65

SPOT #1:
CSU, Dominguez Hills 66 @ Bloomsburg 56
Northeastern St 72 @ Paine 83
Montevallo 90 @ Findlay 74
 
Shippensburg 72 @ CSU, Bakersfield 67
Benedict 60 @ TAMU, Commerce 75
Grand Valley St 83 @ Lincoln 75
 
Cal, Davis 77 (OT) @ California 72
Tarleton St 62 @ Florida Gulf Coast  52
Valdosta St 56 @ Ferris St 71
 
E Stroudsburg 50 @ CSU, Los Angeles 65
Tuskegee 62 @ TAMU, Kingsville 69
Northwood 58 @ W Florida 78
 
Lock Haven 60 @ Grand Canyon 73
Midwestern St 89 @ Albany St 80
W Alabama 84 @ Wayne St 87 (2OT)
 
Sonoma St 102 @ Clarion 59 (wk 6) 
Lane 52 @ SW Oklahoma St 88
Michigan Tech 74 @ Oklahoma Panhandle 78
 
SPOT #2
Paine 59 @ CSU, Dominguez Hills 48
Northeastern St @ Montevallo    Montevallo 71 @ Northeastern St 68  
Bloomsburg 104 @ Findlay 76
 
CSU, Bakersfield 77 @ Benedict 68
Lincoln 67 @ TAMU, Commerce 92
Grand Valley St 88 @ Shippensburg  64
 
Florida Gulf Coast 49 @ Cal, Davis 77
Tarleton St 77 (OT) @ Valdosta St 70
California 89 @ Ferris St 67
 
CSU, Los Angeles 57 @ Tuskegee 61 (wk 6)
W Florida 61 @ TAMU, Kingsville 49
Northwood 61 @ E Stroudsburg 71
 
Albany St 67 @  Grand Canyon 65
Midwestern St 82 @ W Alabama 71
Lock Haven 70 @ Wayne St 59
 
Sonoma St 77 @ Lane 74
Oklahoma Panhandle 62 @ SW Oklahoma St 77
Michigan Tech 81 @ Clarion 73
 
SPOT #3
CSU, Dominguez Hills 69 @ Montevallo 54
Findlay 92 @ Northeastern St 108
Bloomsburg 66 @ Paine 76
 
Lincoln 56 @ CSU, Bakersfield 66 
TAMU, Commerce 62 @ Grand Valley St  52 (wk 6)
Benedict 73 @ Shippensburg 61
 
Cal, Davis 77 @ Valdosta St  65
Ferris St 83 (OT) @ Tarleton St 76
California 75 @ Florida Gulf Coast 49
 
W Florida 68 @ CSU, Los Angeles 49
TAMU, Kingsville 82 @ Northwood 56
Tuskegee 52 @ E Stroudsburg 65
 
Grand Canyon 54 @ W Alabama 68
Wayne St 69 @ Midwestern St 93
Lock Haven 69 @ Albany St 49
 
Oklahona Panhandle St 84 @ Sonoma St 72
SW Oklahoma St 68 @ Michigan Tech 65
Lane 49 @ Clarion 71
 
SPOT #4
Findlay 71 @ CSU, Dominguez Hills 86
Paine 70 @ Montevallo 75 (OT)
Northeastern St 70 @ Bloomsburg 81
 
CSU, Bakersfield 62 @ Grand Valley St 80
Lincoln 53 @ Benedict 63
Shippensburg 65 @ TAMU, Commerce 79
 
Ferris St  86 @ Cal, Davis 84
Florida Gulf Coast @ Valdosta St   Valdosta St 56 @ Florida Gulf Coast 51
Tarleton St 55 @ California 81
 
CSU, Los Angeles 65  @ Northwood 58
W Florida 73 @ Tuskegee 49
E Stroudsburg 61 @ TAMU, Kingsville 40
 
Wayne St 90 (OT) @  Grand Canyon  88 (wk 6)
Albany St 75 @ W Alabama 64
Midwestern St 51 @ Lock Haven 54
 
Sonoma St 58 @ Michigan Tech 75
Oklahoma Panhandle St @ Lane unscheduled
Clarion 55 @ SW Oklahoma St 99

 
SPOT #5
CSU, Dominguez HIlls 82 @ Northeastern St 71
Findlay 86 @ Paine 78
Montevallo 87 @ Bloomsburg 77
 
TAMU, Commerce 83 @ CSU, Bakersfield 69
Benedict 52 @ Grand Valley St 69
Shippensburg 60 @ Lincoln 53
 
Cal, Davis 80 @ Tarleton St 75
Ferris St @ Florida Gulf Coast  Florida Gulf Coast 70 @ Ferris St 84
Valdosta St 62 @ California 64 (OT)
 
TAMU, Kingsville 47 @ CSU, Los Angeles 55
Tuskegee 77 @ Northwood 67
E Stroudsburg 60 @ W Florida 68
 
Grand Canyon 60 @ Midwestern St 64
Wayne St 62 @ Albany St   74
W Alabama 57 @ Lock Haven 70
 
SW Oklahoma St 92 @ Sonoma St 66
Lane 59 @ Michigan Tech 62
Clarion 61 @ Oklahoma Panhandle St 82
 
11/14/2013 9:15 AM (edited)
Lone Star 18 wins, 1 pending
Cal CAA 15 wins, 3 pending

(Penn St 16 wins, 1 pending)


Today's #2 Grand Valley St v #6 TAMU, Commerce game could decide MUSDUC III. Lone Star currently leads with 18 wins, and one game pending. The Cal CAA sits at 15 wins, but has 3 games this PM. Both GVSU and TAMUC are 4-0 in MUSDUC III games, and TAMUC is favored by 1 point on the road.

A GVSU win leaves the Lone Star vulnerable. The CCAA would need all 3 of its PM games to come through to force a tie. 5 of the 6 teams in those 3 games are 1-3 in MUSDUC III so far, with CSU, LA at 3-1 the sole interloper. CSU, LA is heavily favored (-13) over simai Tuskegee of the decimated Southern Conference (9 wins, 1 pending). Grand Canyon is a 2 pt favorite at home vs Wayne St from the GLIAC (12 wins, 2 pending). Sonoma St and Clarion (Penn St - 16 wins, but just 1 pending and no chance to catch the Lone Star for 1st place) are a pick'em. 

The Cal CAA and the Lone Star split their head-to-head 3-3 so the next tie-break will be total margin of victory, which I am not about to calculate unless I need to! Good luck coaches, and may the best (non California based) conference win!

of 15
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Knight > Mega-Ultra-Super-Duper-Uber Challenge

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.