Right on gillispie... yeah I just wanted to get your guys thoughts if everyone thinks the ratio of upsets is fine as is than I will stand by the rest of you.... I want to add that the smart coaching option or addition would help get rid of the occasional upset due to depth chart tweaks.

GD had this awhile back (they might still do).   You could run multiple formations with a gazillion different player patterns.  

I always thought it was a bit much  and more a way for the "smart guys" to work the system than an actual improvement.   It was also a ***** to set up and maintain when there was 45 different lineups to manage.

Posted by bbunch on 12/20/2013 10:28:00 AM (view original):
I'll read more later when I have more time, but I do like the # of upsets. Doesn't seem like too many, and doesn't seem like not enough. Once in a great while, my team will either benefit or be hurt by a completely irrational upset, but it's pretty rare - and it happens in real life, albeit rarely. 

I also think that allowing coaches to assign jersey numbers to players is a completely arbitrary idea that could be pretty fun. 

Look at north carolina this year for proof of odd results ...

The thing im saying is they should occur but be less common than they currently are IMO

How often do you think upset's occur?   I would say I only lose game I am pretty sure I am going to win like less that 5% of the time.

Posted by halfakracka on 12/20/2013 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Right on gillispie... yeah I just wanted to get your guys thoughts if everyone thinks the ratio of upsets is fine as is than I will stand by the rest of you.... I want to add that the smart coaching option or addition would help get rid of the occasional upset due to depth chart tweaks.

just to be clear, i wasnt commenting on the probability of upsets. i was just saying first, it IS a bunch of rolls for every action, not just 1 (think about how impossible it would be to aggregate the equations for those 500 actions into 1 probability and roll the dice - besides, doesn't change the % of upset, like someone said previously). and secondly, im totally against artificially affecting the # of upsets by doing that kind of majority dice rolling. years and years ago i considered it, and i could see 2 out of 3 - at that point, you havent created too steep of a bell curve. but it gets steeper and steeper the more you put in. to me, if you think the # of upsets is wrong, there has to be something wrong in the logic - is the advantage of better rebounders not big enough, is the advantage of better scorers not enough, what? organically fixing those things to calibrate upsets is a million times better than artificially doing it through a majority of dice rolls - in my opinion!

anyway, my opinion on the # of upsets is, its actually pretty reasonable. when you really coach a team well, and really understand exactly how good that team is, and in what ways - upsets happen about where i'd expect. or maybe even less than i'd expect. when i coached my teams really hard, we would win ridiculously high % of the times against like, the next best team in the country, some years the next best team in the country had less than a 10% chance of beating us. on the other hand, when ive not paid attention and screwed off, ive lost games i totally expected to win, at a way higher clip, which naturally ****** me off :) but i had to recognize the reality is, i just didnt know my team that well, they probably weren't set up optimally, so was it really that ridiculous? probably not.

the reality is everyone mostly thinks their team is set up as well as they can set it up but sometimes you get it more right than other times - its hard to get a feeling of how well you have them set up, most of us go off our talent level. of course, ranking/rpi play in, but you see people all the time in the top 10 who are like man i didn't expect to be here, won't be at all surprised if i get upset in <insert early round of NT game or CT game or whatever>. so i think what results in the frustration of certain upsets, for me as well as most others, is partly randomness, but also partly us all just being imperfect in our ability to perceive the quality of our team and the quality of our team setup and game plan, and how good the other team was and how we matched up, and all that kind of stuff.

The ither thing about upsets is, unlike real life, we know the 'ratings' of the teams involved. In real life, you don't always even know what all if the upsets are ... In other words, you can see more clearly which game would be upsets so you will 'see' more upsets. if that makes sense.

Posted by halfakracka on 12/20/2013 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Good to know... I still think the IQ's jump from freshmen to senior should be small

This is actually a key part of the game at DI and super important in order to maintain some semblance of parity.

The current IQ learning gap allows non-elite teams a chance to put together a squad that can compete with more talented programs. (And while I always says, "Stop comparing HD to real life!", that does sort of sound like real life, doesn't it?) If your IQ suggestion were adopted, it would destroy DI -- only the elite teams getting the top players would have a real chance.

And as for upsets, I think you're off base there, too. billyg and others have commented, so I'll refrain from elaborating.

Yeah, I can see im outnumbered with the upset and rpi comments, at least in the early get go. As well as the prestige comments....I want to shift focus to the other concepts. Im not saying take away IQ.... just make it so freshmen arent retarded.

Posted by halfakracka on 12/20/2013 11:35:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I can see im outnumbered with the upset and rpi comments, at least in the early get go. As well as the prestige comments....I want to shift focus to the other concepts. Im not saying take away IQ.... just make it so freshmen arent retarded.

I understand what you're saying with IQ. But you haven't played DI, so you don't know who dire it would be. They made a tweak a couple years ago, which made frosh better than they were previously from an iq standpoint.

Good to know, how drastic is the iq difference in D3 ?.... My whole point in this was to basically get some answers... opinions.... and discussion about improving the game. I feel like most people are fans of the smarter coaching and recruiting incentives....

I would say the best thing I've seen talked about so far in this is the All Conference teams playing one another. My suggestion on making this possible would be to have the COTY sent an invite as soon as he/she is named the COTY. They have say 2-3 days to accept it, and if they do, they will coach the all-conference team. If they reject it or fail to accept it in I time, other coaches in the conference can apply to do it. There would be just one day for applications to be sent in, and then whomever Whatif decides becomes the coach.

To add incentive to the game without overdoing it, there could be a pile of recruiting cash for the winning conference. Not too much, because it is an exhibition game. But maybe like $3600 total for the whole conference. So an extra $300 per team. I don't think it would be too much. That would be like a close-range home visit extra. I don't know, that part could be tweaked.

BRING BACK GIFTS!

+1 on all-conference matchups, and any other simulations outside of the normal season (all-stat teams, all-time teams, etc.)