Posted by bscoresby on 12/5/2011 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/5/2011 7:21:00 PM (view original):
Margin is going to stay as a component.  There's no way you can exclude that and get an accurate picture.  I guarantee that the real selection committee is influenced by a big win or big loss.  But with the tweaks I'm making it's not nearly as important as winning and as important as playing a strong schedule.  You don't need to stress about whether you win by 10 or by 15.  It won't make a huge difference in the big picture.  Now if you're consistently just barely winning, then that's not going to be as impressive as winning by double digits.  That's how it should be.

as a DI mid major- Wyoming- this is a pile of bull crap.  I schedule a hard schedule because that is the only way to prep for deep NT runs.

Last year I beat Wisconsin,  Kansas, and Cinncinati(all rpi top5 and top 10 teams) in the 8th, 9th, and 10th game.  I blew none of them out, but I guarantee that people would have noticed BIG TIME if this happened in real life.

bscoresby, it sounds very much like they'll still notice big time with this system, too.

Posted by seble on 12/5/2011 7:21:00 PM (view original):
Margin is going to stay as a component.  There's no way you can exclude that and get an accurate picture.  I guarantee that the real selection committee is influenced by a big win or big loss.  But with the tweaks I'm making it's not nearly as important as winning and as important as playing a strong schedule.  You don't need to stress about whether you win by 10 or by 15.  It won't make a huge difference in the big picture.  Now if you're consistently just barely winning, then that's not going to be as impressive as winning by double digits.  That's how it should be.

edited**** Seble - I thought that MOV specifically was NOT a selection criteria in real life.

He says that they are influenced by a big win or loss. It might not be an "official" criteria, but nonetheless, the human committee is swayed anyway.

Posted by salag on 12/6/2011 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He says that they are influenced by a big win or loss. It might not be an "official" criteria, but nonetheless, the human committee is swayed anyway.

I understand what Seble is saying, I am saying something different, that SPECIFICALLY MOV is NOT used, consciously not used, not swaying, not considered, not discussed, not even "unofficially'.

Posted by oldresorter on 12/6/2011 8:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by salag on 12/6/2011 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He says that they are influenced by a big win or loss. It might not be an "official" criteria, but nonetheless, the human committee is swayed anyway.

I understand what Seble is saying, I am saying something different, that SPECIFICALLY MOV is NOT used, consciously not used, not swaying, not considered, not discussed, not even "unofficially'.

I disagree. I believe it isn't discussed but I also believe that it plays a small role in the back of their minds. We're talking about humans on the committee. If Team A loses to Team B in OT by 1 point, and Team C lost to Team B by 15 points in a blowout, then when deciding between Team A and Team C, I'm willing to be that the MOV comes into play *a little*. Not as important as other factors, but still in their minds.

I think that is why its a good thing that it plays a *small* role in HD.

Posted by salag on 12/6/2011 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 12/6/2011 8:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by salag on 12/6/2011 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He says that they are influenced by a big win or loss. It might not be an "official" criteria, but nonetheless, the human committee is swayed anyway.

I understand what Seble is saying, I am saying something different, that SPECIFICALLY MOV is NOT used, consciously not used, not swaying, not considered, not discussed, not even "unofficially'.

I disagree. I believe it isn't discussed but I also believe that it plays a small role in the back of their minds. We're talking about humans on the committee. If Team A loses to Team B in OT by 1 point, and Team C lost to Team B by 15 points in a blowout, then when deciding between Team A and Team C, I'm willing to be that the MOV comes into play *a little*. Not as important as other factors, but still in their minds.

I think that is why its a good thing that it plays a *small* role in HD.

It is fine, what you are saying is logical.  But I am almost sure MOV is specifically not used as a criteria, on purpose. 

Now if you are talking about inner mindset, who knows, so many bias's exist, teams from a conference, from big conferences, teams with stars, team's with star coaches, team's with likable or dislikeable players, with great fans who travel, etc, etc.  But as far as tangible criteria, I am almost sure it has been consciously pulled from the discussion, on purpose.

I don't think it's humanly possible not to factor that in when it's available to them.  They may shroud it in vague terminology like "good win" or something, but you won't convince me that they completely ignore it. 

Even beyond that argument, in HD it is valuable information to determining the quality of a team.  Think about how easy a 1 or 2 point win could have been a loss. A 10 or 15 point win is more meaningful than that.

I will implement a game pace adjustment to it to account for teams playing slow or fast.

Posted by seble on 12/6/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's humanly possible not to factor that in when it's available to them.  They may shroud it in vague terminology like "good win" or something, but you won't convince me that they completely ignore it. 

Even beyond that argument, in HD it is valuable information to determining the quality of a team.  Think about how easy a 1 or 2 point win could have been a loss. A 10 or 15 point win is more meaningful than that.

I will implement a game pace adjustment to it to account for teams playing slow or fast.

rather than the complexity of pulling game pace info, consider expressing MOV as a fraction where the margin is the numerator and the total score is the denominator - arithmetic rather than trying to analyse how to treat fast-fast, fast-normal, fast-slow, normal-normal and other pace combos

Posted by seble on 12/6/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's humanly possible not to factor that in when it's available to them.  They may shroud it in vague terminology like "good win" or something, but you won't convince me that they completely ignore it. 

Even beyond that argument, in HD it is valuable information to determining the quality of a team.  Think about how easy a 1 or 2 point win could have been a loss. A 10 or 15 point win is more meaningful than that.

I will implement a game pace adjustment to it to account for teams playing slow or fast.

Seble - I am not quibbling over the 'rightness' of using MOV, what I am saying is it is not used as a factor in real seedings. 

Many experts feel that  not using MOV is a flaw in how March madness seedings are determined.   The problem was it used to be used, and teams gamed MOV, now they game SOS, sort of how we all game SOS in HD. 

I must admit, I changed all my settings to not play backups in blowouts, even if a small component, success in this game is often sweating the details.

Oh and thanks for answering ?'s and letting us voice our opinions. 

so in this new formula is it better to go 10-0 and win every game by 15+ against a 200 SOS or go 10-0 and win every game by 5 or less against the 75 SOS?

Posted by seble on 12/6/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's humanly possible not to factor that in when it's available to them.  They may shroud it in vague terminology like "good win" or something, but you won't convince me that they completely ignore it. 

Even beyond that argument, in HD it is valuable information to determining the quality of a team.  Think about how easy a 1 or 2 point win could have been a loss. A 10 or 15 point win is more meaningful than that.

I will implement a game pace adjustment to it to account for teams playing slow or fast.

A computer's not human and  I don't believe you can make it think like one.  While it's true that a human committee may be emotionally swayed by a large MOV in a few games,  they don't look at the entire season and think, "Wow! Belmont led the nation in MOV this season (which it did). We should give them a better seed."

Posted by alblack56 on 12/6/2011 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/6/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's humanly possible not to factor that in when it's available to them.  They may shroud it in vague terminology like "good win" or something, but you won't convince me that they completely ignore it. 

Even beyond that argument, in HD it is valuable information to determining the quality of a team.  Think about how easy a 1 or 2 point win could have been a loss. A 10 or 15 point win is more meaningful than that.

I will implement a game pace adjustment to it to account for teams playing slow or fast.

A computer's not human and  I don't believe you can make it think like one.  While it's true that a human committee may be emotionally swayed by a large MOV in a few games,  they don't look at the entire season and think, "Wow! Belmont led the nation in MOV this season (which it did). We should give them a better seed."

I agree 100%.   A human can be swayed by a big win but to put a new logic that includes MOV as a factor is more flawed then the flawed RPI.   I personally think MOV tells nothing about the quality of a team because there are just to many variables.  You see it all the time in real life too.   Team A beats team C by 20 while team B only beats team C by 2 but when team A and B play each other team B wins .

Then you could say that about wins too, because taking out the margin you have. . team A beats team b, team b beats team c, team c beats team A.  Who is the best using only wins?

 

I agree with you a_in_the_b.  Thats why I'm saying you replaced a flawed system with a just as flawed system.  Without being able to see a side by side comparison I Would have to say the old way was better.

Posted by oldresorter on 12/6/2011 7:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/5/2011 7:21:00 PM (view original):
Margin is going to stay as a component.  There's no way you can exclude that and get an accurate picture.  I guarantee that the real selection committee is influenced by a big win or big loss.  But with the tweaks I'm making it's not nearly as important as winning and as important as playing a strong schedule.  You don't need to stress about whether you win by 10 or by 15.  It won't make a huge difference in the big picture.  Now if you're consistently just barely winning, then that's not going to be as impressive as winning by double digits.  That's how it should be.

edited**** Seble - I thought that MOV specifically was NOT a selection criteria in real life.

I think it's pretty much impossible to not factor in MOV, same way it would be hard to not factor in MOL. If you were using a computer to seed, you could do so, but a human is going to be swayed. Let's say you watch Team A beat team B by 44, but then watch Team C beat Team B by 6, who will you be more impressed with?