zbrent, I think you have better than #4 seed talent. You got smacked a bit because you play in such a weak conference, and beating up on the Sisters of the Poor just isn't going to impress the committee.

Posted by reisel on 12/8/2011 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 12/7/2011 4:44:00 PM (view original):
Does it seem to anyone else that the penalty (at least by projections) for playing truly crappy teams is off? For a NT caliber team, is there really that much difference between beating the 200 RPI team and the 380 RPI team?

My Hamline team, for example, has only one loss and it isn't a truly "bad" loss (75-70 @ #13 (now) 19-5 Greensboro to open the season, with narcotico as opposing coach).

We've actually beaten these other top teams (current rankings/RPI) in the OOC schedule:

#15/RPI-8 Susquehanna (86-76)
#12/RPI-5 Lynchburg (88-71)
#7/RPI-4 Moravian (90-82)
#5/RPI-9 Denison  (83-74)

The closest win all season was against (NR/RPI-54) Rowan, 57-52.

But, we also had some real cupcakes in the OOC schedule (RPI 381, 323) and in conference (372 (x2), 358) as well as a slew of weak-but-not-the-worst-in-the-country conference wins and I have to imagine that's why we're only a projected #4 seed despite having wins over a projected #1 (Lynchburg), two projected #2 (Moravian & Denison), and a projected #4 (Susquehanna) with the only loss (knock on wood) against a projected #2 (Greensboro).

Now I know I should have just beaten naroctico, and that falls on me, but that single stumble drops the squad from (presumably) a #1 seed (perhaps even overall) to a #4?

The #200 RPI team in D-III -- and It's hard to appreciate at first glance -- is still better than 48% of the other teams in D-III. Even the #300 team isn't in the bottom 20% of D-III teams. So the answer to your question is yes, there really is that much of a difference between playing #200 and #380.

Maybe I just have missed when it happens, but I can't recall seeing any Top 20 team get upset up a 200 RPI. If it does happen, it's a incredibly small percentage of the time. Both the 200 and the 380 are (close to) guaranteed wins for a NT team, and (in general, not just this season for Hamline) I think there should be a lot more weight given to things like Top 50 Wins or Top 100 Wins (as others have mentioned) because the difference between the 10 RPI and the 100 RPI in terms of talent/difficulty is WAY more than the difference between 200 and 300.

"I should've have just beaten narcotico" is never a true statement.

More seriously, I think there IS a difference.  For Kansas, not really.  But take, for instance, real life Memphis or Temple or Xavier last year.  If they'd lost to RPI 100 (Rhode Island) or RPI 150 (Stanford/San Jose State) that would be different than RPI 220 (Winthrop/UNC-Wilmington) which is in turn different from those bottom schools (UT Pan Am, Chicago State, Houston Baptist).


Kansas takes a loss to anyone but Rhode Island on that list, it's a serious problem.

But if, for instance, Northwestern had lost their season opener this year to UTPA, that would've almost ended their chances right there.  They'd need to beat Wisconsin or Ohio State to make up for it, at least.

Posted by cornfused on 12/8/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
"I should've have just beaten narcotico" is never a true statement.

Fair point. I think some (few) owners should have a built-in degree of difficulty added.

Posted by girt25 on 12/8/2011 10:05:00 AM (view original):
zbrent, I think you have better than #4 seed talent. You got smacked a bit because you play in such a weak conference, and beating up on the Sisters of the Poor just isn't going to impress the committee.

You know, my favorite part of that whole story was when the actual Sisters of the Poor got offended by being compared to WAC schools.

Posted by cornfused on 12/8/2011 10:47:00 AM (view original):
More seriously, I think there IS a difference.  For Kansas, not really.  But take, for instance, real life Memphis or Temple or Xavier last year.  If they'd lost to RPI 100 (Rhode Island) or RPI 150 (Stanford/San Jose State) that would be different than RPI 220 (Winthrop/UNC-Wilmington) which is in turn different from those bottom schools (UT Pan Am, Chicago State, Houston Baptist).


Kansas takes a loss to anyone but Rhode Island on that list, it's a serious problem.

But if, for instance, Northwestern had lost their season opener this year to UTPA, that would've almost ended their chances right there.  They'd need to beat Wisconsin or Ohio State to make up for it, at least.

The question though (at least here in WhatIf) is how often that 200 RPI team knocks off a top 50 / bubble NT team. At least among the top 25 (which are easy to check, since they are all on one page), I can't personally recall it happening, and if it has, it is *very* uncommon. For a legit NT team, I don't think the difference between beating the 200 RPI and 300 RPI should be worth much.

EDIT - this is at the D3 level. I don't follow D2 or D1, as I'm not in them. Are huge upsets more common there? From the prevalence of "Big 6 is too dominant" threads, I somehow doubt it.

Posted by teamrc on 12/8/2011 9:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 12/7/2011 4:44:00 PM (view original):
Does it seem to anyone else that the penalty (at least by projections) for playing truly crappy teams is off? For a NT caliber team, is there really that much difference between beating the 200 RPI team and the 380 RPI team?

My Hamline team, for example, has only one loss and it isn't a truly "bad" loss (75-70 @ #13 (now) 19-5 Greensboro to open the season, with narcotico as opposing coach).

We've actually beaten these other top teams (current rankings/RPI) in the OOC schedule:

#15/RPI-8 Susquehanna (86-76)
#12/RPI-5 Lynchburg (88-71)
#7/RPI-4 Moravian (90-82)
#5/RPI-9 Denison  (83-74)

The closest win all season was against (NR/RPI-54) Rowan, 57-52.

But, we also had some real cupcakes in the OOC schedule (RPI 381, 323) and in conference (372 (x2), 358) as well as a slew of weak-but-not-the-worst-in-the-country conference wins and I have to imagine that's why we're only a projected #4 seed despite having wins over a projected #1 (Lynchburg), two projected #2 (Moravian & Denison), and a projected #4 (Susquehanna) with the only loss (knock on wood) against a projected #2 (Greensboro).

Now I know I should have just beaten naroctico, and that falls on me, but that single stumble drops the squad from (presumably) a #1 seed (perhaps even overall) to a #4?

RPI is a math formula that has worked pretty well for along time.
A #20 rpi team is NOT a #1 seed, and certainly NOT a #1 overall.
Your a #4. Things are working as intented... and IMHO, as they should.

RPI is NOT a particularly great way to judge a team.  At a truly elite or sub-terrible level, yes.  But not when you're determining the difference between a low 2 seed and a high 4 seed (which is probably the difference between playing a couple extra mediocre teams on the road and getting the 1.4 multiplier instead of the .6).

As for the merits of the discussion, that's one major reason I've advocated moving away from RPI as the main seeding factor.  A loss to a 350+ RPI is worse than one to a 200 RPI team, but the win should be weighted about the same.  I agree with the idea that wins vs all teams over 200+ RPI should be weighted the same, and that a higher value should be placed on record vs. top-100 teams.  But I also think that losses vs. sub-100 RPI teams should carry more weight, too.

ya know who is missing from this discussion?  colonel19 !

Just in case anyone else has this concern:

12/8/2011 10:24 AM	cornfused
Question about the new projection report formula: Just making sure, the game-by-game calculation updates for ALL GAMES after each new game is simmed, right? So, say I beat a 2-10, 250 RPI team that wins its next eight games. After my twentieth game is over, the game against Podunk State is being counted as a win against a 10-10, 160 RPI team, right?
12/8/2011 11:55 AM	Customer Support
Yes, that's correct. It re-evaluates everything from the start of the season after each game cycle.

Just to finish off what is easily the most confusing season I have ever had in hoops dynasty, one parting shot for the missed postseason that Manhattan had.  Leading scorer who did not play against anyone to deserve a PIT bid just declared to go to the NBA.  And the new logic that would lessen players complaining of minutes had the other back-up shooting guard who you would think would be the one who would get all of the minutes of the SG leaving early for the NBA decides to transfer because he was getting 8 minutes a game behind the starter.  So to sum it all up, didn't play anyone good enough to make the sorry PIT over a 7-20 team, but good enough to have player declare early for the NBA.  WIS really must not want me to coach at Manhattan anymore is all I can figure. 

Posted by thethrill10 on 12/11/2011 12:19:00 AM (view original):
Just to finish off what is easily the most confusing season I have ever had in hoops dynasty, one parting shot for the missed postseason that Manhattan had.  Leading scorer who did not play against anyone to deserve a PIT bid just declared to go to the NBA.  And the new logic that would lessen players complaining of minutes had the other back-up shooting guard who you would think would be the one who would get all of the minutes of the SG leaving early for the NBA decides to transfer because he was getting 8 minutes a game behind the starter.  So to sum it all up, didn't play anyone good enough to make the sorry PIT over a 7-20 team, but good enough to have player declare early for the NBA.  WIS really must not want me to coach at Manhattan anymore is all I can figure. 

Apparently, they changed the selection logic after Naismith so that 7-20 fiasco doesn't happen again.  But you've certainly been bitten by the Bad Luck Bugs.  I'd send in a ticket about the guards, espcially if the backup hadn't warned you about transferring.   But make it kind and pitiful, not angry and accusatory.  Maybe the WIS gods will look kindly upon you.

It is just weird the guy said that he was only asking for 8 minutes a game and I couldn't get it to him, it looked like he averaged 8.1 minutes a game for the season so I guess when he was complaining at the end of the year he was not getting the minutes he wanted at that stretch even though overall he had the minutes he wanted.