Top 25 not connected NT Topic

doomey
Posts: 141 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 329 12 13
Prospect
I don't know how they couldn't use it, at least subconsiously. They don't live in a bubble and they know who is ranked. Seeing that number next to a name in the paper doesn't just go away when they hit the seeding room.



colonials, as mmt says, if it were strictly RPI you wouldn't have the sometimes vast disparity between RPI and seeds that you invariably see at least once per tourney. And you wouldn't have had my 60 RPI team get an at-large 13 seed either. But the answer clearly isn't just going off wins and margian either. Personally I'd rather see a differant formula to go with the RPI that is based more on simple SOS and wins. Average that with the RPI for seeding (with the other criteria already in place).
1/12/2010 9:54 PM
ardthomp
Posts: 210 (0)
Hall of Famer
417 24 77
Prospect
Sort of off topic, because this pertains to real life and not WIS, but just wanted to point out a few things:

If a person were to seed the #1's in real life right now, you would have Texas, Kentucky, Kansas, and either Villanova or Syracuse. I'd give the nod to Villanova right now (more conference wins than Syracuse at this point) though, but Lunardi gives it to Syracuse. That is the top 5 ranked teams right now in the polls.

These numbers are from cbssports.com: Kentucky has the 11th RPI and 106th SOS. Texas is 10th in RPI and 105th in SOS. Syracuse is 4th/21st, Nova is 6th/47th, and Kansas is 3rd/37th. Now, out of those five teams, Kentucky and Texas should not be 1 seeds, but if they were given a two seed, there would be such an outrage.

The selection committee can say they don't look at rankings, but they can't say they fully go by their "formula" either. If they went with a more weighted RPI + SOS ranking, then the top four seeds could possibly be:

West Virginia (1st/12th), Duke (2nd/9th), Kansas, Syracuse...or even Kansas State (5th/8th)
1/14/2010 11:21 AM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Ard...I dont care what they say...The top seeds almost always correlate to the top 10 in rankings and by top I mean (top 10-20 in the rankings).

The rest of the teams and and seeding seem to correlate to RPI and conference. This happens every single season. And again they can say there is no correlation but there clearly is. Otherwise how are these 1 and 2 seeds getting those seedings? Its not RPI or SOS based.
1/14/2010 11:25 AM
schroedess26
Posts: 54 (0)
All Star
29 1 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by mmt0315 on 1/14/2010Ard...I dont care what they say...The top seeds almost always correlate to the top 10 in rankings and by top I mean (top 10-20 in the rankings).The rest of the teams and and seeding seem to correlate to RPI and conference. This happens every single season. And again they can say there is no correlation but there clearly is. Otherwise how are these 1 and 2 seeds getting those seedings? Its not RPI or SOS based.
Ya once they fill in the Top 4 seeds is when they start having to separate conference teams like the Big East, Big Ten, and ACC.

Last years top 4 seeds final Top 25 ranking:
1 seed: 1,2,4,5
2 seed: 3,6,7,8
3 seed: 9, 11, 13, 14
4 seed: 10, 12, 15, 20

out: just #16 in place of #20 Xaiver went over FL State

Also, you gotta remember they move the top 4 seeds around to fit them closer to their home. So if they were going to be a #3 but play farther away from home than the #4 they would get, they would be placed in the #4 hence you see some back and forth at #3/#4
1/14/2010 12:06 PM
hackerhog
Posts: 984 (0)
Hall of Famer
191
Prospect
I've been ranked number 1 in D2 Iba at the end of the regular season not once, but twice, and not gotten a #1 seed in the NT. (I play in a weak conference).

So that's twice where WIS has mirrored real life in that the Top 25 doesn't matter when it comes to NT placement.

So what's the argument?
1/14/2010 1:37 PM
doomey
Posts: 141 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 329 12 13
Prospect
schroedess, it's not surprising that the polls would correlate to seeds, even if the committee doesn't use them. The writers know the RPI numbers as well and it's not surprising that they will vote with that in mind throughout the season proving the corrallation. This is why you'd be hard pressed to find a team with a high RPI number being ranked in RL despite record, but see it all the time in WIS. As for the coach's, most admit to not following teams and deferring to the status quo or handing off the job of ranking to their assistants, so again, I'd say RPI has a determining factor in their voting .
1/15/2010 3:55 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 1/12/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/12/2010

I like how seble says that using "strictly RPI...is not a good idea" yet in the FAQ according to how seeds are determined...overall RPI is 2nd most important, and then RPI is circularly referenced 6 more times in the formula.

It would seem however that RPI is most important because Tark just had a 12-16 team as the #1 overall PI seed (they lost their first round game) with an RPI of 48....no team in the PI had a higher RPI, so....

I wouldn't be surprised at all that all that FAQ stuff is mumbo jumbo, masking the fact that basically "strictly RPI" determines seeding.

Would you shut up about that PI team. Seriously that is getting about as old as the rest of your act
No I won't, because YOU who loves HD to operate like real life, fail to realize that this would NEVER HAPPEN in real life....never ever ever would a team below .500 I don't give a **** what the RPI is earn the #1 overall seed in the PI. You know I'm right and you simply just want to argue with me. You're unreal.
1/15/2010 10:01 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/12/2010Couldn't agree more! I tried to show you that he had a strong resume and could possibly be considered for the NT if it were real life like that of Arizona who if you make the games even and either add to Quincy or take away from Arizona would have the same record due to Quincy playing a strictly high level schedule with not as many low level teams as Arizona! /end
I conceded the fact that in my ranking system Quincy still may have made the PI....NOT AS THE #1 overall seed though...that's the point here gents. Maybe a 7 or 8 seed, not #1 overall.
1/15/2010 10:03 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 1/12/2010



Good lord. I havent posted in these forums in awhile because of all your stupid nonsense and how you take over every thread with your stupid BPI here are some things to chew over: I don't take over threads...people have conniptions when I say things and I just keep responding...if its 1 page or 50 pages, I'm not the only one keeping it going...I'm usually responding to someone else. Problem was, people thought they could dance with the guy who they thought was an idiot, and they realized that they couldn't hang. Just try to shut me up, I dare you. Instead of having intelligent, back and forth debate, people just want to beat the colonel, and that's rather sad, no? You get what you give with me...if you'd like to be cordial, we'll be cordial, if you want to slam, we'll slam....its always been up to all of you guys.

1) It took you 6 years to come up with a formula whose very basic assumptions are flawed The basic concepts were there pretty much from the beginning so your statement is FLAWED and inherently false (been pointed out countless times in various other threads BUT the most important is your thought that beating the 365th ranked team by one at home is better than losing to the #1 team on the road by one...We know Herm you play to win the games) And you think losing is better than winning...that works better in all phases of life doesn't it..........Youre either too dumb to understand OR to stubborn to open your mind...either way if it TOOK YOU SIX FREAKING YEARS to come up with something rather simplistic...FIND SOMETHING NEW TO DO...; No, its really a principle based around common sense. If the ultimate goal of playing a game is to WIN, then why on earth would you rate FAILURE ahead of SUCCESS? I've done rankings both ways and have concluded that this is the BEST way to do it. When you start saying losing is better than winning, I question your FLAWED logic.

2) The exception doesn't make the rule...Do you think David Tyree is the best receiver to ever play the game simply because he made the greatest or one of the greatest catches in NFL history? What about Santonio Holmes or Dwight Clark? You were also given a very good example of the Arizona Wildcats...Are you really that dense?; Those examples you provided are apples and oranges, but you are kind of making my point for me. Let's take Tyree for example, no he isn't the best WR in the game just because he made the biggest catch probably in SB history, so why exactly is Quincy the BEST team in the PI just because they played the toughest schedule, doing rather poorly against it no less?

3) RPI isnt the only factor this game uses Its certainly the main one...overall RPI is used then its CIRCULARLY REFERENCED 6 other times...otherwise when the selections are announced each season (IN HD) you wouldnt have a bunch of ****** off coaches wondering why they got a 3 seed when their RPI was 2. Is it one of the factors? YES Is it one of the more heavily rated factors? YES? But why shouldnt it be...For the most part HD's seeding system works as is reflected in the Final Four and Elite 8. Do the top 8 seeds always reach that far, of course not, but if you don't get it we cant help you. Should the #1 overall seed in the PI really lose its first round game, if in fact they're that good? IRL, RPI is a guide, in HD, RPI is a GOD, and it isn't that great of a ranking to be honest.

Ok rant over...sorry but Ive written and deleted post to this jackass five or 6 times in the past two weeks but have finally had enough. Took you that long to get one right, eh?

As an aside, I was going to reply to Dalter in the same manner as what Hawks posted from Seble, which is very spot on. While they might not officially use it, there is typically a very strong correlation and its not often a team in the top 25 if out of the tournament or anything lower than a 7-8 seed.
1/15/2010 10:14 AM
gillispie
Posts: 1766 (0)
Hall of Famer
116
Rookie
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
1/15/2010 10:46 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/15/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 1/12/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/12/2010

I like how seble says that using "strictly RPI...is not a good idea" yet in the FAQ according to how seeds are determined...overall RPI is 2nd most important, and then RPI is circularly referenced 6 more times in the formula.

It would seem however that RPI is most important because Tark just had a 12-16 team as the #1 overall PI seed (they lost their first round game) with an RPI of 48....no team in the PI had a higher RPI, so....

I wouldn't be surprised at all that all that FAQ stuff is mumbo jumbo, masking the fact that basically "strictly RPI" determines seeding.

Would you shut up about that PI team. Seriously that is getting about as old as the rest of your act.
No I won't, because YOU who loves HD to operate like real life, fail to realize that this would NEVER HAPPEN in real life....never ever ever would a team below .500 I don't give a **** what the RPI is earn the #1 overall seed in the PI. You know I'm right and you simply just want to argue with me. You're unreal
Again, I never said I want HD to follow Real Life. It is so funny that you keep saying that when dalt and I are two of the people who talk most about how HD doesn't need to follow real life.
1/15/2010 11:09 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Every time I'm tempted to respond to one of colonel's inane, uninformed posts, I'm relieved to see that either (a) he's managed to look stupid on his own or (b) someone else has already done it for me.
1/15/2010 3:37 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/15/2010No I won't, because the only thing I love more than my bullsh!t rankings wanking is seeing my name in print, which happens every time I post. See? There it is again! COLONELS19! COLONELS19! WOO HOO! I RULE!!!!!111

Quit feeding the troll, people. Every time you respond to a colonels post, God kills a kitten.
1/15/2010 3:57 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
True fact. Here is one zhawks killed earlier today.



RIP SPRINKLES.
1/15/2010 5:18 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Sprinkles lol. Is that an Office Reference?
1/15/2010 5:22 PM
◂ Prev 12
Top 25 not connected NT Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.