Don't be so sure Syracuse wins that game, Coastal Carolina is just as good.

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/4/2018 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/3/2018 11:59:00 PM (view original):
There’s no problem to eliminate. The system is what it is, and the seedings that it spits out are the results of choices users make.

Proposing to make promises “absolute” and “black and white” would be fine I guess, if your intent is to make the game less realistic and less intelligent at the same time. If that’s not the intent, I would suggest a better course is to adjust probabilities of transfer, retain some variability in the expectations of different recruits with and without promises, and to enable promises past the first year.

Yes. Everything is perfect here. No need for discussions any longer. Let's close these forums down, and just play. Keep it moving everyone.... there's nothing to see here.

Sounds like you’ve been talking to Benis.

Your summary of what I said is a poor one. Read it again, in context. Someone said promises should be absolute, black and white. Miss one game, he transfers. In other words, eliminate probability, move to deterministic outcomes. Another said that would “eliminate the problem”.

What problem? What’s bad about good teams sacrificing seeding to get certain players some minutes? It’s a user choice.

Posted by mullycj on 6/3/2018 5:02:00 PM (view original):
Don't see anything wrong here. They have 8 losses and a weak non conf schedule. You are also putting too much stock into the overall rating. You will prob be an 8 pt favorite if you meet next round.

Practically nailed it !!!!!!

vs Syracuse

22-8

36

29

taylorn

9-14

-7

Posted by pkoopman on 6/4/2018 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/4/2018 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/3/2018 11:59:00 PM (view original):
There’s no problem to eliminate. The system is what it is, and the seedings that it spits out are the results of choices users make.

Proposing to make promises “absolute” and “black and white” would be fine I guess, if your intent is to make the game less realistic and less intelligent at the same time. If that’s not the intent, I would suggest a better course is to adjust probabilities of transfer, retain some variability in the expectations of different recruits with and without promises, and to enable promises past the first year.

Yes. Everything is perfect here. No need for discussions any longer. Let's close these forums down, and just play. Keep it moving everyone.... there's nothing to see here.

Sounds like you’ve been talking to Benis.

Your summary of what I said is a poor one. Read it again, in context. Someone said promises should be absolute, black and white. Miss one game, he transfers. In other words, eliminate probability, move to deterministic outcomes. Another said that would “eliminate the problem”.

What problem? What’s bad about good teams sacrificing seeding to get certain players some minutes? It’s a user choice.

I was actually just referring to the first line.... "There's no problem to eliminate."

There's lots of things that are debatable here. I completely agree with the user choices create different outcomes. But saying there's no problems is untrue

If I had to guess, I'd say 90% of mis-seeded teams are due to scheduling and maybe 10% are due to promises. "Fixing" promises is just an easier solution to point out then asking WIS to implement smarter auto-scheduling. If a top 3 team (ratings-wise) doesn't fill out their non-con schedule, their schedule shouldn't be randomized. Put them against the toughest opponents available. The engine should push for the smallest projected spreads available with automatic scheduling.

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/4/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/4/2018 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/4/2018 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/3/2018 11:59:00 PM (view original):
There’s no problem to eliminate. The system is what it is, and the seedings that it spits out are the results of choices users make.

Proposing to make promises “absolute” and “black and white” would be fine I guess, if your intent is to make the game less realistic and less intelligent at the same time. If that’s not the intent, I would suggest a better course is to adjust probabilities of transfer, retain some variability in the expectations of different recruits with and without promises, and to enable promises past the first year.

Yes. Everything is perfect here. No need for discussions any longer. Let's close these forums down, and just play. Keep it moving everyone.... there's nothing to see here.

Sounds like you’ve been talking to Benis.

Your summary of what I said is a poor one. Read it again, in context. Someone said promises should be absolute, black and white. Miss one game, he transfers. In other words, eliminate probability, move to deterministic outcomes. Another said that would “eliminate the problem”.

What problem? What’s bad about good teams sacrificing seeding to get certain players some minutes? It’s a user choice.

I was actually just referring to the first line.... "There's no problem to eliminate."

There's lots of things that are debatable here. I completely agree with the user choices create different outcomes. But saying there's no problems is untrue

The first line has context, specific to the comments preceding it.

What is it you’d like to debate? If it’s the idea that promises cause a “problem” in that sometimes good teams end up with lower seeds in the tournament than they would otherwise have, you should answer my question above. What’s bad about good teams sacrificing seeding to get certain players some minutes?

Other problems aren’t germane to the topic of this thread, but although it should be obvious, granted; the considering list is a “problem” that should be fixed; sim-signed recruits showing up as signed by a coach who took over a job prior to the second session is a problem that should be fixed. Of course there are others. I don’t think promises affecting seeding is among them. If you disagree, that’s cool. But don’t act like I’m the one trying to shut down discussion here by not agreeing it’s a “problem”.

Posted by pkoopman on 6/4/2018 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/4/2018 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/3/2018 11:59:00 PM (view original):
There’s no problem to eliminate. The system is what it is, and the seedings that it spits out are the results of choices users make.

Proposing to make promises “absolute” and “black and white” would be fine I guess, if your intent is to make the game less realistic and less intelligent at the same time. If that’s not the intent, I would suggest a better course is to adjust probabilities of transfer, retain some variability in the expectations of different recruits with and without promises, and to enable promises past the first year.

Yes. Everything is perfect here. No need for discussions any longer. Let's close these forums down, and just play. Keep it moving everyone.... there's nothing to see here.

Sounds like you’ve been talking to Benis.

Your summary of what I said is a poor one. Read it again, in context. Someone said promises should be absolute, black and white. Miss one game, he transfers. In other words, eliminate probability, move to deterministic outcomes. Another said that would “eliminate the problem”.

What problem? What’s bad about good teams sacrificing seeding to get certain players some minutes? It’s a user choice.

+1. Not a choice I’d take. Sacrificing seeding hurts your chances of getting past the first round. Honestly how many users use this as a strategy?

Two 15 seeds in the sweet 16 on Phelan D1.

Posted by zagsrulez on 6/4/2018 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/4/2018 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/4/2018 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/3/2018 11:59:00 PM (view original):
There’s no problem to eliminate. The system is what it is, and the seedings that it spits out are the results of choices users make.

Proposing to make promises “absolute” and “black and white” would be fine I guess, if your intent is to make the game less realistic and less intelligent at the same time. If that’s not the intent, I would suggest a better course is to adjust probabilities of transfer, retain some variability in the expectations of different recruits with and without promises, and to enable promises past the first year.

Yes. Everything is perfect here. No need for discussions any longer. Let's close these forums down, and just play. Keep it moving everyone.... there's nothing to see here.

Sounds like you’ve been talking to Benis.

Your summary of what I said is a poor one. Read it again, in context. Someone said promises should be absolute, black and white. Miss one game, he transfers. In other words, eliminate probability, move to deterministic outcomes. Another said that would “eliminate the problem”.

What problem? What’s bad about good teams sacrificing seeding to get certain players some minutes? It’s a user choice.

+1. Not a choice I’d take. Sacrificing seeding hurts your chances of getting past the first round. Honestly how many users use this as a strategy?

In theory, you make this choice every time you promise a start and significant minutes to a freshman who does not come in as the best option on your team from day 1. Even “hiding” a freshman with 0 distribution, you are potentially giving away games and seeding throughout the term of the promise, because his IQ deficiency will inevitably lead to mistakes, and can be the difference in close games.

Some teams/coaches are good/lucky enough to withstand it without consequences, but it always comes with a risk.

Agree (Just posted this because we don't agree on anything else and I want it on record in case you ever write that we never agree on anything)

In Crum elite 8 you have

1 seed versus 2 seed
1 seed versus 2 seed
1 seed versus 2 seed
2 seed versus 4 seed

Posted by fluff_nasty on 6/4/2018 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Two 15 seeds in the sweet 16 on Phelan D1.

Wisconsin didn't start any freshmen. The B1G was very competitive this season and he was lucky to get in. Didn't have to do with promises.

For those of you who have not played much Gridiron Dynasty, HD 3.0 is making this game very much like that one...and that's not a good thing. In GD, everybody starts their Freshmen (or Sophomores) during the regular season and then completely changes their lineups during the post-season. The seedings are a complete joke.

If that's what everybody wants for HD, you could get it. IMHO, it is a bad concept.

I think that's a big exaggeration. And in DI, its been almost always top 4 seeds in final four in Smith.

Posted by mullycj on 6/4/2018 4:51:00 PM (view original):
I think that's a big exaggeration. And in DI, its been almost always top 4 seeds in final four in Smith.

Yup. Take a look at Tark this past season.