Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 8/21/2018 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2018 11:29:00 AM (view original):
For real! Imagine how fun it'd be. You're sitting there at #34 on projection report. You're thinking you will get an 8 seed but maybe there's a shot at a 7 seed. Then after CT is over you found out you're going to the PIT. Awww shucks!

And what would be even better is when a conference mate is #38 on the projection report and they get in as a 6 seed. Even though you had a better season than them. But hey, that's the luck of the draw!

Funny but this was actually true before the projection report. All we had was RPI and teams would end up all over the place compared to that.

Probability is used to simulate choices outside of the coach’s control. It makes sense in recruiting, and determining early entries. Those choices are made by players, who don’t use uniform formulas to make decisions.

Tournament seeding in real life is determined by a committee of folks who (at least publicly) strive to make it objective and consistent. These are not the same types of choices that recruits make, therefore the mechanism for simulating them is different.

But it shouldn't be. It's human based decisions. Which means errors can, and will, happen. It's not the NFL where more wins moves you up automatically. It's a system of judgment. Which opens the door for randomness. And mistakes. And decisions influenced by many variables. Not just 1-4 #1s, 5-8 #2s, etc.... add it to the game

It’s not an error when a kid decides he wants to play for Vanderbilt instead of Kentucky. He makes a choice.

It’s not an error when a kid decides to come back for another season, instead of sign with an agent. He makes a choice.

When selection committees make significant oversights, it hurts the integrity of the game. So they do strive for objectivity and consistency, principles 18 year olds kids aren’t bound to. Oversights by a committee are indeed mistakes. Are they possible? Maybe. Does it harm gameplay of a simulation that seeding is based on firm formulas rather than probability? Not remotely, and arguments to the contrary are clearly based on false equivalence.

Shoe.... First, I generally don't disagree with the things you say about the game. When it comes to recruits, you're absolutely right. Of course, the players pick a school. And many variables factor into that, which can create different outcomes, wacky outcomes at times.

But there's many things that can improve, rather than just saying "the game is fine. It's your fault". One of my big gripes all the time.... if Tenn-Chat schedules all Top 10 teams, and goes 10-0 against them, literally, 10-0, you think the committee is going to drop them to an 8 seed because they play in a weak conference? No. They proved themselves. Look at teams like Gonzaga that don't go 10-0 against a Big 6 non con schedule. And they get a 1 seed.

And if that example is in D2 (or D3 even), and say my conference is the worst in the country, which it is often, that doesn't matter. I AM a Gonzaga at that point. Because my prestige is A+. And make E8s each season. I'm a contender every year. Gonzaga gets 1 seeds. Xavier can get a 1 seed. My A+ D2 school should not bottom out because I play in a weak conference if i beat the top 10 teams in the nation. I'm sorry. (I'm not really arguing seeding exactly. I'm arguing that big wins should mean more I guess. I'm also not saying that is my situation. Just speaking hypothetically). Also, D2/D3 doesn't have Big 6s necessarily. I feel teams should be measured more independently. All the baselines are basically equal.

The Top 100 RPI criteria crap. A team gets more credit for going 10-0 against 10 teams that are all in the 90s RPI range, than a team that goes 6-0 against the top 6 RPI teams and say 4-0 against teams 101-150. It's goofy if you ask me. Do you want your kids to to bring home 8 D- grades for the semester because "hey you passed ALL of them, great!". Or would you rather them come home with 7 A+ and 1 F and say "good job, but we gotta work on that Geometry grade buddy".

And my most important part of this, don't you wanna just have fun with this sometimes? When you go to work and you're talking with the guys about how yesterday sucked because of whatever reason, do you stand up and say "no guys, this job is perfect how it is, you signed up for it. It's your fault"..? You may be right about that! But your work buddies probably look at you and think "ok?... what's wrong with that guy?" (I actually hate the everyday work complainer the most! That guy is never happy! But thats not us here. We're just having fun man)

Doggg, this thread isn’t about making RPI and SOS more intelligent. Benis is making an intentionally ridiculous proposal in the *opposite direction* (probability based seeding) that everyone knows would be universally rejected if actually implemented. He’s doing it to specifically (and passive aggressively) take a dig at people who like probability in the simulation of recruits’ choices.

I have made lots of suggestions for improving the game. There are lots of things that could be done to make the game more intelligent. None of them involve making recruit choices determined on knowable and fixed factors, however.

If you want sense please see another thread..

I don't get why there aren't tons of people who love this idea of a random projection report. Its obviously working flawlessly for the big board. We're missing a big opportunity here guys.

Posted by Benis on 8/22/2018 11:31:00 AM (view original):
I don't get why there aren't tons of people who love this idea of a random projection report. Its obviously working flawlessly for the big board. We're missing a big opportunity here guys.

It’s like peas and carrots. You have to love both or hate both, or Benis’s brain breaks.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/22/2018 4:18:00 AM (view original):
Shoe.... First, I generally don't disagree with the things you say about the game. When it comes to recruits, you're absolutely right. Of course, the players pick a school. And many variables factor into that, which can create different outcomes, wacky outcomes at times.

But there's many things that can improve, rather than just saying "the game is fine. It's your fault". One of my big gripes all the time.... if Tenn-Chat schedules all Top 10 teams, and goes 10-0 against them, literally, 10-0, you think the committee is going to drop them to an 8 seed because they play in a weak conference? No. They proved themselves. Look at teams like Gonzaga that don't go 10-0 against a Big 6 non con schedule. And they get a 1 seed.

And if that example is in D2 (or D3 even), and say my conference is the worst in the country, which it is often, that doesn't matter. I AM a Gonzaga at that point. Because my prestige is A+. And make E8s each season. I'm a contender every year. Gonzaga gets 1 seeds. Xavier can get a 1 seed. My A+ D2 school should not bottom out because I play in a weak conference if i beat the top 10 teams in the nation. I'm sorry. (I'm not really arguing seeding exactly. I'm arguing that big wins should mean more I guess. I'm also not saying that is my situation. Just speaking hypothetically). Also, D2/D3 doesn't have Big 6s necessarily. I feel teams should be measured more independently. All the baselines are basically equal.

The Top 100 RPI criteria crap. A team gets more credit for going 10-0 against 10 teams that are all in the 90s RPI range, than a team that goes 6-0 against the top 6 RPI teams and say 4-0 against teams 101-150. It's goofy if you ask me. Do you want your kids to to bring home 8 D- grades for the semester because "hey you passed ALL of them, great!". Or would you rather them come home with 7 A+ and 1 F and say "good job, but we gotta work on that Geometry grade buddy".

And my most important part of this, don't you wanna just have fun with this sometimes? When you go to work and you're talking with the guys about how yesterday sucked because of whatever reason, do you stand up and say "no guys, this job is perfect how it is, you signed up for it. It's your fault"..? You may be right about that! But your work buddies probably look at you and think "ok?... what's wrong with that guy?" (I actually hate the everyday work complainer the most! That guy is never happy! But thats not us here. We're just having fun man)

Want the solution to this? Turn up your difficulty level a notch and move to a non crap conference which will beef up your SOS by playing more quality teams.

Posted by zagsrulez on 8/22/2018 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/22/2018 4:18:00 AM (view original):
Shoe.... First, I generally don't disagree with the things you say about the game. When it comes to recruits, you're absolutely right. Of course, the players pick a school. And many variables factor into that, which can create different outcomes, wacky outcomes at times.

But there's many things that can improve, rather than just saying "the game is fine. It's your fault". One of my big gripes all the time.... if Tenn-Chat schedules all Top 10 teams, and goes 10-0 against them, literally, 10-0, you think the committee is going to drop them to an 8 seed because they play in a weak conference? No. They proved themselves. Look at teams like Gonzaga that don't go 10-0 against a Big 6 non con schedule. And they get a 1 seed.

And if that example is in D2 (or D3 even), and say my conference is the worst in the country, which it is often, that doesn't matter. I AM a Gonzaga at that point. Because my prestige is A+. And make E8s each season. I'm a contender every year. Gonzaga gets 1 seeds. Xavier can get a 1 seed. My A+ D2 school should not bottom out because I play in a weak conference if i beat the top 10 teams in the nation. I'm sorry. (I'm not really arguing seeding exactly. I'm arguing that big wins should mean more I guess. I'm also not saying that is my situation. Just speaking hypothetically). Also, D2/D3 doesn't have Big 6s necessarily. I feel teams should be measured more independently. All the baselines are basically equal.

The Top 100 RPI criteria crap. A team gets more credit for going 10-0 against 10 teams that are all in the 90s RPI range, than a team that goes 6-0 against the top 6 RPI teams and say 4-0 against teams 101-150. It's goofy if you ask me. Do you want your kids to to bring home 8 D- grades for the semester because "hey you passed ALL of them, great!". Or would you rather them come home with 7 A+ and 1 F and say "good job, but we gotta work on that Geometry grade buddy".

And my most important part of this, don't you wanna just have fun with this sometimes? When you go to work and you're talking with the guys about how yesterday sucked because of whatever reason, do you stand up and say "no guys, this job is perfect how it is, you signed up for it. It's your fault"..? You may be right about that! But your work buddies probably look at you and think "ok?... what's wrong with that guy?" (I actually hate the everyday work complainer the most! That guy is never happy! But thats not us here. We're just having fun man)

Want the solution to this? Turn up your difficulty level a notch and move to a non crap conference which will beef up your SOS by playing more quality teams.

I know the solution. Look at this thread. It's obviously just for fun. Shoe makes tons of valid points. But this isn't really about that. I'm sorry if it bothers some of you guys. But I can't be a stiff 24/7. This is a game we play. Because we're interested in it. And that brings conversation.

Do I know some solutions? Of course. Do I agree with every last little thing about this site? Of course not. But it's a damn good game that i'm gonna play no matter what!

Leaving the program i'm at isn't going to fix anything for me! Do I believe the Top 100 criteria is wrong the way it is, yes I do. But I can share my opinion here along with everyone else. I just feel at the D2/D3 level, all teams start out basically equal baseline. So why should a "better" conference matter that much IF IF IF i'm beating top 10 teams in non-con all season? I've proven that I can compete. My opinion is that those wins should hold much more value than wins over teams in the 80s or 90s, just because you've played more of them in your "better" conference. That's it.

I don't think that concept is hard to wrap your heads around. But some are acting like this is crazy talk. I know i'm not the only one out there that understands what i'm saying. Even if they aren't posting.

if i'm at D1, and i'm in a terrible conference, but I beat 10 A+ Big 6 schools and start the season off 10-0, I'll drop when ****** conference play rolls around. I'm sorry, but I just don't feel it should. Even if you all disagree, i'm ok with that. But it's my personal opinion. I'm not pushing for change and sending in tickets. I'm just talking to the 20 of us that read this crap

Posted by shoe3 on 8/22/2018 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Doggg, this thread isn’t about making RPI and SOS more intelligent. Benis is making an intentionally ridiculous proposal in the *opposite direction* (probability based seeding) that everyone knows would be universally rejected if actually implemented. He’s doing it to specifically (and passive aggressively) take a dig at people who like probability in the simulation of recruits’ choices.

I have made lots of suggestions for improving the game. There are lots of things that could be done to make the game more intelligent. None of them involve making recruit choices determined on knowable and fixed factors, however.

And I know what this is shoe. I'm just blabbering. In a thread of blabber. I just know you're the probability guy so of course you will be in this thread too.

I ask real questions often too.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/22/2018 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 8/22/2018 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/22/2018 4:18:00 AM (view original):
Shoe.... First, I generally don't disagree with the things you say about the game. When it comes to recruits, you're absolutely right. Of course, the players pick a school. And many variables factor into that, which can create different outcomes, wacky outcomes at times.

But there's many things that can improve, rather than just saying "the game is fine. It's your fault". One of my big gripes all the time.... if Tenn-Chat schedules all Top 10 teams, and goes 10-0 against them, literally, 10-0, you think the committee is going to drop them to an 8 seed because they play in a weak conference? No. They proved themselves. Look at teams like Gonzaga that don't go 10-0 against a Big 6 non con schedule. And they get a 1 seed.

And if that example is in D2 (or D3 even), and say my conference is the worst in the country, which it is often, that doesn't matter. I AM a Gonzaga at that point. Because my prestige is A+. And make E8s each season. I'm a contender every year. Gonzaga gets 1 seeds. Xavier can get a 1 seed. My A+ D2 school should not bottom out because I play in a weak conference if i beat the top 10 teams in the nation. I'm sorry. (I'm not really arguing seeding exactly. I'm arguing that big wins should mean more I guess. I'm also not saying that is my situation. Just speaking hypothetically). Also, D2/D3 doesn't have Big 6s necessarily. I feel teams should be measured more independently. All the baselines are basically equal.

The Top 100 RPI criteria crap. A team gets more credit for going 10-0 against 10 teams that are all in the 90s RPI range, than a team that goes 6-0 against the top 6 RPI teams and say 4-0 against teams 101-150. It's goofy if you ask me. Do you want your kids to to bring home 8 D- grades for the semester because "hey you passed ALL of them, great!". Or would you rather them come home with 7 A+ and 1 F and say "good job, but we gotta work on that Geometry grade buddy".

And my most important part of this, don't you wanna just have fun with this sometimes? When you go to work and you're talking with the guys about how yesterday sucked because of whatever reason, do you stand up and say "no guys, this job is perfect how it is, you signed up for it. It's your fault"..? You may be right about that! But your work buddies probably look at you and think "ok?... what's wrong with that guy?" (I actually hate the everyday work complainer the most! That guy is never happy! But thats not us here. We're just having fun man)

Want the solution to this? Turn up your difficulty level a notch and move to a non crap conference which will beef up your SOS by playing more quality teams.

I know the solution. Look at this thread. It's obviously just for fun. Shoe makes tons of valid points. But this isn't really about that. I'm sorry if it bothers some of you guys. But I can't be a stiff 24/7. This is a game we play. Because we're interested in it. And that brings conversation.

Do I know some solutions? Of course. Do I agree with every last little thing about this site? Of course not. But it's a damn good game that i'm gonna play no matter what!

Leaving the program i'm at isn't going to fix anything for me! Do I believe the Top 100 criteria is wrong the way it is, yes I do. But I can share my opinion here along with everyone else. I just feel at the D2/D3 level, all teams start out basically equal baseline. So why should a "better" conference matter that much IF IF IF i'm beating top 10 teams in non-con all season? I've proven that I can compete. My opinion is that those wins should hold much more value than wins over teams in the 80s or 90s, just because you've played more of them in your "better" conference. That's it.

I don't think that concept is hard to wrap your heads around. But some are acting like this is crazy talk. I know i'm not the only one out there that understands what i'm saying. Even if they aren't posting.

if i'm at D1, and i'm in a terrible conference, but I beat 10 A+ Big 6 schools and start the season off 10-0, I'll drop when ****** conference play rolls around. I'm sorry, but I just don't feel it should. Even if you all disagree, i'm ok with that. But it's my personal opinion. I'm not pushing for change and sending in tickets. I'm just talking to the 20 of us that read this crap

So you pretty much want your #1 seed locked up after non conference or give more emphasis to the first 10 games and lessen the importance of conference play? You’re identifying a weakness of playing in a weak conference at least you get an easy 16-0. Yes in real life, Gonzaga has managed to grab top seeds playing in the WCC but that took more than a decade of creating a dynasty in the West. Few has build momentum and broken down barriers that simply don’t exist in simulated computer program. If you want a top seed you continually play talented teams. Teams grow a lot after non conference play.

That IS basically what i'm saying. I'm not saying that since I had 1 good non con season that I deserve a 1 seed every time.

You've mentioned that Gonzaga took over a decade, and you're right. That's my point. If a team has an A+ prestige, that didn't happen overnight in one season. It was built. (At D2/D3 maybe not very long. But hear me out). But if i'm a team that has been an A+ for 5+ seasons, I'll even say 10 to fit your "decade", that team is going to be a top team whether they have a great or ****** conference. They've shown over a decade.

If I play in a full conference, all 12, and i win titles 4 out of 5 seasons and i'm A+, wow that team is a Dynasty! But say 11 off my friends move on the next season.... if I continue to win titles, 4 out of the next 5 again, now i'm a "mediocre team.... because I play in a ****** conference"..? I disagree with that. I'm the same team!

edit.... I hope you understand that I clearly know how to fix it, as far as playing along with the rules of the game. Sure, I could find the biggest conference out there, move schools and give up what i've built and play great teams all season. But three things about that... 1) I don't want too. Period. 2) Why? I've already proven I can beat those teams anyway because I play them in non-con now. 3) I make deep runs now where i'm at. So it's not a problem for me.

All i'm doing is stating my opinion, that once I reach dynasty status, that should hold weight a lil bit. And i also think the teams that end up being #1 seeds wish that as well. Because i'm beating them as a #5 seed in the sweet 16 round because i'm better than them (at times). And they should be facing a team that played like, and is talented like, a 5seed team in that round. Instead of playing a juggernaut team that should be a higher seed.

You realize the whole point of 3.0 was to discourage dynasties right?

Posted by mullycj on 8/22/2018 8:58:00 PM (view original):
You realize the whole point of 3.0 was to discourage dynasties right?

Except at D3 where the population has whittled to a point where most worlds are 90% empty and entrenched coaches have been able to build super teams which give new coaches very little chance of success causing them to give up almost immediately.