Tourney Seeding. Wow Topic

cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
I won 1 less game than GC. Seems pretty comparable.

CT doesn't have weight like that.

GC is a good team and probably should be a 4 or 5. But I should be too.
10/21/2011 11:26 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by girt25 on 10/21/2011 11:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 10/21/2011 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cburton23 on 10/21/2011 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Ok so they over weight the CT then as we have said. There is little to no difference between us other than that. And my CT is much more difficult to win. Not to mention I beat them, which I know isn't taken into account, but it's still a valid point.
CT has weight in real basketball as well. And you have to realize that him winning the CT also means he won more games, which also helps seeding.

And no, you beating him is not a valid point. By that logic, if your team is 1-26 but beats the #1 ranked team, you should be in the NT right, and be ranked ahead of the #1 ranked team? Transitive properties do not apply in sports. 


No, tianyi, obviously that doesn't override everything. But if the rest of the resumes are pretty comparable, then I think that does have a place in the argument.

I agree with you the rest seems comparable, but Grand Canyon has CT and 1 more win, so that means GC should be seeded ahead of Eastern New Mexico. 

The OP point was that T25 Ranking put other teams ahead of him in the NT seeding, which is not the case because T25 ranking isn't part of the seeding equation.

To Curton, since you believe you should be a 4 or 5 seed, who do you think should be bumped down? All of the 4 and 5 seeds, except 1 who tied you at 20, have more wins than you and some have a CT in addition to the wins. 

10/22/2011 12:15 AM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
I already pointed out in a previous post who should be bumped down.

And I don't care what WIS says, rankings are used in seedlings based what I see here.
10/22/2011 7:30 AM
simpleton
Posts: 121 (0)
Hall of Famer
25 263 8
Rookie
you gotta be happy that you're a 7 seed now, since you're playing a 15 seed in the 2nd round ! 
10/22/2011 8:18 AM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
Posted by girt25 on 10/21/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wronoj on 10/21/2011 4:50:00 PM (view original):
i went 19-9 and had RPI 18, and got a 10-seed (d3 Wooden). I am also playing a rematch of the only non-con game I lost this season... I was fully expecting a drop from RPI-valued 5-seed to a 7, maybe an 8, but not a 10.
4-9 vs. top 50 rpi. That sums up.
seeded 1 spot ahead of me in my bracket, same # wins, same CT loss, 3-7 vs top 50, RPI 34.
seeded 2 spots ahead, but in crap conferece, 22 wins vs my 19, same CT loss, 1-4 vs top 50, RPI 39.
my opponent, won his CT to get to 25 wins vs an all-Sim conference, went 2-5 vs top 50, RPI 28. (I won in the NT to split the season series)
4 spots ahead, 26-3, won bad CT, 0-2 vs top 25, RPI 32.
5 spots ahead, 26-3, won bad CT, 0-1 vs top 25, RPI 27.
6 spots ahead, 26-3, lost 4-human CT finals, 3-2 vs top 25, RPI 17.

me: 19-9, lost CT second round, 4-9 vs top 50, RPI 18.

This is just my bracket, by the way. I think I have a decent argument that my body of work is better than a lot of these teams, but there's a huge emphasis on Wins (sure, no problem), last 10 games (big problem, IMO, especially since this has been de-emphasized in RL, and there's no momentum in HD), and CTs (unfair to people in human-populated conferences). As I said, I fully expected to get bumped down to a 7 or so, but thought a 10 was pretty rough.

In the end it doesn't matter much-- I've got to win games to show I deserved better. But it matters to the 7-seed I faced. And to me now in my matchup vs a 2-seed instead of a 3-5 seed. This team was not going to win a championship, but it could have won a few NT games given a good draw. And in the super-fickle world of d3 prestige, that matters.

10/22/2011 8:35 AM
ryandaniel
Posts: 188 (0)
Veteran
22
Prospect

However. . . Wouldn't last ten catch a really young team that loses some early, but improves greatly and is almost a different team by the end?
10/22/2011 8:49 AM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
sure, but almost all teams improve a fair amount as the season goes on...
10/22/2011 9:09 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by ryandaniel on 10/22/2011 8:50:00 AM (view original):

However. . . Wouldn't last ten catch a really young team that loses some early, but improves greatly and is almost a different team by the end?
In real life, maybe. Here, it's more likely to be a function of how tough or easy your conference is.
10/22/2011 9:10 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by tianyi7886 on 10/22/2011 12:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 10/21/2011 11:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 10/21/2011 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cburton23 on 10/21/2011 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Ok so they over weight the CT then as we have said. There is little to no difference between us other than that. And my CT is much more difficult to win. Not to mention I beat them, which I know isn't taken into account, but it's still a valid point.
CT has weight in real basketball as well. And you have to realize that him winning the CT also means he won more games, which also helps seeding.

And no, you beating him is not a valid point. By that logic, if your team is 1-26 but beats the #1 ranked team, you should be in the NT right, and be ranked ahead of the #1 ranked team? Transitive properties do not apply in sports. 


No, tianyi, obviously that doesn't override everything. But if the rest of the resumes are pretty comparable, then I think that does have a place in the argument.

I agree with you the rest seems comparable, but Grand Canyon has CT and 1 more win, so that means GC should be seeded ahead of Eastern New Mexico. 

The OP point was that T25 Ranking put other teams ahead of him in the NT seeding, which is not the case because T25 ranking isn't part of the seeding equation.

To Curton, since you believe you should be a 4 or 5 seed, who do you think should be bumped down? All of the 4 and 5 seeds, except 1 who tied you at 20, have more wins than you and some have a CT in addition to the wins. 

tianyi, one more win literally means nothing -- I'd say that anyway, but cburton played the toughest sked in the country.

You give me two teams with a nearly identical record, and one played the toughest sked in the country and beat the other head-to-head ... I don't think that's much of a debate who deserves a higher seed.
10/22/2011 9:11 AM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Conf Championship should also carry some weight in the equation. You said it yourself that "But if the rest of the resumes are pretty comparable, then I think that does have a place in the argument." Let's take on this premise that rest of the resume are pretty equal. If this is true, then shouldn't we award the higher seed to whoever has the slightest edge?

From what I can see, both Millersville and GC has this edge, with Millersville at +3 more wins and -5 losses. GC has +1 win and 1 CT.

GC is at #5 SOS, it's not like they went 21-9 with a cakewalk either. 
10/22/2011 12:48 PM
mamxet
Posts: 1154 (0)
Hall of Famer
215 48 26 2 436 11
Rookie
so far as I can tell, it seems to me that rankings are not literally USED in seedings BUT rankings reflect factors that are very close to the factors used in seeding and therefore RANKINGS and SEEDING correlate - it may look like they are used without them actually being used - right?
10/22/2011 1:31 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by mamxet on 10/22/2011 1:31:00 PM (view original):
so far as I can tell, it seems to me that rankings are not literally USED in seedings BUT rankings reflect factors that are very close to the factors used in seeding and therefore RANKINGS and SEEDING correlate - it may look like they are used without them actually being used - right?
this is my understanding
10/22/2011 2:38 PM
johnfoppe
Posts: 110 (0)
Hall of Famer
464 1
Prospect
I just got a #3 seed in D2 Knight with the 21st ranked team and a 5 RPI/15 SOS.  I was unranked most of the season and had a couple bad conference losses.  I pleasantly surprised by the 3.  Expected a 5 or 6.
10/22/2011 4:16 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by dacj501 on 10/22/2011 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mamxet on 10/22/2011 1:31:00 PM (view original):
so far as I can tell, it seems to me that rankings are not literally USED in seedings BUT rankings reflect factors that are very close to the factors used in seeding and therefore RANKINGS and SEEDING correlate - it may look like they are used without them actually being used - right?
this is my understanding
That's what I told the cburton but he insists that rankings is the reason he didn't get a 4 seed, and instead, is given a 7. 
10/22/2011 6:34 PM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
If its not that then what. You still haven't explained why GC got a 4 and I got a 7 outside of a CT win in the 8th best conference. The biggest difference between us is ranking.

But as stated above I play a 15 so it worked out. But this is a darn good 15.
10/22/2011 7:41 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Tourney Seeding. Wow 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.