"Improved" selection does not seem improved at all Topic

luckyt
Posts: 29 (0)
Veteran
18
Prospect
Posted by girt25 on 12/4/2011 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 4:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 12/4/2011 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by naturopath on 12/4/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by seble on 12/4/2011 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a closer look at the logic using the Naismith data.  The move away from just using RPI was intentional though.  It's a limited metric of how good a team really is, and can be very misleading.  To me there's a big difference between winning/losing by 20+ points vs. winning/losing by 3 or 4 points.  Maybe there's a little too much weight on opponent strength.

I'll also see what I can do about spreading out teams from the same conference, but that's not easy to do when some conferences have 7 or 8 teams in.
My RPI 54 team at Cal in Naismith was 19-9. We beat NT-team UCLA twice, and had a better SOS than South Carolina, who at 17-11, had a worse SOS and a 77-RPI and made the national tourney.  I'm sorry seble, but something's wrong with the fix and it seems really $hitty to me, and I think you may have just lost a longtime HD customer in me.
I Agree.  I have 3 teams and I don't know if I want to renew them now.  I really don't like how it was dropped on us without giving us time to prepare for it.  I say scrap it for now ,explain it ,and then set a date when it will be implemented so you canprepare for it.
I'm asking because I really don't know -- how would you have prepared differently for it?
Scheduling.   I would of done my schedule different.
Right, I get that part. I'm just wondering how you think it would behoove you to change your schedule based on this change.

because it's a whole new format.   this is changing the rules in the middle of the game.  When I made the schedule it was with the old system in mind.  If I would of known about the changes I would of done things differently. 

12/4/2011 8:04 PM
kcsczech
Posts: 3 (0)
Hall of Famer
67
Prospect
I am not too sure on this new system either... my 24th RPI team ended up as an 11th seed, ouch... and, the other 2 teams that made the tournament from my conference will meet up in the 2nd round if both win... something does seem a bit off here.
12/4/2011 8:07 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
The "X team has X RPI and got screwed" arguments are unpersuasive.  People have simply become too reliant on RPI as the presumptive S-curve, but RPI really isn't a reliable basis for seeding, either.

I certainly agree that the eye test renders RPI somewhat useless, and that subjective metric is unavailable to us is computer basketball land.  That, however, doesn't make RPI any less flawed.  

There seem to be obvious problems with the new seeding system (my worlds haven't been to the post-season yet, but from what I hear...), but that the seeding doesn't follow RPI closely enough really isn't a bad thing, in my opinion.

Although I do agree with whoever said (girt, I think) that over-reliance on RPI provides a comfort system for those who like absolute transparency.  Then again, as OR said, if seble made the new formula available (hopefully getting away from margin of victory), that would probably accomplish the same result.
12/4/2011 9:14 PM (edited)
milkamania
Posts: 295 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 201 1
Rookie
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has a complaint.  I got a 3 seed in D2 Naismith, and if I win round one, I get a very good Puerto Rico team from my conference in rd 2.  As hard as it is to beat a good team 3 times in one year, I am not happy about that.  And if I get to the elite 8, the #1 seed is from my conference as well.  In another bracket, there is also a 2nd round matchup possible between conference mates. 

Regarding margin of victory, it is used in tourney selection.  When a mid major loses a close game at a Big 6 school, that is considered a positive on their resume.  However, a Kentucky winning by 55 against a scrub D1 school isn't considered anything but a win.  I dont know if the system can differentiate, and if not, it probably shouldn't be a factor.
12/4/2011 9:06 PM
naturopath
Posts: 255 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 286 237 10
Prospect
Posted by girt25 on 12/4/2011 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by naturopath on 12/4/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by seble on 12/4/2011 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a closer look at the logic using the Naismith data.  The move away from just using RPI was intentional though.  It's a limited metric of how good a team really is, and can be very misleading.  To me there's a big difference between winning/losing by 20+ points vs. winning/losing by 3 or 4 points.  Maybe there's a little too much weight on opponent strength.

I'll also see what I can do about spreading out teams from the same conference, but that's not easy to do when some conferences have 7 or 8 teams in.
My RPI 54 team at Cal in Naismith was 19-9. We beat NT-team UCLA twice, and had a better SOS than South Carolina, who at 17-11, had a worse SOS and a 77-RPI and made the national tourney.  I'm sorry seble, but something's wrong with the fix and it seems really $hitty to me, and I think you may have just lost a longtime HD customer in me.
Naturo, I would send a ticket and ask them to explain why SC made it over you.

Keep in mind that under the old system, you probably wouldn't have made it, either at 54 rpi and 3-6 vs the rpi top 50.

Does it look to me at first glance like you were more deserving than SC? Yes. Is this something that I think is even remotely worth quitting HD over? Hardly. But of course everyone has their own opinion and threshold there.
Thanks girt, I did send that ticket in.  I've been enjoying this game a lot less since the big 2010 update anyway, so this was more of a last straw, not the whole reason I would quit. I've met some great guys here so I'll definitely miss the cameraderie. 

It's gotten much harder for Fastbreak/press teams to be consistent, and with the importance of formation IQ, I've never liked the idea of making my teams such for a few seasons while I make the switch to other O and D sets. seble had said they were trying to phase out FB and press and offensive and defensive sets anyway.  I feel like these sets have been prejudiced ever since that last big update over a year ago.

I was more ****** off that South Carolina and Florida made it in ahead of us, rather than thinking I should have been an automatic at RPI of 54.  Like I said though, this was just what pushed me off the fence.
12/4/2011 9:32 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 12/4/2011 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 4:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 12/4/2011 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by naturopath on 12/4/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by seble on 12/4/2011 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a closer look at the logic using the Naismith data.  The move away from just using RPI was intentional though.  It's a limited metric of how good a team really is, and can be very misleading.  To me there's a big difference between winning/losing by 20+ points vs. winning/losing by 3 or 4 points.  Maybe there's a little too much weight on opponent strength.

I'll also see what I can do about spreading out teams from the same conference, but that's not easy to do when some conferences have 7 or 8 teams in.
My RPI 54 team at Cal in Naismith was 19-9. We beat NT-team UCLA twice, and had a better SOS than South Carolina, who at 17-11, had a worse SOS and a 77-RPI and made the national tourney.  I'm sorry seble, but something's wrong with the fix and it seems really $hitty to me, and I think you may have just lost a longtime HD customer in me.
I Agree.  I have 3 teams and I don't know if I want to renew them now.  I really don't like how it was dropped on us without giving us time to prepare for it.  I say scrap it for now ,explain it ,and then set a date when it will be implemented so you canprepare for it.
I'm asking because I really don't know -- how would you have prepared differently for it?
Scheduling.   I would of done my schedule different.
Right, I get that part. I'm just wondering how you think it would behoove you to change your schedule based on this change.

because it's a whole new format.   this is changing the rules in the middle of the game.  When I made the schedule it was with the old system in mind.  If I would of known about the changes I would of done things differently. 

Lucky, you're still not answering the question.

I understand that you're starting you would've done things totally different -- I'm asking how. If you would've known, what is it exactly that you would've done differently?
12/4/2011 10:45 PM
hackerhog
Posts: 984 (0)
Hall of Famer
192
Prospect
Posted by kcsczech on 12/4/2011 8:07:00 PM (view original):
I am not too sure on this new system either... my 24th RPI team ended up as an 11th seed, ouch... and, the other 2 teams that made the tournament from my conference will meet up in the 2nd round if both win... something does seem a bit off here.
THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN! FIX THIS SEBLE! BACKOUT YOUR CODE ASAP!
12/4/2011 10:53 PM
hackerhog
Posts: 984 (0)
Hall of Famer
192
Prospect
No team should EVER play a member from their own conference in the NT before the Elite 8 ever!

Ever!

It's simply that simple.
12/4/2011 10:55 PM
hackerhog
Posts: 984 (0)
Hall of Famer
192
Prospect
I didn't think there was a problem with who got to the NT before update anyway. I questioned the RPI some because yes, I did find it disturbing that a 1 point loss to one team wasn't valued more than a 31 point loss to the same team. Most formulas that figure margin of victory set a cutoff at 13 points. Hopefully WIS is doing some of that. But margin of victory should be more of a power rating thing... not an RPI thing... i.e. it should factor in who's in the Top 25 of the voters, not who's in the Top 25 of RPI.
12/4/2011 11:00 PM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro

In the BCS computer polls, didn't the NCAA select systems that DON'T consider margin-of-victory? . If I recall, including margin-of-victory was an automatic disqualification for those systems.

12/4/2011 11:05 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 668 3
Pro
. . you are using the BCS as an example to be FOLLOWED?
12/4/2011 11:08 PM
hackerhog
Posts: 984 (0)
Hall of Famer
192
Prospect
Posted by alblack56 on 12/4/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):

In the BCS computer polls, didn't the NCAA select systems that DON'T consider margin-of-victory? . If I recall, including margin-of-victory was an automatic disqualification for those systems.

that is correct. Jeff Sagarin (who used margin of victory in his ratings since he started doing them) had to come up with a new system to be included in the BCS. His old system (still used by Vegas to set lines) uses margin of victory, but I believe it cuts it off at a certain number for each sport. I'm pretty sure this cutoff is 13 for football, not sure about basketball. His new system, with no margin of victory, is used by the BCS.
12/4/2011 11:09 PM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
Posted by hackerhog on 12/4/2011 10:55:00 PM (view original):
No team should EVER play a member from their own conference in the NT before the Elite 8 ever!

Ever!

It's simply that simple.
What are you talking about?

It happens in real life.  They try not to do it, but it happens.  Marquette and Syracuse played in the second round of the NCAAs last year.
12/4/2011 11:31 PM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
Posted by hackerhog on 12/4/2011 11:00:00 PM (view original):
I didn't think there was a problem with who got to the NT before update anyway. I questioned the RPI some because yes, I did find it disturbing that a 1 point loss to one team wasn't valued more than a 31 point loss to the same team. Most formulas that figure margin of victory set a cutoff at 13 points. Hopefully WIS is doing some of that. But margin of victory should be more of a power rating thing... not an RPI thing... i.e. it should factor in who's in the Top 25 of the voters, not who's in the Top 25 of RPI.
RPI is RPI.  Margin of victory does not factor into RPI.  Seble didn't change RPI.
12/4/2011 11:32 PM
kujayhawk
Posts: 396 (0)
Hall of Famer
203 89
Rookie
Posted by alblack56 on 12/4/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):

In the BCS computer polls, didn't the NCAA select systems that DON'T consider margin-of-victory? . If I recall, including margin-of-victory was an automatic disqualification for those systems.

Yes, but only for reasons related to sportsmanship.  It would have been unfair (NCAA opinion) to have teams running up scores.

Everybody that runs those types of systems acknowledged the ruling was a step backward in determining the best teams.

Unless seble is set to institute a personality rating that includes factors like hurt feelings, I'd say that including margin of victory is a good thing.  If it is done properly is a separate question.
12/4/2011 11:37 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6|7 Next ▸
"Improved" selection does not seem improved at all 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.