Posted by skinzfan36 on 12/2/2011 3:49:00 PM (view original):
If you dont think a sub .500 team should even make the PIT then you clearly have never played in a dominant conference before. Most of those under .500 squads from dominant conferences would be the top 1-2 teams in alot of the other conferences. Why should someone be penalized for playing in a really tough conference or scheduling a hard non-conf schedule. The sub .500 rule is great for the NT, but invoking it for the PIT would be taking it way too far.

But there shoudl be no situation in whih a 11 - 17,  or 7 - 20 team should play ANY postseason>  A team that is a bounce or two away in the PT?  ok. I could be convinced to buy that.  but not a 7 - 20 or even 11 - 17 team.  

Posted by Rails on 12/2/2011 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 12/1/2011 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Potential isn't perfect, but I think it's vastly superior to the fully predictable, linear improvement that was literally the same for all players at all positions in all categories. That was way worse, imho.

The vast majority of users who left after it was introduced may differ with that.

I think a lot of that had to do with the terrible initial implementation.

Even if not, people being upset with change doesn't necessarily demand a conclusion that the present is worse than the past. 

Posted by skinzfan36 on 12/2/2011 3:49:00 PM (view original):
If you dont think a sub .500 team should even make the PIT then you clearly have never played in a dominant conference before. Most of those under .500 squads from dominant conferences would be the top 1-2 teams in alot of the other conferences. Why should someone be penalized for playing in a really tough conference or scheduling a hard non-conf schedule. The sub .500 rule is great for the NT, but invoking it for the PIT would be taking it way too far.

In RL, the NIT would bake a 7-20 Duke or Kentucky in a second!   However, I agree that that's too weak a record for our purposes here

Posted by stinenavy on 12/2/2011 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 12/2/2011 2:18:00 PM (view original):
In general the HD population is kind of clamoring for less power for the major conferences, not more. 

I'd love to see a requirement that you have a .500 record in your conference to make the NT.  In my world teams that are 5-11 in conference regularly make the NT, and that drives me nuts.  Their RPI and SOS are great, but they lost so many games.   The way college hoops is today with VCU/Butler/etc. mid majors should be getting more love instead of less.

In Allen, teams that are 7-9 and 6-10 in conference play are making the Elite 8. It makes sense to you to make them play in the PIT?

Yes.  Those teams that are 6-10 in conference and making the Elite 8 are KILLING Allen D1.

The ACC is AVERAGING $60,000 in NT money.  It has to be brought under control, and sending those teams that have 10 wins vs. noncon cupcakes and 4-12 records in conference play to the NIT would be helpful. 

As someone mentioned, that FSU team is as extreme as you'll find.  #1 SOS and still pretty competitive.  Of course wins are important, but there has to be context to each win.  How hard is it to win 20+ games when you never play any decent teams?  Keep in mind that in a lot of cases, HD currently has a lot less parity than real life.  So there are some dynamite teams stuck in killer conferences. 

It's obviously a tough problem to solve, which is why every year in real life there are articles about horrible snubs and surprise picks.  It's not easy to compare teams like FSU, a competitive team in a power conference, with Manhatten, who cleaned up against a weak schedule. 

So really, is it better to reward a team like Manhatten or a team like FSU?  I'm asking sincerely, I'd like to hear some feedback.

I think a potential fix for that problem, seble, is making baseline prestige something that changes over time, and adjusting the baseline prestige for some schools that shouldn't have had their baseline prestige where it is anyway. For example it makes no sense that G'Town and Boston College have the same baseline prestige.

I might be in the minority but I'm having a hard time getting past the fact that if FSU and Manhattan play best of 7, FSU sweeps in 4.  Maybe every once in a while it makes it to game 5.

And I'm somebody who doesn't even have a D1 team and has been complaining about the Allen ACC in the various threads.  I don't like being on the side of the ACC.

FSU's worst loss is probably either to RPI 89 (19-8)  Western Kentucky or RPI 92 (11-17) North Carolina.

Manhattan has losses to the 112, 134, 173, and 178 schools.

Seble, I don't think there is a right answer to your question so I would approach it from what you think is best for the game.  It does seem to be popular opinion that something needs to be done to stop the snowball effect of the power conferences monopolizing the tournaments, tournament money, and the creating an even stronger set of teams the next season.  That would argue for Manhattan.  If you want the best teams to make the postseason, I think FSU is clearly that team.

One bit of nuance I would add to this particular situation is that Manhattan's RPI is awfully low (in a good sense) to miss the postseason.  If Manhattan had a RPI of 80, I wouldn't lose sleep over them missing the postseason.  I actually think you might have two questions instead of just the one you asked.  There might be a simple question of whether or not FSU should ever make the postseason with that record.  And then there is the more nuanced head-to-head comparison with a team like Manhattan.  And maybe it shouldn't be FSU-Manhattan that is the question but instead FSU compared to a 18-19 win team with a RPI of 70-80.

Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 6:40:00 PM (view original):
As someone mentioned, that FSU team is as extreme as you'll find.  #1 SOS and still pretty competitive.  Of course wins are important, but there has to be context to each win.  How hard is it to win 20+ games when you never play any decent teams?  Keep in mind that in a lot of cases, HD currently has a lot less parity than real life.  So there are some dynamite teams stuck in killer conferences. 

It's obviously a tough problem to solve, which is why every year in real life there are articles about horrible snubs and surprise picks.  It's not easy to compare teams like FSU, a competitive team in a power conference, with Manhatten, who cleaned up against a weak schedule. 

So really, is it better to reward a team like Manhatten or a team like FSU?  I'm asking sincerely, I'd like to hear some feedback.

Like you said, this is an extreme situation.  I'm actually on the Florida State side of this situation: they have demonstrated they can beat good teams and have lost to some of the very best teams in the country.  Manhattan has shown they can beat teams that are awful and occasionally lose to teams that are bad.  FSU didn't lose to any bad teams.  I say, since it's not the NT, put FSU in over Manhattan, they have a better chance to win the PIT.  If Manhattan thinks they should be in the discussion to play in the postseason, they should have played somebody, anybody, good in the non-con.  The non-con is where you should prove yourself, and Manhattan did not do that, FSU did, so FSU should be higher than Manhattan.  Obviously, this schedule was made to have a high RPI.  People will now have to adjust their scheduling to actually play good teams as opposed to play crappy sim teams on the road.  

Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 6:40:00 PM (view original):
As someone mentioned, that FSU team is as extreme as you'll find.  #1 SOS and still pretty competitive.  Of course wins are important, but there has to be context to each win.  How hard is it to win 20+ games when you never play any decent teams?  Keep in mind that in a lot of cases, HD currently has a lot less parity than real life.  So there are some dynamite teams stuck in killer conferences. 

It's obviously a tough problem to solve, which is why every year in real life there are articles about horrible snubs and surprise picks.  It's not easy to compare teams like FSU, a competitive team in a power conference, with Manhatten, who cleaned up against a weak schedule. 

So really, is it better to reward a team like Manhatten or a team like FSU?  I'm asking sincerely, I'd like to hear some feedback.

I'll take a shot at this - well 2 or 3 shots actually:

First off, there is no system in any real college sport that gets it right every time, there are always outlier and exceptions.  To think that you are giving us ten seasons every month, for 50 or so seasons making 500 years worth of d1 basketball, that would cover until the year 2500 - if man is still alive - LOL   To think that more issues don't arise means the game's ratings, rankings, and seedings have never been that far off.

Secondly, that being said, by and large, the system should have no mystery, however you do it, just tell us, have a numerical value assigned to each thing you use, and show us.  If Manhattan comes out on top, or FSU, that is fine.  There is no downside to total tranparency in this area, very much unlike how the engine itself works, which I understand the need to be covert.

Third, I'd make my mistake including the better team, not the team with the better record, here is why.  The other 63 (or 31 in the PI) teams have to play them, and it is very unfair to everyone else when a weak team is included, allowing one team to have an advantage that we know of (the team that gets to play the 'bad' team).  Plus, Manhattan can fix the issue by playing a harder schedule.  By and large, winning is already so part of RPI and success, that anyone who wants to play a #1 SOS schedule is already penalized enough.

Compared to other issues, I do not feel passionate about this & I'd be inclined to support either whatever you decide or whatever everyone else wanted, but you asked, so I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 6:40:00 PM (view original):
As someone mentioned, that FSU team is as extreme as you'll find.  #1 SOS and still pretty competitive.  Of course wins are important, but there has to be context to each win.  How hard is it to win 20+ games when you never play any decent teams?  Keep in mind that in a lot of cases, HD currently has a lot less parity than real life.  So there are some dynamite teams stuck in killer conferences. 

It's obviously a tough problem to solve, which is why every year in real life there are articles about horrible snubs and surprise picks.  It's not easy to compare teams like FSU, a competitive team in a power conference, with Manhatten, who cleaned up against a weak schedule. 

So really, is it better to reward a team like Manhatten or a team like FSU?  I'm asking sincerely, I'd like to hear some feedback.

I'm of the opinion that wins are undervalued.  Anyone can have a bad record against the #1 sos.  What does that prove?  It's harder to beat a bad team than it is to lose to a good one.

I also think it would help spread the power away from super conferences if teams don't (almost) automatically get post season time for doing little more than losing to good teams.  Maybe the power conferences be 100% filled anymore, but some of those coaches will set up shop in mid-major conferences with a much better shot at making the NT and establishing powerhouses of their own.

Posted by skinndogg on 12/2/2011 8:21:00 PM (view original):

I really don't want to read through this entire thread, but has any figured out the color codes on the practice plans of the individual players.  I've seen grey? orange?  Black.

its not that complicated, and it has its own thread. Blue is high. Black is what black always was, normal. Red or orange (still looks red to me) is what red used to be, low.

P.S.  But like OR said, this isn't a huge issue for me.  Transparency would be a good thing and people will adjust accordingly regardless of which side of the fence it falls on. 

I would put it on the "What would a new player of the game think' spectrum. . . . and new players mostly WILL NOT understand a 7 - 20 or even 11 - 17 team getting in postseason over a 22 - 5 with a 'goodish' RPI.  And we want to retain new players - not discourage them.  Which is not done by making them either confused or upset because they believe they got gypped.  Even if the 7 - 20 team IS a better team by the ratings. . . . its still not, to them, going to pass the eye or smell test.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/2/2011 9:27:00 PM (view original):
I would put it on the "What would a new player of the game think' spectrum. . . . and new players mostly WILL NOT understand a 7 - 20 or even 11 - 17 team getting in postseason over a 22 - 5 with a 'goodish' RPI.  And we want to retain new players - not discourage them.  Which is not done by making them either confused or upset because they believe they got gypped.  Even if the 7 - 20 team IS a better team by the ratings. . . . its still not, to them, going to pass the eye or smell test.

+1 Agreed.