Posted by coach_billyg on 1/13/2011 5:30:00 PM (view original):
isack - "Frankly, RPI is brutally flawed in real life, but it's probably the best they can do here. " - agree on the first part, strongly disagree on the second.

Fair enough.  Thoughts on what else to use?  There's no eye test in HD, despite colonels' contention to the contrary.

reinsel, I'd be interested if you could offer up the team in front of you who least deserved it, and compare Florida's resume to theirs. Because I can't figure out why you were underseeded, either, and I think that would be an interesing exercise and perhaps shed some light on the criteria.

The thing about the NT, particularly in DI, is that it's all about matchups. I think it's very common for a worse-seeded team to have what is clearly a much easier road than a better-seeded team. Auburn and Georgia in your conference are good examples -- they are the worst-seeded teams in your conference, but both drew sims in the first round, while you drew a very strong BC team that took their expected lumps in the brutal ACC. Or when a small conference school w. a gaudy record who hasn' t beaten anyone gets a significantly better seed than (for instance) a team like BC, when everyone knows that BC is a much tougher opponent.

Considering that we're all here to try to make the tournament and win championships, it is a bit disheartening that such a key area is often so far off. But I've managed to adopt a more zen approach to it, figuring that some seasons it'll help you and others it'll hurt, and overall it'll even out.

The Dude abides.

Posted by zbrent716 on 1/13/2011 5:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 1/13/2011 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Yeah.  I think the ideal non-con for any team in D3 (it appears that's what you play, zbrent) is full of second-tier humans in ghost conferences.  I don't really like to do that because it's not fun, but that's one way to end up with a strong SoS and still win a lot games.

I don't know how the seeding process works, but it really shouldn't consider both SoS and RPI, because then they're basically double dipping on SoS.  Frankly, RPI is brutally flawed in real life, but it's probably the best they can do here. 

That's interesting.

I've definitely been doing it "wrong" in that (except this past season when someone was babysitting the term during scheduling) I've basically looked over the teams that I thought had the best chance to win the NT and scheduled them if possible. It rarely includes teams in ghost conferences, so that explains why my SOS/RPI is never among the elite before the post-season begins, even if I had decent success against really good teams/coaches.

That said, the "ideal" doesn't seem like nearly as much fun, so I guess I'll keep doing it my way (but at least now I know why I end up where I am - thanks!)

Funny, last week I randomly took a look back at a couple of my earlier DII/DIII dynasties and it was crazy how insane I used to schedule. I had a bunch of different instances where I had 9-10 losses and finished #1 or #2 rpi, which I think is pretty unheard of.

But that was back when there were plenty of DII/DIII worlds filled with long-time, outstanding coaches ... in Allen I had standing home-and-home dates with OR, rails, joelhall, bluespruce, etc. every season. Plenty of losses, but non-con was a blast. And almost every season I ended up playing at least one team in the NT that I'd already faced in non-con, sometimes two or three.

(I still remember losing to OR's Methodist squad during the regular season and being incredibly excited when I returned the favor in the S16 ... OR, that was during the multiple double team era, and I believe it was the same season that maj beat me in the DII title game, I think he was coaching a team in TX.)

Florida isn't ranked.

Neither is USC that was 9 seeded with a 19-9 record and #18 RPI.

Oklahoma seems an undeserving 3 seed at 24-4, 23 RPI.  And is Texas Christian at 27-2, 22 RPI.  Seems a bit odd that they'd be on the same seed line with #4 RPI Duke.  But 23-7 Duke is not ranked while TCU is #10 and OU is #13.

A five seed for Youngstown State doesn't seem right either with a 25-4 record and 30 RPI.  But they are ranked #17.

Look at the D2 overseeds (Lincoln Memorial - 3 seed, 25-4, 20 RPI & Virginia State - 5 seed, 27-2, 26 RPI) and you'll see that Lincoln Memorial is ranked #10 and Virginia State is #13.

Meanwhile in D2, St. Mary's is on the 6 seed line at 24-5, 17 RPI and so is Wheeling Jesuit at 24-5, 18 RPI.   But St Mary's is only ranked #19 and Wheeling Jesuit is at #25.

In D2, Lincoln lost in the CT and St. Mary's and Wheeling Jesuit won theirs.

In D3, Bowdoin seems a tad overseeded at #3 with a 24-5, 15 RPI resume until you look at the #13 ranking.

Goucher would seem to deserve better than a #5 with 20-9, 12 RPI but they aren't ranked.

As the D3 sixth seeds you have Louisiana (24-5, 16 RPI), Medgar Evers (24-5, 33 RPI), Chestnut Hill (21-6, 30 RPI), and Maine Maritime Academy (20-8, 10 RPI).  Neither Louisiana or Maine Maritime are ranked but Medgar Evers is ranked #23 and Chestnut Hill is #20.

Posted by isack24 on 1/13/2011 5:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 1/13/2011 5:30:00 PM (view original):
isack - "Frankly, RPI is brutally flawed in real life, but it's probably the best they can do here. " - agree on the first part, strongly disagree on the second.

Fair enough.  Thoughts on what else to use?  There's no eye test in HD, despite colonels' contention to the contrary.

hmmm. maybe i should pony up and put my money where my mouth is... and write a top 25 or seeding myself. i have thought about doing it a few times but figured i would never be diligent enough to run the thing every day (in the case of top 25) or just before the NT (in the case of seeding). so i figured it would sort of be a waste. but if i ever wrote my own basketball sim, id already have that done, so maybe its worth it?

Posted by kujayhawk on 1/13/2011 7:06:00 PM (view original):
Florida isn't ranked.

Neither is USC that was 9 seeded with a 19-9 record and #18 RPI.

Oklahoma seems an undeserving 3 seed at 24-4, 23 RPI.  And is Texas Christian at 27-2, 22 RPI.  Seems a bit odd that they'd be on the same seed line with #4 RPI Duke.  But 23-7 Duke is not ranked while TCU is #10 and OU is #13.

A five seed for Youngstown State doesn't seem right either with a 25-4 record and 30 RPI.  But they are ranked #17.

Look at the D2 overseeds (Lincoln Memorial - 3 seed, 25-4, 20 RPI & Virginia State - 5 seed, 27-2, 26 RPI) and you'll see that Lincoln Memorial is ranked #10 and Virginia State is #13.

Meanwhile in D2, St. Mary's is on the 6 seed line at 24-5, 17 RPI and so is Wheeling Jesuit at 24-5, 18 RPI.   But St Mary's is only ranked #19 and Wheeling Jesuit is at #25.

In D2, Lincoln lost in the CT and St. Mary's and Wheeling Jesuit won theirs.

In D3, Bowdoin seems a tad overseeded at #3 with a 24-5, 15 RPI resume until you look at the #13 ranking.

Goucher would seem to deserve better than a #5 with 20-9, 12 RPI but they aren't ranked.

As the D3 sixth seeds you have Louisiana (24-5, 16 RPI), Medgar Evers (24-5, 33 RPI), Chestnut Hill (21-6, 30 RPI), and Maine Maritime Academy (20-8, 10 RPI).  Neither Louisiana or Maine Maritime are ranked but Medgar Evers is ranked #23 and Chestnut Hill is #20.

kujay, you've definitely hit your head on part of the problem -- valuing W-L record against fairly crappy competition over a slightly worse W-L record vs. tough competition. It's the opposite of how the real-life selection committee views things. (It's not whether the teams are ranked or not, it's that the ranking looks very heavily at W-L, so you'll see some very clear commonalities.)

Posted by girt25 on 1/13/2011 6:42:00 PM (view original):
reinsel, I'd be interested if you could offer up the team in front of you who least deserved it, and compare Florida's resume to theirs. Because I can't figure out why you were underseeded, either, and I think that would be an interesing exercise and perhaps shed some light on the criteria.

The thing about the NT, particularly in DI, is that it's all about matchups. I think it's very common for a worse-seeded team to have what is clearly a much easier road than a better-seeded team. Auburn and Georgia in your conference are good examples -- they are the worst-seeded teams in your conference, but both drew sims in the first round, while you drew a very strong BC team that took their expected lumps in the brutal ACC. Or when a small conference school w. a gaudy record who hasn' t beaten anyone gets a significantly better seed than (for instance) a team like BC, when everyone knows that BC is a much tougher opponent.

Considering that we're all here to try to make the tournament and win championships, it is a bit disheartening that such a key area is often so far off. But I've managed to adopt a more zen approach to it, figuring that some seasons it'll help you and others it'll hurt, and overall it'll even out.

The Dude abides.

Dalt ~ I kind of did this, and didn't want to single anyone out, but most of them had the following in common:

Won their CT (we all know WAY too much weight on this) and better overall record. 
The SOS argument for Florida didn't help me much, since, its mostly the absence of the bad (200-350 rpi), rather than the presence of the very best (although I did play 11 top 50 games). 

So, I think my problem was too many losses and too many wins over the 50-200 rpi teams. 

Posted by reinsel on 1/13/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 1/13/2011 6:42:00 PM (view original):
reinsel, I'd be interested if you could offer up the team in front of you who least deserved it, and compare Florida's resume to theirs. Because I can't figure out why you were underseeded, either, and I think that would be an interesing exercise and perhaps shed some light on the criteria.

The thing about the NT, particularly in DI, is that it's all about matchups. I think it's very common for a worse-seeded team to have what is clearly a much easier road than a better-seeded team. Auburn and Georgia in your conference are good examples -- they are the worst-seeded teams in your conference, but both drew sims in the first round, while you drew a very strong BC team that took their expected lumps in the brutal ACC. Or when a small conference school w. a gaudy record who hasn' t beaten anyone gets a significantly better seed than (for instance) a team like BC, when everyone knows that BC is a much tougher opponent.

Considering that we're all here to try to make the tournament and win championships, it is a bit disheartening that such a key area is often so far off. But I've managed to adopt a more zen approach to it, figuring that some seasons it'll help you and others it'll hurt, and overall it'll even out.

The Dude abides.

Dalt ~ I kind of did this, and didn't want to single anyone out, but most of them had the following in common:

Won their CT (we all know WAY too much weight on this) and better overall record. 
The SOS argument for Florida didn't help me much, since, its mostly the absence of the bad (200-350 rpi), rather than the presence of the very best (although I did play 11 top 50 games). 

So, I think my problem was too many losses and too many wins over the 50-200 rpi teams. 

Kind of interesting, because you've been such a vocal proponent of a very particular kind of scheduling in order to make the NT, but may be realizing that it has the potential to hurt your seeding once you get there. Quite a dilemma for my fellow Badger. Under other circumstances I'd wish you luck tonight, but, you know ...

Posted by gillispie on 1/13/2011 5:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 1/13/2011 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 1/13/2011 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/13/2011 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 1/13/2011 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps related, perhaps off-topic - 

I have no experience at D1, but how in the world is your SOS 22 with that schedule? Do coaches not schedule up OOC in D1?

For comparison, the #21 SOS in Tark D3 (#22 is a sim) played 4 top 20 teams in OOC (2 home, 2 away) and only 1 team with an RPI over 100 (119). Even counting conference play, you had only 2 top 20 teams (1 home, 1 away) and you had a couple of relatively weak teams (by comparison) in just your OOC (162, 220, 143, 173).

What you played just doesn't seem like it should be a #22 SOS. Perhaps the calculation is done differently for seeding and the (weaker to my eye) schedule reflects that? (Though even given that, a 10 does seem low.)

SOS is based on wins. 2/3 your opponents win total + 1/3 your opponents' opponent's win total. Home/away affect your RPI via home wins count less than away wins, and home loss counts more than away loss. 

This guy's schedule is good for SOS in that his opponents are almost all above .500, with the worst 2 teams at 7-20. Pac Lutheran's SOS is being dragged down by by those 0-12, 4-8, and 5-8 teams he just faced in conference. 

SOS is based *solely* on wins? That is, the quality of those wins (either by ranking, RPI, or something else) doesn't matter?

If that's the case, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to "game" the system and get yourself a high SOS without playing any truly good teams (upperclass-laden sims with weak vs.-sim schedules).

that is reinsel's strategy, he tries to get everyone else in our conference to do that every season as well.

ding ding ding!

i try to get everyone else in my conference to do that every season too :)

That is what we do in iba div II. We might be moving to div I - we were in div III together and did it there as well. We would def do it in div I.

Girt, I do think that maybe there is a difference in what type of schedule is best for making the NT vs. getting a good seed.  I've always gone for the making the NT schedule and usually end up with a 3-4-5 type seed.  This year was a little down (its tough recruiting in a state where there are multiple ACC teams in Allen) so I though maybe a 6, but I guess I learned my lesson. 

Still, I am mostly sad I have to play 785 overall BC as a #7 seed.  I'd rather play some of the 4 seeds and all the 5 seeds that have ratings in the 700-720 range.

Posted by reinsel on 1/13/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 1/13/2011 6:42:00 PM (view original):
reinsel, I'd be interested if you could offer up the team in front of you who least deserved it, and compare Florida's resume to theirs. Because I can't figure out why you were underseeded, either, and I think that would be an interesing exercise and perhaps shed some light on the criteria.

The thing about the NT, particularly in DI, is that it's all about matchups. I think it's very common for a worse-seeded team to have what is clearly a much easier road than a better-seeded team. Auburn and Georgia in your conference are good examples -- they are the worst-seeded teams in your conference, but both drew sims in the first round, while you drew a very strong BC team that took their expected lumps in the brutal ACC. Or when a small conference school w. a gaudy record who hasn' t beaten anyone gets a significantly better seed than (for instance) a team like BC, when everyone knows that BC is a much tougher opponent.

Considering that we're all here to try to make the tournament and win championships, it is a bit disheartening that such a key area is often so far off. But I've managed to adopt a more zen approach to it, figuring that some seasons it'll help you and others it'll hurt, and overall it'll even out.

The Dude abides.

Dalt ~ I kind of did this, and didn't want to single anyone out, but most of them had the following in common:

Won their CT (we all know WAY too much weight on this) and better overall record. 
The SOS argument for Florida didn't help me much, since, its mostly the absence of the bad (200-350 rpi), rather than the presence of the very best (although I did play 11 top 50 games). 

So, I think my problem was too many losses and too many wins over the 50-200 rpi teams. 

so scheduling merely for wins is a bad idea, hopefully you'll talk about this in the SEC conference chat as a counter to all your previous talk.

No I still think scheduling for wins is a good idea.  I'd much much rather make the NT with a bad seed than miss it entirely.

If everyone in the SEC won 9 or 10 noncon games my 12 wins over them would have looked better :)