Posted by zagsrulez on 8/23/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/23/2018 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/22/2018 9:31:00 PM (view original):
No not really. I wasn't around for the transition. But my dynasty term was a bad term I guess. We'll say "established program". When you're ranked high in the pre-season, it's based off your talent level. If you dominate non con against top teams, and your RPI/SOS is 1/1, your talent level isn't changing. You're still a favorite to win the whole thing somewhat. So why drop (significantly)?

But i'm not beating this any longer. I'm not speaking Spanish. You guys know what i'm getting at. Whether anyone agrees or not is fine.

It sounds a little like you hate the RPI and it's use in the selection process.

Well good news, the NCAA agrees with you and has killed the off the RPI. Yay!

And then I just saw this article about "modernizing the selection process". Are you guys thinking what I'm thinking? The NCAA needs to hear about how well an RNG works in HD and maybe that will be how they can decide seeding and bubble teams! Just let the dice roll baby!

No way..I love the RPI so much so that I Googled to check if Benis Iying..sadly he Is telling the truth. GOodbye good ol’ RPI. Hello NET. :(

NET is a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/23/2018 8:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 8/23/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/23/2018 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/22/2018 9:31:00 PM (view original):
No not really. I wasn't around for the transition. But my dynasty term was a bad term I guess. We'll say "established program". When you're ranked high in the pre-season, it's based off your talent level. If you dominate non con against top teams, and your RPI/SOS is 1/1, your talent level isn't changing. You're still a favorite to win the whole thing somewhat. So why drop (significantly)?

But i'm not beating this any longer. I'm not speaking Spanish. You guys know what i'm getting at. Whether anyone agrees or not is fine.

It sounds a little like you hate the RPI and it's use in the selection process.

Well good news, the NCAA agrees with you and has killed the off the RPI. Yay!

And then I just saw this article about "modernizing the selection process". Are you guys thinking what I'm thinking? The NCAA needs to hear about how well an RNG works in HD and maybe that will be how they can decide seeding and bubble teams! Just let the dice roll baby!

No way..I love the RPI so much so that I Googled to check if Benis Iying..sadly he Is telling the truth. GOodbye good ol’ RPI. Hello NET. :(

NET is a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap.

Benis never lies!

And the NET is probably the opposite of hippies. They're actually joining the 21st century. Only took 2 decades.

It seems like its pretty much just like ESPN's BPI with a couple tweaks. Still way better than RPI though.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/23/2018 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/23/2018 6:50:00 PM (view original):
I'm just enjoying the thread and not taking things as serious as some may expect. You can't see emotion from behind a keyboard.

We have you pegged, brother. Can't wiggle your way out of this one.

No wiggling here! My points were off base from the OP. I was serious about my opinions. What I meant about not being serious, was that i'm not clueless on how to fix the issues I have with the game. I can make changes that will make an impact on my seedings. I just don't want to fix them by following the layout of the game now. I want that part of the game fixed at headquarters! Seble can make it better. Not me. Seriously.

I feel my arguments are similar to EE discussions. When people think the answer to fixing issues regarding EEs is just to recruit worse players. What??? That's ridiculous. Seriously.

Seriously guys.

Posted by zagsrulez on 8/22/2018 6:44:00 PM (view original):

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.

LMAO at the idea of Gonzaga being considered a dynasty. I mean....seriously.....Gonzaga.....the school that plays a pansy schedule every year and always finds embarassing ways to lose as a high seed in the tourney. Your threshold for a "dynasty" is incredibly low.

Posted by snafu4u on 8/25/2018 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 8/22/2018 6:44:00 PM (view original):

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.

LMAO at the idea of Gonzaga being considered a dynasty. I mean....seriously.....Gonzaga.....the school that plays a pansy schedule every year and always finds embarassing ways to lose as a high seed in the tourney. Your threshold for a "dynasty" is incredibly low.

Clearly you’re either stupid or you’re trolling, pick one.

I think what he's saying is just that dynasty's are like the Patriots. And the Warriors. Duke in the early 90s. **** like that. Gonzaga can't be considered a dynasty on that level.

What they've been able to do is amazing. But not on the same level as the teams i mentioned

I understand both sides of the argument. Basically what gets Gonzaga a #1 seed IRL is the humans making the selections basically factor in something similar to prestige in the formula for selection and seeding. "Based on the history of this team and coach I am going to move them up the seeding". Coaches like Coach K, Calipari, Few, etc. get those breaks every season. So do teams like UCLA, Syracuse, Gonzaga (currently), Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina.

I think factoring Prestige into bids and seeding in WIS would be a disaster.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 8/26/2018 6:20:00 PM (view original):
I understand both sides of the argument. Basically what gets Gonzaga a #1 seed IRL is the humans making the selections basically factor in something similar to prestige in the formula for selection and seeding. "Based on the history of this team and coach I am going to move them up the seeding". Coaches like Coach K, Calipari, Few, etc. get those breaks every season. So do teams like UCLA, Syracuse, Gonzaga (currently), Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina.

I think factoring Prestige into bids and seeding in WIS would be a disaster.

I think this is perception vs reality. But happy to hear the argument backed up by stats.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 8/26/2018 6:20:00 PM (view original):
I understand both sides of the argument. Basically what gets Gonzaga a #1 seed IRL is the humans making the selections basically factor in something similar to prestige in the formula for selection and seeding. "Based on the history of this team and coach I am going to move them up the seeding". Coaches like Coach K, Calipari, Few, etc. get those breaks every season. So do teams like UCLA, Syracuse, Gonzaga (currently), Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina.

I think factoring Prestige into bids and seeding in WIS would be a disaster.

I think this is the main point of my argument in this thread. Whether it's a good idea, bad idea, right or wrong, I don't know. But this is what I've been getting at the whole time.

Not necessarily prestige only. But more along the lines of, if you can beat the top 10 teams in the country and move so high up in doing so, why should you crash afterwards so far, if you're stomping lesser teams by 40? You've already proven you dominate even the best out there. THIS is why the Gonzaga's and Butler's have gotten high seeds, and deserved them at those times (I'm not a fan of mid-majors at all for the record!)

I know part of the answer to this, is it's not about what my team has done. It's about what other teams around me are doing as well. And I get that. But my argument against that, is when Michigan St starts conference play at #1 in the nation, and the first few games are against, Rutgers, Northwestern, Penn St, Illinois, and Iowa, we don't start dropping them in the rankings and say "well they haven't played anybody lately, we'll bump them back up when they get into tougher games". We just leave them where they are at because of what they've accomplished already.

And being an A+ prestige D2 team, I am a "Michigan St" of D2. And if we don't view prestige in this manner, help me understand what it's purpose is.

If you beat them by 40 and the spread is 60 there is a chance of dropping. Several schools drop for not covering the spread.

Prestige is a HUGE recruiting benefit and tool. Not as big as it used to be but still highly effective. The name on your jersey might get a kid to your school but it should not determine postseason play. That's why even IRL they are moving away from human involvement in the process and going with a stats based approach.

This isn't figure skating where your costume and makeup get you better scores than your actual performance deserves.

TopDog is the Tonya Harding of D2.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 8/27/2018 8:18:00 AM (view original):
If you beat them by 40 and the spread is 60 there is a chance of dropping. Several schools drop for not covering the spread.

Prestige is a HUGE recruiting benefit and tool. Not as big as it used to be but still highly effective. The name on your jersey might get a kid to your school but it should not determine postseason play. That's why even IRL they are moving away from human involvement in the process and going with a stats based approach.

This isn't figure skating where your costume and makeup get you better scores than your actual performance deserves.

I think you are over exaggerating the impact of name recognition. But even if it does exist, this new system they're using wouldn't even remove that. They're just tools that people will use to rank and rate teams. There will still be a human being making the decision at the end of the day. It will still be subjective.

But I'd like to see some stats that backup the claim that a schools name is giving them such better seeds.

Posted by zagsrulez on 8/27/2018 10:02:00 AM (view original):
TopDog is the Tonya Harding of D2.

I'm not sure on the analogy there.... but stay clear of me if I have any large objects that I can swing. Haha. I'll aim straight for the knees

Posted by Benis on 8/27/2018 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 8/27/2018 8:18:00 AM (view original):
If you beat them by 40 and the spread is 60 there is a chance of dropping. Several schools drop for not covering the spread.

Prestige is a HUGE recruiting benefit and tool. Not as big as it used to be but still highly effective. The name on your jersey might get a kid to your school but it should not determine postseason play. That's why even IRL they are moving away from human involvement in the process and going with a stats based approach.

This isn't figure skating where your costume and makeup get you better scores than your actual performance deserves.

I think you are over exaggerating the impact of name recognition. But even if it does exist, this new system they're using wouldn't even remove that. They're just tools that people will use to rank and rate teams. There will still be a human being making the decision at the end of the day. It will still be subjective.

But I'd like to see some stats that backup the claim that a schools name is giving them such better seeds.

https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article139198713.html.

Posted by terps21234 on 8/27/2018 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/27/2018 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 8/27/2018 8:18:00 AM (view original):
If you beat them by 40 and the spread is 60 there is a chance of dropping. Several schools drop for not covering the spread.

Prestige is a HUGE recruiting benefit and tool. Not as big as it used to be but still highly effective. The name on your jersey might get a kid to your school but it should not determine postseason play. That's why even IRL they are moving away from human involvement in the process and going with a stats based approach.

This isn't figure skating where your costume and makeup get you better scores than your actual performance deserves.

I think you are over exaggerating the impact of name recognition. But even if it does exist, this new system they're using wouldn't even remove that. They're just tools that people will use to rank and rate teams. There will still be a human being making the decision at the end of the day. It will still be subjective.

But I'd like to see some stats that backup the claim that a schools name is giving them such better seeds.

https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article139198713.html.

The article gives it a nice try but is pretty lacking on convincing facts that shows the selection committee will give top seeds to power programs or choose bubble teams that are power programs. Some highlights:

"That’s evident this month, with the Power Five (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) getting 26 of 36 at-large bids (72.2 percent) and 31 of 68 slots overall." So less than 50% of all the teams in the tourney are from P5 conferences? But okay most of the at large bids are P5. So? Doesn't say whether other teams were more or less deserving.

"Take last season’s inclusion of 10th-seed Pitt, the lone ACC member that got nowhere in the tournament. Were the 9-9 Panthers really more deserving than an overachiever like Monmouth, a Metro Atlantic member snubbed again this year despite an RPI of 49 and resounding league dominance during the regular season?" Why does it matter whether or not Pitt was able to upset a higher seeded team? Not to mention that team was Wisconsin who then upset #2 seeded Xavier. But at least this section gives something of an argument that another smaller school was more deserving. This could have been a good opportunity to show Monmouth should have been in over Pitt but instead just mentions their RPI and absolutely nothing else. Lazy.

"From 2010 through 2016, the 14 ACC clubs that got into the NCAAs with a seed of eighth or lower – their conference records ranging from 12-6 (UNC in 2013) to 7-9 (Georgia Tech in 2010) – were a combined 16-14 in the tournament. Hardly an impressive showing. Only four of those 14 ACC squads recorded a pair of wins before being eliminated. The anomaly was No. 10 Syracuse in 2016, which reached the Final Four." WTF? Teams seeded 8th or lower are SUPPOSED to lose. What does this prove? I'd say 4 teams winning 2 or more games as underdogs is pretty damn good.

"Still, for all the crowing about top-to-bottom balance, the league’s lowest seeds, No. 9 Virginia Tech and No. 11 Wake Forest, followed form and were immediately eliminated in their openers." Again, what does this prove? An 11 seed losing to a 6 seed? Oh my gosh, that's crazy!

"But Syracuse didn’t make it despite a 10-8 ACC mark and an 18-14 overall record. Certainly in this era of supposed analytic objectivity, the Orange’s 84 RPI and losses to lowly Boston College and St. John’s were detriments." Okay.. this article is supposed to prove big name teams get in when they don't deserve it. How does this help that opinion? They didn't deserve to get in and they didn't.

I don't know. Not much else there that is earth shattering. Nothing that gives any details or facts that the selection committee will favor P5 schools over mid majors. Pretty lazy article honestly.