Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/04/2010I frankly don't see how you can logically accept a 12-16 (2-8 against the top 25) team as the #1 OVERALL seed in the NIT (PI).  You guys all talk about how you like realism...well guess what....this would never ever ever happen in real life and if it did, I would go off myself immediately.  Seriously, would you stand for a #1 OVERALL SEED in the NIT in real life being 12-16?There's no doubt he played the best schedule in D2, none...but they were more unsuccessful against that schedule than they were successful and in their 10 toughest games, they won 2 of them.  Why should a team be rewarded more for being closely UNSUCCESSFUL against a good team rather than being closely SUCCESSFUL against a bad team?  When exactly did winning and losing stop mattering?  That's my question.

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 1/04/2010

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/04/2010I frankly don't see how you can logically accept a 12-16 (2-8 against the top 25) team as the #1 OVERALL seed in the NIT (PI).  You guys all talk about how you like realism...well guess what....this would never ever ever happen in real life and if it did, I would go off myself immediately.  Seriously, would you stand for a #1 OVERALL SEED in the NIT in real life being 12-16?There's no doubt he played the best schedule in D2, none...but they were more unsuccessful against that schedule than they were successful and in their 10 toughest games, they won 2 of them.  Why should a team be rewarded more for being closely UNSUCCESSFUL against a good team rather than being closely SUCCESSFUL against a bad team?  When exactly did winning and losing stop mattering?  That's my question.

it didn't stop mattering. for starters, please recognize how little it matters if the #1 spot in the PIT is accurately seeded. the PIT is fun but the spread from the 1 seed to the last 8 seed is reasonably small, and actual seeding is largely irrelevant. so, if the 40 something rpi team who has a borderline NT rpi gets the #1 overall seed with a poor record, its not a big travesty. much more important is the seeding of the top 25 or so tournament teams.

also, this team was in the tough division of the #1 conference of the world, most likely the hands-down toughest division in the world. and they went 8-8 in conference. to be honest, their chance of beating a strong NT team is a hell of a lot better than the 30 rpi team out of a weak conference with a 20-9 record or so. nobody is saying winning doesn't matter. just that strength of schedule matters, too. if you go .500 in the toughest division in the country, in the toughest conference in the country, you deserve a NT bid in my book. to me, the NT is about who has the highest ceiling. i would say the 12-16 40something rpi team has a better chance of beating #1 because they have played a hell of a lot of tough teams, and have some sense of how to maximize their chance of winning the tough ones, however small. meanwhile, the #30 rpi 20-9 team is likely walking in with the same strategy they used all season. i've seen it a hundred times. i'll take the better ranked, better rpi, less tested team as my opponent every day of the week. the differential in talent of #30 and #50 is fairly small, experience is easily the dominating factor.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/04/2010




it didn't stop mattering. for starters, please recognize how little it matters if the #1 spot in the PIT is accurately seeded. the PIT is fun but the spread from the 1 seed to the last 8 seed is reasonably small, and actual seeding is largely irrelevant. so, if the 40 something rpi team who has a borderline NT rpi gets the #1 overall seed with a poor record, its not a big travesty. much more important is the seeding of the top 25 or so tournament teams. Considering that this team in my ranking would have probably been at best an 8 seed, maybe a 7, but overall lucky to make the field, the difference between seed 1 and seed 28 or so is vast and let's face it, folks would be up in arms in real life, the media, etc. about a 12-16 team getting the #1 overall seed in the NIT...it wouldn't go unnoticed.

also, this team was in the tough division of the #1 conference of the world, most likely the hands-down toughest division in the world. and they went 8-8 in conference. to be honest, their chance of beating a strong NT team is a hell of a lot better than the 30 rpi team out of a weak conference with a 20-9 record or so. nobody is saying winning doesn't matter. just that strength of schedule matters, too. if you go .500 in the toughest division in the country, in the toughest conference in the country, you deserve a NT bid in my book. to me, the NT is about who has the highest ceiling. i would say the 12-16 40something rpi team has a better chance of beating #1 because they have played a hell of a lot of tough teams, and have some sense of how to maximize their chance of winning the tough ones, however small. meanwhile, the #30 rpi 20-9 team is likely walking in with the same strategy they used all season. i've seen it a hundred times. i'll take the better ranked, better rpi, less tested team as my opponent every day of the week. the differential in talent of #30 and #50 is fairly small, experience is easily the dominating factor. Like I said above, 9 of his 12 wins were against RPIs over 100, 3 were over 200 (out of 276 mind you, not 324 and 384 or whatever D1 and D3 are), and 6 of his wins were against sims, which we all know are considerably easier to beat than human beings, and he was only 2-8 against the top 25. When you really objectively look into it, that's a rather weak resume skewed by him scheduling 9 non-con road games to boost his RPI.

I would like to see equal home and road games for everyone in non-con and maybe only be allowed to schedule 5 sims, because I'm looking to pound scrubs on a somewhat yearly basis to achieve winning records year after year, and to be honest, I feel that's a bit disingenuous to the game...scheduling only teams that you know you'll beat...and I'm doing it.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/04/2010good point. HCA is probably the biggest factor in terms of importance in the pit... more than the quality difference between the teams involved. still, i think the majority of coaches would agree +/- 10 spots around the top seed of the pit is not that big of a deal for an unusual case. especially outside d1, where HCA is not that big a factor.

i agree the ranking system is not great, not good either, nor NT/PIT seeding. but, i think it is reasonable enough the vast majority of the time. See, to me, this kind of reasoning just isn't good enough, and I'm not necessarily knocking your statement as much as I am the current ranking process. A ranking system, especially in a game where you get monetary rewards both in and out of game based on tournament placement, should be solid and presumably "accurate" all the time...if it isn't (which it hasn't been judging by the ongoings and your comments) then all in all you really have a shoddy ranking system that needs to be fixed. I know you guys don't like my format(s) and I'm not going to get into it here, but my format would shore up HD rankings...I know that...my real life results from last year prove it. I mean hell look for something/anything new. i don't think great travesties are taking place on anything near a regular basis, and there are certainly many worse examples than this one. I don't care if it happens 1 time or a million times, this kind of nonsense really shouldn't happen AT ALL. I just don't get how you can accept a ranking system that's "not good", and "(not good) for seeding (purposes)" just because its "right" more than 50% of the time.