I'm starting to notice that wins are being weighted more heavily. Anyone know if this is true?

I understand the need to get away from RPI-specific seeding. In real life it makes perfect sense because RPI is a flawed metric and you can actually watch teams play and momentum build. But this is a sim engine. It doesn't have momentum. It doesn't have a rating for team chemistry. There needs to be a set way to determine seeds and wins shouldn't be it.

Absolutely 100% wins are weighted more heavily.

Whatever caused me to run up against your conference mate in a 10/7 game I am against

Quote: Originally Posted By mjp8 on 12/03/2009Whatever caused me to run up against your conference mate in a 10/7 game I am against

Did you see that 16 I have to play? That's like the best 16 ever.

Tough draw for you. mm is a great coach and that team is very good. You both got screwed there.

Well if you dont like RPI and don't like wins, what should we use? Losses to good teams? I think rewarding a 25-1 team with a 13 RPI over a 18-8 team with 10 away games and a 7 RPI is a good thing.

Quote: Originally Posted By reinsel on 12/03/2009Well if you dont like RPI and don't like wins, what should we use? Losses to good teams? I think rewarding a 25-1 team with a 13 RPI over a 18-8 team with 10 away games and a 7 RPI is a good thing

I'm not trying to be an ***, but that's not what I said. I said that RPI isn't a good metric in RL because it's flawed and we can actually watch games and see how good teams are, how they play.

In HD, it's better than wins. Your example is fine, I agree, but it's more drastic than that.

I agree that in RL there is the ability to watch teams, but HD doesn't have that luxury.

Unless I misunderstand your first post, you acknowledge that RPI should not be the literal seeding mechanism, and then say that wins shouldn't be the next thing the engine looks at.

If you don't think wins are the 2nd thing the engine should look at, what should it look at?

Rails has made this point before, and I agree: The difference between a team that's 40 rpi and 48 rpi is basically insignificant. You have to introduce other factors to make a meaningful decision.

Now, the question is what factors and how they should be weighted. And of course the other problem is that it's very hard for them to get this right. But isack is right, rpi is certainly a flawed metric. I don't think there's ever going to be a perfect solution. I think the bigger problem is the expectations of some who expect everything to more-or-less fall in line with rpi, which isn't and shouldn't be the case.

(And it's worth noting that HD is much truer to rpi than the real-life committee is.)

I agree with you girt, RPI is manipulatable, and doesn't take into account if you beat someone by 1 in double OT or if I blow them out by 40.

But I think favoring wins (as the current system CLEARLY does) is a good thing.

This helps the lower level teams, at the expense of the Power conferences, sure, but I think HD is more fun when the little guys have some help vs. the big boys, and it gives the power 6 teams incentives to play the small conference teams and not just a really tough schedule between each other.

Quote: Originally Posted By reinsel on 12/04/2009
Unless I misunderstand your first post, you acknowledge that RPI should not be the literal seeding mechanism, and then say that wins shouldn't be the next thing the engine looks at.

If you don't think wins are the 2nd thing the engine should look at, what should it look at?

No, I didn't say that wins shouldn't be second. I said it shouldn't be weighted as heavily. Wins are so easily manipulated in this game that they shouldn't be weighted significanly more heavily than record vs. 10- 25/50/100, because those are mostly humans.

Maybe....that would be a valid point. But how to compare? Is 2-0 vs. the top 50 better or worse than 5-3?

It's just different. You have to look at the overall picture, I suppose. But I wouldn't say as a blanket statement that 29-0 with no games vs. the top 100 is better than 22-7 with a 15-7 recprd vs. top 100. The latter team might be better, but it certainly hasn't proven it. The problem in HD is that we really have no idea which team is better without looking at the ratings, which we shouldn't do. Really, 29-0 isn't that difficult to attain if you schedule bottom-end sims and play in a crap conference with no other good teams. I don't know that I have thought of a good solution, I just don't agree with the current system.