At first blush it appears to me that the rankings are too volatile. One of the numerous examples I saw was a team in my conference that was ranked #3, won their first two games, and dropped to #12.

They were trying to make the rankings more like real life, and that would never happen in real life. Bunch of other examples I've noticed already, anyone agree/disagree?

Yeah. Its kinda true, but I think it will probably stabilize by the time a few more games under its belt. perhaps just freeze the rankings for the first three or four games, then let the adjustments kick in?

Filled out a ticket just to make sure it was as intended and support said it was ok.

I started #2, won a game and dropped to #10, lost and am now unranked (#35). Pretty volatile but to be clear I'm not complaining about it.

(If I had a complaint it would be why the preseason poll had me at #2.)

The rankings should be based on SOS and game results.

I am not sure the goal is to make the ranking more like real life ... but to make them so that at the end of the season, the best teams are making the post season.

The rankings will fluctuate at the beginning of the season, but get better as more games are played and SOS stops shifting greatly. I actually like picking the best teams based on talent at the beginning of the season and shifting that over to performance as the season goes on.

If a team schedules a bunch of SIMs and sub-par teams, regardless of if they are good or not, I think their ranking should drop.

Out of curiosity, hughes, is there anything about HD that you think could be tweaked? Is there anything that you don't think is working well?

They did tweak it (ratings), and I like the tweak.

There are lots of things that could be made better.

There may be a bit too many fouls right now, they may need to dial that back a bit (a little more time needed, IMHO, to make sure).

I think there is too much of a Local impact on recruiting ... they need to do something to equalize long distance recruiting a bit more.

They certainly need to change the way the press is handled, there are more zones than 2-3 and 3-2.

They need to allow you to use your best defender on a different player to lock him down. I might want to have my point guard be able to defend the opponent's SG or SF on Defense, but still have him play PG on offense. Basically, you should be able to have a player defend anyone you want, not tied to the same slot he is playing on offense.

I'm sure I could think of many other changes if I brainstormed for a couple hours .

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 5/27/2010
At first blush it appears to me that the rankings are too volatile. One of the numerous examples I saw was a team in my conference that was ranked #3, won their first two games, and dropped to #12.

They were trying to make the rankings more like real life, and that would never happen in real life. Bunch of other examples I've noticed already, anyone agree/disagree?

Absolutely - - we dropped from #1 to #20 after losing one game to #22.

Yea definitely too volaitle at this point. I was unranked and not even in the others receiving votes and I beat the #5 team by 15 who then dropped completely out of the rankings and are now in the lower half of the others receiving votes. Also saw the #2 team lose by 8 and drop all the way down to 21st.

I think the best way to handle rankings is to have a preseason ranking, but then don't update the rankings until 4 games have been played. In real life the first poll isn't updated after the 1st week of the season, teams start playing games before Thanksgiving but the first in season poll isn't voted on until after the 1st week of December.

I think the new ranking formula is more like other computer-based rankings. There's always a big variance in the early games till there's more comparative data available. That's why the BCS doesn't release their rankings until game 7 or so.

WIS warned us this would be true

Still better than the old rankings system was in my opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted By hughesjr on 5/27/2010They did tweak it (ratings), and I like the tweak.

There are lots of things that could be made better.

There may be a bit too many fouls right now, they may need to dial that back a bit (a little more time needed, IMHO, to make sure).

I think there is too much of a Local impact on recruiting ... they need to do something to equalize long distance recruiting a bit more.

They certainly need to change the way the press is handled, there are more zones than 2-3 and 3-2.

They need to allow you to use your best defender on a different player to lock him down. I might want to have my point guard be able to defend the opponent's SG or SF on Defense, but still have him play PG on offense. Basically, you should be able to have a player defend anyone you want, not tied to the same slot he is playing on offense.

I'm sure I could think of many other changes if I brainstormed for a couple hours .

Sounds good, I was just wondering.

Quote: Originally Posted By ike1024 on 5/27/2010Out of curiosity, hughes, is there anything about HD that you think could be tweaked? Is there anything that you don't think is working well

Hilarious.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 5/27/2010
At first blush it appears to me that the rankings are too volatile. One of the numerous examples I saw was a team in my conference that was ranked #3, won their first two games, and dropped to #12.

They were trying to make the rankings more like real life, and that would never happen in real life. Bunch of other examples I've noticed already, anyone agree/disagree?

I can see where these rankings don't behave like actual human poll rankings, but to be honest, actual human poll rankings aren't really worth a ****, and if I recall correctly, you said so yourself. With that said a computerized human poll is going to look a bit different than IRL and it seems that seble tweaked it to "better" include SOS and what have you, thus its more of a computer ranking than it is a human one. I personally don't care much for the "air traffic control board" method of ranking where if a team loses its first game, it falls behind all 0 loss teams, etc. There's a lot of historical/traditional bias IRL as well.

I also don't care much for these WIS "human" polls either, but it maybe accounts for who beat who by what, and I'm a fan of that logic, and because of what I do, I'd be more ok with a more "volatile" ranking system than the average bear. The human poll concept/ranking is incredibly archaic imo.

I'd say do a pre-season one based on returning talent and last seasons RPI & SOS, and than wait until after game 4.

lol, my team went from unranked (but getting votes) to #7 after 2 wins.

not complaining, just seems crazy.