Not complaining at all -  I was somewhat surprised that my Hanover team in Tark did not get a 1 seed in the NT.  My SOS was kind of crappy compared to a lot of teams but I was ranked #1 most of the year and went undefeated.  It seems that in real life most teams that finish the season #1 and undefeated would get a 1 seed.  So it seems that the game prefers scheduling really hard and maybe taking a couple losses to having an SOS around 40-50 but winning all the games.  

I don't think there is a big difference at all between a 1 or 2 seed so it doesn't matter, I was just curious as to what everyone thinks.  And I will probably lose my opening game now for posting this.

I was surprised you didn't get a #1 seed either bhizzy. I ended up as a #4 seed and I am playing the team that was listed as the last under "last four in", how does that make sense? Wouldn't that mean he would be a #16 seed playing a #1 instead of a #13 playing a #4?

The "last four in" refers to at large bids, and not worse teams from crappy conferences who got auto bids. You probably should have got a one seed tho, bhizzy.

Ahh I didn't think of that, didn't know the game took that into account.

Manchester, Bluffton and Defiance, having to play them each 2X really put a hurting on the SOS.

bhizzy, the problem is how many awful teams you played, but in conference and out. If those teams were mediocre instead you would've easily gotten a 1 seed. I would just suggest that you're more judicious re: who you schedule in the future ...

I don't think his schedule is that bad... 

5-0 top 0-25 RPI
6-0 50-100 RPI 
4-0 vs top 25 ranked teams

I think if a team in real life played that schedule they would get a #1 seed.
 

Posted by gvsujulius on 4/17/2012 8:59:00 AM (view original):

I don't think his schedule is that bad... 

5-0 top 0-25 RPI
6-0 50-100 RPI 
4-0 vs top 25 ranked teams

I think if a team in real life played that schedule they would get a #1 seed.
 

I don't necessarily disagree. But you're missing my point. It's the bad teams he played that are weighing down his overall resume in the eyes of the sim:

He played rpi's #201, 272, 315, 204, 262, 319, 334, 214, 262, 319, 334. That's 11 of his 26 regular season games against teams ranging from bad to rancid. And, right or wrong, that's what kept him from getting the #1 seed. Knowing he's in a weak conference, if he'd just scheduled tougher in non-con I think he would've gotten it without much problem.

the PPR report is updated daily after the NC games are completed.  So it's easy to track how you're, umm, tracking for NT seed purposes.

Our conf was actually ranked 4-5 in terms of rpi so not too bad.  But yea I think I definitely underscheduled in terms of non conf which killed me and the projection report pretty much always had me at 5-6, just outside of a 1 seed.  I just thought it was interesting that in the polls I was #1.  I was kind of assuming this, but it seems the rankings don't hold any weight, where as in real life it seems the overall rankings more closely resemble the seeds.  Also, Denison had 4 losses and lost to an unranked Wabash in their conf final and got a 1 seed (however they had the 2 SOS) and I was undefeated and beat a #18thish Westminster team in my conf final. Seems in RL the conf tourny finals also often play a role in 1 v 2 seedings. 

I think, based on what I know (I'm not in that world) you did deserve the 1 seed.

It's not that rankings don't play a role, it's just they're only one factor.
In real life the rankings aren't any closer in a meaningful way. The committee still routinely penalizes teams with gaudy records who don't beat enough quality competition (but may be ranked highly), and rewards teams that play a tough schedule and have a few more losses.

Thanks girt and honestly the teams that got 1 seeds are extremely good and probably deserve it more than me anyways.  I was just curious to see some opinions on the situation