Another projection report issue Topic

cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
I should start by noting I don't think I have a NT caliber team but DI Rupp has some screwy results.

My ISU team is 17-9 RPI of 66 SOS of 52 no wins over Top 50

Ahead of me is Rice 17-10 RPI of 76 SOS 86 3 wins over Top 50. Not a huge issue here but interesting

But then you go up 10 spots and get Kentucky, Indiana and Washington all 16-11/10 RPI of 80, 64, 58. SOS of 43,48, 24. All with multiple Top 50 wins.

As I said no problem with this just important to note that Top 50 wins mean a lot, about 10 spots worth.

Where my problem is is with the team 1 ahead of me. Does 1 spot matter? Maybe, maybe not but Sac St is ahead of me. 21-6 RPI 71 SOS 174. 2 Top 50 wins. But I beat them twice.

Go ahead say head to head isn't taken into account according to the FAQ. Why the hell isn't it? What better way to judge who is the better team? If we don't take into account head to head, why play the games?
12/11/2011 10:48 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
cburton, I agree that head-to-head should be taken into account in some way, and that if all else is equal (or very close to equal), I could really see that being the deciding factor.

That said, I don't think you have much of a gripe, because you really haven't beaten anyone. You'd certainly have no shot with the real life committee because of it.

(And I know it wasn't a major gripe of yours, but the other teams you mentioned should all pretty clearly be ahead of you, not really even worth mentioning. Basically all of the teams you mentioned, including your own and Sac State, are very close in RPI, so I'd say that RPI would only merit a very small part of my analysis. And I guess my bottom line is that I'd strongly disagree with your characterizing this as an "issue" with the projection reports.)
12/11/2011 11:23 AM (edited)
salag
Posts: 321 (0)
Hall of Famer
114
Prospect

Its about the total body of work. I'd say you two are pretty even. From just your information: He has more wins and less losses. The RPI differential of 66/71 doesn't make much of a difference to me, imho. Two top 50 wins, you have zilch.

Just because you beat him twice, doesn't mean the overall resume is better. You lost at RPI 228 Portland state. Lost by twenty or more in your first three games against three good teams. Sac st is the ONLY top 100 team you beat (outside of a split with Montana, winning at home). I don't see you having a strong argument here.

12/11/2011 11:23 AM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
Again I'm not saying I have a much of a gripe. The first few teams I mentioned were just mentioned to show the importance of Top 50 wins. Like I said I am not a NT team, but I don't think Sac St should be ahead of me. I think you can't say their resume is better than mine as I beat them twice. Had I beat them only once ok, maybe it was a fluke, but I beat them twice I believe that means I am the better team, otherwise why keep score.

Again, I am not saying I am a good team or that I deserve to be in the NT, I am just saying I should be ahead of a team I beat twice.
12/11/2011 11:30 AM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
Judging head-to-head is easy on paper and, if we had a human committee, you'd probably be ahead of Sacromento.   I suspect it's much more difficult to program.   Imagine if you'd beaten Sacramento twice but lost to the team four spots behind you, who'd also lost to Sacramento St.
12/11/2011 12:03 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
The real life committee would not have you ranked ahead of Sac State due to your absence of any quality wins and Sac State having beaten Stanford, IU and EWash.
12/11/2011 12:52 PM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
Then I have a problem with the real life committee too. If you beat somebody twice then by definition you are better than they are
12/11/2011 9:20 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 668 3
Pro

By definition?  Say team a is 24 - 2, having beaten many top fifty and ranked teams. . with two losses to team B, who is 15 - 11, with a few ugly losses and few impressive wins other than the two wins against team A.  Are you really going to say that, by definition, team B is the 'better team' rather than, perhaps, just a team that happens to match up well against team A?

Those two games are an important consideration, but they hardly nullify the rest of the two teams resumes.
 

 

12/11/2011 10:26 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by cburton23 on 12/11/2011 9:20:00 PM (view original):
Then I have a problem with the real life committee too. If you beat somebody twice then by definition you are better than they are
2007 Chicago Bears 7-9
2007 Green Bay Packers 13-3

2007: Chicago Bears 2-0 vs. Green Bay

Are you telling me Chicago was the better team?
12/11/2011 10:50 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by isack24 on 12/11/2011 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cburton23 on 12/11/2011 9:20:00 PM (view original):
Then I have a problem with the real life committee too. If you beat somebody twice then by definition you are better than they are
2007 Chicago Bears 7-9
2007 Green Bay Packers 13-3

2007: Chicago Bears 2-0 vs. Green Bay

Are you telling me Chicago was the better team?
Exactly.
12/11/2011 11:05 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro
Posted by isack24 on 12/11/2011 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cburton23 on 12/11/2011 9:20:00 PM (view original):
Then I have a problem with the real life committee too. If you beat somebody twice then by definition you are better than they are
2007 Chicago Bears 7-9
2007 Green Bay Packers 13-3

2007: Chicago Bears 2-0 vs. Green Bay

Are you telling me Chicago was the better team?
Or this. .

12/11/2011 11:17 PM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
Yes I am.
12/12/2011 10:05 AM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
Posted by cburton23 on 12/12/2011 10:05:00 AM (view original):
Yes I am.

I assume that will also answer the following question: are you just being stubborn?

Beating a team twice doesn't prove that one team is "better" than the other.  They may match up well with that team or they may have simply gotten lucky twice.  But to argue that two head-to-head games are more important than an overall body of 30 games seems pretty obviously wrong.  Is it a factor?  Of course, it's a huge factor.  But it's not an absolute.  Not even close.

12/12/2011 10:56 AM
salag
Posts: 321 (0)
Hall of Famer
114
Prospect
Its the overall body of work cburton. I think your just sour grapes because your not in the NT. So if Indiana doesn't make the NCAA tournament this year and is relegated to the NIT and Kentucky goes on to win the Naitonal Championship...your telling us that Indiana is the better team?

Say North Carolina loses twice to Miami in ACC play, but Miami has no other top 50 wins, a few bad losses, they STILL have the better resume, just because they beat NC twice?

What is it that you don't understand?
12/12/2011 11:17 AM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
Again, I am not saying I belong in the NT, I don't, but there is not a huge difference in these two teams resumes.  When a resume is close what else should be looked at?  If I was 14-14 I could see saying I just got lucky twice, but the resumes are closer than that.

Again, I don't think I should be in the Dance, I am saying I don't think a team I beat twice should be in ahead of me.
12/12/2011 11:29 AM
12345 Next ▸
Another projection report issue Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.