So, my Maryland team just got a #1 seed, which is great. But looking to the second round, I have to face #9 Syracuse (assuming we both win). Our team has the second highest team rating at 784. Syracuse is #3 at 782. This kind of matchup seems to happen a lot more in 3.0. I believe it is because of all of the promises that have been made, so teams play with not their best lineup for most of the season. But at tournament time, it's like a different set of teams to a big degree.

Don't see anything wrong here. They have 8 losses and a weak non conf schedule. You are also putting too much stock into the overall rating. You will prob be an 8 pt favorite if you meet next round.

It does. I went 14-17 a season at UMass, lost all season and went on to win the CT and give Syracuse a game in the first round. Promises tend to change lineups but you can't do without in recruiting.

No, no chapel. Comrade Benis has categorically proven, categorically, that seeding is important.

I agree, chapel. One of my last seasons at DII Grand Canyon, I was a #1 seed. I played the best damn 16 seed I have ever seen and lost. It was my fault for losing but there was no way that was a 16 seed.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 6/3/2018 7:48:00 PM (view original):
No, no chapel. Comrade Benis has categorically proven, categorically, that seeding is important.

Yup. Seeding is important.

I'd have to agree with Chapel, just from what I've seen. Last season in Iba, Cub's #2 Idaho State team played a ridiculously underseeded West Virginia team in the first round and lost. In the same bracket, #3 Michigan State, who was loaded, also lost in the first round.

Recruiting promises have definitely lessened the weight we can put on tournament seeds.

Posted by pallas on 6/3/2018 8:24:00 PM (view original):
I'd have to agree with Chapel, just from what I've seen. Last season in Iba, Cub's #2 Idaho State team played a ridiculously underseeded West Virginia team in the first round and lost. In the same bracket, #3 Michigan State, who was loaded, also lost in the first round.

Recruiting promises have definitely lessened the weight we can put on tournament seeds.

That WV team was definitely under seeded. But it wasn't caused by promises.

It does "matter". Everything matters. It just depends on to what degree.

In my thread where we discussed this same thing, I think the seeding mattered for me. I ended up getting a 4 seed. We're in the sweet 16 now and my matchup tonight is against Only's former Green Mountain team. (I have a small chance now that it's a sim team, but for arguing purposes, let's assume he didn't decide to quit midseason). They are EASILY the best or 2nd best team by a wide margin over the rest. There's Tampa, Green Mountain, and everybody else.

Looking at the 2 and 3 seeds (the other halves of regions) I could beat them all. I'd be favored against some. So in my case, i'm playing a team that i didn't expect to see until the elite 8 at earliest, in the sweet 16 now. And to me, making the elite 8 instead of getting knocked out in the sweet 16 does matter.

My opinions were that i deserved a 2 or 3. So it would've been even more likely i wouldn't have met his team until the final four or further(if I were to make it there, which i could possibly, but I doubt it).

A couple of the 3 seeds that i felt i deserved more than they, have already lost. That doesn't really prove anything at all. Haha. But just throwing that in there.

In gomiamis case, it could be argued that seeding does matter. Even tho he is agreeing with chap. I don't know the situation, but apparently, he's indirectly saying that opponent shouldn't have been a 16 and should've been higher. Creating the "seeding does matter" theory all over again.

Without seeding importance, do some of you just do the minimum during the regular season for a month? And then when the tournament starts you really put your best effort in for 6 days? That would be a boring way to play in my opinion. But I know we're not all the same.

Keep in mind the biggest factor of my view on this.... i'm still competing for my first title. I don't have 17 championships. I'm trying to do everything possible to put my teams in the best scenario to win one. There are times when bad draws happen of course. I feel like mine was bad this time. But I'd prefer to have a #1 seed every single season, than i would to have a #16 each season. I'd be curious to see the breakdown of this statistically. I know it wouldn't mirror real life because a lot more low seeded teams win titles here. But i'm willing to bet that the numbers are somewhat realistic.... Most titles probably come from 1s and 2s. Then 3s and 4s. And so on. Maybe I'm wrong

I do agree that promises can mess up seeding. Which is why I think they need to be upheld through the postseason.

But in this example, if Taylorn had scheduled halfway decently then he wouldn't have gotten such a poor seed. I don't know why he would WANT to play chapel's stacked team in the 2nd round. So for him, he's really hurting himself with poor scheduling.

So yes, this also proves seeding does matter.

Boooooom
there it is....

Boooooom
there it is.....

While promises make it more prevalent, there has frequently been under and over-seeding over the years in HD. A great noncon schedule can make a mediocre team a 3 or 4 seed while forgetting to set your noncon schedule can make a great team fall to an 8 or 10 seed.

Even before 3.0 I've felt promises should carry into the post-season (CT and NT) and make them absolute. If you don't start a kid 1 game and he was a 'guaranteed starter,' he transfers. Make it black and white.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 6/3/2018 9:34:00 PM (view original):
While promises make it more prevalent, there has frequently been under and over-seeding over the years in HD. A great noncon schedule can make a mediocre team a 3 or 4 seed while forgetting to set your noncon schedule can make a great team fall to an 8 or 10 seed.

Even before 3.0 I've felt promises should carry into the post-season (CT and NT) and make them absolute. If you don't start a kid 1 game and he was a 'guaranteed starter,' he transfers. Make it black and white.

I think the 1st sentence in the 2nd paragraph would eliminate the problems.

There's not much that should be done about RPI/SOS boosts through a super non-con or falling RPI/SOS through a weak conference.

There’s no problem to eliminate. The system is what it is, and the seedings that it spits out are the results of choices users make.

Proposing to make promises “absolute” and “black and white” would be fine I guess, if your intent is to make the game less realistic and less intelligent at the same time. If that’s not the intent, I would suggest a better course is to adjust probabilities of transfer, retain some variability in the expectations of different recruits with and without promises, and to enable promises past the first year.

Posted by pkoopman on 6/3/2018 11:59:00 PM (view original):
There’s no problem to eliminate. The system is what it is, and the seedings that it spits out are the results of choices users make.

Proposing to make promises “absolute” and “black and white” would be fine I guess, if your intent is to make the game less realistic and less intelligent at the same time. If that’s not the intent, I would suggest a better course is to adjust probabilities of transfer, retain some variability in the expectations of different recruits with and without promises, and to enable promises past the first year.

Yes. Everything is perfect here. No need for discussions any longer. Let's close these forums down, and just play. Keep it moving everyone.... there's nothing to see here.