DING DING DING December 1 release notes Topic

barretchap
Posts: 194 (0)
Hall of Famer
321
Prospect
Messiah won their conference tournament so they earned their bid.  Without winning the CT, I don't think either team looks like an NT caliber team.  They both remind me of low level DI conference champs who would not make the NT as an at large. 

I don't think MOV matters in either case.  They both played polar opposites in RPI, but got generally beat by better teams handily and easily handled the creampuffs on the schedule.  Making margin of victory matter should make teams avoid fouling late.  That's where many blowouts occur in games that were close until the last 2-3 minutes.
12/6/2011 11:01 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro

Easily handled?

 

11/10/11 am at Grinnell 11-16 215 134 Sim AI 1-1 +1 76-75 w

11/18/11 am at Centenary 9-18 263 173 Sim AI 32-61 -16 69-65 w

11/22/11 am at SUNY, Farmingdale 11-16 249 172 Sim AI 51-40 -10 77-72 w


. . . and six more of their wins besides those were as close or closer.





 

12/6/2011 11:18 PM
dedelman
Posts: 2238 (0)
Hall of Famer
325 219
Pro

Messiah got crushed by the only good team they played, went 6-3 in mostly close games vs RPI 67-107, and had a brutal loss to Lawrence.  This is a PIT 6-seed or thereabouts.

MSM's performed a little better, because (a) they played a slightly better class of mediocre team (RPI 62 and 90) and went 4-1 in mostly close games, and (b) they "found a way to win" their brutal game (the narrow win at Grinnell).  2-3 seed lines higher in the PIT than Messiah, imo.  No credit nor debit for getting crushed by 5 good teams compared to Messiah's one. 

You have the two teams essentially in the same place on the S-curve; I think MSM at 67 is pretty close to where I would expect them but Messiah's somewhat too high at 65.

That help?

12/7/2011 12:14 AM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
I think the main way I'd judge MSM 's season to be better was that they had 0 bad losses. RPI 35 is a bit flukish. Messiah had one really bad loss, and I think that combined with all the extra crappy 300+ RPI teams on their schedule was significantly worse for their season vs MSM...

To be honest, despite seble's inclusion of margin in the NT selection process, i didn't even consider it in my analysis here. Maybe if there had been more borderline stuff it would matter, but I'd have judged MSM a low NT seed (end of the bubble) and Messiah a low PIT seed. To use dedelman's s-curve example, i'd say maybe MSM 50ish and Messiah 75-80ish.

I'd be very critical of a human coach in that conference setting up that non-con schedule, but that's neither here nor there in this example. 
12/7/2011 1:25 AM
spottratz
Posts: 11 (0)
Hall of Famer
55
Prospect

Mount St Mary's and Messiah "nitty gritty" report below ( minus post season games) plus the approx RPI's and SOS from end of regular season. Areas in RED below are estimated Non-conf RPI and non conf SOS rank which is used by NCAA selection committees when trying to compare at large teams from Mid-majors vs Power conferences. Seble I have been saying this for 2 years to create a report similar to this and if possible use it in the engine logic to help select teams. It may be a more fair way of judging teams that are in weaker sim conferences vs margin of victory. If team A plays in the 25th rated RPI conference and Team A goes 8-2 in non Conf and 14-2 in Conf Play. Their overall RPI is # 60, SOS #100. If their Non Conference RPI rank was #10, and Non-Conf SOS was #20, assuming Team A had no questionable losses (vs 150 or higher) I believe that team should be a 8 or 9 seed. Their Non-Conf RPI/SOS compared with all the other teams is one of the best measures of the quality of a team.
TEAM Record RPI RPI Rank Non-Conf RPI
 Non-Conf RPI 
Rank		 SOS  SOS
Rank  		 Non- Conf
SOS 		 Non- Conf
SOS Rank		 vs top 25 RPI vs 26-50 vs 51-100 vs 101-200 vs 201-300 vs 301+
Mount St Mary 22-7 .5950 42 .4975 185 .5244 83 .4875 200 0-3 0-3 4-1 5-0 11-0 2-0
Messiah 24-5 .5390 110 .5850 60 .4796 251 .5200 125 0-1 0-0 5-2 4-1 6-1 9-0
As far as Mount St Mary's, 0-6 vs top 50 with average margin of defeat in those games was 20 pts. 67% of games were against teams with RPI >100 , close to 50% were vs 200+. They wouldnt deserve to get in the NT. IMO
Messiah same story, 9 games vs >300 RPI, 16 were vs 200  and only a 1 game vs top 50. BUT they appeared to have had a better Non- Conf RPI rank, with a couple decent wins. you would need to check that.
12/8/2011 8:49 AM (edited)
cornfused
Posts: 1492 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 235 11
Prospect
You and I see yellow differently, I guess.
12/7/2011 3:43 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
If my school is #14 in the projection report, that means (if the season ended now), we'd be a #4 seed?
12/7/2011 3:53 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 837 2
Pro
yes, unless you say or do something that ticks sebel off
12/7/2011 4:18 PM
reisel
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
120 46 33 1
Prospect

I don't think there's compelling evidence to rank one team over the other. If it came down to those two being the last two teams for the final spot, and I had to choose one over the other, I'd run a random number generator and not lose any sleep over the outcome.

12/7/2011 4:18 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Does it seem to anyone else that the penalty (at least by projections) for playing truly crappy teams is off? For a NT caliber team, is there really that much difference between beating the 200 RPI team and the 380 RPI team?

My Hamline team, for example, has only one loss and it isn't a truly "bad" loss (75-70 @ #13 (now) 19-5 Greensboro to open the season, with narcotico as opposing coach).

We've actually beaten these other top teams (current rankings/RPI) in the OOC schedule:

#15/RPI-8 Susquehanna (86-76)
#12/RPI-5 Lynchburg (88-71)
#7/RPI-4 Moravian (90-82)
#5/RPI-9 Denison  (83-74)

The closest win all season was against (NR/RPI-54) Rowan, 57-52.

But, we also had some real cupcakes in the OOC schedule (RPI 381, 323) and in conference (372 (x2), 358) as well as a slew of weak-but-not-the-worst-in-the-country conference wins and I have to imagine that's why we're only a projected #4 seed despite having wins over a projected #1 (Lynchburg), two projected #2 (Moravian & Denison), and a projected #4 (Susquehanna) with the only loss (knock on wood) against a projected #2 (Greensboro).

Now I know I should have just beaten naroctico, and that falls on me, but that single stumble drops the squad from (presumably) a #1 seed (perhaps even overall) to a #4?



12/7/2011 4:43 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 837 2
Pro

12/07/2011

  • Made the following tweaks to the postseason selection logic:

    - Increased value for winning the game

    - Less weight on opponent rank

    - Less weight on score margin

    - Less weight on last 10 games

    - Less weight on conference tournament results (those games are still included in the normal schedule results evaluation)

    Also, score margin is now being adjusted for the pace of the game, so a 50-30 margin is considered slightly more impressive than a 90-70 margin.

     
  • Improved new tournament seeding logic to better distribute teams from the same conference, preventing early round matchups.
12/7/2011 5:15 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 837 2
Pro
darn good responsiveness here, seems to me - might have been better with more testing before launch - I assume WIS tested it but for something like this one could have imagined posting some of the test brackets and asking users for reactions - folks would have noticed such stuff and caught it.....I think

but, still quick turnaround that is much appreciated by this user
12/7/2011 5:16 PM
aejones
Posts: 457 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 374
Veteran
haven't caught up with this thread, but i just want to say two things (good release overall btw):

1. can we get it changed to orange instead of red and get it bolded on the FSS page? it's really weird looking at the blue high in bold and the red in unbold. fugly.

2. anyway we can add another tab to the player profiles with notes? would be so awesome, imo, especially if they carried from recruiting throughtout their career. 
12/8/2011 2:22 AM
reisel
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
120 46 33 1
Prospect
Posted by zbrent716 on 12/7/2011 4:44:00 PM (view original):
Does it seem to anyone else that the penalty (at least by projections) for playing truly crappy teams is off? For a NT caliber team, is there really that much difference between beating the 200 RPI team and the 380 RPI team?

My Hamline team, for example, has only one loss and it isn't a truly "bad" loss (75-70 @ #13 (now) 19-5 Greensboro to open the season, with narcotico as opposing coach).

We've actually beaten these other top teams (current rankings/RPI) in the OOC schedule:

#15/RPI-8 Susquehanna (86-76)
#12/RPI-5 Lynchburg (88-71)
#7/RPI-4 Moravian (90-82)
#5/RPI-9 Denison  (83-74)

The closest win all season was against (NR/RPI-54) Rowan, 57-52.

But, we also had some real cupcakes in the OOC schedule (RPI 381, 323) and in conference (372 (x2), 358) as well as a slew of weak-but-not-the-worst-in-the-country conference wins and I have to imagine that's why we're only a projected #4 seed despite having wins over a projected #1 (Lynchburg), two projected #2 (Moravian & Denison), and a projected #4 (Susquehanna) with the only loss (knock on wood) against a projected #2 (Greensboro).

Now I know I should have just beaten naroctico, and that falls on me, but that single stumble drops the squad from (presumably) a #1 seed (perhaps even overall) to a #4?



The #200 RPI team in D-III -- and It's hard to appreciate at first glance -- is still better than 48% of the other teams in D-III. Even the #300 team isn't in the bottom 20% of D-III teams. So the answer to your question is yes, there really is that much of a difference between playing #200 and #380.

12/8/2011 9:07 AM
teamrc
Posts: 70 (0)
Hall of Famer
77
Prospect
Posted by zbrent716 on 12/7/2011 4:44:00 PM (view original):
Does it seem to anyone else that the penalty (at least by projections) for playing truly crappy teams is off? For a NT caliber team, is there really that much difference between beating the 200 RPI team and the 380 RPI team?

My Hamline team, for example, has only one loss and it isn't a truly "bad" loss (75-70 @ #13 (now) 19-5 Greensboro to open the season, with narcotico as opposing coach).

We've actually beaten these other top teams (current rankings/RPI) in the OOC schedule:

#15/RPI-8 Susquehanna (86-76)
#12/RPI-5 Lynchburg (88-71)
#7/RPI-4 Moravian (90-82)
#5/RPI-9 Denison  (83-74)

The closest win all season was against (NR/RPI-54) Rowan, 57-52.

But, we also had some real cupcakes in the OOC schedule (RPI 381, 323) and in conference (372 (x2), 358) as well as a slew of weak-but-not-the-worst-in-the-country conference wins and I have to imagine that's why we're only a projected #4 seed despite having wins over a projected #1 (Lynchburg), two projected #2 (Moravian & Denison), and a projected #4 (Susquehanna) with the only loss (knock on wood) against a projected #2 (Greensboro).

Now I know I should have just beaten naroctico, and that falls on me, but that single stumble drops the squad from (presumably) a #1 seed (perhaps even overall) to a #4?



RPI is a math formula that has worked pretty well for along time.
A #20 rpi team is NOT a #1 seed, and certainly NOT a #1 overall.
Your a #4. Things are working as intented... and IMHO, as they should.
12/8/2011 9:46 AM
◂ Prev 1...13|14|15|16 Next ▸
DING DING DING December 1 release notes 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.