Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 10/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By aporter on 10/15/2009

Quote: Originally posted by kmasonbx on 10/15/2009

The point is everybody looks at RPI as the THE deciding factor on where a team should be ranked. If a team is 4th in the RPI they think they should automatically be at least a top 2 seed, when that chart shows that the #4 RPI team has been a 5 seed. People are implying in real life this stuff doesn't happen, when in fact it does. For example Tanner is making it seem like UCLA being a 7 seed despite a 16 RPI is unheard off, when in fact it's happened several teams in the last decade in real life.

According to the FAQ HD does look at who you've played since they say that your wins against the various RPI ratings is factored in.

Saying it and actually doing it are different things. There are a few things in the FAQ that are incorrect. If this was the case you would not see teams with SOS pushing 150+ with a seed of 4 or better.

This is just an assumption, there is no way you can be 100% certain this has never happened in the NCAA. I'm pretty close to positive that the season Larry Bird's team was undefeated their SOS was horrendus and they were a 1 seed. SOS is something that is overrated, you can only play who is in front of you, if you go through a season beating every team you play by 20+ you obviously have a really good team regardless of how weak your schedule is. That is where the rankings come in, although it is said they have no impact on seeding, I don't think that is entirely true because an element of the rankings is how impressive your team has been.

Can you honestly say that a team playing the toughest schedule and going 17-12 against it with a point differential of +2 per game is definitely better than the team that went 27-2 against the 100th toughest schedule with a point differential of +20 per game? SOS, and RPI are important parts of the seeding process but in no way should they be all that's looked at.

I'm not saying the seeding process in HD is perfect (It's not even perfect in real life) but the arguments that people are using aren't good IMO. As I've said before RPI isn't everything. If somebody had the #4 RPI and they got a 5 seed they would say HD seeding is broken, when this has happened in real life. RPI can be easily manipulated, just play a bunch of road games agianst good teams and your losses barely matter but your wins count a ton. This is something that is weeded out by the real life seeding committe, maybe in HD there is something similar built into seeding.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 10/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 10/15/2009

The point is everybody looks at RPI as the THE deciding factor on where a team should be ranked. If a team is 4th in the RPI they think they should automatically be at least a top 2 seed, when that chart shows that the #4 RPI team has been a 5 seed. People are implying in real life this stuff doesn't happen, when in fact it does. For example Tanner is making it seem like UCLA being a 7 seed despite a 16 RPI is unheard off, when in fact it's happened several teams in the last decade in real life.

According to the FAQ HD does look at who you've played since they say that your wins against the various RPI ratings is factored in.

It's very tough. WIS is more faithful to rpi than the real-life committee is, and I think for good reason: The committee has the ability to objectively evaluate each team's resume, and the flexibility to make good decsions. The computer program that seeds HD teams does not.

I don't think the system needs an overhaul (always dangerous); I think it just needs a couple tweaks. More emphasis on quality of wins/losses than simply on the W-L record would be #1 in my book. And right now WIS currently overemphasizes CT performance as a seeding factor.

Quote: Originally Posted By girt25 on 10/16/2009
Mully, you can't be so fixated on "team talent". After nearly 30 games, it's the school's resume that determines their seed, not how fast their pg is.

But you have a valid point about the crapshoot. I've often been in the NT as (for example) a 3 seed, looked at my bracket and gone, "Man, I wish I was the 6 seed". Ideally, that sort of feeling shouldn't be prevalent. But I don't know how to guard against it without majorly and blindly favoring the BCS schools, and I don't know if that's such a good thing.

In the end, I truly think if they made tweaks to the two issues I mentioned -- quality of wins/losses over total W/L and the current overemphasis on CT performance -- that it would help stop this from becoming a real issue.



Yeah I am not sure why team talent keeps getting brought into the seeding process? It has no place.

Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 10/16/2009
In my humble opinion, this is one area in which HD might improve on real life. The real-life selection committee does heavily favor BCS schools. HD's seeding criteria is arguably more objective than the way the selection committee does things.

I do agree that conference tourney results could be downweighted some. But daalter, as to your point above above quality of wins--isn't that already taken into account in the RPI/SOS calculation?



I agree its a delicate balance. And one that I wouldnt want to see swing the other way. BTW - I updated the results on page 1.

Grats on your 1st round "upset"