Posted by dacj501 on 12/4/2011 12:25:00 PM (view original):
margin of victory is not a very good metric in this game. Teams that can go uptempo are likely to outscore inferior foes by a larger margin than teams with a couple less players who play slow down. Head to head the teams may be very similar, but now the uptempo team has an advantage...

Posted by naturopath on 12/4/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/4/2011 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a closer look at the logic using the Naismith data.  The move away from just using RPI was intentional though.  It's a limited metric of how good a team really is, and can be very misleading.  To me there's a big difference between winning/losing by 20+ points vs. winning/losing by 3 or 4 points.  Maybe there's a little too much weight on opponent strength.

I'll also see what I can do about spreading out teams from the same conference, but that's not easy to do when some conferences have 7 or 8 teams in.

My RPI 54 team at Cal in Naismith was 19-9. We beat NT-team UCLA twice, and had a better SOS than South Carolina, who at 17-11, had a worse SOS and a 77-RPI and made the national tourney.  I'm sorry seble, but something's wrong with the fix and it seems really $hitty to me, and I think you may have just lost a longtime HD customer in me.

Posted by naturopath on 12/4/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/4/2011 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a closer look at the logic using the Naismith data.  The move away from just using RPI was intentional though.  It's a limited metric of how good a team really is, and can be very misleading.  To me there's a big difference between winning/losing by 20+ points vs. winning/losing by 3 or 4 points.  Maybe there's a little too much weight on opponent strength.

I'll also see what I can do about spreading out teams from the same conference, but that's not easy to do when some conferences have 7 or 8 teams in.

My RPI 54 team at Cal in Naismith was 19-9. We beat NT-team UCLA twice, and had a better SOS than South Carolina, who at 17-11, had a worse SOS and a 77-RPI and made the national tourney.  I'm sorry seble, but something's wrong with the fix and it seems really $hitty to me, and I think you may have just lost a longtime HD customer in me.

Posted by alblack56 on 12/4/2011 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mduncanhogs on 12/4/2011 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by lwbraun on 12/4/2011 10:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rusticity on 12/4/2011 9:59:00 AM (view original):
ACC D1 has 4 in one region.
CAC D3 has 4,2,1,0 spread of it's 7 teams.
Freedom D3 has the 1 and 2 seed in the same region.

All projection report rankings have a predetermined seed and region.  You can look at that rank and figure out exactly where you will be in the bracket.  It appears nothing was changed for conference affiliation.

There has GOT to be something in the seeding logic to keep teams from the same conference from matching up too early in the tourney and there should NEVER be a 1 and 2 seed in the same bracket from the same conference with the only exception being if one conference has all four 1 seeds and at least one 2 seed.  In real life the selection committee does their very best to spread teams from the same conference out as much as they reasonably can.

I understand this can get tough in HD when some conferences get 6-8 teams into the NT, but this happens in real life too and the committee spreads them out.

Agree!  Very simple:  If you have 6 teams in the NT, place the four best in different regions.  Then place the other 2 so they can't meet a conference foe before the Sweet 16 or, preferably, the  Elite Eight.  I don't know how to program this but I don't recall it being an issue before the update.

Disclaimer: I'm the #2 seed in Naismith DIII. My conference mate is the #1 seed.

Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by naturopath on 12/4/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/4/2011 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a closer look at the logic using the Naismith data.  The move away from just using RPI was intentional though.  It's a limited metric of how good a team really is, and can be very misleading.  To me there's a big difference between winning/losing by 20+ points vs. winning/losing by 3 or 4 points.  Maybe there's a little too much weight on opponent strength.

I'll also see what I can do about spreading out teams from the same conference, but that's not easy to do when some conferences have 7 or 8 teams in.

My RPI 54 team at Cal in Naismith was 19-9. We beat NT-team UCLA twice, and had a better SOS than South Carolina, who at 17-11, had a worse SOS and a 77-RPI and made the national tourney.  I'm sorry seble, but something's wrong with the fix and it seems really $hitty to me, and I think you may have just lost a longtime HD customer in me.

I Agree.  I have 3 teams and I don't know if I want to renew them now.  I really don't like how it was dropped on us without giving us time to prepare for it.  I say scrap it for now ,explain it ,and then set a date when it will be implemented so you canprepare for it.

Posted by girt25 on 12/4/2011 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by naturopath on 12/4/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/4/2011 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a closer look at the logic using the Naismith data.  The move away from just using RPI was intentional though.  It's a limited metric of how good a team really is, and can be very misleading.  To me there's a big difference between winning/losing by 20+ points vs. winning/losing by 3 or 4 points.  Maybe there's a little too much weight on opponent strength.

I'll also see what I can do about spreading out teams from the same conference, but that's not easy to do when some conferences have 7 or 8 teams in.

My RPI 54 team at Cal in Naismith was 19-9. We beat NT-team UCLA twice, and had a better SOS than South Carolina, who at 17-11, had a worse SOS and a 77-RPI and made the national tourney.  I'm sorry seble, but something's wrong with the fix and it seems really $hitty to me, and I think you may have just lost a longtime HD customer in me.

I Agree.  I have 3 teams and I don't know if I want to renew them now.  I really don't like how it was dropped on us without giving us time to prepare for it.  I say scrap it for now ,explain it ,and then set a date when it will be implemented so you canprepare for it.

I'm asking because I really don't know -- how would you have prepared differently for it?

Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 12/4/2011 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by luckyt on 12/4/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by naturopath on 12/4/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/4/2011 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a closer look at the logic using the Naismith data.  The move away from just using RPI was intentional though.  It's a limited metric of how good a team really is, and can be very misleading.  To me there's a big difference between winning/losing by 20+ points vs. winning/losing by 3 or 4 points.  Maybe there's a little too much weight on opponent strength.

I'll also see what I can do about spreading out teams from the same conference, but that's not easy to do when some conferences have 7 or 8 teams in.

My RPI 54 team at Cal in Naismith was 19-9. We beat NT-team UCLA twice, and had a better SOS than South Carolina, who at 17-11, had a worse SOS and a 77-RPI and made the national tourney.  I'm sorry seble, but something's wrong with the fix and it seems really $hitty to me, and I think you may have just lost a longtime HD customer in me.

I Agree.  I have 3 teams and I don't know if I want to renew them now.  I really don't like how it was dropped on us without giving us time to prepare for it.  I say scrap it for now ,explain it ,and then set a date when it will be implemented so you canprepare for it.

I'm asking because I really don't know -- how would you have prepared differently for it?

Scheduling.   I would of done my schedule different.

Posted by metsmax on 12/4/2011 7:06:00 PM (view original):
I wonder whether this change means that I should uncheck the use of backups on my game plan - maybe try to run it up a bit more?

Posted by isack24 on 12/4/2011 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 12/4/2011 7:06:00 PM (view original):
I wonder whether this change means that I should uncheck the use of backups on my game plan - maybe try to run it up a bit more?

Exactly.  Huge problem.  This really hinders development.  I'm not planning on letting backups play anymore, which means less player will reach their potential.  I can't imagine that was an intended consequence.

Does it take into account your margin of victory for the season as a whole or on a pergame basis? Because I really don't want to run up the score too much on guys in my conference who are in rebuild mode when im a Top25 team. I want to give my backups PT and have it a 15-20pt win instead of a 30-50point win.