33 RPI misses NT? Topic

majresorter
Posts: 18 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 925 267 36
Prospect
I haven't been around much and if this change makes sense, so be it.  That's fine and I am in favor of it. However, saying that it mirror's real life is silly. RPI in real life is not used exclusively because we know how good a team actually is.  In this we don't.  Since we don't RPI still should count un proportionally.  Seems like those "in the know" thinks this fixed the system. If it did, great... just thought it was odd.
6/11/2012 11:53 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
I don't think it mirrors real life, nor do I think it should. 

But the same can be said about RPI.  It's the same formula, obviously, but real-life RPI is more useful (even though it's incredibly useful) because teams aren't out to game the RPI system in real life.

I also don't think this fix is perfect, but it is a move in the right direction.
6/11/2012 12:12 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
I feel like the way I rank teams would/could clear up NT discrepancies...RPI conglomerates a schedule into one lump sum whereas my rankings take into account each individual result and views each as a separate event.  Again will probably never happen, but there are better ways to do things, and I feel like I have them.
6/11/2012 12:42 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
It's my understanding that's exactly how the new formula works.  It calculates a "game score" for each game.
6/11/2012 12:52 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I think the new formula stinks and has slanted DI even further towards BCS conferences.  Regardless of improved logic, anything that makes the game more boring - and the new seeding certainly does - and less fair towards smaller conference is a bad change, in my opinion. 
6/11/2012 1:50 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Although this will likely come off snarky, I don't mean it that way.

Do you prefer a system that is rooted solely in how many good sims you can manage to schedule on the road?  Because that's what we had before.

The formula isn't the problem.  Yes, the new formula favors Big 6 teams, but that's a product of an already broken system.  The new formula rewards more deserving teams.  Those teams currently happen to be Big 6 teams because recruit generation, postseason money, baseline prestige, etc., all combine to make Big 6 teams better.  Changing the formula would maybe minimally help mid-majors, but it would actually hurt in the long run because it would helo mask a bigger problem.

If everything else was workign properly, the newer formula would be better than strict RPI-based seeding (which I can't really imagine anyone advocating for if they new what RPI actually measured).  Making one part of the game worse to mask the inequities in other parts of the game seems like a terribly wrong solution.  Let's fix all the other problems, and then the seeding formula would no longer be skewed towards only Bog 6 teams.
6/11/2012 2:05 PM
mamxet
Posts: 1154 (0)
Hall of Famer
215 48 26 2 436 11
Rookie
The problem is that because the game is a game, you cannot make one piece match real life because others will not match real life.

Here, the prior scheme focused heavily on RPI and meant that away games against crap teams could propel you to a great RPI and the NT.  In real life, hardly any BCS schools schedule 10 road games against low DI opponents.  Hardly any schedule even one such game.  With multiple departures from reality one needs to find a compromise method

The new method continues to give some weight to RPI but also looks at wins and the quality of the wins.  Imperfect but better in my view
6/11/2012 2:06 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Smart coaches will continue to game the system, only difference now is that the system differs. 
6/11/2012 2:09 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Sure, but it's more difficult now because we don't know the formula.  I think we all have a general idea of what outweighs what, but it's certainly not as simple as manipulating RPI.
6/11/2012 2:11 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
And, even if you know what the formula is, it seems to me that more deserving teams are getting in with this new system.  For example, the maj's team that started this thread doesn't even have a top-30 win, but would have been an 8/9 under the old system.  That seems like an upgrade to me.
6/11/2012 2:13 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
If the new projection report were implemented in the real world, there would rarely be at-large selections from non-power conferences.  And again, I'd rather have a flawed system that actually gives small conference teams a chance than a more accurate system that ensures BCS supremacy.       
6/11/2012 2:17 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 6/11/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
And, even if you know what the formula is, it seems to me that more deserving teams are getting in with this new system.  For example, the maj's team that started this thread doesn't even have a top-30 win, but would have been an 8/9 under the old system.  That seems like an upgrade to me.
You do realize that the new system significantly values your opponents' (60% of which are your conf mates) rpi right? Instead of you manipulating rpi, you want your conf mates to manipulate rpi to boost your # of games/wins against top 25/50/100 rpi. That's pretty much the entire change, which explains why BCS conf teams are getting all the at large bids. 
6/11/2012 2:25 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
I think it's obvious why the real world argument doesn't apply.  Even so, there would only be handful every year that would be in the top 40-45, which is where you would need to be to guarantee yourself of a bid.

OK, then we just disagree.  I don't think fixing a problem by breaking something else is a viable long-term solution.  I think fixing the bigger problem is the issue. 
6/11/2012 2:25 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by tianyi7886 on 6/11/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 6/11/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
And, even if you know what the formula is, it seems to me that more deserving teams are getting in with this new system.  For example, the maj's team that started this thread doesn't even have a top-30 win, but would have been an 8/9 under the old system.  That seems like an upgrade to me.
You do realize that the new system significantly values your opponents' (60% of which are your conf mates) rpi right? Instead of you manipulating rpi, you want your conf mates to manipulate rpi to boost your # of games/wins against top 25/50/100 rpi. That's pretty much the entire change, which explains why BCS conf teams are getting all the at large bids. 

We've had this discussion before.  Neither of us know the formula, so I don't know that it's "significant," nor do I know exactly how you are using it.

Even if the new system overvalues SOS or games against high-RPI teams, that still requires some serious human coordination to pull off.  I'd rather have that than picking out the sim teams with 8 seniors on their roster, scheduling them on the road, beating them by 45, having a top-25 RPI, and a top-4 seed, all without ever playing a real team.

6/11/2012 2:31 PM
sublightd
Posts: 220 (0)
Hall of Famer
315 2
Prospect
It seems obvious to me that the new system rewards playing a tougher schedule. But not just playing it, but winning it. No, its not perfect, but I know I have to schedule quality wins now, instead of looking for senior laden sim teams to schedule on the road like I was before. Isack is dead on imho.
6/11/2012 2:40 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
33 RPI misses NT? 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.