Mega-Ultra-Super-Duper-Uber Challenge Topic

I propose we have each team play a team seeded at every seed except that team's own seed in the five other conferences. So if I'm a 3, I play a 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.
9/13/2013 12:15 PM
That's smart.  Shut the hell up.
9/13/2013 1:11 PM
I have to shut the hell up because I said something smart? But that was the first time!

Here's another pearl of wisdom: keep the mechanism of who is the #1, #2, seed, etc. the same, at least for next season. Simpler that way. Yeah, St. Auggie's didn't get to play in the MUSDUC, but it seems to have worked out pretty well for daveredden this year. There's a certain arbitrariness in the seeds anyway. I suggest we embrace that arbitrariness by keeping the formula for the seeding simple.
9/13/2013 2:18 PM
Posted by yazooyokel on 9/13/2013 12:15:00 PM (view original):
I propose we have each team play a team seeded at every seed except that team's own seed in the five other conferences. So if I'm a 3, I play a 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.
I will continue to think about this issue, but right now I really want the seeds to play each other. I agree that current seeding doesn't necessarily reflect the true relative strength of all schools, and that is something we can try to improve, but assuming that we do get something close to a legitimate seeding method this proposal means that all #6 seeds should be at a disadvantage and all #1 seeds have a leg up and that isn't what I'm looking for. Theoretically all 1s should be similar, all the way down. I know that isn't really the case, especially when some conferences only have/had 6 humans to choose from while others like the CCAA and Central were stacked 8 or 9 deep, but I think there is less disparity in my original format.

As for seeding. Over the next couple of days I will assemble seedings based on both of my previously used methods. I will let everyone know when they go up here. Everyone can get together with their conference and decide which is better. If the majority of your conference doesn't like either seeding, then seed yourselves from top to bottom and submit those seedings. I will use whichever seedings are chosen/submitted and run match-ups. The process will be finalized by the middle of the week, and folks can schedule by game 8 or so at the latest.

I apologize for not being able to process this faster. Medical BS has kept me laid out and is still limiting my ability to be at the PC. I can't do all this on my tablet, its too much of a pain in the ***, so I'll do what I can as best I can and post it ASAP.

Thanks for your feedback and I hope that its still a fun thing for everyone!
9/13/2013 4:25 PM
The Southern Conference will replace the Lone Star in MUSDUC II. The Penn St is on deck to replace anyone that fails to return at least 6 humans, and is first in line for MUSDUC #3. The Lone Star is next on the waitlist if they desire to return.
9/13/2013 4:27 PM
I'll be glad to delete this, it's going to take up some space, but here's a quick idea on scheduling that may quickly address mmt/llamanunts concerns.  The idea would be that the conferences would be ranked A-F (A the winner thru F - relegation entrant) and the A, B & C and D, E, F conferences would play one another 1-6, but the games between any of ABC & DEF would not be purely 1-6.  Here's the chart [Rank is the sum of each of the seeds played, which in a straight 1 only plays other 1s schedule would be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30): [Edited to even out the brackets and rankings]

 A A B C D E F Rank 1 1 1 2 3 4 11 2 2 2 1 5 3 13 3 3 3 6 1 2 15 4 4 4 5 6 1 20 5 5 5 4 2 6 22 6 6 6 3 4 5 24 B 1 1 1 4 2 3 11 2 2 2 3 1 5 13 3 3 3 2 6 1 15 4 4 4 1 5 6 20 5 5 5 6 4 2 22 6 6 6 5 3 4 24 C 1 1 1 3 4 2 11 2 2 2 5 3 1 13 3 3 3 1 2 6 15 4 4 4 6 1 5 20 5 5 5 2 6 4 22 6 6 6 4 5 3 24 D 1 2 4 3 1 1 11 2 1 3 5 2 2 13 3 6 2 1 3 3 15 4 5 1 6 4 4 20 5 4 6 2 5 5 22 6 3 5 4 6 6 24 E 1 3 2 4 1 1 11 2 5 1 3 2 2 13 3 1 6 2 3 3 15 4 6 5 1 4 4 20 5 2 4 6 5 5 22 6 4 3 5 6 6 24 F 1 4 3 2 1 1 11 2 3 5 1 2 2 13 3 2 1 6 3 3 15 4 1 6 5 4 4 20 5 6 2 4 5 5 22 6 5 4 3 6 6 24

9/14/2013 8:42 PM (edited)
dac can you elaborate on why you want "seeds" so badly to begin with?
9/13/2013 10:34 PM
I would assume it's to get teams playing opponents of roughly equal quality. It's not a very good challenge if the best team in one conference beats up on the also-rans from the other conferences.
9/13/2013 11:46 PM
Tarvolon, it's not like it's "beating up" on the other conferences when a number one seed does not play all five other number ones. "Beating up" would happen if a number one played five number 6s. But our proposal is a lot more moderate.

Rogelio, it seems like your proposal is a good compromise. I would support it -- but as I indicated earlier I'd support a schedule that did not punish 1s and 2s for their success at all.

In any event, it looks my proposal came a little too late in the discussion and dacj is laying down the hammer. Thats fine. a decision needs to be made because it is getting late. I'm just glad I'm not a #1 seed.
9/14/2013 12:13 AM
I'm open for discussion - but I think any matchup changes will have to be for MUSDUC 3.

If the seeding method becomes more closely aligned with actual strength of the teams I'm not sure how being a 1 or a 2 seed would or should be any tougher than being a 5 or a 6 if you play all the other 1s or 2s and 5s or 6s. The idea is for the teams to face opponents of similar relative strength, ostensibly to determine which is the best conference that season - acknowledging of course that in a head to head single game situation anything can happen of course...

Here's this season's #1s, how they did in the MUSDUC, (closest games) and projection, rpi and sos. I don't know that this tells us anything though, since the seeding method used was the 2 season average which even I admit is a poor barometer of the caliber of the team this season. For the most part though teams played some close games that could have gone either way. I expect that as the seeding method zeroes on on something that more closely resembles actual team strength (assuming that we achieve that) this would be even more true. Maybe the seeding thing is not really a true measure and I'm off base, like I said I'm trying to consider everything, but I still think that in order to have the most overall "fair" tournament that like seeds should face like seeds, and that we should work to make the seedings as accurate as possible to that end.

TAMU, Commerce 1-4 (2 pt loss, 4 pt loss) 78 Proj, 75 RPI, 55 SOS
Grand Valley St  4-1 (1 pt win, 3 pt win) 7 Proj, 8 RPI, 24 SOS
Stonehill 2-3 (6 pt loss, 7 pt loss) 42 Proj, 42 RPI, 27 SOS
NC Central 4-1 (1 pt loss, 2 pt win) 3 Proj, 4 RPI, 23 SOS
Cal, Davis 3-2 (5 pt win, 3 pt loss) 45 Proj, 68 RPI, 75 SOS
Incarnate Word 2-3 (5 pt loss, 4 pt win) 67 Proj, 59 RPI, 36 SOS

I do see the compromise in rogelio's proposal, and I am intrigued by it some. Why isn't it mirrored though ABC and DEF? Does it not work out if that's the case? (I haven't parsed everything) ie, why not have the ABC #1 play the DEF 234 (they seem to have the 245 now)? If it is possible that seems fairer...
9/14/2013 1:21 PM
Posted by dacj501 on 9/14/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
I'm open for discussion - but I think any matchup changes will have to be for MUSDUC 3.

If the seeding method becomes more closely aligned with actual strength of the teams I'm not sure how being a 1 or a 2 seed would or should be any tougher than being a 5 or a 6 if you play all the other 1s or 2s and 5s or 6s. The idea is for the teams to face opponents of similar relative strength, ostensibly to determine which is the best conference that season - acknowledging of course that in a head to head single game situation anything can happen of course...

Here's this season's #1s, how they did in the MUSDUC, (closest games) and projection, rpi and sos. I don't know that this tells us anything though, since the seeding method used was the 2 season average which even I admit is a poor barometer of the caliber of the team this season. For the most part though teams played some close games that could have gone either way. I expect that as the seeding method zeroes on on something that more closely resembles actual team strength (assuming that we achieve that) this would be even more true. Maybe the seeding thing is not really a true measure and I'm off base, like I said I'm trying to consider everything, but I still think that in order to have the most overall "fair" tournament that like seeds should face like seeds, and that we should work to make the seedings as accurate as possible to that end.

TAMU, Commerce 1-4 (2 pt loss, 4 pt loss) 78 Proj, 75 RPI, 55 SOS
Grand Valley St  4-1 (1 pt win, 3 pt win) 7 Proj, 8 RPI, 24 SOS
Stonehill 2-3 (6 pt loss, 7 pt loss) 42 Proj, 42 RPI, 27 SOS
NC Central 4-1 (1 pt loss, 2 pt win) 3 Proj, 4 RPI, 23 SOS
Cal, Davis 3-2 (5 pt win, 3 pt loss) 45 Proj, 68 RPI, 75 SOS
Incarnate Word 2-3 (5 pt loss, 4 pt win) 67 Proj, 59 RPI, 36 SOS

I do see the compromise in rogelio's proposal, and I am intrigued by it some. Why isn't it mirrored though ABC and DEF? Does it not work out if that's the case? (I haven't parsed everything) ie, why not have the ABC #1 play the DEF 234 (they seem to have the 245 now)? If it is possible that seems fairer...
The one parameter that I had was to find a solution that assures that the higher seeded teams always have the more difficult schedule according to the rudimentary lowest sum of seeds played.  There may be a solution that can assign both ABC & DEF #1 seeds to play a 1-1-2-3-4 set, but ah....[buffering]....it may take me a while...[buffering]...and is putting me behind on my drinking...[buffering]...I'll get back to you on that...

....OK.  I've got it.  I'll edit my prior post with the changes to avoid confusion.
9/14/2013 8:41 PM (edited)
You put in so much work, that Im not going to drop...come up with what you think is fair and I'll participate either way. Kudos for putting the time into this.
9/14/2013 9:43 PM
I'll stay for another season so as not to delay scheduling.  Leaning against for the following season.
9/15/2013 5:00 PM
Ok, I ran something I'm calling WOPR on everyone as well as the 2 season conference wins average thingy... I don't remember what WOPR was supposed to stand for (weighted overall something or other). It takes the average OVR rating of JRs multiplied by 3 plus the average of SOs multiplied by 2 plus the average of FRs unmodified. This allows for an allowance for IQ and bases relative future strength on the rosters of the teams instead of past performance. However, it has numerous flaws of its own. It doesn't account for incoming freshmen. It includes walk-ons (it doesn't have to, I just didn't think to exclude them until after some had gotten through and I didn't feel like re-doing them all). It is based on OVR, which is not exactly a correlation with real performance. It fails to account for possible future transfers or jucos. But it probably does a better job than the last 2 conference wins average.

I will post both lists here. I'd like the conferences to decide which list they would prefer to use, or to submit their own seeding for their top 6 at least. I would like each conference to choose an official representative to speak for them officially and let me know both their representative and which list (or submit their own) to use for seedings. I will choose which list to use if no one from a conference speaks up.

Please submit your conference's choice for representative and seeding by Wednesday 9/18/13. I will post the match-ups by Thursday 9/19/13.

9/16/2013 12:52 AM (edited)
CCAA:

 AVG WINS WOPR CAL, DAVIS (13.5) DOMINGUEZ HILLS 3772 SONOMA ST (11.5) BAKERSFIELD 3611 CSU, LA (11.5) CSULA 3590 BAKERSFIELD (11) UCSD 3586 SAN FRAN ST (10) SAN FRAN ST 3566 DOM HILLS (10) GRAND CANYON 3518 GRAND CANYON (7.5) CAL, DAVIS 3494 STANISLAUS (7) SONOMA ST 3318 UCSD (6.5) STANISLAUS 3317 POMONA (4) SAN BERNARDINO 3266 SAN BERNARDINO (2.5) POMONA 2406

9/15/2013 8:02 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7|8|9...15 Next ▸
Mega-Ultra-Super-Duper-Uber Challenge Topic