Posted by halfakracka on 12/20/2013 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Right on gillispie... yeah I just wanted to get your guys thoughts if everyone thinks the ratio of upsets is fine as is than I will stand by the rest of you.... I want to add that the smart coaching option or addition would help get rid of the occasional upset due to depth chart tweaks.
just to be clear, i wasnt commenting on the probability of upsets. i was just saying first, it IS a bunch of rolls for every action, not just 1 (think about how impossible it would be to aggregate the equations for those 500 actions into 1 probability and roll the dice - besides, doesn't change the % of upset, like someone said previously). and secondly, im totally against artificially affecting the # of upsets by doing that kind of majority dice rolling. years and years ago i considered it, and i could see 2 out of 3 - at that point, you havent created too steep of a bell curve. but it gets steeper and steeper the more you put in. to me, if you think the # of upsets is wrong, there has to be something wrong in the logic - is the advantage of better rebounders not big enough, is the advantage of better scorers not enough, what? organically fixing those things to calibrate upsets is a million times better than artificially doing it through a majority of dice rolls - in my opinion!
anyway, my opinion on the # of upsets is, its actually pretty reasonable. when you really coach a team well, and really understand exactly how good that team is, and in what ways - upsets happen about where i'd expect. or maybe even less than i'd expect. when i coached my teams really hard, we would win ridiculously high % of the times against like, the next best team in the country, some years the next best team in the country had less than a 10% chance of beating us. on the other hand, when ive not paid attention and screwed off, ive lost games i totally expected to win, at a way higher clip, which naturally ****** me off :) but i had to recognize the reality is, i just didnt know my team that well, they probably weren't set up optimally, so was it really that ridiculous? probably not.
the reality is everyone mostly thinks their team is set up as well as they can set it up but sometimes you get it more right than other times - its hard to get a feeling of how well you have them set up, most of us go off our talent level. of course, ranking/rpi play in, but you see people all the time in the top 10 who are like man i didn't expect to be here, won't be at all surprised if i get upset in <insert early round of NT game or CT game or whatever>. so i think what results in the frustration of certain upsets, for me as well as most others, is partly randomness, but also partly us all just being imperfect in our ability to perceive the quality of our team and the quality of our team setup and game plan, and how good the other team was and how we matched up, and all that kind of stuff.