What next to improve in HD? Topic

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 9:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/21/2014 8:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/21/2014 7:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):
i know this seems trivial to some, but it drives me nuts that in the national tournament the #1 and #2 overall seeded teams are pitted to meet in the F4 instead of the #1 and #4 overall seeded teams (e.g., the highest and lowest seeded no. 1's). this should be such an easy fix of such an obvious error. and this is more than cosmetic, it affects the way the national tournament plays out. (probably the same for the PIT, but i didn't bother checking.)
this isn't true, is it?
I'd never noticed it, and I usually try to follow both the NT and the PIT fairly closely each season.
Go look at the history of any world - the nt seedings and brackets are there.
i think you are reading it wrong, im almost positive it works right. i just looked at last season when we got the last 1 seed with ohio state, and the winner of our bracket correctly played the winner of the top 1 seeds bracket. are you assuming the 2nd bracket in the drop down hosts the 2 seed? if so, thats your problem - the 1st and 2nd brackets play, but the 4th 1 seed gets the 1 seed in the 2nd bracket.
5/21/2014 9:32 PM
Are you sure? I'm certain that based on the projection report the 2 seed got the 2nd 1.
5/21/2014 9:39 PM
I've never checked d1, but this was the case for d2.
5/21/2014 9:41 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/21/2014 9:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/21/2014 9:23:00 PM (view original):
I'll add one more.  Forget about the .425 winning % for post-season qualification.  The regular season conference champion (however you want to define that) should be guaranteed a spot in the PIT if they fail to qualify for the NT.
even with like 10 total barren wasteland conference? if HD was even like, half full, i could see it - but already coaches with 1-2 per conf have a huge advantage, they basically split a NT auto bid between them, unless they can't beat the sims. i'd hate to see them get an auto PIT bid, too! i guess the conf champion will often win the CT, so its not as bad as wrecking 10 PIT spots with total **** teams, but still... i could support it for conferences with at least 6 humans, i guess? or if the HD world was 50% or more full, even? i wonder if any divisions qualify as half full...
Yup, even with all of those barren conferences.  The reason WIS decided to go with a .425 winning % is because total **** teams ARE making the PIT...they just happen to be total **** teams from BCS conferences.  I'd rather give that PIT spot to a 20+ win small school than award a crap *** 12-15 BCS school with a post-season appearance they do not deserve. 

BCS conference schools have the huge advantage, nobody else.
5/21/2014 9:43 PM
Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 9:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/21/2014 8:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/21/2014 7:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):
i know this seems trivial to some, but it drives me nuts that in the national tournament the #1 and #2 overall seeded teams are pitted to meet in the F4 instead of the #1 and #4 overall seeded teams (e.g., the highest and lowest seeded no. 1's). this should be such an easy fix of such an obvious error. and this is more than cosmetic, it affects the way the national tournament plays out. (probably the same for the PIT, but i didn't bother checking.)
this isn't true, is it?
I'd never noticed it, and I usually try to follow both the NT and the PIT fairly closely each season.
Go look at the history of any world - the nt seedings and brackets are there.
This is 100% untrue, and since past projections reports aren't available you cannot go check this by history. The #1 overall and 4th #1 are set to meet in the final four, with the 2nd and 3rd ones one the other side.
5/21/2014 9:50 PM
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/21/2014 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/21/2014 8:52:00 PM (view original):
1.  Purely cosmetic suggestion.  Have a preseason Top 25 poll and then DO NOT update the poll again until conference play starts.  There is nothing dumber than seeing a Top 10 team win and drop multiple spots. 

2.  Let me assign the primary position.  If I recruit a high school PG and play him at SG, let me change his freaking position to SG.  This would be fairly impactful, so it is not a purely cosmetic suggestion. 
I like #2 a LOT. I've never understood why position classification isn't more flexible like that. Seems like it would be a simple change to implement.
While #2 actually IS a purely cosmetic suggestion since listed positions don't matter at all, I do like the idea of being able to change it. But I don't like users being able to arbitrarily change listed positions. Set it so that if a player is actually playing a certain number of games (say 10 games into a season) primarily at a position he is not listed at, have the assistant coach give you a message "Hey, I noticed player X has been playing most of his time at SF. Should we start calling him a SF?" And you would have the ability to accept or decline. WIS should be able to calculate fairly easily what percentage of court time each players plays at each position.
5/21/2014 9:56 PM
Last season a conference mate and I were #1-2 in projection report in Iba (D2) - we were not on the same side of the bracket.  

Merely confirming what Jsajsa is reporting with a very recent example.
5/21/2014 9:58 PM
Posted by jsajsa on 5/21/2014 9:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/21/2014 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/21/2014 8:52:00 PM (view original):
1.  Purely cosmetic suggestion.  Have a preseason Top 25 poll and then DO NOT update the poll again until conference play starts.  There is nothing dumber than seeing a Top 10 team win and drop multiple spots. 

2.  Let me assign the primary position.  If I recruit a high school PG and play him at SG, let me change his freaking position to SG.  This would be fairly impactful, so it is not a purely cosmetic suggestion. 
I like #2 a LOT. I've never understood why position classification isn't more flexible like that. Seems like it would be a simple change to implement.
While #2 actually IS a purely cosmetic suggestion since listed positions don't matter at all, I do like the idea of being able to change it. But I don't like users being able to arbitrarily change listed positions. Set it so that if a player is actually playing a certain number of games (say 10 games into a season) primarily at a position he is not listed at, have the assistant coach give you a message "Hey, I noticed player X has been playing most of his time at SF. Should we start calling him a SF?" And you would have the ability to accept or decline. WIS should be able to calculate fairly easily what percentage of court time each players plays at each position.
Positions do not matter for post-season awards (which selbe says affects the draft) nor redshirting?  I thought they did so I'll stand corrected.

Despite that, I agree the position change should be limited...say oncy once in a career or only once a season before the first regular season game.
5/21/2014 10:02 PM

Positions do matter for awards, yes, but they do not matter for redshirting. seble changed the latter on the last update to redshirting. Players care about their ability compared with the entire roster, not only players at their listed positions.

5/21/2014 10:06 PM
Posted by jsajsa on 5/21/2014 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Positions do matter for awards, yes, but they do not matter for redshirting. seble changed the latter on the last update to redshirting. Players care about their ability compared with the entire roster, not only players at their listed positions.

OK with the redshirt...didn't catch that. 

But, if I play my PG at SF and he is being judged against other PGs rather than other SFs for post-season awards, that is a non-cosmetic impact (hence the logic for why I want to be able to switch his position from PG to SF.)
5/21/2014 10:16 PM (edited)
Quote post by jsajsa on 5/21/2014 9:50:00 PM:
Posted by jtt8355 on 5/21/2014 9:28:00 PM (view original):
Go look at the history of any world - the nt seedings and brackets are there.
This is 100% untrue, and since past projections reports aren't available you cannot go check this by history.


you're in crum. feel free to look. gil may be right and i may have read it wrong...but its right there for anyone in that world before it rolls over. 
5/21/2014 10:18 PM
Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/21/2014 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/21/2014 9:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/21/2014 9:23:00 PM (view original):
I'll add one more.  Forget about the .425 winning % for post-season qualification.  The regular season conference champion (however you want to define that) should be guaranteed a spot in the PIT if they fail to qualify for the NT.
even with like 10 total barren wasteland conference? if HD was even like, half full, i could see it - but already coaches with 1-2 per conf have a huge advantage, they basically split a NT auto bid between them, unless they can't beat the sims. i'd hate to see them get an auto PIT bid, too! i guess the conf champion will often win the CT, so its not as bad as wrecking 10 PIT spots with total **** teams, but still... i could support it for conferences with at least 6 humans, i guess? or if the HD world was 50% or more full, even? i wonder if any divisions qualify as half full...
Yup, even with all of those barren conferences.  The reason WIS decided to go with a .425 winning % is because total **** teams ARE making the PIT...they just happen to be total **** teams from BCS conferences.  I'd rather give that PIT spot to a 20+ win small school than award a crap *** 12-15 BCS school with a post-season appearance they do not deserve. 

BCS conference schools have the huge advantage, nobody else.
And I would rather have a 12-15 human-coached team from a BCS conference, that is 63rd on the projection report get the PIT bid than a 20-8 Sim AI coached team get it.

To each their own, I guess.
5/21/2014 10:26 PM
Yup, wildcat (and gillispie as well.)  No problem with the differing opinion.  I just see the game to be too slanted towards power conferences (baseline prestige being the devil's work at DI) and would like to distribute that $$$ a little bit towards the smaller conferences.

I also see it as an incentive to get humans to join smaller conferences.  For example, Crum has 2 DI conferences and 4 DIII conferences that have all SIMS.  If it was such an advantage to be a lone human in a conference full of SIMS, this scenario would never happen.  Joining a ghost town conference is a competitive disadvantage because you are one conference tourney RNG away from not making the post-season at all, even if your team is vastly superior. 

WIS needs to do something to make it attractive for humans to take over smaller schools...and stay there.
5/21/2014 10:48 PM
Wis needs to make it attractive to play a bunch of sims?
Not sure understand why.

Leave some ghost conferences as ghosts and have good competition for those who wanna compete.
5/21/2014 11:01 PM
Posted by stewdog on 5/21/2014 11:01:00 PM (view original):
Wis needs to make it attractive to play a bunch of sims?
Not sure understand why.

Leave some ghost conferences as ghosts and have good competition for those who wanna compete.
WIS is a for profit business.  Every human generates a maximum of 12.95 per season.  North Carolina pays 12.95 and DIII Maine Farmington pays 12.95.

That the reason for making it attractive to have humans move into ghost conferences.
5/21/2014 11:16 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
What next to improve in HD? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.