Is there any real life rule where you need a certain winning percentage to make the PIT?  If not, I'm not sure why there was a need to add this feature, considering this is the second time I've had a high enough ranking based on the projection report to make the PIT, but it was below the "mandatory" .429 winning percentage. 

I was an Auburn this season, but also had to play 5 teams in my own division, all were ranked at some point during the season. It makes it harder for lower prestige schools within a major conference to have any success.

Yeah, the 9-18 record was pretty awful, we played like cra* most of the season, but still, assuming the projection report is fairly accurate, I'm thinking there really isn't a need for this rule, since we corrected the RPI issue with the projection report.

There is no official rule but the NIT has never taken a team with a losing record.

www.nycbuckets.com/2015/02/nit-bracketology-feb-22/

The NIT does not have a winning percentage requirement.  However, they used to require a .500 winning percentage (until 2006).  Despite not having this requirement, no team has made the tournament with less than .500 record since that time.

This is all per wikipedia's NIT page.  

I know with my Maryland rebuild, I had to be very careful to schedule non-conference to make sure I had at least some shot at 14 wins, which is a requirement for post season too.

Yeah - you should definitely try to schedule a little easier in the non-conference. You have the #1 SOS in Division 1 in this world.

At the time the win percentage rule was put in effect there were two main arguments...first, that it would prevent the bottom teams from all-human conferences from reaching the post-season, providing a slightly more equitable distribution of post-season cash and, second, the community distaste over teams with 9 and 10 wins playing in the postseason. 

Posted by thewizard17 on 9/20/2015 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Is there any real life rule where you need a certain winning percentage to make the PIT?  If not, I'm not sure why there was a need to add this feature, considering this is the second time I've had a high enough ranking based on the projection report to make the PIT, but it was below the "mandatory" .429 winning percentage. 

I was an Auburn this season, but also had to play 5 teams in my own division, all were ranked at some point during the season. It makes it harder for lower prestige schools within a major conference to have any success.

Yeah, the 9-18 record was pretty awful, we played like cra* most of the season, but still, assuming the projection report is fairly accurate, I'm thinking there really isn't a need for this rule, since we corrected the RPI issue with the projection report.

The HD rule was put in not long ago and voted on and accepted by most coaches to prevent teams exactly like yours from making the PI.  Sorry, but it's not at all realistic for a team that wins 9 games to make the postseason, and no matter where you fell on the projection report, you should not be rewarded for that.

Posted by thewizard17 on 9/20/2015 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Is there any real life rule where you need a certain winning percentage to make the PIT?  If not, I'm not sure why there was a need to add this feature, considering this is the second time I've had a high enough ranking based on the projection report to make the PIT, but it was below the "mandatory" .429 winning percentage. 

I was an Auburn this season, but also had to play 5 teams in my own division, all were ranked at some point during the season. It makes it harder for lower prestige schools within a major conference to have any success.

Yeah, the 9-18 record was pretty awful, we played like cra* most of the season, but still, assuming the projection report is fairly accurate, I'm thinking there really isn't a need for this rule, since we corrected the RPI issue with the projection report.

it was hotly contested... some guys were REALLY adamant about the change. some people disagreed. the part i didn't like is how some folks who wanted it made it about personal attacks, said the folks who disagreed were just self-serving money hogs at a prestige BCS jobs, who didn't want to lose that conference bonus money... like the occasional 5K split 12 ways is even remotely a factor. i really am not thrilled with the whole thing. initially it was pushed for a winning record, or maybe .45, but luckily, that was defeated. but then the gripers wouldn't stop. i think seble did .425 to shut them up. frankly by the end i was for the .425, for that very reason, because it was just such a ridiculous conversation in general. 

to the guy who said it was voted on... yeah... it was. but first, it was voted on, and the people pushing for the change lost. the second time around, they won, but it was pretty close. usually you won't make a change in a split vote like that - why spend the effort when the net happiness increase is negligible? i really am skeptical that ever had majority support, and while im ok having the game as it today, and will never fight to change it, i will refute suggestions like yours that it happened because most people were for this change, or anything remotely along those lines. it was similar to how in politics sometimes 5% of people want something, and people say no, no, no... but eventually, just get tired of hearing it, and give the crybabies what they want. that is the comparison, not majority support, as made out to be.

the problem with the real life comparison someone made is the SOS range of schools here does not match real life. real BCS schools mostly have cupcake non conferences and you don't have single conferences reach the heights conferences do here. plus, the recruit gen situation is not realistic. its harder to make the NT already as a low end BCS school than as a mid major, so i did not favor another rebalancing to make things harder for struggling BCS teams compared to mid majors. but... none of that matters. its better to have a .425 and be done with that whole situation. i really am not strongly against a .425 limit or any of that, and upon a read, i think my post comes across that way. what i am strongly against is the manner in which it was changed, thats all.

I strongly believe that the PIT should be human only!  NT will have Sim's due to championships and empty Conferences.  PIT should ALWAYS be human only!

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/20/2015 9:51:00 PM (view original):
Yeah - you should definitely try to schedule a little easier in the non-conference. You have the #1 SOS in Division 1 in this world.

I tried to maneuver it so I could get road wins of teams that I thought at the time I was slightly better than, to maximize my RPI and still get the W. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out this time around Ended up overrating my team and probably underrated some of my opponents. If I had it to do over, I wouldn't change a thing in terms of coming up with a strategy and coming up with a schedule to maximize my chances of getting into the NT.

Posted by dan2044 on 9/21/2015 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 9/20/2015 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Is there any real life rule where you need a certain winning percentage to make the PIT?  If not, I'm not sure why there was a need to add this feature, considering this is the second time I've had a high enough ranking based on the projection report to make the PIT, but it was below the "mandatory" .429 winning percentage. 

I was an Auburn this season, but also had to play 5 teams in my own division, all were ranked at some point during the season. It makes it harder for lower prestige schools within a major conference to have any success.

Yeah, the 9-18 record was pretty awful, we played like cra* most of the season, but still, assuming the projection report is fairly accurate, I'm thinking there really isn't a need for this rule, since we corrected the RPI issue with the projection report.

The HD rule was put in not long ago and voted on and accepted by most coaches to prevent teams exactly like yours from making the PI.  Sorry, but it's not at all realistic for a team that wins 9 games to make the postseason, and no matter where you fell on the projection report, you should not be rewarded for that.

What about a team that went 0-7 against the Top 100 RPI, should that team still get into the PIT?

Posted by thewizard17 on 9/22/2015 12:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dan2044 on 9/21/2015 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 9/20/2015 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Is there any real life rule where you need a certain winning percentage to make the PIT?  If not, I'm not sure why there was a need to add this feature, considering this is the second time I've had a high enough ranking based on the projection report to make the PIT, but it was below the "mandatory" .429 winning percentage. 

I was an Auburn this season, but also had to play 5 teams in my own division, all were ranked at some point during the season. It makes it harder for lower prestige schools within a major conference to have any success.

Yeah, the 9-18 record was pretty awful, we played like cra* most of the season, but still, assuming the projection report is fairly accurate, I'm thinking there really isn't a need for this rule, since we corrected the RPI issue with the projection report.

The HD rule was put in not long ago and voted on and accepted by most coaches to prevent teams exactly like yours from making the PI.  Sorry, but it's not at all realistic for a team that wins 9 games to make the postseason, and no matter where you fell on the projection report, you should not be rewarded for that.

What about a team that went 0-7 against the Top 100 RPI, should that team still get into the PIT?

Obviously there's more to the selection process than that.

Posted by undietaker on 9/22/2015 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 9/22/2015 12:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dan2044 on 9/21/2015 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 9/20/2015 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Is there any real life rule where you need a certain winning percentage to make the PIT?  If not, I'm not sure why there was a need to add this feature, considering this is the second time I've had a high enough ranking based on the projection report to make the PIT, but it was below the "mandatory" .429 winning percentage. 

I was an Auburn this season, but also had to play 5 teams in my own division, all were ranked at some point during the season. It makes it harder for lower prestige schools within a major conference to have any success.

Yeah, the 9-18 record was pretty awful, we played like cra* most of the season, but still, assuming the projection report is fairly accurate, I'm thinking there really isn't a need for this rule, since we corrected the RPI issue with the projection report.

The HD rule was put in not long ago and voted on and accepted by most coaches to prevent teams exactly like yours from making the PI.  Sorry, but it's not at all realistic for a team that wins 9 games to make the postseason, and no matter where you fell on the projection report, you should not be rewarded for that.

What about a team that went 0-7 against the Top 100 RPI, should that team still get into the PIT?

Obviously there's more to the selection process than that.

I was just making a counter point that if 9-18 isn't deserving, then 0-7 against the Top 100 RPI is just as undeserving.

its a fair counter point, but really the reality is seble is trying to build one projection report equation, that properly ranks schools at all points across the equation (the spots outside NT / PIT range don't matter much but still). that is difficult. you sort of have to pick a focus and go from there. then, you have this equation that works well sometimes (hopefully - and his does - i forgot to include his proj report update in the updates he did well - but thats a great one). ideally, that's enough. but when organically working well fails for other parts of the spectrum, clever hacks for various parts of the equation can work out nicely. his works really well at the top of the range. in the 50s and such? i dont know really personally i mean if my teams are not great i just ignore them completely, but from when i've seen people throw up instances, and looked, it always seemed pretty good to me.

so, in that theory, im not totally against a hack to fix some part of the spectrum - most likely, the bottom part of the spectrum, furthest for where he really optimized. that would be making the PIT. and definitely its less smart down there in terms of who makes the NT than it is for seeding at the top. i just think the hack in question here is not particularly clever. it is what it is though, i think its really not that important either way, but ill note that the group punished, the bottom BCS teams, have the single hardest situation in the game. that shouldn't be the case in general, and if it wasn't, i really wouldn't give a damn about if you can make the PIT on a .500 or .425 or whatever. but just because its so hard for that one group already, i think it was wrong to kick them while they were down.

i guess, you might be wondering, what does this have to do with anything? well, the argument is being made that the hack is basically inappropriate and organic rankings should be used - at least, thats what i feel is being said, at the core. i generally agree but from a realistic perspective, it is very hard to make something great across the whole range of situations, and those hacks can help. i have nothing against the PIT hack in the general sense, other than you should avoid hacks in general, but there is legitimate usage and frankly this case is a reasonable one to do it. but when you apply it to the reality of the game, to who it is actually hurting and helping, that is where im against it. who knows, maybe when seble nukes recruiting into oblivion, if there is still a game left to play, the cards will be shuffled and it won't be an issue anymore - the bottom BCS situations won't be so hard, it will be the mid majors who need the boost, and ill be all for it.

I bet you loved the essay questions part of the test, huh?