Posted by gillispie1 on 5/18/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MyGeneration on 5/18/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 5/17/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I agree there is no doubt that the Postseason Projection Report is better than the RPI based system.

But there is no doubt in my mind that giving slightly more credit for wins will knock out some of those Big 6 bottom feeders with 15 losses, and will make it an even better system.

Here-here. "Those Big 6 bottom feeders with 15 losses" already gravy-train their conference mates by benefiting from recruiting dollars earned by their bretheren. I'm all for increasing the weight given to wins. 

ignoring for a moment, the PIT segment of the projection report... do you see any problems with the importance of W/L in the top 50? i think it would be valuable to selling your guys point, to show some concrete top 50 examples, which won't include these odd edge cases people have gotten so upset about. essentially, when you suggest increasing the W/L of the projection report on the whole, you are suggesting a systemic change, which really requires a systemic problem, to be well justified. if the problem is only local to PIT bids, a systemic solution is probably not the appropriate route. 

really, i think the reason you guys aren't winning people over to the "change the logic for everyone" suggestion, is because you aren't showing a problem anywhere, except one narrow place. if you guys could make a compelling argument about issues in the top 50, that would be a VERY different story. 

Posted by dacj501 on 5/17/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
not to be a smartass - I seriously don't know how I can answer some of these without knowing how heavily they are currently weighted...

I dug through the FAQ, release notes and dev chats for info on how the process is explained to work: I'm assuming that the opponent rank and RPI are adjusted overall ranks and not ranks at the time the game was played?

---------

National Tournament selection and seeding both rely on the same logic.

The logic for ranking teams for the postseason essentially calculates a score for each game on a team's schedule. This game score is determined by the following components:

• Result (win or loss)
• RPI rank of the opponent
• Top 25 rank of the opponent (this rank is actually calculated and used for all teams, even beyond the top 25)
• Score margin of the game
• Location (home, away, or neutral court)

There is also consideration given to record over the final 10 games as well as conference tournament performance.

-----------------

11/29/11 dev chat

I'll give a quick recap of the changes coming to tournament selection. The new logic will go through each team's schedule game by game and score the results of each game based on game outcome (win/loss), opponent RPI, opponent rank, score margin, and game location (home/away/neutral). The overall score for a team will be the average of the individual game scores. I like this method better than just putting weights on RPI/rank/etc., because it allows me to give credit for a good win and take away value for a bad loss. For example a bunch of close losses to really good teams will give you more credit now than in the old logic. There will always be debates about which resume is really better, but I think this will be an improvement.

-------------------------

12/7/11 release notes

12/07/2011

• Made the following tweaks to the postseason selection logic: 
  
  - Increased value for winning the game 
  
  - Less weight on opponent rank 
  
  - Less weight on score margin 
  
  - Less weight on last 10 games 
  
  - Less weight on conference tournament results (those games are still included in the normal schedule results evaluation) 
  
  Also, score margin is now being adjusted for the pace of the game, so a 50-30 margin is considered slightly more impressive than a 90-70 margin. 

-------------

So, I get that these factors are the major players, but how much weight is given to each factor? How can I say if too much weight is given to the opponent RPI (for instance) when I don't know if the current weight given is 20% of the overall formula or 40%? Is there a downside to disclosing (at least roughly) the current weights (in that it might allow some to game the system)?

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2014 3:17:00 AM (view original):
I think the overall projection report does a very solid job.

If I was going to change anything, I'd change the Margin component because (however little it comes into play) it is far more likely to have an impact when a team is severely underscheduling and just trying to run up the score. Beating St. Vincent's Blind Children by 300 should be worth just about nothing. As is, it is already worth a win, so why make it worth anything more?

I think that the #2 consideration and #3 consideration (opponent RPI and top "25" ranking) being more important would tend to completely offset any gain from whipping the sisters of the poor by 60 

Posted by dacj501 on 5/19/2014 9:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2014 3:17:00 AM (view original):
I think the overall projection report does a very solid job.

If I was going to change anything, I'd change the Margin component because (however little it comes into play) it is far more likely to have an impact when a team is severely underscheduling and just trying to run up the score. Beating St. Vincent's Blind Children by 300 should be worth just about nothing. As is, it is already worth a win, so why make it worth anything more?

I think that the #2 consideration and #3 consideration (opponent RPI and top "25" ranking) being more important would tend to completely offset any gain from whipping the sisters of the poor by 60 

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2014 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 5/19/2014 9:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2014 3:17:00 AM (view original):
I think the overall projection report does a very solid job.

If I was going to change anything, I'd change the Margin component because (however little it comes into play) it is far more likely to have an impact when a team is severely underscheduling and just trying to run up the score. Beating St. Vincent's Blind Children by 300 should be worth just about nothing. As is, it is already worth a win, so why make it worth anything more?

I think that the #2 consideration and #3 consideration (opponent RPI and top "25" ranking) being more important would tend to completely offset any gain from whipping the sisters of the poor by 60 

Maybe, but we don't know that for sure because we don't have the percentages. Also, keep in mind that a game vs the sisters of the poor helps with 3 of the 5 considerations if you schedule it on the road and run up the score. Not the second and third most important considerations, as you noted, but the first, fourth, and fifth are all checked off without any real risk of loss.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2014 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 5/19/2014 9:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2014 3:17:00 AM (view original):
I think the overall projection report does a very solid job.

If I was going to change anything, I'd change the Margin component because (however little it comes into play) it is far more likely to have an impact when a team is severely underscheduling and just trying to run up the score. Beating St. Vincent's Blind Children by 300 should be worth just about nothing. As is, it is already worth a win, so why make it worth anything more?

I think that the #2 consideration and #3 consideration (opponent RPI and top "25" ranking) being more important would tend to completely offset any gain from whipping the sisters of the poor by 60 

Maybe, but we don't know that for sure because we don't have the percentages. Also, keep in mind that a game vs the sisters of the poor helps with 3 of the 5 considerations if you schedule it on the road and run up the score. Not the second and third most important considerations, as you noted, but the first, fourth, and fifth are all checked off without any real risk of loss.

which is why it doesn't make sense to make W/L even more important :)

gaming the system on the cupcake side with high w/l is clearly where the vast majority of gaming the system takes place today, along the lines of zbrent's post. basically gaming the system with the "good easy wins" is the "right way" to schedule these days (well, it sort of always has been, its just a different sort of "good easy wins", slightly). seems to me there are edge cases on the RPI/SOS side but those guys aren't trying to game, more, just getting beat down really hard. frankly, if they are happy to get slaughtered every season as a means of gaming, i really don't have an objection... meanwhile, many of us (myself included) sit around trying to find the guys a couple notches above the blind children who will give us a win without killing us elsewhere. thats probably half the coaches in d1, based on the schedules i see... seems a little silly to give more credit to those folks (myself included) for their easy (but not TOO easy) wins. 

Posted by dacj501 on 5/19/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2014 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 5/19/2014 9:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2014 3:17:00 AM (view original):
I think the overall projection report does a very solid job.

If I was going to change anything, I'd change the Margin component because (however little it comes into play) it is far more likely to have an impact when a team is severely underscheduling and just trying to run up the score. Beating St. Vincent's Blind Children by 300 should be worth just about nothing. As is, it is already worth a win, so why make it worth anything more?

I think that the #2 consideration and #3 consideration (opponent RPI and top "25" ranking) being more important would tend to completely offset any gain from whipping the sisters of the poor by 60 

Maybe, but we don't know that for sure because we don't have the percentages. Also, keep in mind that a game vs the sisters of the poor helps with 3 of the 5 considerations if you schedule it on the road and run up the score. Not the second and third most important considerations, as you noted, but the first, fourth, and fifth are all checked off without any real risk of loss.

which is why it doesn't make sense to make W/L even more important :)

gaming the system on the cupcake side with high w/l is clearly where the vast majority of gaming the system takes place today, along the lines of zbrent's post. basically gaming the system with the "good easy wins" is the "right way" to schedule these days (well, it sort of always has been, its just a different sort of "good easy wins", slightly). seems to me there are edge cases on the RPI/SOS side but those guys aren't trying to game, more, just getting beat down really hard. frankly, if they are happy to get slaughtered every season as a means of gaming, i really don't have an objection... meanwhile, many of us (myself included) sit around trying to find the guys a couple notches above the blind children who will give us a win without killing us elsewhere. thats probably half the coaches in d1, based on the schedules i see... seems a little silly to give more credit to those folks (myself included) for their easy (but not TOO easy) wins. 

jeff I'm pretty sure zbrent was saying he's in favor of modifying down the margin of victory component, not that he wanted the win/loss component increased, unless I missed the mark?

Posted by trail on 5/19/2014 4:57:00 PM (view original):
I didn't read through the whole thread, but does anyone else think that record vs RPI top 50/100 should factor in more? Last season, my Cal, Santa Cruz team had a weak SOS, but we won a large number of games vs RPI top 50/100. I was the first team out of the tournament and there were a handful of teams that got in with far worse records against Top 100 RPI. 

Posted by arssanguinus on 5/19/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Just include a small demerit for each game under 500 in the projection report and move on.