My only strong view is that this should not be the same .500 as for the NT.  any of the other numbers seem fine

AND, I think it is much wiser to impose a floor on win percentage than to tinker with the projection report algorithm which could have unintended effects.  Simple better in my opinion.

Leave it the way it is. The Projection Report system is fine. So what if a weak record from a strong conference sneaks in once in a while. I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

this is a hoops dynasty sim that simulates real life college basketball.  A coach of a team in real life would be closer to being fired with a 9-20 record than making a postseason tournament, not matter how powerful the conference was.  My opinion has always been that in this case, there should be some relation to real life, no matter how good a teams RPI or BPI is in real life if they go 2-14 in conference they just would not get a postseason bid. 

What about auto-bid for the Conf champion if the team doesn't make the nt?

Is this for D1 or all divisions?

i voted .400 just because i think those single digit win cases will continue to annoy people and it would be nice to hear less about this issue. i don't think its worth seble's time, but it is what it is. i really believe the only reason this is such a sticking point is because both mid majors and low BCS schools have it so much harder in today's d1, with the paradigm brought about by the recruit generation changes. if both groups weren't left fighting for scraps year in and year out, both in terms of recruits and post season bids, even with more than capable coaches - i really don't think this would be such an issue. i mean, people would complain, yes, but i think this is getting amplified by frustrations of the people in these positions, on both sides. 

i think this is evident from the fact that 30 something percent of people voted to increase the W/L in the overall projection report, when i cannot recall one person, ever, complaining or even commenting on the W/L being too weak anywhere in the entire NT spectrum. i've made this comment, nobody has come forward with anything... plus, if you were to ask how to game the proj report through scheduling here on the board, you'd get a fairly consistent answer, beat easy teams on the road. allowing people to further game the system is totally against previous stances of the most vocal proponents for the PIT limit - i think this is fairly conclusive evidence that this PIT issue is not standing on its own two feet. it doesn't mean its recruit generation, but the drop in d1 coaches when recruit generation changed is a pretty hard data point to ignore.

clarebear, I agree with you. However that's not the scope of this poll and thread. Perhaps it should be considered here. I would suggest that no less than 45% in conference for the PI would be fairly close to Real Life. I'm assuming Conference and Conference Trny record. This would appear to deal with the whole issue in a fairly easy way. Anybody else's thoughts?

I feel there should be a minimum of 12 wins to make the PIT.   The worst possible record would then be 12-15, or .444.  So, I voted for .425

11-16 extreme cases are acceptable to me. voted .400

Posted by alblack56 on 5/20/2014 12:47:00 PM (view original):
I feel there should be a minimum of 12 wins to make the PIT.   The worst possible record would then be 12-15, or .444.  So, I voted for .425

Funny Al, I did the exact same calculation. I figure even if you're in a super-strong copnference, you can get to 12 by winning 9 or 10 in non-conf and then just 2 or 3 in conf.

I'm not in favor of a separate floor for conf winning percentage, like 40% or 50%, because HD's strongest conferences blow away any conference in RL. I just want to avoid the extreme cases of winning fewer than 12 games overall and still getting in.

Posted by alblack56 on 5/20/2014 12:47:00 PM (view original):
I feel there should be a minimum of 12 wins to make the PIT.   The worst possible record would then be 12-15, or .444.  So, I voted for .425

i'm good with that, i listed out the records in that other thread for .400 and .450, and felt .400 might be a bit liberal, and .450 a bit conservative. 

Posted by dacj501 on 5/20/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):
11-16 extreme cases are acceptable to me. voted .400

+1

I expect unintended consequences for anything much over a 40% requirement. 39% would be better than any of the above.

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/20/2014 11:46:00 AM (view original):
What about auto-bid for the Conf champion if the team doesn't make the nt?

I would have voted for this in lieu of the .400 minimum I ended up voting for. I think doing this would basically eliminate the most objectionable cases anyway. It also mirrors the real-life NIT.

Posted by alblack56 on 5/20/2014 12:47:00 PM (view original):
I feel there should be a minimum of 12 wins to make the PIT.   The worst possible record would then be 12-15, or .444.  So, I voted for .425

My feelings 100%