It's rather odd for me of all people to be making this summation, but it seems to me that raw wins (number of wins) are worth too much, and slights SOS in the process.  I'm currently 13-9 in Phelan with a 64 RPI and a 58 SOS...my projection currently is 89th.  There are a number of teams ahead of me, killing cake schedules (namely Wayne State-MI, not singling anyone out) with like a 77 RPI and a 250 something SOS, and they're making the tournament...somewhere in the 60s I think, with a 19-4 record or so.

To me it just seems like there's been an overcorrection...used to be too much RPI, now too much Wins...probably going to tab at the end of the season with my system just to see how I'd rank them, with and without point margin.

I'd like some feedback here, does my argument have teeth or no? Explain

how is your record vs top 100, top 50, top 25 (and maybe even top 75) by rpi? that is a huge part of the projection report's decision making process.

hmm only 1 team, i thought you had more for some reason.

3-6 vs top 100 rpi
2-5 vs top 75 rpi
1-4 vs top 50 rpi
0-2 vs top 25 rpi

that would probably do it. you can easily check how the people above you fared, i suspect they fared better? looking at the numbers i posted, it looks like a team who is definitely not a 50 in the nation type team. im not sure exactly what team, on average, pulls 3-6 vs top 100 rpi... is it the 75th best team? i don't know. i would think you wouldnt have dropped so far, 64 to 89 from rpi, but still, its well within the variation we've seen, and your record vs top 50/100/etc is just not very good. check out that 19-4 team, i bet they have a way better showing in that area than you do.

I think part of that is to balance out for teams who might be good, but just happen to be in a bad conference. On another team, I had a 50 SOS at the end of non conference and when the season ended I was at around 200, because I had a fairly empty conference. Plus there are cases of whether or not they have any good wins or if their losses are bad good or bad losses. I'm not too sure how much that plays a factor, but its something to consider.

Wheeling Jesuit is 23-1 and has played one team in the top 100, gonna check that out for sure

I actually think the opposite.  I think WIS (and possibly the NCAA in real life) value "good" losses more than "bad" wins.  My thinking is - It's far easier to lose to a great team than it is to beat a bad team.  I understand why they do it (to promote good pre-season matchups), but 1 or 2 horrible rpi's on your schedule and your whole season's rpi is shot.

I don't think you are looking at this correctly.  The current system punishes bad losses.  You have at least three.  You might have five.  I'm not sure how much of a penalty you pay for losing games to RPI 71 and 80 but it's possible those are hurting your cause a decent amount as well.

Whether that's right or wrong, is up for debate.  But I don't think it's a simple matter of "raw wins".

EDIT: The opposite end of what Mike posted 1 minute before me.

Reasonable people can disagree.  I still like KU as a 2nd tier rooting interest. 

Posted by udm_mike on 8/22/2012 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Reasonable people can disagree.  I still like KU as a 2nd tier rooting interest. 

I wasn't disagreeing with you whatsoever. 

The current projection report rewards good losses; it also penalizes you for the bad ones.  My post was saying that the flip side of what you were saying is also true.

Essentially, you'll do ok in the projection report with a decent team as long as you beat everybody that you should beat and as long as you get to 14 wins, it won't matter much at all if you end up getting slaughtered in a dozen games by the top 25 RPI.

My system actually seems to bear this out...I tabbed, my team, Wheeling Jesuit and Wayne State-MI, and it went in the order that WIS has it.

Gonna check out the team just above me though, because it feels like I should be ahead of them, not that it would make much difference, just my own curiosity more or less...South Carolina Upstate

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/22/2012 3:39:00 PM (view original):
I don't think you are looking at this correctly.  The current system punishes bad losses.  You have at least three.  You might have five.  I'm not sure how much of a penalty you pay for losing games to RPI 71 and 80 but it's possible those are hurting your cause a decent amount as well.

Whether that's right or wrong, is up for debate.  But I don't think it's a simple matter of "raw wins".

EDIT: The opposite end of what Mike posted 1 minute before me.

Agree. In my experience, though small since the change came out, the most important things are big wins (vs top 25 or top 50) and bad losses (out of the top 100). Bad losses do hurt a lot on this system and that's probably what's costing you.

Well hell, it looks like WIS hawked my ranking system too lol, because it's all playing out as they say...bastards lol...even more reason to love this game, being serious.  Thanks for all the input

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/22/2012 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by udm_mike on 8/22/2012 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Reasonable people can disagree.  I still like KU as a 2nd tier rooting interest. 

I wasn't disagreeing with you whatsoever. 

The current projection report rewards good losses; it also penalizes you for the bad ones.  My post was saying that the flip side of what you were saying is also true.

Essentially, you'll do ok in the projection report with a decent team as long as you beat everybody that you should beat and as long as you get to 14 wins, it won't matter much at all if you end up getting slaughtered in a dozen games by the top 25 RPI.

Ohhhh, I see what you're saying.  But I think 1 thing that needs to be added to yours...don't make the mistake of having a few 250+ rpi teams sprinkled in there, or beating the teams you should beat very well might not be good enough.