#14 in projection report which has me lined up to be a #4 seed.

6-1 vs Top 25
5-1 vs RPI top 12 and won those games convincingly.
27-1 with only loss to previous #1 ranked Seton Hall on road
8-1 vs RPI top 50
Won conference tournament
RPI of 9. Overall Ranking #7

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/29/2016 3:22:00 PM (view original):
#14 in projection report which has me lined up to be a #4 seed.

6-1 vs Top 25
5-1 vs RPI top 12 and won those games convincingly.
27-1 with only loss to previous #1 ranked Seton Hall on road
8-1 vs RPI top 50
Won conference tournament
RPI of 9. Overall Ranking #7

Screwed. Period.

So some teams must of been 7-0 top 25, 6-0 top 12, 28-0 record 9-0 top 50 plus therefore winnong conference tourney! Problemo solved!

It's unfortunate, because most of the time the projection report does work and still works better than the RPI, in most cases just not seemingly here. Very discouraging I might have to play a very strong #5 seed, assuming I win my 1st round game and even that's not a guarantee.

I'm not in Phelan anymore, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that everybody ahead of you likely had a lot more games against the RPI top 25, top 50, top 100, etc. You had 16 games against teams outside of the RPI top 100. How many of the teams ahead of you have half that? Yeah, you won all the tough games. There just weren't that many of them.

I think in the real world you'd get more like a 2 or 3 seed with that resume. But I can see how it happened. The game is built now to reward you for winning tough games. You did well in tough games, there just were too few of them. The deck has always been pretty stacked against teams outside the Big 6.

your games against your conference opponents killed you.

you might've had some of the best games, but you also had the worst games and it wasn't even close to the guys above you.

you had 7 top 25 rpi opponents and 16 100+ rpi opponents including 10 being 200+ rpi so those games probably wiped out any good games you had

everyone above you had maybe 1 200+ opponent and under 5/6 100+ opponent

it sucks but thats what happens when you aren't in a major conference its impossible to pull a Wichita State because when they got their #1 seed their rpi was 4 sos was 111 and they had 0 top 25 rpi wins and only 3 26-50 rpi wins I honestly don't even know how they'd be seeded at least an 8 because HD doesn't use your own rpi to calculate your seeding

the projection report does punish you for games against weak opponents

I looked very closely at the teams ahead of you on the PR Wizard and being as neutral and unbiased as I could be, I can't get you any higher than 13, which of course is still a 4 seed and even that is splitting hairs. I see one team that I can move you above, but that's it. As the others have said, unfortunately playing in a weak conference has killed you. You absolutely smashed non-conference play and I would have loved to see where you were when the very first PR came out. My guess is that you were in the top 5 or 6 and very possibly even higher than that.

But as you got into conference play and had to play Sims (and pretty weak ones at that) and the teams around you had to play, well, the other teams around you, the weak conference came back to bite you in the ***.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dahs, in the the "real" world that team is probably at "worst" a three seed and possibly a two. I don't see it getting a one seed without having a loss on your record, but for what it's worth, that's a helluva job you did against a brutal non-con lineup.

I think he was #1 on the projection report when it first came out I think, but I had a bad feeling when this post came out and unfortunately the forum jinx lives on.

I ended up #1 on the projection report and here are my numbers for comparison:

7-1 vs. top 25
10-3 vs top 25 RPI (all 3 losses on the road)
4-0 vs 100-200 RPI (all in conference play)
2-0 vs 200+ RPI (all versus theonly's alt ID 0-27 Cal team which had huge # of walk ons and had no choice but to at least play him twice)

I was very impressed with wiz's non-conf play but like everyone else pointed out, the lack of quality coaches/teams in the Big South was eventually his undoing.

More than likely we would've lost to Providence even if we got by the first round. We wouldn't have matched up well with them. Not surprisingly, the last eight teams in the tournament, three of those were #5 seeds. If I had gotten at least a #3 seed, I think I would've been much more satisfied, because of avoiding some of those teams in the second round. In the end, it was less about the seeding and more about not playing well in our first game of the tournament, which we failed to do.

Mustafa and mrbig are very good coaches in our conference, however they are on the opposite side and we only play them once in the regular season. 90% of the SIM teams are awful. For some reason, I assumed margin of victory had more of an impact in the projection report, but apparently that isn't the case. The confusing part is how we ended up with a better RPI than we the projection report ranking, when we met all of the criteria for the projection report, other than the strong conference schedule.

Posted by thewizard17 on 7/1/2016 3:14:00 PM (view original):
More than likely we would've lost to Providence even if we got by the first round. We wouldn't have matched up well with them. Not surprisingly, the last eight teams in the tournament, three of those were #5 seeds. If I had gotten at least a #3 seed, I think I would've been much more satisfied, because of avoiding some of those teams in the second round. In the end, it was less about the seeding and more about not playing well in our first game of the tournament, which we failed to do.

Mustafa and mrbig are very good coaches in our conference, however they are on the opposite side and we only play them once in the regular season. 90% of the SIM teams are awful. For some reason, I assumed margin of victory had more of an impact in the projection report, but apparently that isn't the case. The confusing part is how we ended up with a better RPI than we the projection report ranking, when we met all of the criteria for the projection report, other than the strong conference schedule.

Yeah I don't understand rpi either. I mean I do understand away wins are worth more than home wins. But in my tenured at Chowan are best season was with are best rpi and most wins in a season (10). I been doing like dog *$#@ with worser RPI's that is what I don't understand at all.

Posted by thewizard17 on 7/1/2016 3:14:00 PM (view original):
More than likely we would've lost to Providence even if we got by the first round. We wouldn't have matched up well with them. Not surprisingly, the last eight teams in the tournament, three of those were #5 seeds. If I had gotten at least a #3 seed, I think I would've been much more satisfied, because of avoiding some of those teams in the second round. In the end, it was less about the seeding and more about not playing well in our first game of the tournament, which we failed to do.

Mustafa and mrbig are very good coaches in our conference, however they are on the opposite side and we only play them once in the regular season. 90% of the SIM teams are awful. For some reason, I assumed margin of victory had more of an impact in the projection report, but apparently that isn't the case. The confusing part is how we ended up with a better RPI than we the projection report ranking, when we met all of the criteria for the projection report, other than the strong conference schedule.

Contrary to what appears in the knowledgebase (which I think still applies to when RPI was used to determine tournament teams), I'm pretty sure margin of victory plays no role in Projection Report standing. I can't remember if it was a dev chat or an online thread that was made shortly after the PR was implemented, but I know at that time I adjusted my playing strategies from keeping the starters in during blowout games to removing them and allowing backups more minutes because my impression was that margin had no use (other than an ego trip...) and the minutes might help keep underclassmen happy and spur minor improvements over the long haul.

This was what I got from the developer chat a couple of weeks before they added the projection report. This was in the November/December 2011 time frame.

Hi Seble, New release topic: Improve the logic for tournament selection/seeding - Way too much emphasis is put on wins. Not enough on rpi/sos and strength of conference. I've seen too many times a 20+ win team from a D1 mid major with 70+ rpi/sos get high seeds.. Need to look at the conference rpi. Tough conferences are the reason really good rpi/sos teams dont have 20+ wins. They shouldnt be penalized. Thanks (coach_ms - Hall of Famer - 2:42 PM)

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.

Posted by thewizard17 on 7/1/2016 3:49:00 PM (view original):

This was what I got from the developer chat a couple of weeks before they added the projection report. This was in the November/December 2011 time frame.

Hi Seble, New release topic: Improve the logic for tournament selection/seeding - Way too much emphasis is put on wins. Not enough on rpi/sos and strength of conference. I've seen too many times a 20+ win team from a D1 mid major with 70+ rpi/sos get high seeds.. Need to look at the conference rpi. Tough conferences are the reason really good rpi/sos teams dont have 20+ wins. They shouldnt be penalized. Thanks (coach_ms - Hall of Famer - 2:42 PM)

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.

Hrmm...perhaps I have been mistaken. Thank you for posting!!

projection report along with draft big board are among the best improvements in recent years to this game

smart, targetted steps that improved the game

contrast to newHD now in the works is intentional

I think the projection report is really, really good. Seems like it does a good job of picking the teams that deserve to be in the tourney. Prob maybe too much emphasis on RPI which is flawed but oh well.