Posted by cburton23 on 5/3/2012 12:28:00 PM (view original):
I have to agree with the issue with the projection report.  My NCC team is listed at #45.  We are 16-9 RPI 35 and SOS 10.  2-6 against the Top 50 (The two wins are against #1 and #3 in the projection report and 2 of the losses are against #2)  Top 100 we are 7-8.  I am not saying we are a lock, but we should be in a much more secure bubble area.

Gosh, really? All just a matter of opinion, but I definitely don't look at your results and think NT lock. I think where you're at is about right ...

Isn't that what I said girt, not a lock?  I would think I would be about 30-35 on the report and in a much more secure spot.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you felt your team should be in a better spot on the Projection Report, but I was respectfully disagreeing.

Honestly though, this example is really just a matter of opinion and I don't think 10 spots one way or the other on the PR can at all be indicative of an inherent flaw. That's just a matter of opinion as to where a team might belong.

10 spot is pretty big when you are at the margins. This team could easily lose the CT, get dropped to 47-48, and then bubbled out. If he's sitting at 37-38 or even 42-43, CT loss only drops him to the early or mid 40s, and pretty much a lock for the NT. 

I get that part.

What I'm saying is that if the PR is showing teams at 20 that should be at 60 and vice-versa, that's indicative of a real flaw in the system.

But if you have a team that's 45 and you think maybe should be 35 or vice versa, that's just a very two-sided matter of opinion, not an inherent flaw.

Girt, I agree. If the Projection report is an attempt to get the best teams in the NT then it probably is working as planned. The problem is there are no (very few) Butlers, Goeroge Mason, VCU, etc in WIS anymore. With the way recruiting is set up, a mid major can't year-in, year-out field a top 50 team. While that may be fairly realistic since there are only 2 or 3 in real life, why is that what we want in WIS?

The issue is more with the ghost conferences that have been created as a result of the recent changes. Now, the P.R. keeps teams like Murray State from racking up wins and getting into the NT. So now you have to schedule a perfect combo of decent teams that are beatable to try to offset all the SIMs you get stuck playing. First, people were chased away by the changes, now the ones who stayed get penalized because they are forced to play these SIMs. Murray State wouldn't have sniffed an at large in WIS, with their SOS. They're P.R. standing would be 35+ spots below their RPI (as The Citadel was in my example on page 1).

So my question is, how do you get a mid major into an at large spot?
     Note: this may not apply to the A10 or MWC since their baselines are above others.

Posted by ekswimmer on 5/3/2012 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Girt, I agree. If the Projection report is an attempt to get the best teams in the NT then it probably is working as planned. The problem is there are no (very few) Butlers, Goeroge Mason, VCU, etc in WIS anymore. With the way recruiting is set up, a mid major can't year-in, year-out field a top 50 team. While that may be fairly realistic since there are only 2 or 3 in real life, why is that what we want in WIS?

The issue is more with the ghost conferences that have been created as a result of the recent changes. Now, the P.R. keeps teams like Murray State from racking up wins and getting into the NT. So now you have to schedule a perfect combo of decent teams that are beatable to try to offset all the SIMs you get stuck playing. First, people were chased away by the changes, now the ones who stayed get penalized because they are forced to play these SIMs. Murray State wouldn't have sniffed an at large in WIS, with their SOS. They're P.R. standing would be 35+ spots below their RPI (as The Citadel was in my example on page 1).

So my question is, how do you get a mid major into an at large spot?
     Note: this may not apply to the A10 or MWC since their baselines are above others.

You need to schedule well. Ideally, go 10-0 against pretty good competition, with your human conf mates also schedule optimally. 

I guess the question I'd ask of those who think mid-major teams are being ranked too low in the PR report, is on what objective criteria should they be ranked higher? If their SOS is bad, and they don't have many Top 50/Top 100 wins, then what logic would you advocate being used to objectively rank them higher (if you think they should be)? 

I agree that it is now tougher to get a mid-major an at-large bid. I have experienced that first-hand with my Marquette team. By the same token, though, it is also tougher for a borderline (talent-wise) BCS team to get an at-large bid... if you know you'll struggle to get to 6 or 7 conference wins, the OOC schedule is a challenge to set up perfectly in that situation as well.

But under the old system it was far too easy for a team that didn't have NT talent to schedule 10 away OOC games aginst sims and end up with a Top 40 RPI and make the NT, without having beaten a single Top 100 team. The old system also ridiculously overseeded teams from weak conferences that racked up a huge number of wins.

So both systems had their flaws or downsides. Personally, I like the new system better both because it's more realistic and rewards quality wins, as opposed to simple win total or a deceptively good SOS or RPI. As others have suggested (and I'm not saying it's easy), the way to compete at the mid-major level is to avoid the ghost conferences, and get a bunch of humans together in one league. Then you'll have an opportunity to get several quality wins in-conference, and the OOC schedule doesn't have to be as "perfect".

Also, keep in mind that the game is probably designed from the perspective of  a majority of teams being human-coached . I don't think you can design the game assuming most conferences are ghost conferences, and then figure out a way to make things easier for the one or two humans in such a conference. If you do that, you'll have unintended consequences down the road, when/if you do get a lot of humans in a league.  

Posted by ekswimmer on 5/3/2012 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Girt, I agree. If the Projection report is an attempt to get the best teams in the NT then it probably is working as planned. The problem is there are no (very few) Butlers, Goeroge Mason, VCU, etc in WIS anymore. With the way recruiting is set up, a mid major can't year-in, year-out field a top 50 team. While that may be fairly realistic since there are only 2 or 3 in real life, why is that what we want in WIS?

The issue is more with the ghost conferences that have been created as a result of the recent changes. Now, the P.R. keeps teams like Murray State from racking up wins and getting into the NT. So now you have to schedule a perfect combo of decent teams that are beatable to try to offset all the SIMs you get stuck playing. First, people were chased away by the changes, now the ones who stayed get penalized because they are forced to play these SIMs. Murray State wouldn't have sniffed an at large in WIS, with their SOS. They're P.R. standing would be 35+ spots below their RPI (as The Citadel was in my example on page 1).

So my question is, how do you get a mid major into an at large spot?
     Note: this may not apply to the A10 or MWC since their baselines are above others.

Right -- the issue you're addressing (that it's harder for non-BCS teams to succeed than it used to be) is not at all a Projection Report issue. The Projection Report simply crystallizes the already existing issue, which was mostly a result of the change in recruit generation.

All of that said, I do think a strong coach can consistently get a non-BCS team into the NT. But there is definitely a higher degree of difficulty then there was before the recruit generation change.

And as far as your Murray State comparison goes, I don't really agree with that. I think Sacramento State in Rupp is very close to their profile, and they are currently #25 on the Projection Report:

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=4249

Professor, I think Girt just said what I've been getting at. The P.R. itself probably isn't nearly as flawed as RPI. I would like to see teams need to be .500 to make the postseason though, rather than just the NT.

The issue is recruit generation. It's a huge challenge now, compared to prior to the update, to field a consistently good top 50 mid-major team. The talent discrepancy is just too large. I suppose one argument is, if you don't like it DII is always available. Discarding that, the teams that can compete with the bottom half of the BCS leagues aren't valued as high as the bottom BCS teams in the P.R. From what I can tell, it's mainly a result of SOS.

If the recruit generation is going to be set up as it is, then you can't further bump the BCS teams in the P.R. Two seasons ago, Florida State made the PT in Naismith going 1-15 in the ACC. Yes, they probably were one of the top 96 teams. No, they should not be in the postseason. You can't penalize mid-majors for playing soft schedules (especially since often there is no choice with all the SIMs) and give a pass to BCS teams because they lost 15 games to top 100 opponents. I realize that's only one example, but the same thing happens multiple times every season now.

I agree that recruit generation could be improved, and would have no problem with there being a .500 requirement to make the post-season. That would definitely help close the gap some. The real-life NIT had such a requirement until just a few years ago. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/3/2012 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ekswimmer on 5/3/2012 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Girt, I agree. If the Projection report is an attempt to get the best teams in the NT then it probably is working as planned. The problem is there are no (very few) Butlers, Goeroge Mason, VCU, etc in WIS anymore. With the way recruiting is set up, a mid major can't year-in, year-out field a top 50 team. While that may be fairly realistic since there are only 2 or 3 in real life, why is that what we want in WIS?

The issue is more with the ghost conferences that have been created as a result of the recent changes. Now, the P.R. keeps teams like Murray State from racking up wins and getting into the NT. So now you have to schedule a perfect combo of decent teams that are beatable to try to offset all the SIMs you get stuck playing. First, people were chased away by the changes, now the ones who stayed get penalized because they are forced to play these SIMs. Murray State wouldn't have sniffed an at large in WIS, with their SOS. They're P.R. standing would be 35+ spots below their RPI (as The Citadel was in my example on page 1).

So my question is, how do you get a mid major into an at large spot?
     Note: this may not apply to the A10 or MWC since their baselines are above others.

You need to schedule well. Ideally, go 10-0 against pretty good competition, with your human conf mates also schedule optimally. 

10-0. That's all I need to do against decent teams. Ok no problem. That's super easy

I don't have an opinion specifically regarding this - but I will echo one thing girt said - if you are unhappy with the game, make sure you send a ticket, and push back when CS gives you canned BS replies so it gets to seble. I have a ticket that I got thru to him (I think anyway, purports to be him at least) regarding jobs where he says he hasn't really gotten very much feedback regarding the new jobs process. I've seen lots of people complain about it here on the forums, so must be they aren't getting through to seble... he may or may not address things if we voice complains, but he will never fix anything if he doesn't think its broken or doesn't get feedback from the users asking him to take a look...

I have seen over time that if he gets a bunch of similar feedback on something, he will be pushed to take action. If he doesn't, he'll remain blissfully ignorant.

Send tickets, and keep pushing.

Well I submitted a ticket. I'm not sure if the problem is rooted in the makeup of the recruiting classes or non-Big 6 schools being tethered to a baseline prestige, but the gap has only grown between the Big 6 and the other conferences, and something needs to be done to even the playing field. 

The last time a big update came out (October, I think) there was talk from Seble about making some changes to benefit the smaller schools. I wonder what happened to that.