a simpler change that would run less risk of unforeseen consequences would be to leave the projection report exactly as is, but require some minimum number of wins to get into the PIT - lets say 10

not the .500 record that the NT requires, but maybe the PIT shouldnt take teams that cant win 10

changing the projection report could end up doing more harm than good

several people have complained about rpi/sos not being important enough, usually with teams with like 35 rpi missing the NT. and of course, when its between making the post season or not, and making the NT or not, that is when you are going to hear the loudest complaints. i think its very telling though, that those are the *only* places you hear the complaints. on the NT bubble side, its RPI complaints, on the PIT bubble, its W/L complaints. certainly, the PIT guys are louder - but that is actually only d1, where the RPI issues have come from multiple divisions.

i think you are going to get biased answers here, people upset about the PIT situation, making poll responses about the system as a whole. i think the question is not a simple 1 part question - do people want it to change or not - but a 2 part question, if people want it to change, is the problem systemic or not. i think the complaints being focused on 1 area suggests it is not systemic, which suggests a systemic solution may not be appropriate. i really don't care how the PIT issue gets resolved, if it gets set to .500 or not (even though i think its silly to do it with half of people not wanting that, myself included). but if it results in a systemic change to an area of the game that the vast majority agrees works well in the vast majority of cases, that would really be a shame.

its already easier to make the NT as a solid mid major than at a low BCS team, because W/L is so important. i think changing the W/L to be heavier would be a huge mistake, but that is what people will fall back on if you reject the .500 PIT limit. the % who were for that change really concerns me, because i really don't think it is reflective of how people really feel about this issue on the entire spectrum, that there is a bias from the recent PIT debate pushing that number up after the .500 limit was rejected again.

IMHO, the projection report works well.  I'm sure a few minor tweaks could be made, but I don't have any feeling that they are necessary.  If you make W/L record too important, then top teams will be forced to avoid each other during the non-conference schedule.  I mean more so than they already are.   

The suggestion for a .500 record to make the PIT is lunacy!  Ok, maybe a solid 10 win cutoff for the PIT and a 14 win cutoff for NT at-large bids (probably a .500 record in almost every case).  I'm just not sure that a tweak to the projection report function itself would accomplish the same things.

I'll let this thread gather more votes, but based on early returns I don't see a reason to change the logic.  I'm still considering a minimum win% for the PIT, but probably the highest I'd go is .400. That's only going to come into play very rarely, but would keep out that 8 win team that got everyone worked up.

I agree the projection report works very well, a definite improvement over what was before. I'd personally be fine with providing a bonus for teams that were conference champs during the regular season. I'd also love to see an additional tournament (the CBI), not necessarily to provide a prestige bump or additional postseason cash, but if you miss a tournament it is a long break, the tournament, plus jobs, plus rollover; there is just a long time with nothing to do.

Posted by seble on 5/17/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Generally speaking, I'm trying to determine if a majority of coaches feel that a certain type of resume is ranked too high or too low.  Most of the comments I've seen are related to middling teams from big conferences being ranked higher than high winning percentage teams from lesser conferences.  That's always a tough comparison to make, but the system currently values a strong schedule enough to push those teams higher.

This is a very subjective area, so there isn't a "right" answer.  I feel like the current logic is doing a good job of putting the truly stronger teams higher, but it's my job to get a feel for the HD community as well.  That's what I'm trying to do here.  I can't react to feedback from a few users if that doesn't accurately reflect the community as a whole.

I think your projection formula is strong. It probably doesn't need tweaked.

However, when it comes to PIT selection there should be a change. Over .500 required for NT (like it is now) and a set minimum # of losses for a PIT berth. 8-19, 9-18, 10-17, and 11-16 teams should NOT be invited to a post season. I think setting the maximum # of losses at 15 for PIT is a reasonable solution.

All 3 divisions! A team with 16 losses might be a talented team in a tougher conference... but OH well. You lost 16 games, you're out of the postseason.

Posted by seble on 5/17/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I'll let this thread gather more votes, but based on early returns I don't see a reason to change the logic.  I'm still considering a minimum win% for the PIT, but probably the highest I'd go is .400. That's only going to come into play very rarely, but would keep out that 8 win team that got everyone worked up.

awesome. if this period of stuff being done for HD is a long one, long enough that there is any chance of a d1 recruit generation change, i hope you will start that discussion a good amount of time before working on it. if its not in the works, thats fine too, but if it is, i really hope you will allow for a lengthy public discussion with your involvement. so far, its been great to see you back on HD stuff! not sure how much you watch the forums, but that has been a widely held sentiment, and i think just about everyone is happy with what you've done so far...

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/17/2014 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 5/17/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I'll let this thread gather more votes, but based on early returns I don't see a reason to change the logic.  I'm still considering a minimum win% for the PIT, but probably the highest I'd go is .400. That's only going to come into play very rarely, but would keep out that 8 win team that got everyone worked up.

awesome. if this period of stuff being done for HD is a long one, long enough that there is any chance of a d1 recruit generation change, i hope you will start that discussion a good amount of time before working on it. if its not in the works, thats fine too, but if it is, i really hope you will allow for a lengthy public discussion with your involvement. so far, its been great to see you back on HD stuff! not sure how much you watch the forums, but that has been a widely held sentiment, and i think just about everyone is happy with what you've done so far...

+1 ... and on recruit generation in particular.

seble, i just saw your dev post - when you say, small updates will slow down as you start working on a big project - is that a big project within the scope of HD, or outside? we totally understand either way!!

He did mention a major recruiting overhaul, which makes me nervous. I don't think recruiting needs huge changes.

Posted by llamanunts on 5/18/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):
He did mention a major recruiting overhaul, which makes me nervous. I don't think recruiting needs huge changes.

i agree, but i do think recruit generation for d1 needs substantial tweaking. not a major overhaul either, but it was around 30%, the population drop in d1 from the time the current recruit gen came out, to about 6 months later. i don't remember the exact numbers. it doesn't seem to me like d1 has really "come back", i think it has a little but i'd really be shocked if it regained the population levels it had before the current recruit generation. so i would like to see that addressed, the current setup is only half working because the d1 worlds have lost so many of the mid major coaches. at the 170/180 population levels we saw prior to the change, it was really problematic. 

anyway, i hope that is what seble is looking at, not a major overhaul top to bottom. but if he is, i sure hope he will talk about his ideas here openly first! maybe even let everyone see a couple example recruit generations and such before release, to get some early feedback?

I'm fine with changes to recruit generation.  I'm with you - let's have a real conversation before making substantial changes to the actual recruiting mechanics.

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. 

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. 

The only way to make the postseason logic better for everybody is to have two different systems, one for DI and another for DII & DIII...and they wouldn't have to be wildly different.