http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=4395

22-1
Wins against highly ranked Stanford and ranked Notre Dame,
755 overall rating.
Only loss is against (currently#2) Mich St

At the end of the out of conference schedule I was #11 and sitting on a 2 seed(5rpi, 30something sos). Now, with 3 games left in conference play and no losses, I am clinging to a top 25 ranking and sitting on the bubble, looking at a 7 or 8 seed.

Please WIS, fix DI so that we can retain more coaches.

Scheduling New Mexico St, N. Arizona, USC, and SMU did you no favors. Those four games were missed opportunities to improve your RPI and your PR standing. 

That said, while the PR is generally pretty solid, it does have a serious blind spot regarding teams who have a limited sample size but excellent results against top class opposition. 

lol imagine how Gonzaga, wichita st, vcu, uni would feel if seeds were like HD hahahaha, HD should really add team talent to the projection report factor and increasing win%, while lowering the impact sos has from 1-25 and 25-50 should be lowered.  Sure a 50 sos is worse than 10, but if the team with the 50 sos has better players/ratings and a better record by a few wins they should be seeded better than the multiple loss high sos team.

The system is funky because of all the SIM teams. I agree that there should be a slight change so a team like the above is seeded better, but I don't think rewarding a team that played a bunch of tomato cans for their conference schedule should be given a benefit.

Since when is a 7-8 seed the "bubble" ?

personally, I think adding "team talent" to the PR would be the worst thing ever...there are always teams in this game with 700+ team ratings that suck, because they're poorly assembled....but if "team talent" is a factor, you know the engine would goose them up the ranks.

BUT there is kind of a blind spot in there for certain teams. i'd had mid-major teams get overseeded because of a huge amount of wins in the 26-50 range even if lacking in top 25 wins. but those teams always end up losing in the NT to a superior underseeded big 6 team that had several more top 25 wins but not as many top 50....and played a horrible non-conf schedule....so yeah the top 25/50 thing is a bit off.

all that said, if you're playing in an all-sim conf where you know you'll go 16-0, you have to really bear down on that non-conf and play all top 100 type teams. this is just a reality of the game.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 6/29/2015 11:54:00 AM (view original):
personally, I think adding "team talent" to the PR would be the worst thing ever...there are always teams in this game with 700+ team ratings that suck, because they're poorly assembled....but if "team talent" is a factor, you know the engine would goose them up the ranks.

BUT there is kind of a blind spot in there for certain teams. i'd had mid-major teams get overseeded because of a huge amount of wins in the 26-50 range even if lacking in top 25 wins. but those teams always end up losing in the NT to a superior underseeded big 6 team that had several more top 25 wins but not as many top 50....and played a horrible non-conf schedule....so yeah the top 25/50 thing is a bit off.

all that said, if you're playing in an all-sim conf where you know you'll go 16-0, you have to really bear down on that non-conf and play all top 100 type teams. this is just a reality of the game.

I wasnt not meaning using overall rating, but maybe some factor that focuses on ath/spd/def mainly as a rough estimate, it would also just be a minor factor never really coming into play except maybe boosting a strong midmajor up 1 seed over a weaker big six team.

I mean Gonzago managed to get a 2 seed in the tourney this past season with an overall record of 31-2 and sos of 84 and non conf sos of 20(while going 1-1 verse top 25 rpi teams), maybe find a way for teams that do play in a weak conf to benefit a bit from a strong non-conf schedule such as making non-conf sos a minor factor as well.

Not a midmajor but Villanova also got a 1 seed with 32-2  and a sos of 52 and non conf sos of 71(granted a 5-1 record against top 25 rpi)

VCU got a 7 seed with 26-9 14 rpi and 9 sos

So in real life teams are rewarded for a talent/injury rating as well, look at Stephen F Austin with 26-4 record 35 rpi and 193 sos they got a low seed because they didn't have a bad sos it was horrible, but we knew they just weren't that great, and clearly were benfitting from their SOS.

yeah I see your point. it works the opposite way too. occasionally you'll see a monster big 6 team neglect to schedule non-conf in a down year for their own conference, and then they end up getting a 7-seed or something while clearly being a top 10 team. but i'm not sure there's a good way to mitigate that and have it be applied fairly/accurately. it's tough because there is no "eye test" in HD.

I guess what I'm asking for (and admittedly didn't convey very well) is for WIS to fix the job system.  The Mountain West was at over half full a couple of seasons ago and for whatever reason, everyone left.  The big problem with that is they left teams with B-range prestige.  Most bottom-tier conference coaches couldn't move up into those positions if they wanted to so those teams will sit vacant until they deteriorate into the mid-C range and become available to those coaches.  Thus, I'm in a conference with only one other coach and a pretty respectable OOC schedule goes to waste (I've packed next season's schedule with even better teams).

There are many complaints about how difficult it is to get into a Big 6 school due to the current hiring logic and those complaints are justified.  However, I'm more concerned about WIS lowering the standards for the mid-majors.  If the A10, MWC, CUSA, MAC, MVC, Horizon, etc were running at 50-80% capacity most of the time, more coaches would be able to build up their resumes and move into those Big 6 slots when they come available.  You shouldn't have to take Northern Arizona to the 2nd round of the dance 3 or 4 years in a row to qualify for a B+ mid major.