For people comparing to real life, usually we would have entirely different schedules.  Given how people in general schedule in HD vs in real life its hard to precisely compare the two.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/14/2012 3:28:00 PM (view original):
I dunno, I think it's still possible to manipulate the schedule.  With the current system it seems like the best way to go is to try to get it such that your schedule features ~ 6-8 games against the top 50.  Try to schedule teams you match up well against and win 2-3 of those games.  Then schedule 4 or 5 against prospective 51-100 teams and win 3-4 of them.  Make the rest of them soft teams and just win those games.  I'm not sure I like this better than the old system that at least rewarded you for playing tough teams.

No matter what system is in place, you'll be able to manipulate the schedule to some degree. The difference now is that teams that truly lack the talent to be considered NT teams have it much tougher manipulating their way into an NT bid. In the past, you could play an all-road, all-Sim schedule, not play or beat a single Top 100 team all season and end up with a Top 40 RPI and NT bid. That doesn't work anymore. You actually have to beat quality teams now, so weak teams can no longer manipulate their way into the NT so easily. At least now, the teams manipulating their schedules to get into the NT are actually NT-caliber teams.

I knew there would be a little disturbance but wasn't thinking it would be a forum topic.  I am the coach of the offending team.  As background, i have never scheduled with math in my mind in hopes of manipulating RPI.  I will say that this season I did schedule for non-conf. wins as i was planning on switching offenses (new team) and needed time to get IQs up.  Having such a young team I wanted to guarantee non-conf. wins.  I also traditionally schedule home games against other programs in the state as real programs often will.  Rarely, if ever, will i reject an offer to play a home and home with another coach. I simply don't make the effort to manipulate the numbers.  That is usually to my disadvantage.

In any event, i did not expect to get into the NT although i had been following the projection report and knew i was on the bubble.  I believe i was 42 or so on the projection report going into the conference tourney and dropped to about 52 by the end of the tourney (i lost in the first round to the team that made it to the conf. final).  My team underachieved all year due to various factors but we were in most if not all games.  As stated, at the end of the season i did not expect to get in but based upon the projection report knew that it would be close.

After i got in and a few comments were made i did a little analysis to see what may have happened and what sort of teams got their bubble burst due to my berth.  Fortunately, they have a last 4 in, last 4 out and next 4 out so you can at least see who you were competing against to get in.  I not savvy enough to post those other teams but looking at them it made a few things apparent to me.  Although i did not crunch data for all teams involved i did notice a few things.  Margin of victory now matters in wins and losses and i believe last 10 has more weight than with the prior RPI dictated selections.

I did not post to defend my selection but to share information.  I think arguments could be made for teams that were on both sides of the bubble including my team. I do believe the old straight RPI selection system for the NT was stale and those with better math skills and the time to implement them could figure out ways to schedule their way into the tournament.  I don't know if that is still possible as it hasn't been a practice of mine.  I do know that the RPI as a formula for ranking teams has been under attack by analysts in real life college basketball in recent seasons as it fails to take margin of victory into account.  In any event, it was interesting to look into and something i had never closely looked at because i hadn't been so closely affected since the new system was implemented.

Posted by professor17 on 3/14/2012 10:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/14/2012 3:28:00 PM (view original):
I dunno, I think it's still possible to manipulate the schedule.  With the current system it seems like the best way to go is to try to get it such that your schedule features ~ 6-8 games against the top 50.  Try to schedule teams you match up well against and win 2-3 of those games.  Then schedule 4 or 5 against prospective 51-100 teams and win 3-4 of them.  Make the rest of them soft teams and just win those games.  I'm not sure I like this better than the old system that at least rewarded you for playing tough teams.

No matter what system is in place, you'll be able to manipulate the schedule to some degree. The difference now is that teams that truly lack the talent to be considered NT teams have it much tougher manipulating their way into an NT bid. In the past, you could play an all-road, all-Sim schedule, not play or beat a single Top 100 team all season and end up with a Top 40 RPI and NT bid. That doesn't work anymore. You actually have to beat quality teams now, so weak teams can no longer manipulate their way into the NT so easily. At least now, the teams manipulating their schedules to get into the NT are actually NT-caliber teams.

This is 100% my view. Not perfect, but it is an improvement.

Not sure if the resume deserved a NT bid or not, that's probably a coin flip (which in itself to me means that, at the very least, the selection wasn't egregious).

There's also no question this was a NT-caliber team, but the coach (at least partly for reasons stated above) really doomed himself with the schedule. A slightly better caliber of non-con opponent and the rpi looks shinier, and no one is complaining.

Posted by grantduck on 3/14/2012 4:52:00 PM (view original):
For people comparing to real life, nobody with an RPI over 75 has EVER made the tournament as an at large.

Doesn't mean there never will be. I think the thing people forget is that there are more HD seasons played per year then has every been played in real life using RPI. There are roughly 79 seasons per year (7 per year in 1 a day worlds 7*7, and 10 per year in 2 a day worlds 3*10) while RPI was only invented in 1981. So there have clearly been many more opportunities for anomalies in HD than there have been in real life.

I didn't make the PT at Western KY this past season with an 86 RPI.  The logic behind tournament bids and coaching changes just baffles me.  I've had over 30 seasons at with the last dozen or so at Western KYwhile  making a final four, final 8 and the NT 3 or the last 4 years, but can't land a decent job.  I'm not talking UK, but they say Xavier is out of my reach.  I'm trying for Fresno St. or Arizona St. to see if I can get in a better conference and then move up to a school I really want. 

Posted by plane129 on 3/14/2012 5:59:00 AM (view original):
RPI used to be the #1 standard. WIS has devalued RPI  and increased the value of record vs. top 50, top 100, etc.

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction in itself since the RPI already takes that into account?  If they want a better RPI to choose teams off of, I've got it.

No.