Just wanted to say this is a area that needs some attention, why do I say that...
My team Hawaii Pacific finished the season ranked 19...we won the conference championship... and we are still listed as a bubble team

Can anyone give me some insight as to why?  

Wins losses v Top 50/ Top 100, RPI, SOS     
     

Really ...you get a automatic bid if you when the conference tournament, 1-2 against top 25...    defeated a team who became ranked (# 15)  after we beat them
so no i dont agree with you :)

I see what you're saying addyy, you won the CT so are no longer a true Bubble team.  I guess this is a one-day glitch, ideally it would be fixed or maybe an asterisk added to it to indicate you're in b/c of the CT.  Doubt it will get fixed, though.  If you didn't win the CT, then other factors become relevant.

agreed thanks..............................

the projection report does not claim to take into account CT winners - it should be read as a ranking based on the criteria other than the automatic bid - as such it does a great job of predicting bids and seeds (while reasonable people could differ on whether the process is still exactly where it should be)

Speaking on this point, can someone explain how my 32 RPI 51 SOS Air Force team didn't make NT.  We made it to CT championship game and beat the #12 team in the country in our tournament.  We were 1-3 vs. Top 25 when we played them during the season.  We went 3-1 against teams that made NT in non-conference.  We went 2-5 against the other NT teams from our conference.  We finished 5-8 against teams with RPI in top 100.

School	RPI	SOS
Cal (16-12)	46	24
Tennessee, Chattanooga (24-4)	45	165
Oklahoma St. (18-11)	59	57
E. Tennessee St. (23-5)	49	178

Posted by jawivdotorg on 5/2/2012 9:43:00 PM (view original):
Speaking on this point, can someone explain how my 32 RPI 51 SOS Air Force team didn't make NT.  We made it to CT championship game and beat the #12 team in the country in our tournament.  We were 1-3 vs. Top 25 when we played them during the season.  We went 3-1 against teams that made NT in non-conference.  We went 2-5 against the other NT teams from our conference.  We finished 5-8 against teams with RPI in top 100.

School	RPI	SOS
Cal (16-12)	46	24
Tennessee, Chattanooga (24-4)	45	165
Oklahoma St. (18-11)	59	57
E. Tennessee St. (23-5)	49	178

Last FourOut

School	RPI	SOS
Air Force (21-8)	32	51
Michigan (18-9)	60	96
Tennessee (17-12)	67	52
Providence (14-13)	69	29

Next FourOut

School	RPI	SOS
Nebraska (20-10)	68	98
La Salle (18-9)	53	65
Auburn (19-11)	74	126
Kentucky (14-13)	70	30

I agree. I thought I was frustrated with DI before, now with the Projection Report, it's literally impossible to get a decent computer profile unless you are in a BCS conference. Every non-BCS league has multiple terrible SIMs and it just compounds the already existing bias in WIS towards BCS teams. I don't understand why anyone would make a product and cater it to as small a portion of its clients as possible.  Can anyone make sense of why every change made is made to further promote the BCS teams? OR, can anyone come up with a strategy to overcome this?

Specifically, if you look at RPI vs. Proj Rpt., non-BCs teams are coming in significantly lower (worse) in the Proj. Rpt. So now, in addition to recruiting money, lack of quality recruits, non-BCS teams somehow have to also find a way to overcome yet another change that allows:

Georgia Tech , 10-17, RPI 56, Proj Rpt 62
Georgetown, 11-17,  RPI 75, Proj Rpt 74
NC St,  10-17,  RPI 79, Proj Rpt 82
UNC,  10-16,  RPI 121, Proj Rpt 85

and

Lipscomb 22-7,  RPI 40 , Proj Rpt 64
Northwestern St 24-5, RPI 51, Proj Rpt 68
Austin Peay, 21-8, 54  RPI , 86 Proj Rpt
The Citadel 19-8, RPI 52, Proj Rpt 92

ek, I agree with you that there is an issue there, but don't agree that it came into play with the advent of the Projection Report. 

It can still be overcome w proper scheduling though.

Have you sent a ticket? This is key.

Given how flawed I see RPI as, I don't see RPI and selection being separated by a good bit as a problem:  Also  - none of those teams with losing records actually MAKE the NT, whatever the projection report says>  I personally just about think they should require a 500 records for postseason play period.  Or at least a higher standard than one that allows for 10 - 17 teams in postseason play..

I agree, the RPI isn't a great measure of a team. And no, the problem didnt start with the Proj. Rpt. It was made significantly worse, though. My point is just that another change was made, and it continued WIS down the road they were on that caused the exodus a couple years ago. Why make it as hard as possible to succeed outside the BCS? Those are the teams that are the vast majority of your possible customers.

No, none of those teams make the NT. I just wanted to highlight the difficulty teams outside the BCS leagues have. As it stand snow, you have to put together a perfect schedule in the Non-Conf to make up for what you are forced to play in conference play. In contrast, you've got the bottom of the BCS leagues going 3-13 in conf. play and comfortably making the post season. Then prestige comes into play because nobody can raise theirs up to a point where they can really compete. So why play the game (at DI) if the game is built to keep you from winning?

If you had a standard that kept sub-.500 teams out of postseason play completely, at least it would help keep the prestige levels of these bottom BCS teams lower. It won't help the other side much but fixing half the problem is better than nothing.

Fill up the smaller conferences and schedule wins.  A10/CUSA/Mtn West/WCC/MVC/Horizon can all effectively compete, if full of humans.

Posted by reinsel on 5/3/2012 9:52:00 AM (view original):
Fill up the smaller conferences and schedule wins.  A10/CUSA/Mtn West/WCC/MVC/Horizon can all effectively compete, if full of humans.

Well, sure. But easier said than done.

ek, the Projection Report didn't change anything on its own, it just gave a face to what was already happening. They did make a tweak awhile back, but I actually think the new formula is better than the old one, which was too RPI dependent and was incredibly easy to game the system.

Have you expressed your views to seble? This is the only way positive changes will be made.

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.

I haven't sent tickets in but will. I was also curious to see what the general consensus was.

Reinsel, as girt said; yes you could fill up any of those conferences and compete. Do you see this happening anywhere? I don't. I am not sure the only way to success in this game should be to have to find 9 other people that know what to do in order to fill a conference. If it is, not only is it (in my opinion) a bad idea, but it's a terrible business model in general. You should be trying to generate new coaches (300+ in DI) rather than cater to the 60 in the BCS leagues.