New NT Selection Formula Topic

coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by oldresorter on 1/23/2012 9:52:00 PM (view original):
Won't this new evaluation really hurt teams from empty conferences?
it largely depends on their non conference schedule. the days of play no-one beat no-one get rewarded are gone, yes. you have to beat SOMEONE. i think playing a good non conference schedule, with a solid record vs top 100 rpi teams would be a good way for a team that was truly deserving of a NT bid could make their case, in an empty conference.

of course, in the old days, you COULD play no-one and beat no-one and get rewarded. so did it hurt those teams? maybe, technically. but i think everyone agrees if you are 0-0 vs the top 100 rpi, you should simply not make the NT, even if you are 27-2. so hurt them, in the real sense of the word - i don't really think so. teams who played real schedules and then clean house in a weak conference should be fine. as fine as previously? i don't know. its probably a little worse for the cases we used to ***** about in the forums, the 29-2 vs 30 sims and a 255 rpi human teams who got a 3 seed. but i don't think the teams who are shooting for REASONABLE seeds of 6-16 in weak conferences are really any worse off. of course... i could be wrong... but time will tell. in some ways, they could be better off - the borderline team who was 5-5 in non conference may actually make it, now.
1/23/2012 11:30 PM
ryandaniel
Posts: 188 (0)
Veteran
22
Prospect
I think Mully is talking about Strength of schedule strictly in the sense of the stat which is part of RPI, Where professor is talking about strength of schedule in the sense of how strong the schedule actually is.  If you just use the SOS that is in RPI then yes it would look like teams that racked up wins against 'easier' schedules are getting in instead of teams that are left out with 'harder' schedules.  

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.
1/23/2012 11:35 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by Rails on 1/23/2012 7:40:00 PM (view original):
What billy said.  Record versus 1-50 is huge.  And total wins is pulling more weight too.  I think it's acting like we were told, not less.  He didn't say it rewards tough schedules in and of itself.  Teams have to win some of those games hence the record versus 1-25, 1-50, 1-75, 1-100 being taken more into account.  As I've said a lot of times the difference between rpis 50-80 is very small--just like determining which 3rd grade players are less worse than the rest after taking out the 3 or 4 that are a little less worse than the masses.
this is totally true. i had a team last season, #1 seed in the PIT, who had the #1 sos (by a huge margin). in the end, we had beat some real teams, so our rpi of like 35 only resulted in seeding of like 50 or so. but earlier, when we were like 13 rpi, with around a 0-6 record vs top 50 or so, we were like 30 on the charts. i think that is perfectly reasonable. every good team we played beat the **** out of us. our sos was #1, but that is just a number that means very little in extreme contexts - which has always been my major objection to why the WIS system should not simply follow rpi and sos.

i for one think this is one of the best changes seble has ever made. i think he went up against a tough problem, with no obvious solution (this has been debated in sports since the beginning of time, and there is no standard - that says a lot). and i think he did pretty well. as opposed to the many times i thought there was a glaring problem with an obvious solution... and, well, i won't rehash history. so, for a change - my hat is off to him. you know, between this change, and showing potential ratings on the player's home page if you will.... well, i won't jinx it.
1/23/2012 11:40 PM
sublightd
Posts: 220 (0)
Hall of Famer
315 2
Prospect
Wins seem to be highly valued over schedule. I've got two D2 teams with better SOS and rpi, but 5 less wins than teams with terrible SOS and worse rpi, but I'm behind them on the projection report. I haven't done the math schedule breakdown, so the reality may be diff than what I'm perceiving. But the eyeball test seems, mid 130 SOS and wins>50 SOS and more losses.

I'm not complaining about it. To me, it's brought some freshness to the game to pay attention to your scheduling versus the auto mode I was on before. Figuring out optimal schedules is and should be part of the game.
1/23/2012 11:52 PM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
Posted by ryandaniel on 1/23/2012 11:35:00 PM (view original):
I think Mully is talking about Strength of schedule strictly in the sense of the stat which is part of RPI, Where professor is talking about strength of schedule in the sense of how strong the schedule actually is.  If you just use the SOS that is in RPI then yes it would look like teams that racked up wins against 'easier' schedules are getting in instead of teams that are left out with 'harder' schedules.  

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Yes, thats what I am saying.

And yes Billy, it is opposite of the Prof.

1/24/2012 12:37 AM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
Most my teams RPI's and projection report ratings are reasonably close, so I have not paid real much attention, I suppose that means I schedule 'average'. 

One thing I did notice since I looked last night b4 the games, one of my teams projected around 27 and RPI'd around 27, beat a 5 RPI team at my home.  My RPI dropped to 23, but my projection spot dropped to 17.  From what I read, that is how most of you are saying it is now working, as well as how most of you want it to work, is that correct?
1/24/2012 6:58 AM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
Again, mully, RPI already encompasses SOS.  Why should SOS be counted again, for a second time, as an independent factor?
1/24/2012 9:58 AM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Posted by ryandaniel on 1/23/2012 11:35:00 PM (view original):
I think Mully is talking about Strength of schedule strictly in the sense of the stat which is part of RPI, Where professor is talking about strength of schedule in the sense of how strong the schedule actually is.  If you just use the SOS that is in RPI then yes it would look like teams that racked up wins against 'easier' schedules are getting in instead of teams that are left out with 'harder' schedules.  

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.
I don't follow what the distinction is. In any case, I was referring to the SOS rank you see on your standings page, plus consideration of wins against the Top 50 and Top 100. Both are important. Two examples: 

Example 1: I had a Marquette team in Rupp that was 23-4 with a 35 RPI after the CT. Clearly that team would have made the NT under the old system. Under the new system, it missed the NT, and deservedly so. It's SOS was between 150-200, they had 0 wins against the Top 50, and no more than 2-3 wins against the Top 100. In this example, a high win total against a weaker schedule certainly didn't help this team get a bid, despite a decent RPI.

Example 2: My Arkansas team in Knight is currently 16-9 with a 28 RPI and 36 SOS. Seems like a pretty good bet for an NT bid, right? Not so fast! Only 2 wins against the Top 50, and 4 more against the Top 100, so we are sitting at #51 in the Projection Report, and probably heading to the PT. This shows that a decent SOS alone won't save you. You need those quality wins.

1/24/2012 11:06 AM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
Those examples seem correct.  Maybe I am doing the chicken and egg thinking as it relates to RPI/SOS/Seeding.
1/24/2012 11:36 AM
thewizard10
Posts: 73 (0)
Rookie
1 6
Prospect
The projection report ranking has everything to do with margin of victory and the RPI has a much less effect than in the past.
1/24/2012 12:55 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
"The projection report ranking has everything to do with margin of victory"

That's pretty much 1,000,000% false.
1/24/2012 2:02 PM
pepwaves
Posts: 596 (0)
Hall of Famer
120
Rookie
Posted by isack24 on 1/24/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):
"The projection report ranking has everything to do with margin of victory"

That's pretty much 1,000,000% false.
+1

Seble specifically stated that margin of victory is a minor factor.
1/24/2012 2:13 PM
mykids_31206
Posts: 219 (0)
Hall of Famer
95 60
Prospect
In some conferences, the current situation is that if you are a decent Mid-Major, you are going to have a hard time making a schedule that will give you a bid. Most of the Elite conference schools that will play you, will probably end up with a record that will hurt your SOS. The ones that wont play you cant be blamed because they do not need to play you. If you beat them your just going to hurt their seeding.

When it comes to the NT selections I wish they could put a multiplier in the formula that would resemble the human factor in real life. Something that would hurt the seeding(not the selection) of teams that played all non-conference teams that were drastically inferior. Inferior by Team rating(150 pts?) not by record. And another multiplier that would help the selection and seeding of teams that defeated non-conference teams similar in rating, regardless of the teams record.

That way a Mid-Major or lower DI school wont be penalized for beating an decent Elite Conference school with a bad record. That way an Elite Conference school will be penalized for padding their non-conference schedule for the sake of boosting the SOS of their conference mates.
1/24/2012 3:26 PM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
It should be mentioned not all weak OOC scheduling is done to boost SOS.  I often schedule a weak OOC to ensure I can get to 14 wins.  The ACC is a meatgrinder.
1/24/2012 3:50 PM
nc2457829305
Posts: 125 (0)
Hall of Famer
81
Prospect
Posted by cburton23 on 1/24/2012 3:50:00 PM (view original):
It should be mentioned not all weak OOC scheduling is done to boost SOS.  I often schedule a weak OOC to ensure I can get to 14 wins.  The ACC is a meatgrinder.
+1.      
1/24/2012 4:03 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
New NT Selection Formula Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.