5/3/2013 9:58 PM
Does anyone have an idea about what goes into the projection report?

I ask cause my JSU team has better RPI/SOS/Record/Last 10 than 10 teams.

Yet I go from current RPI 29 to 42 or something like that. Yet there are teams with worse SOS, and RPI higher than me. 

It bugs the hell out of me. Dont really understand. 
5/3/2013 11:26 PM

Since the projection report is suppose to be an accurate representation on the tourney selection criteria:

Q: How are the at-large bids determined? What about the seeding?
A: There are in fact two distinct phases that must occur before the National Tournament can begin. The first is the selection process which is used to determine which teams will be receiving the at-large bids to the tournament. Some of the criteria evaluated include:

  • Record
  • Overall RPI
  • Non-conference record
  • Non-conference RPI
  • Conference record
  • Conference RPI
  • Road record
  • Record in last 10 games
  • Record against teams ranked 1-50 by RPI
  • Record against teams ranked 51-100 by RPI
  • Record against teams ranked 101-200 by RPI
  • Record against teams ranked below 200 by RPI


For most empty mid-majors, the issue typically revolves around that most conference games involve SIMs which have poor RPI and/or SOS which typically drags down resumes which is what I think is the problem in your case (having most of your wins involving teams with 200+ RPIs and not enough ones below 100 RPI).

5/3/2013 11:44 PM
As you may or may not know, I produce my own, real-life CBB rankings and I feel those used to create the projection report are rather similar to what I produce, which is just a bit of an extended RPI of sorts...it's like RPI but carried out to the next step.
5/3/2013 11:50 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 5/3/2013 11:44:00 PM (view original):
As you may or may not know, I produce my own, real-life CBB rankings and I feel those used to create the projection report are rather similar to what I produce, which is just a bit of an extended RPI of sorts...it's like RPI but carried out to the next step.
Where are you going with this Trevor?  Are you saying that Indians team is in the right spot or does he have a legitimate gripe?
5/4/2013 12:01 AM
From the (limited?) research that I've done, I'm almost prone to back the Projection Report formula 100%...It all comes down to who you individually beat and who you individually lost to...the conglomerated numbers (RPI, SOS, etc) are/can be a bit misleading.  I think the Projection Report is the best, most transparent way of picking a field of 64.
5/4/2013 12:19 AM
Posted by colonels19 on 5/4/2013 12:01:00 AM (view original):
From the (limited?) research that I've done, I'm almost prone to back the Projection Report formula 100%...It all comes down to who you individually beat and who you individually lost to...the conglomerated numbers (RPI, SOS, etc) are/can be a bit misleading.  I think the Projection Report is the best, most transparent way of picking a field of 64.
I tend to agree.  The PR is by far the best method since I've been playing.  Much, much too easy to manipulate RPI's to go strictly off of those.  Not sure what Seble's formula is exactly (and I hope we never know, otherwise everyone will attempt to manipulate THAT), but I think he's got it pretty damn close to where it should be.
5/4/2013 12:31 AM
Appreciate the response guys.

Its human nature to not like it when things dont go your way!!

I do agree though that the PR has been accurate and a great prediction for seeding. Just seeing as I beat out 10 teams in RPI/SOS plus the last 10 and record I like to think we deserve better spot. But I didnt go as far to look at wins vs 0-51, 51-100 etc...

I actually think my opening 2 losses to Minnesota and ETSU hurt me the most, more so than my weak CONF schedule. Again thanks for the response! Hopefully we can move up through out the rest of the way!
5/4/2013 12:44 AM
You've still got enough time to make a move Indians, but playing all those Sims won't make it easy.  Probably need to hope for a little help from the other teams, by them dropping some games along the way.  Seems as if the new system really (I don't know if this is the right word exactly) penalizes the weaker schedules.  Maybe it would be better to say that it doesn't reward them as much as it used to under the old setup, which is probably more realistic anyway.
5/4/2013 10:05 AM
I would probably plug the numbers into my ranking system if I wasn't too lazy to do so lol...I've done it in the past.  I think the last eval I did included 10 teams and it was pretty close to WIS had, that's why I think seble hacked and stole my ranking system...well not really lol.
5/4/2013 12:27 PM
I think there's a pretty strong (negative) correlation between your seed and top 50 wins. More top 50 wins = better seed.
5/8/2013 2:28 PM
Pretty new to the game and finally have my D-2 squad up in the top 100. What is the general cutoff for an at-large bid? PI?

I know it says 'lock', 'bubble' or 'out' next to all the teams, but someone enlighten me please.
5/8/2013 2:44 PM
45-50 or so on the projection report is firmly on the bubble.  At that point, it usually plays out on upsets in the conference tournaments and such, like bad teams winning, "eating up" up spot that would normally be taken by a team already in the tournament.
5/8/2013 3:02 PM
I think you are pretty safe to make the PI with a projection rank of 90 or under, 91-96 is a little more dicey.
5/9/2013 12:28 PM
Sitting at 83 after the conference tourney. 16-12 with an RPI of 91 and SOS of 82 with a win vs. the #8 team.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.