Regional Realignment

Started by Dave 'd-mac' McHugh, February 13, 2019, 01:10:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oline89

Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 02:32:32 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on April 29, 2019, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.

Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)

Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.

That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline.  I forget now.  Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me.  Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them.  Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year?  I don't think that would have been a just thing to do. 

In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports.  Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought.  I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.

If I understand this correctly, the benefit to expansion is that there will be fewer teams in each region.  Fewer teams allows for a more accurate regional ranking of those teams.  Am I correct?  Is there another benefit (in football only) to expansion?

I believe, at the administration level, the main purposes for this are:
1) standardize regions across all sports - not that all sports have the same teams in the same regions, but that regions in each sports have roughly the same number of teams.  250 lacrosse teams shouldn't be in just two regions. 
2) Using this "access ratio" kind of model for determining how many regions a sport should have allows a roadmap for how to deal with growth
3) Balance the regions


How those changes would manifest themselves in the rankings and in at-large selection is the big hypothetical.

Doesn't BBall have eight regions?  Is the proposal to drop them down to six?  I understand that lacrosse needs more regions, but why are they talking about going from 2 all the way to 6?  Football seems fine with 4 (and roughly the same number of teams).

wally_wabash

Quote from: Oline89 on April 29, 2019, 02:49:45 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 02:32:32 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on April 29, 2019, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.

Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)

Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.

That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline.  I forget now.  Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me.  Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them.  Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year?  I don't think that would have been a just thing to do. 

In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports.  Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought.  I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.

If I understand this correctly, the benefit to expansion is that there will be fewer teams in each region.  Fewer teams allows for a more accurate regional ranking of those teams.  Am I correct?  Is there another benefit (in football only) to expansion?

I believe, at the administration level, the main purposes for this are:
1) standardize regions across all sports - not that all sports have the same teams in the same regions, but that regions in each sports have roughly the same number of teams.  250 lacrosse teams shouldn't be in just two regions. 
2) Using this "access ratio" kind of model for determining how many regions a sport should have allows a roadmap for how to deal with growth
3) Balance the regions


How those changes would manifest themselves in the rankings and in at-large selection is the big hypothetical.

Doesn't BBall have eight regions?  Is the proposal to drop them down to six?  I understand that lacrosse needs more regions, but why are they talking about going from 2 all the way to 6?  Football seems fine with 4 (and roughly the same number of teams).

Basketball would have 10 regions. 

And I think that some of what you're pointing out is why they're pumping the brakes.  Some sports are all so different in their regional alignments, how they use those alignments for championships purposes (tennis was cited in the Hoopsville interview linked earlier in this thread), etc. etc. that they need more input from sport committees to find a realignment solution that works well for most. 

I agree with you that football is fine with four regions.  I don't think that should prohibit looking into a five or six region alignment.  Four is fine, but maybe five or six would be better?  It's worth looking at. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

hazzben

The thing I like is that it increases our data points for Pool B & C, since there would be more RRO info. Assuming games against out of region opponents, but still within a certain driving distance, could be counted as "In Region" games.

E.g. SJU plays UWL and Wartburg in non-con, neither of which are in their new region, but are both very driveable games. Maybe it's changed, but there was a period where a team within a certain driving distance was considered "in region" even when they fell in another region correct? If that's still the case, it could be a good thing for the top teams in good conferences. Schedule quality teams and increase your chances of RRO's.

I'd still probably lean 4, mostly just because we know it works fairly well right now. That said going to 5 or 6 would effectively end all debate about certain regions feeling jobbed for not getting a one seed. Or other feeling like they were gifted a one. Debate will always reign supreme, but at least in this scenario everyone knows there aren't enough 1 seeds to go around to each region.

wally_wabash

Quote from: hazzben on April 30, 2019, 09:53:52 AM
The thing I like is that it increases our data points for Pool B & C, since there would be more RRO info. Assuming games against out of region opponents, but still within a certain driving distance, could be counted as "In Region" games.

E.g. SJU plays UWL and Wartburg in non-con, neither of which are in their new region, but are both very driveable games. Maybe it's changed, but there was a period where a team within a certain driving distance was considered "in region" even when they fell in another region correct? If that's still the case, it could be a good thing for the top teams in good conferences. Schedule quality teams and increase your chances of RRO's.

I'd still probably lean 4, mostly just because we know it works fairly well right now. That said going to 5 or 6 would effectively end all debate about certain regions feeling jobbed for not getting a one seed. Or other feeling like they were gifted a one. Debate will always reign supreme, but at least in this scenario everyone knows there aren't enough 1 seeds to go around to each region.

You are correct - one way that a game is countable as in-region is if the schools are within 200 miles of each other.  In the SJU example, UWL and Wartburg are counted as in-region because Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are all in the same administrative region (not sure of the driving distance, but that wouldn't necessarily be relevant).  Even further, if a team plays 70 percent of their games as "in-region", then ALL of their games against any D-III team count as in-region.  So as long as you're playing a 7-game conference schedule and a full 10 game regular season schedule, all of those games are going to be counted as in-region as long as they are against D-III teams.  They've really made it so that the only way to NOT play in-region games is to play outside of the division. 

One thing that isn't clear is if they would continue to rank 10 teams per region post-expansion.  I think most feel like they would not rank 10 teams, but maybe 7-8 teams.  I do understand the point being made there that ranking 25% of the division (regional top 10s with regions of about 40 teams apiece) is too many, but ultimately I think they would be missing an opportunity to add usable primary criteria data if they didn't rank 10 teams per region.  So who knows. TBD. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

hickory_cornhusker

Quote from: wally_wabash on April 30, 2019, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: hazzben on April 30, 2019, 09:53:52 AM
The thing I like is that it increases our data points for Pool B & C, since there would be more RRO info. Assuming games against out of region opponents, but still within a certain driving distance, could be counted as "In Region" games.

E.g. SJU plays UWL and Wartburg in non-con, neither of which are in their new region, but are both very driveable games. Maybe it's changed, but there was a period where a team within a certain driving distance was considered "in region" even when they fell in another region correct? If that's still the case, it could be a good thing for the top teams in good conferences. Schedule quality teams and increase your chances of RRO's.

I'd still probably lean 4, mostly just because we know it works fairly well right now. That said going to 5 or 6 would effectively end all debate about certain regions feeling jobbed for not getting a one seed. Or other feeling like they were gifted a one. Debate will always reign supreme, but at least in this scenario everyone knows there aren't enough 1 seeds to go around to each region.

You are correct - one way that a game is countable as in-region is if the schools are within 200 miles of each other.  In the SJU example, UWL and Wartburg are counted as in-region because Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are all in the same administrative region (not sure of the driving distance, but that wouldn't necessarily be relevant).  Even further, if a team plays 70 percent of their games as "in-region", then ALL of their games against any D-III team count as in-region.  So as long as you're playing a 7-game conference schedule and a full 10 game regular season schedule, all of those games are going to be counted as in-region as long as they are against D-III teams.  They've really made it so that the only way to NOT play in-region games is to play outside of the division. 

One thing that isn't clear is if they would continue to rank 10 teams per region post-expansion.  I think most feel like they would not rank 10 teams, but maybe 7-8 teams.  I do understand the point being made there that ranking 25% of the division (regional top 10s with regions of about 40 teams apiece) is too many, but ultimately I think they would be missing an opportunity to add usable primary criteria data if they didn't rank 10 teams per region.  So who knows. TBD.

Five regions with eight ranked teams each is still 40 ranked teams. Six regions with seven ranked teams each is 42 ranked teams so it would be (or essentially be) the same percentage of the division regionally ranked as before.

hazzben

Quote
Five regions with eight ranked teams each is still 40 ranked teams. Six regions with seven ranked teams each is 42 ranked teams so it would be (or essentially be) the same percentage of the division regionally ranked as before.

That's a lost opportunity in my mind. The hardest part of Pool C bids is the scarcity of data. Sure it'd mean 50-60 teams were Regionally ranked (assuming 10 teams and 5-6 regions). But that's out of 250 teams total. Still talking about how teams performed against the top 25ish% of the division. That's helpful data IMO. At the very least it helps to tease out how teams did against the better teams. More nuance to their WP, OWP, and OOWP. We aren't anywhere close to too much data when it comes to football playoff criteria.

Pat Coleman

Six and eight seems reasonable.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Ralph Turner

There have been 21 Stagg Bowls since the institution of the AQ (1999 thru 2019)

UMU has been there 17 times.
We also have Rowan, Bridgewater, North Central and Trinity Texas.  (As an affiliate member of the SAA for football, Trinity is in Region 3.)

The other 21 teams who appeared in the Stagg Bowl have been aligned in Region 6 (if we include the now-departed Tommies).

Go figure.

Maybe the Selection Committee will break up Region 6 when selecting the brackets.