Pool C - 2017

Started by wally_wabash, October 09, 2017, 09:11:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

HansenRatings

Dave, this isn't a "conspiracy theory." People have biases. It's impossible to rid ourselves of them.

Lake Forest being ranked in the regional top 10 is an historic outlier. I believe the fact that their HC is the co-chair of the committee is partially responsible for their ranking. I do not believe anyone on the committee is acting in any way unethical or outside the bounds of their directive.

If you believe committee members "leave their bias at the door," you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the human condition.
Follow me on Twitter. I post fun graphs sometimes. @LogHanRatings

USee

I agree with HR, to say biases don't exist is as preposterous as saying they equate to a conspiracy. I believe most committee members try to eliminate biases and make decisions rationally but everyone has them, it's human nature. You don't "leave them at the door".

The fact that the different RAC's used the same criteria and ranked similar teams differently is pretty strong evidence that there is some bias in play. It may be a preference to SOS over RRO or win %, but the criteria are inconsistently applied and I don't think that's a debate is it?  If that's not based on bias what is it?


wally_wabash

I won't pretend to know the reason for it, but Lake Forest being ranked in the west region with a 0.419 SOS (229th/237 teams...literally THE worst SOS in the region) and a 42-7 loss to W6 Monmouth is positively weird.  That might be more weird than what's going on in the North with IWU/DePauw, frankly. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: USee on November 09, 2017, 09:44:53 AM
I agree with HR, to say biases don't exist is as preposterous as saying they equate to a conspiracy. I believe most committee members try to eliminate biases and make decisions rationally but everyone has them, it's human nature. You don't "leave them at the door".

The fact that the different RAC's used the same criteria and ranked similar teams differently is pretty strong evidence that there is some bias in play. It may be a preference to SOS over RRO or win %, but the criteria are inconsistently applied and I don't think that's a debate is it?  If that's not based on bias what is it?

I don't think the RACs having different results is a sign of bias... the criteria allows for a lot of interruption. If it was cut and dry enough to allow for biases to be a deciding factor, then we would probably be able to nail every single at-large in every single sport without much effort. The criteria is designed to narrow things down, but does not reveal the answers easily. They aren't a computer program. You see it as inconsistently applied, but if you ask those in those RACs they will make usually logical arguments for those decisions. They read the data and the criteria one way while someone else reads it another way. There is a reason the national committee members don't tend to be individuals who didn't spend time on the RACs honing things first. It isn't really is.

The criteria being interrupted differently also allows for a different point of view from where you sit. You may call that bias, but I see it as perspective.

If bias was really in play, I could point to a number of situations where a coach sitting on a panel who hates another team or coach (and they exist) and punishing them accordingly. I have found the opposite (in most sports, there is still one that has issues actually and we aren't talking about that sport in this discussion). I feel those who sit on these committees do their best to treat everyone without bias and with respect and to read the criteria the best they can from their vantage point.

And I swing back to this, if some kind of bias was really showing itself, than the national committee would see through it and make the necessarily adjustments. I don't know many national committees who aren't frank with one another and will make a change despite how it affects their fellow committee member. That is their job. They take this very seriously.

Now listen, I am not saying bias doesn't exist in the world. It does. However, I feel people on these committees for the most part are very capable of pushing that bias, or leaning, to the side and work accordingly. I feel that if they have a legit reason to put Team A ahead of Team B that they don't necessarily listen to the "voice in my head" which says ignore those reasons and put Team B ahead instead (rather simplistic, but...). I also think there are enough checks and balances in place to keep biases from having too much affect. An individual directly related to the team cannot participate in the call (and lobbying at other times is strictly forbidden), individuals vote on their own after being able to vote how they feel versus any pressure, and the national committee can make changes in which the chairs of those appropriate RACs have to make the argument (and again, the coach in this case would have to step away from the conversation).

I just don't think even mentioning that Lake Forest is positioned where they are is because their coach is a co-chair of the committee is a legit thing to comment about even if the part of it being "subconscious" is the argument. Present that as a legit question to someone on the national committee or the RAC and see what the answer is. If the answer seems suspicious, you may get me to change my mind.

Let me also say, I have no horse in this race. I agree on a quick look and per what Wally says the selection is odd. However, I rather question them on the reasons than go straight towards bias. I have found that there are many reasons I don't consider or their logic is flawed before I ever get to bias being a problem.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

izzy stradlin

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2017, 09:39:27 AM
Dave, this isn't a "conspiracy theory." People have biases. It's impossible to rid ourselves of them.

Lake Forest being ranked in the regional top 10 is an historic outlier. I believe the fact that their HC is the co-chair of the committee is partially responsible for their ranking. I do not believe anyone on the committee is acting in any way unethical or outside the bounds of their directive.

If you believe committee members "leave their bias at the door," you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the human condition.

Exactly.  I don't think Dave understands how bias works is data collection and analysis. It is not something you "check" or consciously remove.

retagent

I believe that Dave "d-mac" has actually argued that "bias" is in play. He just doesn't call it bias. Whether you look at historical performance, SOS, Regional power, or win %, in order to come up with different outcomes means you have put more weight on some criteria than other criteria. That is the definition of bias. It is not necessarily an indictment of wrongdoing, it is an observation. That's my take on reading the past couple of pages. Your bias will determine how much weight you give that take.

emma17

Whether it's bias or some other human deficiency, I find the problem lies with this concept:
QuoteAnd I swing back to this, if some kind of bias was really showing itself, than the national committee would see through it and make the necessarily adjustments. I don't know many national committees who aren't frank with one another and will make a change despite how it affects their fellow committee member. That is their job. They take this very seriously.

It's been said that the RAC's only advise and the National Committee makes the decisions for each regional and final ranking. If that's the case, why is the National Committee acting inconsistently for different regions?


Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2017, 12:01:42 PM
Whether it's bias or some other human deficiency, I find the problem lies with this concept:
QuoteAnd I swing back to this, if some kind of bias was really showing itself, than the national committee would see through it and make the necessarily adjustments. I don't know many national committees who aren't frank with one another and will make a change despite how it affects their fellow committee member. That is their job. They take this very seriously.

It's been said that the RAC's only advise and the National Committee makes the decisions for each regional and final ranking. If that's the case, why is the National Committee acting inconsistently for different regions?

Depends on the person's point of view of what is inconsistent... and one can easily ask them that question and see what they say.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

emma17

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 09, 2017, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2017, 12:01:42 PM
Whether it's bias or some other human deficiency, I find the problem lies with this concept:
QuoteAnd I swing back to this, if some kind of bias was really showing itself, than the national committee would see through it and make the necessarily adjustments. I don't know many national committees who aren't frank with one another and will make a change despite how it affects their fellow committee member. That is their job. They take this very seriously.

It's been said that the RAC's only advise and the National Committee makes the decisions for each regional and final ranking. If that's the case, why is the National Committee acting inconsistently for different regions?

Depends on the person's point of view of what is inconsistent... and one can easily ask them that question and see what they say.

You've mentioned this a couple of times. Are you aware of the specific way I can directly ask a National Committee member a question with reasonable expectation I'd receive an answer?
If so, that's pretty cool and I may very well try it.

HansenRatings

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2017, 06:40:08 PM
You've mentioned this a couple of times. Are you aware of the specific way I can directly ask a National Committee member a question with reasonable expectation I'd receive an answer?
If so, that's pretty cool and I may very well try it.

You could FOIA Coach Walker at UWRF for all email correspondence pertaining to the RAC. Probably your best bet to get an honest, unfiltered answer.
Follow me on Twitter. I post fun graphs sometimes. @LogHanRatings

ExTartanPlayer

#235
Carnegie Mellon upsets Case Western, and y'all can quit worrying about the "two 10-0 teams from the PAC" thing.

EDIT: to be clear, that wasn't a declaration of what did happen, but a hopeful post when CMU took the lead and got a stop. CWRU managed a block punt touchdown to take the lead. Lest anyone read this andmisinterpet the chain of posts here...
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

jamtod

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 11, 2017, 04:52:13 PM
Carnegie Mellon upsets Case Western, and y'all can quit worrying about the "two 10-0 teams from the PAC" thing.

Not so fast.

jamtod

CWRU saves the Pool C bid with a blocked punt returned for a TD with about 30 seconds to go.

MRMIKESMITH

Quote from: jamtoTommie on November 11, 2017, 04:58:41 PM
CWRU saves the Pool C bid with a blocked punt returned for a TD with about 30 seconds to go.

OT NOW

jamtod