Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Steve Wiitala

#1
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2014, 09:31:31 PM
I have lost track of where the schools stand on the provisional ladder.

Centenary LA becomes a full member in July 2014. The same for Berry.

How far along is everyone else?  Southern Virginia?  SUNY-Alfred? SUNY-Canton? Houghton? Sarah Lawrence?  Valley Forge Christian?

I will appreciate the updates.

Canton is in year II
#2
General Division III issues / Re: Cal Tech Penalized.
February 22, 2013, 12:13:14 AM
Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on February 20, 2013, 10:04:14 PM
I worked for a while at a university at which athletes were allowed priority registering for classes sob that they wouldn't get closed out of the morning and early afternoon sections. They needed to end their academic day by 3 pm in order to make it to practice.

That was a very common practice at lots of schools - either that or slots were reserved for them through a "blocking" system.
#3
General Division III issues / Re: Cal Tech Penalized.
February 20, 2013, 08:32:03 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 16, 2012, 05:51:18 PM
As I interpret the infraction, it looks like an infraction of pharisaic proportions that can probably be addressed inside the administration.

I am sorry for the appearance that this gives Cal Tech to the causal observer who is not familiar with the nature of the law as applied by the NCAA.


Kinda like...
If you swear by the altar, you are not bound by the oath.  But, if you swear by the gift on the altar, your oath is binding.

It looks like a violation that occurred not because of athletic issues, but rather because of the way students register for classes.  The NCAA doesn't like non-standard systems. 
#4
General Division III issues / Re: Future of Division III
February 15, 2013, 01:14:36 PM
The issue is the rather arbitrary way that the committee appears to apply the criteria.  In ranking some teams WIN% is the most important criterion, and SOS is secondary.  In other cases SOS is more important and outweighs WIN%.  The real problem is the lack of transparency.  In hockey there are two regions (we are a small sport), an 11 team field with 8 Pool A leagues and 3 Pool C bids.  (We have one league with only 6 teams, and no independents, so there is no Pool B). 

The last couple of years what has happened has been the case that there seems to be a lot of game playing going on.  The regional rankings have been manipulated to help one region get the upper hand in the selection of Pool C slots.  A team mysteriously appears at the bottom slot (16th in the East or 8th in the West) that enables a borderline candidate's resume for the last Pool C spot to improve.  The real problem is that in some ways hockey traditions and practices are different from other sports, and the problems in selecting the field really started with the advent of the Pool system. 

Before that started, there were some weak leagues that didn't get auto bids, and the number of at large bids was larger.  We all understood who would be in an who would be out - the process was transparent.  With the granting of Pool A almost automatically to any league with 7 or more teams, we have gone from  5 auto bids to 8 - The ECAC Northeast, MASCAC, and MCHA have all recently been given auto bids, and two of those leagues have exactly 7 members, and are very weak.  When you lose almost  20% of the field to accommodate auto bids for teams that have no chance, it squeezes the Pool C choices and makes the whole process seem very political. The MASCAC + ECAC NE totaled 13 teams, and when the MASCAC was formed, they ended up with 7 teams by taking 6 ECAC NE teams and "stealing" one from the ECAC E.  The net result was the loss of a Pool C spot at the cost of adding a team with little chance to advance.  In other sports, I'm sure that happens as well (Norwich playing in the Football tournament a couple of years ago would be a good example), but the percentage of the field that is affected is greater. 

My rant I guess really comes down to the "one-size fits all" approach that is used in setting the field.

I apologize for the long rambling rant  :P

#5
General Division III issues / Re: Future of Division III
February 14, 2013, 11:07:48 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 10:49:33 PM
Steve,

I don't think I've ever seen an NCAA field, in any sport, in any division, where there wasn't some complaints or arguments about one team being in the field and another team being left out.

I also think 'league champs only' is wrong. All deserving league champs should be in (as long as they're a 'real' league meeting the criteria and number of teams) in every sport and there should be at large teams to balance the fields to a make a 16, 32, 64, etc. team field. (I don't like unbalanced fields, either).

And as much of a numbers geek as I am, I also think there needs to be a bit of nuance. The difference between teams is so small, so slight, at the tail end of "C" that it is nuance...

Obviously, at this point, we in the hockey world are focused on the selection process for out tournament.  My objection to the process is the lack of objectivity.  No matter how many teams are in the field, there will be teams left out with what seems like legitimate claims on the last spot.  As a statistician, I would prefer that some kind of objective measure be used, instead of the current process in which the committee is given a list of criteria and told to use them with no specification as to how those criteria are to be weighted.  The problem is that the perception of the process allows outsiders to question whether the "last team in" was chosen because of merit or past reputation.  That is the reason that I'd be willing to eliminate all Pool C selections.

I also agree that the size of the field should be a power of 2, or at least half way between powers of two.  the 1:6.5 ratio leads to unbalanced brackets, and since the match ups in early rounds are also governed by travel restrictions, we often get inequities in the way that the brackets are set up. 
#6
General Division III issues / Re: Future of Division III
February 14, 2013, 10:40:00 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 14, 2013, 10:45:40 AM
I think a question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of the national tournament.

Is it to give deserving teams a postseason experience? If so then I would agree that the number of Pool C teams should be expanded because there are deserving teams left out.

Is the point of the national tournament is to determine the national champion? If so then at-large teams are absolutely unnecessary except in the case of giving the ECAC West teams (or other Pool B teams) a spot to fight for. If you can't win your league (season or tournament) I have pretty strong evidence that suggests you do not deserve to be the national champion ("You can't even come in 1st place in your league and you want to be considered 1st in the nation? That's a ridiculous idea.").

The current tournament is probably the best mix of both. The only safe way is to win your league (whether for your league it is the season or the tournament). If you can't do that you should be grateful they are even considering letting you play for a national championship. Except for Pool B there is a very clear route to the national tournament. If you can't do it you don't have much to complain about when you are preparing to play golf at the start of March.

My only real objection to the process is the lack of clarity that exists in hockey (and probably in other sports).  We always seem to get to the point where the committee includes a team in the field that doesn't really seem to fit, while a more deserving team gets left out.  In hockey, we have only one league (ECAC West) that doesn't get an a Pool A bid, and is left to swim in Pool C.  If it weren't for the ECAC West, I would really not have a problem with sending only league champions to the tournament.  My problem (as a statistician) is that there is not a uniform application of the Pool C criteria by the committees.  If we said that Winning percentage was x%, SOS was x%, etc, I could relate to the process better.  When my school (Norwich) got left out when they lost in the league tournament, I had no problem, except for the fact that a team with a weaker portfolio got in.  Heck, leave both of them out.
#7
General Division III issues / Re: Future of Division III
February 14, 2013, 09:37:33 AM
If we realize that the Pool C slots are very limited, no matter how the criteria are determined there will be deserving teams that are left out if they don't win their league tournament.  (I presume in most sports it goes like hockey and the Pool A bid goes to the team winning the post season tournament instead of the team that wins the regular season).  If you don't win the league, you are relying on a process that is bound to lead to disappointment for most teams. 

Mathematically, the source of Pool C slots are the leagues that have more than 7 teams.  It you take the number of teams in excess of 6.5 in all of the Pool A conferences and divide by 6.5, you get the number of Pool C slots.  Since conferences seem to be regressing toward 7 teams per conference, the number of Pool C slots continues to shrink.  In hockey, for example, in the last few years we have seen a weak 14 team conference essentially split into two 7 team conferences (there was some other shuffling going on as well, but that was the net result).  This change chopped off one Pool C slot, and added another weak team to the national championship field.  The reality of it is that for most teams, the national tournament starts with the first round of the league tournament.  I think it is unfortunate that there are so many teams that have outstanding seasons and get left out of the hunt for the national championship because of one bad game in the league playoffs. 

It would be better if the criteria were spelled out at the outset instead of put into the hands of a committee.  At least you know what you have to do.  A team with a great regular season, but not measuring up with the criteria would at least know they had no chance if they didn't win out.  You may not like the criteria, but it prevents surprises from the "smoke filled room (as we call it in hockey)"
#8
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 22, 2013, 11:32:24 PM
This isn't a conference, it's a joke.  If you're not playing each other except in a tournament it hardly seems D3ish.

Is that even allowed.  It seems like they could all just be independent and play in an independent's tournament.
#9
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 08, 2013, 05:47:40 PM
Quote from: Steve Wiitala on January 08, 2013, 04:26:18 PM
I wasn't always like that.  I recall serving as a faculty member on a financial aid committee in the early 80s.  The athletic director at the time was on the committee and a large number of the adjustments we made in the standard aid package were at the behest of the athletic director.  Things have change dramatically in that regard.

Oh, no doubt, but at least since the mid-90s, probably sooner, it has been supposed to be hands-off. The amazing thing is how many schools are getting flagged because they say athletic ability is part of their FA process.

I know, it was kind of interesting to see the change in procedures when the rules changed (it think it was actually about '88-'89 when it changed at Norwich.  The whole system changed - we had been using a "point" system, and different constituencies were given differing number of "points" the could be used to bump a package.  What was always funny was when there was a good student who was also an athlete.  The AD and the faculty rep from the students' projected major department would each wait for the other to propose a bump.  I was a new faculty member at the time, and I asked how we could be doing this, and I was told that it was okay as long as the package didn't exceed the need.  Seemed to me that unless everybody got full need, the system involved defacto athletic scholarships.  Somebody finally figured that out.
#10
I wasn't always like that.  I recall serving as a faculty member on a financial aid committee in the early 80s.  The athletic director at the time was on the committee and a large number of the adjustments we made in the standard aid package were at the behest of the athletic director.  Things have change dramatically in that regard.
#11
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 17, 2012, 11:31:30 PM
Well, Mr. Ypsi, there are about 30 other conferences to choose from for schools that can't afford the travel (formerly) required in the SCAC.  Not everyone has to fit into the same mold  8-)

That said, I'm in total agreement that the in-region crap, especially in football, brings absolutely nothing to the table and should be thrown out.

The in-region issue hits in hockey, too.  Adrian, MI is in the West (we have two regions, East and West), but they have made trips for non-conference games in Minnesota (regional) that are longer than if they played some of the schools in Western NY.  In last years NCAA tournament, to avoid flights, they were seeded with Eastern Schools, so when the NCAA wanted to save money, they put them in with the East.
#12
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2012, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 28, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
Don't ask the folks in TX and CA about football (and basketball) seedings, then, Steve.

Yes -- it happens in football and basketball a lot. Hockey is nowhere near alone on this.

Thus my point that a bit more in the way of financial support from the NCAA for DIII championships would make things fairer.  I wasn't sure about other sports - I kind of suspected that was the case, and knew that there was a lot of teeth being gnashed because of the Pool A slot that went to the ECFC last year.  Norwich was excited by it, but it appears that they had the big in a small pond thrown into the shark tank kind of effect. 

The travel restrictions and directive to minimize flights are thorns to hockey fans (visit us at D3hockey.com) as we try to figure out how the post season will evolve.
#13
Quote from: 108 Stitches on January 28, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Hey Steve I am not sure what gave you the idea that the NCAA is about the students when you have a multi-billion dollar business, with guys running it making millions of dollars, but the NCAA is NOT about the student athlete. There are a number of good books on the subject. You can start with "Beer and Circus" book. The interesting thing is that nearly 100% of the NCAA's money comes from the D1 basketball tournament and it funds pretty much everything the NCAA does.

There is definitely a gap between what they say they are, which is what I stated, and what they actually do.

In the sport that interests me, which is hockey, it seems like we get the short end of the stick, so to speak. The tournament procedures, create totally illogical situations with seedings and match ups based totally on the NCAA's dictates about minimizing flights.  That issue seems to impact other sports a lot less.
#14
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 27, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
But they probably generate about .0318% of the NCAA's operating revenue, so ...

I thought the purpose of the NCAA was to support and govern intercollegiate athletics, not to make money.  If one part of a non-profit is making money and another isn't, but is part of the mission, it deserves a reasonable level of support.  We've gotten our priorities all messed up.  College athletics is supposed to be a part of a student's education, not the be-all and end-all of it.
#15
Quote from: Bombers798891 on November 08, 2011, 10:33:26 AM
Just because the ECFC schools weren't actively looking for a way to game the system and earn a Pool A bid doesn't mean that the end result is any less of an embarrassment to the playoff system. Every one of those teams would be at (or near) the bottom of any other conference in the East (well, maybe not the LL. I could see middle of the pack there)

Same thing goes on in hockey, there are a couple of leagues that are much weaker than the others, including one that just got Pool A status this year, eating the last Pool B slot in the process.  The ECAC NE was a pretty weak league in the first place, and then the MASCAC started sponsoring hockey, which meant that the public schools in the ECAC NE left the ECAC NE, and where there was one Pool A slot for a 12 team league, there were now two Pool A slots two seven team leagues. (Salem State had been in  a different league, and they added a start up program.)  While they were transitioning, there was a pool C slot that went away.  I'm seeing the same kind of thing going on in football the hockey fans have seen.  Everybody wants to get a Pool A bid, and leagues all sit with 7 teams, so there's little excess to pad out Pool C spots.