2017 Season - National Perspective

Started by D3soccerwatcher, August 11, 2017, 10:25:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gregory Sager

#480
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 07, 2017, 11:28:31 AM
This is all fine and good and I am not slamming North park I am just curious HOW North Park jumped Chicago in the Final Rankings if neither team lost and quite frankly Chicago and tougher games...Anyone?

It's certainly a valid question, but, short of getting someone from the committee online or on the phone to explain it, any answer is going to be sheer speculation.

My guess is that the national committee ultimately decided to read RvR as a win-loss percentage criterion, perhaps because the question was coming up in other places besides the Central Region ranking. Or perhaps the bump upwards that NPU got in both overall winning percentage and SOS versus Chicago as a result of last week's results (in which North Park beat both North Central, now 8-7-1 in matches against teams other than NPU, and Carthage, now 13-6-1 in matches against teams other than NPU, while Chicago beat Washington MO, now 7-6-2 in matches against teams other than the U of C, in its only match of the week) was enough to tip the scales in North Park's favor. I have heard secondhand that North Central head coach Matt Klosterman, who is on the national committee, said that NPU and Chicago were extremely close in how the committee viewed them, which should come as no surprise to anyone who views the five primary criteria.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 11:36:41 AMAs to the second point, that also is rhetorical to some degree.  There is a flaw somewhere when not just one national poll, but two have Calvin #1 and in the top 3 or so all season and then the NCAA has them a weak 4th in just their own weak region.  Regardless of who "owns" the polls there is disconnect and cognitive dissonance between the polls -- and also for that matter general consensus among most observers here -- and the treatment/formula by the NCAA when it comes to a Calvin (which gets treated the same as a PS-Behrend or St Joes of Maine).  Maybe two consecutive Final Fours should weigh in at some point.  The point is the disconnect.  I understand the procedural and criterion issues.

A few thoughts:

1) I share Flying Weasel's conclusion that what you view as "flaws" are simply different ranking systems using different criteria for different purposes. The d3soccer.com and United Soccer Coaches polls are subjective attempts to construct genuine national power rankings. The NCAA isn't trying to do that. Although there still remains some subjectivity with which the committee has to deal, it's nevertheless subjectivity that is highly circumscribed by objective criteria (the five primary criteria and the four secondary criteria found on page 22 of the Pre-Championships Manual). The reason why should be obvious -- the more objective the ranking process, the fewer grounds people have to complain about it. After all, the criteria remain the same every year. There's no "cognitive dissonance", and the disconnect is easily explained by the fact that, again, they're different systems that use different criteria for different purposes. Keep in mind that the tournament isn't about getting the 62 best sides into the field. The tournament is about staging a playoff between 62 sides that fairly and faithfully represent the entire membership of D3 as much as possible, which is a different thing altogether. That's how the NCAA operates in all three divisions, in every sport in which it sponsors a championship tournament or meet.

2) Your characterization of Calvin being "a weak 4th in just their own weak region" is likewise subjective and doesn't fit the mandate of the D3 men's soccer national committee. First of all, the Central Region is one of the two smallest of the eight regions in D3 men's soccer, and as such it receives only six slots in its regional rankings, tied with the West for the smallest number of slots out of any of the eight regions. The heavily-populated Northeast Region, by comparison, has twelve ranking slots, and the Mid-Atlantic Region has ten. Yet the d3soccer.com and United Soccer Coaches national polls each rank three Central Region sides among their respective top 25s, which means that the Central Region has 12% of the ranked sides in those two national polls while only receiving 9% of the slots in the NCAA's regional rankings.

3) The issue here lies internally with Calvin as much as anything. Most of that problem is the MIAA's fault, because it's one of the rare leagues in D3 men's soccer that plays a double round-robin schedule. That completely hamstrings the scheduling ability of Calvin coach Ryan Souders and his seven peers, and it also drives the SOS of each MIAA side much closer to .500 than is the case for the vast majority of D3 leagues, which play single round-robin schedules and thus have a plenitude of non-conference matches. Only three times in 38 seasons has the MIAA managed to get two sides into the D3 men's soccer tournament, and this will be the sixth consecutive season in which there is only one MIAA representative. And it's no accident that Calvin was the only regionally-ranked side in all of D3 that did not play a match against a regionally-ranked opponent this season.

4) Previous seasons should not weigh in as factors in NCAA tournament selections and seedings. Each season ought to be taken as an independent set of data points.

I understand that the MIAA schools are on a peninsula, but there are enough D3 schools within driving distance of MIAA campuses to effectively create workable schedules. It's not an insurmountable obstacle, as obviously Calvin makes it work in men's soccer (and in volleyball as well, a sport in which Calvin is nationally dominant). But it is an obstacle whose consequences are self-imposed by the league, and because of it the best sides in the MIAA are always going to have strength-of-schedule issues and RvR issues, and, thus, will suffer in the regional rankings and in tournament seeding.

Souders obviously does try to schedule strategically with the mere four non-conference matches he's allotted; this season he had the Knights play perennial national power Ohio Wesleyan, a Lake Forest side that is an ideal scheduling partner for SOS purposes in that it's a strong program in a weak league, and two recently-solid programs in Case Western Reserve and Oberlin. But the latter two illustrate the difficulty of Souders' task; Oberlin had a down year, which happens, and CWRU had a subpar record because Spartans coach Brandon Bianco decided to have his boys run an absolute gauntlet of high-powered competition. Other coaches could afford to shrug off the SOS hits they get from scheduling Oberlin and CWRU; Calvin can't, because Souders has only four shots to get it right, and the overall performance of his non-conference foes is out of his hands when he schedules them a year or two in advance.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 11:36:41 AMADDENDUM:  And, I would venture to say, that the very cmte members for the NCAA regional rankings and the national cmte responsible for seedings and bracketing KNOW that they are underseeding Calvin simultaneous with doing it.

Proof, please.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 11:36:41 AM[The point was not that by virtue of any poll they should be influenced, but I was more using the polls to make the broader point about how Calvin is perceived by basically everyone....the polls are in that sense merely incidental.]  Hardly ANYONE, from any organization, with any reasonable objectives, would conclude that Calvin gets properly seeded (over the past 3 years let's say).

Disagree. By the standards with which the national committee operates -- standards that everybody knows ahead of time, are as objective as possible, and which don't change from year to year -- it appears that Calvin is being properly seeded. As is the case in volleyball, Calvin doesn't seem to be handicapped by that.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 11:36:41 AMThey (the NCAA cmtes) are a slave to their criteria which in the case of Calvin and occasionally other teams they know are faulty.  As to whether they should follow their criteria to the letter anyway, against their own joint instincts apart from those criteria, is a whole different question, and one where reasonable folks might differ.

What you consider to be committees that are "a slave to their criteria" [sic] is how the NCAA operates in each and every championship playoff in all three divisions, regardless of sport (in the sports that hold playoffs rather than meets, of course). You also appear to be projecting here; you're assuming that they have "joint instincts" against which they're operating. I don't see what your basis is for assuming that their "joint instincts", if they even have any, line up with yours.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Flying Weasel

Quote from: jknezek on November 07, 2017, 04:34:56 PM
I know when it comes to the football tournament the implication we've been given by interviews with past committee members is that they should try and limit the first and second round flights as strictly as possible. That is done 2 or maybe 3 first round flights, and pods generally built to limit flights as much as competitively possible, through the first 3 rounds. So we usually end up with the geographic orphan conferences, the ASC, SCIAC, and NWC getting somewhat screwed in the early rounds as they play against each other, regardless of their true committee rankings, to limit flights in the first two rounds.

However, for the rest of the teams, so long as they are inside the 500 mile cut off for flying, teams can be sent just about anywhere to try and provide as fair a competition as the committee can design. So for each of the 4 8 team brackets, outside the orphan pod, the goal is to get a 1 seed as close to an 8 seed match up as the 500 miles can allow and so on for 2-7, 3-6, 4-5.

The committee does not seem constrained by mileage under 500 in setting up these possibilities, so teams generally teams will drive past possibilities to set up balance. A few years ago W&L went 492 miles or so, by the NCAA's TES system, to play Hobart. I don't know how many closer games they could have played, but that set up the "fairest" match up, according to the National Committee's seeding and views on the two teams.

I'd assume soccer works similarly. The National Committee is told to avoid as many flights as possible early in quite strong terms, but told that within the flight limit they should set up as fair a tournament as they think can be done with reasonable possibilities of avoiding flights in the later rounds.

Thanks for that insight.  It confirms what has seemed rather evident over the past 10+ years that 5 miles or 495 miles is largely inconsequential to the bracketing process.  It's when it goes over 500 that it's an issue due to having to pay for flights.

PaulNewman

^^^^I'm still confused. So they don't matter for the Week 4 regional rankings but they are considered for at large selections? Is that what you're saying? All of us including RH had been considering the potential impact of, for example, OWU getting ranked in terms of giving a boost or not to some teams, with the understanding that OWU getting ranked would "count."

Christan Shirk

#483
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 05:22:27 PM
^^^^I'm still confused. So they don't matter for the Week 4 regional rankings but they are considered for at large selections? Is that what you're saying? All of us including RH had been considering the potential impact of, for example, OWU getting ranked in terms of giving a boost or not to some teams, with the understanding that OWU getting ranked would "count."

Yes, that's what I am saying and unless I have misunderstood Ryan Harmanis' grasp of the process, I think he and I are on the same page.  He can correct me if that is not the case. 

We laid out the following breakdown of the process in Part I of our At-large Berth Analysis and Predictions piece.
QuoteFollowing the release of the third weekly regional rankings the process is as follows.

• Conference championships are completed by 6:00 p.m. ET, Sunday, November 6.

• The NCAA compiles the data corresponding to the at-large selection criteria (win-loss-tie percentage against Division III opponents, results versus ranked Division III teams, Division III Strength-of-schedule) and provides it to Regional Advisory Committees.

• The Regional Advisory Committees do their fourth regional rankings in the same manner as the previous three weeks. The results versus ranked Division III teams (RvR) criteria is based on who was ranked in the third regional rankings that were released on Wednesday, November 1.

• The national committee makes adjustments to the regional rankings as they see fit but does not publish them until after they have announced the tournament field (including the at-large berth selections).

• An updated RvR is developed based on opponents were ranked in either the third or the just completed fourth regional rankings. This is the RvR that the national committee will use when comparing teams across regions on a national basis.

• Pool B teams (independent institutions and institutions that are members of conferences that do not receive an automatic berth in the tournament) in the final regional rankings are identified.

• The highest ranked Pool B candidate from each region is placed "on the board", the teams are discussed, and one team is selected for the lone Pool B berth.

• Pool C teams (teams who were not awarded their conference's automatic berth and unselected Pool B teams) in the final regional rankings are identified.

• The highest ranked Pool C candidate from each region is placed "on the board", the eight teams discussed, and one team is selected. The next highest ranked Pool C candidate from the selected team's region is added to the board and the process repeats until all 19 Pool C at-large berths have been awarded.

The potential boost teams could have gotten from OWU getting ranked was for their at-large resume when being compared with Pool C team across the nation, not for their regional rankings when compared to other teams form the region.  It's basically impossible (creates an infinite loop) to try to base the fourth rankings on the results of the same fourth rankings.  When the committees make their conference call Sunday afternoon to start working on the fourth rankings, the data sheets prepare for them could not possibly have RvR based on the fourth rankings because they haven't yet been done.  To have rankings that could consider results versus teams in the fourth rankings, the committee would have to do a fifth ranking.  And where does it stop.  As we understand the process it stops with the fourth rankings which consider results versus teams in the third rankings.  It is for at-large selection purposes, not ranking purposes, that the RvR expands to include teams ranked in either the third or fourth rankings.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

PaulNewman

Wow.  This is getting tedious.  I know all the arguments about SoS and playing every team in the conference twice, etc, etc.  I think we are disagreeing primarily at some semantic level.  I could go into a very long response, but let's try this first.

The bracket comes out.  North Park is a top 4 seed and #1 in a quad but without a bye.  First round opponent?  The Calvin Knights.  You're not going to experience a single second of cognitive dissonance???  I think I've seen you talk before about North Park not getting proper respect at times.  That's the level at which I am commenting about Calvin, and the level at which I believe the cmte members would have some level of joint agreement off the record at least.  Or do you want to tell me that the cmte members truly believed a couple of weeks ago that Benedictine was stronger than Calvin.  It's not just about Souders and the MIAA or whatever.  It's not just Calvin that is impacted.  And, indeed, Calvin seems to handle this just fine.  It's the opponents that unfairly suffer.  And if Messiah drew Calvin in Round 1 I bet we'd see at least a couple of comments. 

PaulNewman

#485
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 07, 2017, 05:40:50 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 05:22:27 PM
^^^^I'm still confused. So they don't matter for the Week 4 regional rankings but they are considered for at large selections? Is that what you're saying? All of us including RH had been considering the potential impact of, for example, OWU getting ranked in terms of giving a boost or not to some teams, with the understanding that OWU getting ranked would "count."

Yes, that's what I am saying and unless I have misunderstood Ryan Harmanis' grasp of the process, I think he and I are on the same page.  He can correct me if that is not the case. 

We laid out the following breakdown of the process in Part I of our At-large Berth Analysis and Predictions piece.
QuoteFollowing the release of the third weekly regional rankings the process is as follows.

• Conference championships are completed by 6:00 p.m. ET, Sunday, November 6.

• The NCAA compiles the data corresponding to the at-large selection criteria (win-loss-tie percentage against Division III opponents, results versus ranked Division III teams, Division III Strength-of-schedule) and provides it to Regional Advisory Committees.

• The Regional Advisory Committees do their fourth regional rankings in the same manner as the previous three weeks. The results versus ranked Division III teams (RvR) criteria is based on who was ranked in the third regional rankings that were released on Wednesday, November 1.

• The national committee makes adjustments to the regional rankings as they see fit but does not publish them until after they have announced the tournament field (including the at-large berth selections).

• An updated RvR is developed based on opponents were ranked in either the third or the just completed fourth regional rankings. This is the RvR that the national committee will use when comparing teams across regions on a national basis.

• Pool B teams (independent institutions and institutions that are members of conferences that do not receive an automatic berth in the tournament) in the final regional rankings are identified.

• The highest ranked Pool B candidate from each region is placed "on the board", the teams are discussed, and one team is selected for the lone Pool B berth.

• Pool C teams (teams who were not awarded their conference's automatic berth and unselected Pool B teams) in the final regional rankings are identified.

• The highest ranked Pool C candidate from each region is placed "on the board", the eight teams discussed, and one team is selected. The next highest ranked Pool C candidate from the selected team's region is added to the board and the process repeats until all 19 Pool C at-large berths have been awarded.

The potential boost teams could have gotten from OWU getting ranked was for their at-large resume when being compared with Pool C team across the nation, not for their regional rankings when compared to other teams form the region.  It's basically impossible (creates an infinite loop) to try to base the fourth rankings on the results of the same fourth rankings.  When the committees make their conference call Sunday afternoon to start working on the fourth rankings, the data sheets prepare for them could not possibly have RvR based on the fourth rankings because they haven't yet been done.  To have rankings that could consider results versus teams in the fourth rankings, the committee would have to do a fifth ranking.  And where does it stop.  As we understand the process it stops with the fourth rankings which consider results versus teams in the third rankings.  It is for at-large selection purposes, not ranking purposes, that the RvRexpands to include teams ranked in either the third or fourth rankings.

OK, so it is correct to say that the extra wins or losses could have impacted Pool C selections which was the primary interest all along, and which could have resulted in a team in the same region being pushed ahead of another on the Pool C board.  RH alluded to such in his examples in his analysis of predictions and what could for example happen in GL.

PaulNewman

#486
And maybe this will help....I was not claiming that the cmte would secretly think they underseeded Calvin according to their mandate criteria...but rather, in terms of what they viewed as Calvin's ability, aside from those mandate criteria.

I'm only trying to get at the point that most here agree on and that isn't dependent on this poll or that poll or whatever....Calvin is perceived to be (with good reason) one of the top D3 soccer teams in the nation....period....and if you draw them, you likely are not jumping for joy.

Christan Shirk

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 05:44:08 PM
OK, so it is correct to say that the extra wins or losses could have impacted Pool Co selections which was the primary interest all along, and which could have resulted in a team in the same region being pushed ahead of another on the Pool C board.  RH alluded to such in his examples in his analysis of predictions and what could for example happen in GL.

I've re-read what Ryan wrote in his predictions and I see nothing that suggests he thought OWU or Marietta being ranked would change any teams regional ranking and thus when their turn came up to be under consideration for an at-large berth against the top remaining Pool C candidate from the other regions.  As I read it, he suggests that wins against OWU or Marietta if they got ranked would help their at-large case (not their regional ranking case).

Quote7. John Carroll (15-2-2) - Of the remaining teams, John Carroll has the second-highest winning percentage and an above average record-versus-ranked. If Marietta or Ohio Wesleyan enters the final Great Lakes rankings, a fourth ranked win would only confirm JCU's bid.

Quote10. Kenyon (15-2-3) - The Lords have a balanced profile that should be more than enough. Kenyon is the only team left with a winning percentage over 0.800, and, like John Carroll, could pick up a third ranked win depending on the final rankings.

Quote18. Capital (12-7-2) - The SoS is stellar, and Capital has improved the record-versus-ranked to four (possibly five) wins, but two hurdles remain. First, if the Crusaders don't jump Carnegie Mellon, they might never be up for discussion. Second, seven losses might be too many. Capital has the exact same record that Wheaton (Mass.)—one of my big misses—had last year.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

Gregory Sager

#488
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 05:41:14 PM
Wow.  This is getting tedious.  I know all the arguments about SoS and playing every team in the conference twice, etc, etc.  I think we are disagreeing primarily at some semantic level.  I could go into a very long response, but let's try this first.

The bracket comes out.  North Park is a top 4 seed and #1 in a quad but without a bye.  First round opponent?  The Calvin Knights.  You're not going to experience a single second of cognitive dissonance???

First of all, that was never going to happen. Number-one seeds don't play opening-round opponents who were ranked #4 in their respective regions. Take a look at who the top seeds in each quadrant are playing this coming weekend:

* North Park drew a bye, and will play either regionally-unranked Westminster (MO) or #5 West UW-Platteville in the second round;

* Chicago will play regionally-unranked Lake Forest in the first round, and then (assuming a Maroons triumph) either #3 Central Dominican or #5 Great Lakes Capital in the second round;

* Tufts drew a bye, and will play either regionally-unranked Mitchell or #11 Northeast St. Joseph's (ME) in the second round; and

* Messiah will play regionally-unranked Castleton in the first round, and then (assuming a Falcons win) either #3 East Buffalo State or #5 East Hobart in the second round.

In other words, there's no way that Calvin would ever be scheduled to play a top seed any earlier than the second round.

But if it had happened that NPU had to play in the first round and had the possibility of facing Calvin in the second round, would I be experiencing cognitive dissonance? Nope. None whatsoever. I can say that truly and honestly, knowing that Calvin was the #4 side in its region, and, more importantly, why Calvin was the #4 side in its region. Given the ranking of the Knights, and fully understanding that their prowess on the pitch is in no dispute, somebody with a roughly equal regional rank was going to have to be the unlucky outfit that faced Calvin right off the bat, and it so happens that Thomas More (#4 Great Lakes) drew the short straw. But that makes sense in terms of bracketing, because it pits two #4s (i.e., two sides in the middle of the pack as far as the regional rankings go in the bracket's western half) against each other in the first round. The pod's host, John Carroll, earned hosting privileges as a #2, while regionally-unranked Ohio Wesleyan has to deal with playing the Blue Streaks on JCU's pitch. If anything, the committee's bracketeer(s) showed Calvin a little deference by putting the Knights in a pod hosted by a mere #2.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 05:41:14 PMI think I've seen you talk before about North Park not getting proper respect at times.  That's the level at which I am commenting about Calvin, and the level at which I believe the cmte members would have some level of joint agreement off the record at least.

Actually, it isn't. We're talking about two different things here. I've felt that North Park deserved more respect in terms of national attention as a quality program, not in terms of its earned status with regard to tournament seeding and hosting privileges. I've already said that NPU's favorable situation in this year's bracket may be in part the result of geography. Calvin? Everybody properly respects the Calvin men's soccer program. That's not an issue. But respect and qualifications are two entirely different things.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 05:41:14 PMOr do you want to tell me that the cmte members truly believed a couple of weeks ago that Benedictine was stronger than Calvin.

You keep injecting terms like "believed" and "instincts" into this conversation. Those are subjective terms. Once again, this is about how teams measure up according to predetermined, universally-accessible and -understood, objective criteria. So, no, I'm not telling you that the committee thought that Benedictine would beat Calvin if you lined up the two sides and let them go at it. What I'm telling you is that they never even considered that, because such matters were not within the purview of their task.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 05:41:14 PMIt's not just about Souders and the MIAA or whatever.  It's not just Calvin that is impacted.  And, indeed, Calvin seems to handle this just fine.  It's the opponents that unfairly suffer.  And if Messiah drew Calvin in Round 1 I bet we'd see at least a couple of comments.

As I've said, there's no way that Messiah would draw Calvin in the first round. And it's not "unfair"; it's the way that predetermined, universally-accessible and -understood, objective criteria work.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

PaulNewman

#489
Christan, OK, I'll accept your explanation and accept that is what RH meant as well.  Still don't see how an extra win could have helped Capital vis-a-vis, let's say Conn College, but not CMU.  If all the teams under are under Pool C consideration they I still don't get why extra wins would be a barrier in your own region but not with any other region.

Strike the above, because I know the cmte has one team on the board at a time and that you don't get to the next team in the region unless the team before in the region already has been selected. I'll just conclude that it is odd for something to count versus the other teams in other regions but not within your own, and I was under the impression that RH was considering whether Cap might jump CMU based on extra wins.  I'll have to look at why in fact Cap did jump CMU.

PaulNewman

#490
Mr. Sager, So you didn't answer the question, stating instead why that couldn't happen.  It could still happen in theory.  Calvin with a change in stats here or there could have landed last in their regional rankings or even been unranked.  But you approximate my point by conceding you could draw them in Round 2 and you state you wouldn't flinch in the least.  I'll have to take your word on that.  You're a better man than me, and perhaps many others, because I could see myself acknowledging that all of the criteria and procedures were followed correctly and meticulously and still feel unlucky at the very least (and likely something very akin to knee-jerk cognitive dissonance).

Elsewhere, you made my point, when you write..." I'm not telling you that the committee thought that Benedictine would beat Calvin if you lined up the two sides and let them go at it. "  That's basically all I was saying.

We can disagree about lack of respect -- "respect and qualifications are two entirely different things."  I never argued that they aren't different.  I argued that there can be an experience of dissonance between the two things.  In other words, I can accept the mandate criteria were followed, and I also can hold that the result is inconsistent with a team's known ability.

"...fully understanding that their prowess on the pitch is in no dispute" --- So you're agreeing there is no dispute.  I thought you weren't conceding that most would agree on that, which is all I was saying cmte members would say to each other aside from their task, which of course I would expect them to fulfill as mandated to do so.

How do you think the JCU and OWU fans are feeling seeing Calvin sitting there in the 2nd round?  Which, to repeat, is different than whether they understand that proper procedures were followed.

And I didn't say Messiah drawing Calvin would be "unfair."  I simply said Falcon fans wouldn't be pleased about it.

bestfancle

#491
Yeah it is tough, as a JCU "fan" and really a Great Lakes/OAC "fan" in the tournament going forward.

I don't claim to know all the intricacies of seeding and placement, but seeing Calvin there was just surprising, because I believe Calvin to be much better than say Dominican/Capital or other teams in pod 2, game 2 of their respective regions in comparison to JCU's position.

I have to hope JCU plays really good, and Calvin suffers from travel, recovery on a back-to-back, and a tough away atmosphere. That being said, I think JCU/OWU does have a chance to beat Calvin, and I look forward to that match.

Ron Boerger

This is a fascinating discussion.   Meanwhile, in the women's volleyball playoffs, four of the top six teams in the country are in one of the eight regionals.   How would you like to be #6 and find yourself in the same region as #1, #4, and #5?   That's what Claremont-Mudd-Scripps is facing, even while there's another regional without so much as a single top 25 team.   Even recognizing the disconnect between rankings and NCAA selection criteria, that's nuts, but that's what happens when travel dollars are a primary consideration.

PaulNewman

Cristan, sorry, probably should have a separate thread.

I guess there are a couple of things I still don't follow.

I get why there isn't a RvR in Week 1 given no preceding ranking.  What I don't get is why the cmtes can't consider the final rankings in calculating RvR within region, and, beyond that, if you can't, why you could vis-a-vis teams in other regions.  On what principle would cmtes be prohibited from calculating RvR within regions given that there will be no further rankings?  It's my understanding that the very first task before selecting Pool C's is to come up with the final, final regional rankings.  Once the Week 4 rankings are completed, why would cmtes be prohibited from conducting a final tally based on who ended up ranked?  Because that would amount to a 5th ranking?  And is there any reason that 5th ranking shouldn't happen?

Finally, what if the head cmte goes around for a selection round and determined that the closest competitor for the next spot actually is within the same region?  Are you saying that the cmte is prohibited from considering two teams in the same region, perhaps based on looking at the data based on changes resulting from those 4th rankings?

Mr.Right

Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 07, 2017, 05:16:59 PM
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 07, 2017, 11:28:31 AM
This is all fine and good and I am not slamming North park I am just curious HOW North Park jumped Chicago in the Final Rankings if neither team lost and quite frankly Chicago and tougher games...Anyone?

It's certainly a valid question, but, short of getting someone from the committee online or on the phone to explain it, any answer is going to be sheer speculation.

My guess is that the national committee ultimately decided to read RvR as a win-loss percentage criterion, perhaps because the question was coming up in other places besides the Central Region ranking. Or perhaps the bump upwards that NPU got in both overall winning percentage and SOS versus Chicago as a result of last week's results (in which North Park beat both North Central, now 8-7-1 in matches against teams other than NPU, and Carthage, now 13-6-1 in matches against teams other than NPU, while Chicago beat Washington MO, now 7-6-2 in matches against teams other than the U of C, in its only match of the week) was enough to tip the scales in North Park's favor. I have heard secondhand that North Central head coach Matt Klosterman, who is on the national committee, said that NPU and Chicago were extremely close in how the committee viewed them, which should come as no surprise to anyone who views the five primary criteria.



So wins against 2 average teams is going to bump you ahead of a win against 1 average team? Seems a bit questionable to me. It has nothing to do with hosting because Chicago is already hosting. If they had all the same criteria in front of them a week earlier and put Chicago #1 and North Park #2 then the only reasonable explanation for the bump for North Park would be the extra win because of a conference tournament. IDK I am not an expert on these things but that seems weak