Hoopsville: Division III Basketball's Talk Show

Started by Dave 'd-mac' McHugh, January 07, 2011, 05:48:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

bballfan13

Quote from: Hoops Fan on November 08, 2013, 09:47:38 AM
Quote from: bballfan13 on November 08, 2013, 09:42:16 AM
Dave,

I read earlier on the MIAA men's board that a new rule is being adopted next year for all of D3.  They are changing the in-region mileage rule from 200 miles to 500 miles.  Is this correct?

I haven't heard that, but I know it's been discussed.

Here's the post I was referring to:  http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4596.msg1545892#msg1545892

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: bballfan13 on November 08, 2013, 09:42:16 AM
Dave,

I read earlier on the MIAA men's board that a new rule is being adopted next year for all of D3.  They are changing the in-region mileage rule from 200 miles to 500 miles.  Is this correct?

I have heard nothing about this and honestly it wouldn't make any sense. The geographic regions and the administrative regions provide a lot of opportunities for regional games for a vast majority of D3 teams. 500 miles doesn't sound like something the presidents would be in favor of considering their stand on a number of other issues. 500 miles is only used in the tournaments to determine bus or airplane.
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.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: bballfan13 on November 08, 2013, 11:50:25 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on November 08, 2013, 09:47:38 AM
Quote from: bballfan13 on November 08, 2013, 09:42:16 AM
Dave,

I read earlier on the MIAA men's board that a new rule is being adopted next year for all of D3.  They are changing the in-region mileage rule from 200 miles to 500 miles.  Is this correct?

I haven't heard that, but I know it's been discussed.

Again... I have heard nothing about this. I will continue to look around and I will ask the committee chair shortly when I sit down with him... but I am not sure where this information is coming from especially since I didn't see a reference or a source.

Here's the post I was referring to:  http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4596.msg1545892#msg1545892
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.

Pat Coleman

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 08, 2013, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on November 08, 2013, 09:42:16 AM
Dave,

I read earlier on the MIAA men's board that a new rule is being adopted next year for all of D3.  They are changing the in-region mileage rule from 200 miles to 500 miles.  Is this correct?

I have heard nothing about this and honestly it wouldn't make any sense. The geographic regions and the administrative regions provide a lot of opportunities for regional games for a vast majority of D3 teams. 500 miles doesn't sound like something the presidents would be in favor of considering their stand on a number of other issues. 500 miles is only used in the tournaments to determine bus or airplane.

Anything that helps the island teams or those backed into a corner like the Michigan schools is fine with me. I prefer "adjacent states" but for 97% of Division III, this is a paperwork move only with no change to how we operate.
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.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Just a head's up... the sit-down interview with the committee chair yesterday (Friday) ended up being postponed. Car trouble kept him from getting to the shoot. We will either find another time early this coming week... or do it live on Thursday night's season debut of Hoopsville!

So... keep the questions coming for the men's and women's basketball committee chairs.

Thanks.
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.

ziggy

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2013, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 08, 2013, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on November 08, 2013, 09:42:16 AM
Dave,

I read earlier on the MIAA men's board that a new rule is being adopted next year for all of D3.  They are changing the in-region mileage rule from 200 miles to 500 miles.  Is this correct?

I have heard nothing about this and honestly it wouldn't make any sense. The geographic regions and the administrative regions provide a lot of opportunities for regional games for a vast majority of D3 teams. 500 miles doesn't sound like something the presidents would be in favor of considering their stand on a number of other issues. 500 miles is only used in the tournaments to determine bus or airplane.

Anything that helps the island teams or those backed into a corner like the Michigan schools is fine with me. I prefer "adjacent states" but for 97% of Division III, this is a paperwork move only with no change to how we operate.

As I understand it, the 200 mile rule won't change. Rather, teams will be exempted five games up to 500 miles.

So it will still be a 200 mile rule but becomes a 500 mile rule for up to five games if necessary.

KnightSlappy

#111
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 06:58:56 PM
FYI: Pat dropped a bombshell on the Pool C football thread this afternoon - in football (at least) they are NOT using 'once ranked, always ranked' this year.  (Of course, that means the ONLY RRs that count are the secret final ones - good luck to those trying to project Pool B/C selections without sure knowledge of RROs! :o >:()

Isn't this something we were always told had to be consistent across all sports? So we can expect this in MBB as well? Or am I mistaken?

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: KnightSlappy on November 12, 2013, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2013, 06:58:56 PM
FYI: Pat dropped a bombshell on the Pool C football thread this afternoon - in football (at least) they are NOT using 'once ranked, always ranked' this year.  (Of course, that means the ONLY RRs that count are the secret final ones - good luck to those trying to project Pool B/C selections without sure knowledge of RROs! :o >:()

Isn't this something we were always told had to be consistent across all sports? So we can expect this in MBB as well?

I know that change is happening for basketball.  I assume it will be this year, but it could be next when they realign the regions.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

KnightSlappy

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 07, 2013, 04:32:02 PM
I have a feeling I can at least give you a heads up on some of these answers, but I will present some of them to the committee chair as well:

Quote from: KnightSlappy on November 07, 2013, 12:22:01 PM
My question is the same question I have every time. Exactly how much leeway do the the RAC get when interpreting the numbers of the primary criteria?

We've heard two different stories in the past. A few years ago it was "well the coaches in the RAC are there because they know the region and they're having basketball conversations and looking inside the numbers". Last year, it seemed, it was more "well we're tied to the criteria" (and we all know which team I'll cite as the example).

If it's #1, that's fine, but why didn't it work last year? If it's #2, that's fine, but why are college basketball coaches deemed best suited to interpret statistical data?

First, when it was a vote on the phone they tended to let the RACs vote, however the national committee did have the rights to go back to the RACs and say we don't agree and here are the reasons. We have talked about this often.

Second, two seasons ago the NCAA went to a "private" voting method. There would be a discussion on the phone, but then each RAC member would get off the phone and vote. The idea was that those whose arguments were being drowned out could still vote how they believed and not get steamed rolled into an opinion because more vocal members deemed it so. The problem this caused was RACs were very inconsistent across the country and even the RAC chairs (members of the national committee) wouldn't know how to "argue" their RACs vote when the results would surprise even them. The add to this misery, the national committee was not allowed to tweak RAC rankings or even advise why they had a problem until the very last ranking of the season - which we don't see.

Last year, some of that changed and I think you so that in the "use the criteria" mentality. You have administrators that may not know the region as well as the coaches (RACs and the national committee can not be made up of all coaches, it has to be a 50/50 split - though there are creative ways around that) and with an online ballot system now in place, the national committee wanted to make sure all of its RACs and its members were on the same page. This resulted in a more "criteria only" based rankings. It also avoids "old boys networks" and the like.

Take it for what it is... but I highly suspect the criteria only system is also what the NCAA mandates so that there are clear reasons for rankings and selections. Getting into "grey area" is what only causes more problems, especially when the NCAA preaches, though doesn't necessarily abide by, transparency.

Then my follow-up, as always, is why not go to a hard formula that combines WP, SOS, RvRRO, etc. into a single-number for selection purposes.

Either you can read into the numbers or you can't. Either the regions are supposed to combine/weigh the criteria differently or they aren't.

ronk

Dave,
  I see that TCNJ is hosting a women's NCAA soccer regional this weekend. Does this mean that the NCAA ban on NJ schools hosting NCAA competition at home has ended?

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

ronk - it ended last March when a federal court ruled against New Jersey and for the NCAA, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. It happened I think the Friday of the first weekend of the NCAA tournament or the Monday following. I know there was an effort on the women's side of things (since they where the only ones left with a New Jersey school still in the tournaments) to have them host... but it didn't matter as the criteria didn't allow for them to host (geography was the criteria in play). Now, if New Jersey were to appeal the decision... I have been told the NCAA will not bring the ban back UNLESS a court rules in favor of New Jersey... and if that were to happen the case is headed to the Supreme Court.

Knightslappy... I am not going to go around and around because you never seem to like any answer even if they were to give you a hard and fast number. I appreciate your passion for this, but to some extent I feel you can't see the progress that has taken shape over the years and how the system is far better than it was even a decade ago.

I can say this, the criteria is used in all sports in the NCAA (except ones like Cross Country, Track and Field, etc. that have specific measurements to attain), but not all sports are equal in how the criteria can be implemented. Heck, even in a sport the criteria is going to be different per a team's schedule outside of their conference. For example, a football team that only has one out of conference game versus a team that may have three or so are going to have very different hard and fast number you are looking for probably benefiting the team with less conference games. Same in basketball, a team from a smaller conference or conference schedule will probably benefit more because they can schedule more games out of the conference to sway a hard and fast number.

Do you really want to implement a a BCS type system? They are getting rid of that because it is a joke.

The idea of the criteria is it gives the committees plenty of data and points of reference when making decisions, especially head-to-head ones. The committee can decide how to read into an SOS difference of .005 or decide if that is a wash. The committee can take other data like head-to-head and results versus regionally ranked opponents and understand the meaning of that data. Yes, they are following the criteria, but they are using their heads to make the best decisions. They aren't looking at a computer generated number that has been based on an algorithm that doesn't understand a certain team has less conference games swaying their number than another team.

I prefer the committee being able to make decisions... and this soccer season I saw my latest example of why that isn't a bad thing. I know a school that was frustrated that the national committee overruled the RAC and moved said team behind another team. I took a look at the data that was last available from the previous week and the team in question trailed in regional record and had an advantage in SOS of less than .005 I believe. Their RvRRO was also similiar, but the team in question had a lot more losses. These two teams did meet in the conference tournament and said team beat the second team... giving the two teams an head-to-head of 1-1. But, it wasn't going to change the SOS numbers that much and the regional records still were to the advantage of the second team. The team in question who was disappointed they weren't in the tournament because they got put behind the other team wanted the fact they beat the team in the tournament to mean more than any of the other data... even though the criteria stated otherwise. Sure... was it a tough break? Yes. But as I said to them and I say it every year... the game at the beginning of a season means the same as a game at the end of the season. If the criteria isn't there... they maybe unjustly get into the tournament.

We know the criteria and I think the men's committee over the last few years - maybe even five - has done an outstanding job with it and as a result picking the national tournament. We have less and less problems with who is getting in and who is hosting (last year aside as it was craziness with how the tournament was structured on short notice). Yes, the committees are told to use the criteria to make their decisions... but they are allowed to look at the criteria and make a decision. The idea that they should vote "knowing their region" is an ode to the "old boys network" that caused so many more problems than we have time to discuss.

And per all of that... there are once again tweaks that have been made to the criteria to try and give these committees even more information to work with. Again, I plan to ask many of the questions you have asked... but to your point of a single algorithm that will solve all... I again point out that the BCS hasn't solved a thing and what is good in one sport will not be good in the rest.
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.

KnightSlappy

The problem with the BCS for so many years was:

(1) That it only selected two teams to play for the championship - not relevant here.
(2) That the human poll(s) carry so much weight and are affected by preseason ranking/perception all year.
(3) That the computer models/formulae were, for the most part, proprietary and therefore not transparent.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2013, 11:43:36 PM
to some extent I feel you can't see the progress that has taken shape over the years and how the system is far better than it was even a decade ago.

The system is purported to be far better, but it wasn't executed better last season. I thought it WAS better, but then the SOS got mucked up so badly, and we really haven't seen any year-to-year, region-to-region consistency with the voting styles -- probably because the committees / chairs have to change so frequently.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2013, 11:43:36 PM
Same in basketball, a team from a smaller conference or conference schedule will probably benefit more because they can schedule more games out of the conference to sway a hard and fast number.

Their SOS would be more variable, yes, but it's not true that it would be an obvious benefit. It could just as easily swing their number down further. But either way, this is quite clearly something a computer model could handle, and handle better/more consistently than humans. Because without a clear system in place, humans could not possibly apply these sorts of adjustments evenly across the board.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2013, 11:43:36 PM
The idea of the criteria is it gives the committees plenty of data and points of reference when making decisions, especially head-to-head ones. The committee can decide how to read into an SOS difference of .005 or decide if that is a wash. The committee can take other data like head-to-head and results versus regionally ranked opponents and understand the meaning of that data. Yes, they are following the criteria, but they are using their heads to make the best decisions. They aren't looking at a computer generated number that has been based on an algorithm that doesn't understand a certain team has less conference games swaying their number than another team.

Why couldn't a computer model understand that bolded part? All of this is stuff a computer could quite easily handle. Whatever is deemed important, whatever variables need to be accounted for, build them into the model.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2013, 11:43:36 PM
I prefer the committee being able to make decisions... and this soccer season I saw my latest example of why that isn't a bad thing. I know a school that was frustrated that the national committee overruled the RAC and moved said team behind another team...

Sure... was it a tough break? Yes. But as I said to them and I say it every year... the game at the beginning of a season means the same as a game at the end of the season. If the criteria isn't there... they maybe unjustly get into the tournament.

Why would a computer system not have the criteria?

I haven't necessarily had a problem with the criteria -- besides RvRRO (double counting and arbitrary endpoints) and "once ranked always ranked" (which isn't actually a criterion, just a method) -- my problem is that once the criteria has been established, humans CANNOT possibly apply them fairly and evenly (even accounting for these things like number of conference games and travel restrictions and every other variable that a computer could also account for) across the board without a hard-and-fast way of doing it.  Humans WILL, intentionally or not, introduce their biases into the vote.

To your soccer example, a one-number system would have clearly shown that the national committee was correct in overruling the RAC. There needn't have been a controversy here!

--------

I wouldn't even, as a starting point, go so far as saying that a one-number system needs to be a be-all-end-all, end-of-story selection process either. If two teams are extremely close, then have some of those discussions, review the schedules, and maybe look at how to break the tie. At the very least, a one-number system would free up the committee members' time to discuss and debate the merits of various bubble teams instead of on-the-spot trying to determine and weigh things like schedule restraints.

I think Pat's objection is the best one: that we can't trust the NCAA to do a good job in coming up with the system. But that would be bad on the NCAA because all they would need to do is ask for help. I'm sure there are plenty of smart(er than me) people who would be willing to discuss the theory and design and present systems to aid the NCAA for free.

KnightSlappy

Dave -- loved the interviews thanks!

On the SOS issue: it's not so much that the SOS is wiped out altogether, it's more that it's scaling the relative importance of home and away games in a wonky and unintended way. There is currently a multiplier effect, it's just really, really bad.

Opponent A: (Home) 15-5 (.75 mult) = 15x0.75, 5x.75 = an 'effective' 11.3-3.8 record.
Opponent B: (Home) 5-15 (.75 mult) = 5x.75, 15x.75 = an 'effective' 3.8-11.3 record.

In this case the multiplier would be wiped out because they're all 0.75. This schedule would read as having a .500 OWP (effectively 15-15). (This would also be the same if they were all road games and had the 1.25 multiplier, a .500 schedule).

But what if, in the example above, the second game was on the road?

Opponent A: (Home) 15-5 (.75 mult) = 15x0.75, 5x.75 = an 'effective' 11.3-3.8 record.
Opponent B: (Away) 5-15 (1.25 mult) = 5x1.25, 15x1.25 = an 'effective' 6.3-18.8 record.

In this case, the OWP would be effectively 17.5-22.5 for a .438 OWP. All we did was change a home game to a road game and the schedule got 'easier'.

(Using the same two-team example, an all road schedule would read as an OWP of .500, but moving the game vs. the 5-15 team to a home game would make the OWP read as .563).

I write this not to correct you, but because it seems the NCAA / committee members don't even know what the issue is besides that some people are questioning it.

What they need to do to fix it is go back to making each game's OWP a percentage (.750 and .250 in this case), then used the HAM against those percentages, and then average the resulting percentages.

ziggy

Yes, Dave, very good interview. Definitely the best answer to date regarding the interpretation of "results versus regionally ranked."

Also got a very good feel for the struggle between the committee and the office in Indy.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

#119
Let's see if we can get back into promoting the show and you guys interacting! :)

Tonight on Hoopsville we talk to:
- ODAC Commissioner Brad Bankston on the NCAA's decision to reward Salem with the men's championships through 2018 (along with other championships).
- UW-Stevens Point MBB coach Bob Semling talks about the team's first #1 ranking since 2010 and their big win over UW-Whitewater.
- DeSales MBB coach Scott Coval talks about the team's 11-hour trip to #9 St. Mary's Sunday (should have taken four) and then their big win on Monday without their best player.
- Birmingham-Southern MBB coach Chris Graves talks about the teams hot start, playing at the Hoopsville Classic and their challenging schedule head.
- #18 Ithaca WBB coach Dan Raymond talks about the team's solid start, lone loss to Amherst and how the East Region and Empire 8 conference are shaping up this season.

You can watch the show TONIGHT starting at 7 PM EST: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/dec12

EDIT: The show is obviously off the air, but the link above will take you to the archive in case you missed any of it.
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.