Pool C

Started by Pat Coleman, January 20, 2006, 02:35:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

bopol

Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM


Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do.  Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

This is why you need a process.  For example, you could say xxx points (say 100) of winning percentage can be offset by yyy points (say 40) of SOS, as a starting point for ranking and then you can look at the 'results' of the RRO to see if that the rankings should be adjusted for some compelling reason.

For example, I would say the 19-7 team in the above scenario would have an advantage, but I might consider skipping the other team if the wins vs. RRO were against the very top teams in the regional rankings and the 19-7 club only had wins against the bottom of the RRO.

The problem wasn't the picks of the committee, but the inability to articulate a process, but rather one off comments about too many losses against good teams or 9 losses or no big wins (or even worse, tournament history and eye test).  Like I said before, you can reasonably come up with explanations for Dickinson over Stevenson or Carthage based on the NCAA guidelines and show that you applied that consistently than one could argue against the weighting, but they couldn't argue that the guidelines weren't followed.

I haven't heard that articulated though.

KnightSlappy

Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 11, 2014, 06:44:07 PM
Some food for thought:


  • An RPI would have less meaning in Division III with the D-III philosophy actively suppressing interregional play.
  • Having an RPI at all contradicts the D-III philosophy.
  • Do we trust the NCAA to calculate one correctly and not allow a sport's committee to f' it up? :)

They already "f up" the SOS calculation, and we still all talked about that like it was a serious thing.

All an RPI would be doing at this point is consistently weighting WP against SOS. How is that against D-III philosophy?

AO

Quote from: smedindy on March 11, 2014, 07:02:06 PM
I think the RPI is all FUBARED anyway as the be-all and end-all.  You think some conferences are gaming the system now? See the A-10 this year for super-mega gaming the RPI system. UMass is a good team. They're 49th in the Pomeroy rankings, 34th in Massey, 47th in Sagarin. By those metrics, if they make the A-10 semi finals they'll probably be in the tourney. (That's a fine league this year.)

They're 16th in RPI. That's kind of a disconnect. The reason is they built their schedule to be very RPI friendly. A decent, deep conference, and a non-conference of good, yet beatable teams (New Mexico, Nebraska, BYU, LSU, Clemson, Ohio, Providence) and avoiding the dogs (the only sub-200 RPI team that is non-conference is Youngstown State). Of course they have to win a lot of those games to get RPI points, and they did. But beating LSU and Clemson and Providence and Nebraska isn't really worthy of a 16th in RPI. Their power rankings on one of those three indicies above probably shows their true value.

The Mountain West does this too. Nothing wrong with it at all since it's about their only entre into the tourney on a consistent basis. Since the A-10, Mountain West, MVC, and other higher non-BCS conferences can't get big time majors to come to their place, they schedule this way and also play in a lot of tournaments where they get a couple of good games on a neutral court.

A real Massey / Ken Pom hybrid is probably the way to go.
yes, but selections aren't made merely on your RPI rank.  Teams that are 15 spots below you but have 5 better wins and better losses will be selected first.  If it's a struggle to get the D3 to use RPI, it's going to be near impossible for them to make a common sense decision to use a ranking that includes margin of victory.

People seem to be most pleased with systems like the BCS which use computer rankings which don't use margin of victory alongside predictable human voting.

smedindy

Quote from: AO on March 12, 2014, 08:56:36 AM

People seem to be most pleased with systems like the BCS which use computer rankings which don't use margin of victory alongside predictable human voting.

People as in NO ONE...

Also, the RPI will definitely affect seeding. UMass will probably be seeded higher than they should.

AO

Quote from: smedindy on March 12, 2014, 11:44:04 AM
Quote from: AO on March 12, 2014, 08:56:36 AM

People seem to be most pleased with systems like the BCS which use computer rankings which don't use margin of victory alongside predictable human voting.

People as in NO ONE...

Also, the RPI will definitely affect seeding. UMass will probably be seeded higher than they should.
"People" in this context is the committees in charge of making those decisions.  There was really only 1 BCS championship where the people voted for a 3rd team to be more deserving of the title.  College sports are dominated by a select few, but they all get to vote, so they vote to ignore margin of victory. 

I can't find too much fault with D1 seeding.  They do such a better job of it than any other major tournament in the country.  The NBA and NHL are going to send sub .500 teams to the playoffs again this year and leave better teams from the West home due to some false assumption that people care about "East vs. West".

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do. Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

Why would they?  Because that's kinda what you sign up for when you decide to be part of the selection process.  I think you've got to know those at-large profiles inside and out if you're on that committee.  Anything less and you're doing a disservice to those teams and to the tournament.

I don't know one committee member over the years and including this season who I have talked to who doesn't talk about staying up late to catch-up on scores and watch games from around the country including the west coast so they are as prepared as they can be. I don't know one who doesn't pour over the data and spend countless hours outside of the phone calls to get a better understanding of the teams involved. To assume committee members don't take this job seriously and don't do more than the conference call entails is probably insulting to those on the committee. They don't spend at least four years of their life just twiddling their thumbs.

Quote from: AO on March 12, 2014, 12:06:35 PM
"People" in this context is the committees in charge of making those decisions.  There was really only 1 BCS championship where the people voted for a 3rd team to be more deserving of the title.  College sports are dominated by a select few, but they all get to vote, so they vote to ignore margin of victory. 

I can't find too much fault with D1 seeding.  They do such a better job of it than any other major tournament in the country.  The NBA and NHL are going to send sub .500 teams to the playoffs again this year and leave better teams from the West home due to some false assumption that people care about "East vs. West".

If this were true... why did they constantly play with the system, year-in and year-out, messing with the settings, adjusting the weight each element received, etc.? Then eventually say... this isn't working... we need to come up with another system.
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.

AO

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: AO on March 12, 2014, 12:06:35 PM
"People" in this context is the committees in charge of making those decisions.  There was really only 1 BCS championship where the people voted for a 3rd team to be more deserving of the title.  College sports are dominated by a select few, but they all get to vote, so they vote to ignore margin of victory. 
If this were true... why did they constantly play with the system, year-in and year-out, messing with the settings, adjusting the weight each element received, etc.? Then eventually say... this isn't working... we need to come up with another system.
I suppose I shouldn't have said anyone was ever pleased with the system, just that they were moving away from advanced computer rankings.  A national RPI shouldn't be very scary for D3 to adopt.  If they can vote to allow teams from one region to receive multiple bids while another region gets zero bids, they should be smart enough to realize they need better national criteria to compare regions.  We could get rid of the regionally ranked secrecy and the problem of  "getting to the table".  Staten Island would have a much better idea of where they stand nationally and everyone can get a clear predictable view of how strength of schedule and winning percentage combine.


Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do. Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

Why would they?  Because that's kinda what you sign up for when you decide to be part of the selection process.  I think you've got to know those at-large profiles inside and out if you're on that committee.  Anything less and you're doing a disservice to those teams and to the tournament.

I don't know one committee member over the years and including this season who I have talked to who doesn't talk about staying up late to catch-up on scores and watch games from around the country including the west coast so they are as prepared as they can be. I don't know one who doesn't pour over the data and spend countless hours outside of the phone calls to get a better understanding of the teams involved. To assume committee members don't take this job seriously and don't do more than the conference call entails is probably insulting to those on the committee. They don't spend at least four years of their life just twiddling their thumbs.

I'm not saying they don't do work outside the call, but if the "data" they're getting is blind - with no team names attached, they're not necessarily going to know what Illinois Wesleyan's SOS is or their vRRO.  I'm saying as much as they know which teams are good and which aren't, they may not be able to recognize them strictly from the numerical criteria used for ranking, especially for those farther down the rankings that end up near the end of Pool C consideration.

They would have to intentionally be seeking out those identifiers - and I don't think members would do that, if the plan is to rank without team names - that would take extra work beyond the work they already do for their own team and for the committee.

I'm saying if you went to an intetionally blind ranking, I don't think the members would go outside those parameters to "fill in the blanks" when it came selection time.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

John Gleich

Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2014, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do. Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

Why would they?  Because that's kinda what you sign up for when you decide to be part of the selection process.  I think you've got to know those at-large profiles inside and out if you're on that committee.  Anything less and you're doing a disservice to those teams and to the tournament.

I don't know one committee member over the years and including this season who I have talked to who doesn't talk about staying up late to catch-up on scores and watch games from around the country including the west coast so they are as prepared as they can be. I don't know one who doesn't pour over the data and spend countless hours outside of the phone calls to get a better understanding of the teams involved. To assume committee members don't take this job seriously and don't do more than the conference call entails is probably insulting to those on the committee. They don't spend at least four years of their life just twiddling their thumbs.

I'm not saying they don't do work outside the call, but if the "data" they're getting is blind - with no team names attached, they're not necessarily going to know what Illinois Wesleyan's SOS is or their vRRO.  I'm saying as much as they know which teams are good and which aren't, they may not be able to recognize them strictly from the numerical criteria used for ranking, especially for those farther down the rankings that end up near the end of Pool C consideration.

They would have to intentionally be seeking out those identifiers - and I don't think members would do that, if the plan is to rank without team names - that would take extra work beyond the work they already do for their own team and for the committee.

I'm saying if you went to an intetionally blind ranking, I don't think the members would go outside those parameters to "fill in the blanks" when it came selection time.

This also would/could eliminate the need for members of the committee to leave when their team is being discussed, simply because it won't be known...
UWSP Men's Basketball

National Champions: 2015, 2010, 2005, 2004

NCAA appearances: 2018, '15, '14, '13, '12, '11, '10, '09, '08, '07, '05, '04, '03, '00, 1997

WIAC/WSUC Champs: 2015, '14, '13, '11, '09, '07, '05, '03, '02, '01, '00, 1993, '92, '87, '86, '85, '84, '83, '82, '69, '61, '57, '48, '42, '37, '36, '35, '33, '18

Twitter: @JohnGleich

wally_wabash

Here's a really interesting piece on what it's like to live the life of a selection committee member. 

Now, I realize that the piece is about D1 and not D3, but I think it gives you an idea of what kind of commitment people on those committees make to knowing the teams, knowing the data, finding their own methodology for weighing the data, etc.  It's all extremely consuming. 

If our guys in D3 are doing even half of the work that the guy profiled in the ESPN piece do (and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be...Dave's account seems to support that), I don't think we can just redact team names and regions and think that every team is anonymous- or even think that any team is anonymous. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

AO

Quote from: wally_wabash on March 13, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
Here's a really interesting piece on what it's like to live the life of a selection committee member. 

Now, I realize that the piece is about D1 and not D3, but I think it gives you an idea of what kind of commitment people on those committees make to knowing the teams, knowing the data, finding their own methodology for weighing the data, etc.  It's all extremely consuming. 

If our guys in D3 are doing even half of the work that the guy profiled in the ESPN piece do (and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be...Dave's account seems to support that), I don't think we can just redact team names and regions and think that every team is anonymous- or even think that any team is anonymous.
I'm not convinced the D3 committee spends half the time the D1 committee does.  The D3 committee is restrained by the criteria, so the "eye test" and keeping track of injuries isn't really allowed or used.

KnightSlappy

#5546
Excuse me if this has been posted and discussed elsewhere (I'm catching up on my message board readings), but the Division III Championships Committee has announced some changes for the 2014-15 seasons.

http://www.ncaa.org/governance/monthly-update-1

QuoteMileage radius. NCAA Division III Management Council approved the Championships Committee recommendation to increase the radius used to calculate in-region competition from 200 to 500 miles effective with the 2014-15 academic year.The proposed increase in the mileage requirement for in-region would mirror that used for championship bracketing and pairings.

Provisional/reclassifying. Year one and two provisional and reclassifying institutions CAN count as an in-region opponent (assuming at least one of the in-region definitions is met).

Postseason competition. Conference postseason competition is excluded from the in-region calculation.

Spring break. For NCAA spring championships, competition against out-of-region opponents over one official vacation period (e.g., spring break) may be exempted from the calculation.

Bolded are the changes for basketball. 500 miles! Yay.

Pat or Dave (or anyone with ins): does the exclusion of the Conference Tournament games mean they don't count for the 70%, or that they aren't in the selection criteria (WP, SOS. vRRO) at all? And they same question for year 1 and 2 provisionals -- are they counted just as getting you toward 70%, or do they get included in the selection criteria?

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

I believe the exclusion is from the in-region schedule... thus the 70%. That was true last year, so I am a bit surprised that it has been "approved" for the coming year. The calculation last year of what counted towards 70% was that conference tournaments would not count - thus not giving teams the ability to "assume" they would be getting one, two, three, etc. games against in-region opponents.

Now, if I were to read into this... they may be putting this down in writing a bit more than it was in the past to avoid schools trying to claim waivers because they didn't know the rule. However, I am pretty sure it didn't need to happen since, again, this was in place last year from everything I was told.

And to just stir the pot... I hope they are not excluding the conference post-season tournaments from the SOS and such... since that is sometimes the only way a school can have it's SOS adjusted with any kind of significance, especially in a large conference, late in the year.

And yes... I will look into 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.

sac

Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 12, 2014, 12:38:24 PM
Excuse me if this has been posted and discussed elsewhere (I'm catching up on my message board readings), but the Division III Championships Committee has announced some changes for the 2014-15 seasons.

http://www.ncaa.org/governance/monthly-update-1

QuoteMileage radius. NCAA Division III Management Council approved the Championships Committee recommendation to increase the radius used to calculate in-region competition from 200 to 500 miles effective with the 2014-15 academic year.The proposed increase in the mileage requirement for in-region would mirror that used for championship bracketing and pairings.

Provisional/reclassifying. Year one and two provisional and reclassifying institutions CAN count as an in-region opponent (assuming at least one of the in-region definitions is met).

Postseason competition. Conference postseason competition is excluded from the in-region calculation.

Spring break. For NCAA spring championships, competition against out-of-region opponents over one official vacation period (e.g., spring break) may be exempted from the calculation.

Bolded are the changes for basketball. 500 miles! Yay.

Pat or Dave (or anyone with ins): does the exclusion of the Conference Tournament games mean they don't count for the 70%, or that they aren't in the selection criteria (WP, SOS. vRRO) at all? And they same question for year 1 and 2 provisionals -- are they counted just as getting you toward 70%, or do they get included in the selection criteria?

Any updates to this?

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

I believe the simple point is that the conference schedule can not be counted as one of your scheduled games to meet 70%. They have had trouble in the past where schools were assuming the conference schedule as part of that percentage and were short otherwise. Basically, the NCAA has said schedule 70% of your games in-region... but don't try and count your conference post-season as part of that because the teams and the number of games are not part of your original schedule you post in September.

As for the games counting towards criteria, the 70% rule would not affect conference postseason. The rule would exclude out-of-region games from the general context and thus SOS, vRRO, etc. Since conference games are in-region games, that data would still count - a team with less than 70% of their schedule in-region would not get the benefit of having their out-of-region games count towards the criteria.
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.