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.

Christan Shirk

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:23:07 PM
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.

One more observation.  The development of the fourth rankings, and thus the at-large pecking order of Pool C teams from a region, has not changed from prior years.  It has considered and continues to consider results versus teams ranked in the third rankings.  That part of the process has not changed one bit.  But in prior seasons, the RvR being considered for at-large deliberations and decisions across regions was based on teams ranked in the fourth rankings only.  Therefore, as teams waited for the tournament field announcements, they couldn't know what their and other teams RvR was because they didn't know who had made the fourth rankings. Combine that with the fact that for five years (2011-2015) those fourth rankings were not published even after the fact like, and you have the basis for concern about accountability and transparency in the process as well as more chance for surprise upon learning who was selected. 

So while you may have a point that it doesn't make sense to use different data to compare a team to its regional competitors than is used to compare the same team to rival at-large candidates from other regions, this is a by-product of enabling teams (and fans) to have much better knowledge of the data that will be used to make the at-large selections.  Sure a team's RvR can have a result or two added to it if a new team or two enters the fourth rankings, but the RvR based on who was ranked in the third rankings is locked in.  If you have 4 wins versus ranked teams based on the third rankings, you know that you will have all four of those wins on your resume for at-large deliberations.  You weren't guaranteed that previously when there was potential for surprise when a team didn't get selected because, unknowable to them, their RvR took a hit when a couple teams fell out of the fourth rankings.  Like John Carroll in 2014.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

Caz Bombers

Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 07, 2017, 07:04:36 PM
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.

The volleyball disconnect is even more pronounced in Division II, where the hard-cap regionalization model will make an undefeated team in the insane thunderdome of the Central region a #8 seed (or out altogether if they suffer their first loss in their conference tournament) while you could put together an East Region All-Star team that still might not win a single set off any team in the Central.

Christan Shirk

#497
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 07:19:59 PM
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?

Read my previous reply. 

This is mostly about teams knowing as much as possible about their (and other teams') at-large resume as they await the announcements, thus minimizing the chance for being surprised by the at-large selections.  If the RvR is based solely on a ranking that the teams and fans don't get to see before hand (which was the case prior to this year and would be the case again if they did a fifth ranking as you suggest), then teams and fans can't get as good a feel for where their team stands and thus could be surprised by the at-large selections.

The whole point of the doing the regional rankings was to foreshadow the at-large selections and eliminate/minimize surprise at (and thus questioning of) the at-large selections.  And they have done a great job of fulfilling that purpose (the fact that we have consistently predicted 85 to 95% of the selections is testament to that).  However, the fact that one of the most important selection criteria, RvR, couldn't be known by the team and fans because it was based on a ranking that isn't published until after the fact, meant a chance for surprise that could be minimized further by expanding the RvR to include teams ranked in either the third or the (unknown until after the fact) fourth rankings.

This is about predictability.  This is a reaction to the John Carroll snub a few years.  They would have been selected if this year's RvR criteria had been in place.  But that year, they lost a couple wins versus ranked teams when two opponents were dropped from the fourth ranking.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

Gregory Sager

#498
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PM
Mr. Sager, So you didn't answer the question, stating instead why that couldn't happen.

I think that stating why something can't happen is an answer to a question. If you ask me if Superman can fly faster than Green Lantern can, my reply will be that neither one of them is real. :D

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PMIt could still happen in theory.

No, it couldn't, because that's not how bracketology works. When you create a bracket, you always match up the top teams with the bottom teams and the middle teams with the middle teams in the first round. That's true even in the somewhat-distorted landscape of D3 sports (OK, very distorted when talking about teams west of the Mississippi, as Ron pointed out). Calvin is squarely in the middle among the teams in the western half of D3 in terms of regional ranking. Therefore, the Knights ended up in the middle of the seeding in the western half of the bracket. Given their results to date this season, they could never have been paired up with a #1 seed in the first round.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PMCalvin with a change in stats here or there could have landed last in their regional rankings or even been unranked.

That counterfactual makes the whole point moot, because when you talk about "a change in stats" you're talking about wins and losses. And a Calvin side that took more losses is clearly not the kind of Calvin side that you would be defending so ardently, because the Knights wouldn't have the W-L résumé to warrant it.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PMBut you approximate my point by conceding you could draw them in Round 2 and you state you wouldn't flinch in the least.

I don't really see how it's "conceding" something when I'm the one who brought it up in the first place, but whatever. ;)

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PMI'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).

Oh, I'd definitely feel unlucky, no doubt about it. I suspect that if you asked Thomas More coach Eric Busener right now about having to play Calvin in the first round he'd put on a brave face and might say something about how you have to play good opponents in the tournament, anyway, and that there's no such thing as an easy path to Greensboro, or words to that effect. But privately he might very well be griping to his assistants about his side's draw in the bracket. As I said, I'd feel the same way if it was NPU rather than TMC that was in that situation. But it's possible to hold those two thoughts at the same time -- the thought that your side is unlucky for having to face Calvin in the first round, and the thought that it makes sense in terms of bracketing.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PMElsewhere, 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.

That's fine. I think that we agree on a truism there. But my point was that it had, and has, nothing to do with whether or not Calvin was treated fairly by the committee.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PMWe 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.

See, I don't consider those things to be dissonant at all. Nor do I expect consistency between them, because you don't expect consistency between apples and oranges. When you adopt objective criteria to use in constructing your bracket, as the NCAA has across the board in its various sports and divisions, by definition you have to remove subjective considerations of strength from the conversation. And that's true whether or not there's consensus around those subjective considerations. In other words, I have no problem keeping the two conversations apart from each other. Again, the NCAA doesn't hold men's soccer tournaments that are designed to include the 62 top sides in D3. The NCAA holds men's soccer tournaments that are first and foremost designed around equity and fairness in representation by demonstrable measurements for the entire D3 constituency.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PM"...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.

Nope. I wasn't saying that at all. I was simply saying that I'm not a mind-reader, and I'm pretty sure that you aren't one, either. When I say that Calvin's prowess isn't in dispute, I mean exactly that -- I have yet to read or hear anybody write or say that Calvin isn't a quality side in 2017, and that includes the members of the committee.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PMHow 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.

I have no idea. I don't know about JCU, aside from bestfancle, but I do know that there are OWU fans who frequent these boards. You should ask them that question, not me.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 06:33:33 PMAnd I didn't say Messiah drawing Calvin would be "unfair."  I simply said Falcon fans wouldn't be pleased about it.

They probably wouldn't ... but, then again, they'd have the right to think that the Falcons were the victims of a conspiracy, or at least bad bracket construction, since Grantham and Grand Rapids are over 600 miles apart. :D
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

PaulNewman

Yeah, I would vote for, not a 5th ranking, but considering RvR based on the 4th rankings and not just the 3rd.  Sounds like you're saying they do that for at-large comparisons between regions but not within regions.  That just doesn't follow for me, but I'll leave that there until next year when my team or another I like gets snubbed  ;)

Mr.Right

Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 07, 2017, 04:01:20 PM
Yes, when it comes to bracketing, there is info we don't have.  Who did or did not bid to host being among that info we are not privy to.  And sometimes we can forget about rotating hosting priority when both men's and women's teams are in NCAA's.  Sometimes the host is picked because they are the central team in the pod that doesn't require anyone to fly.

As to the limited budget and wanting to limit travel and flights, well, first, any complaints about not opening the purse strings more goes need to go to a different higher level of the NCAA than complaints specific to seeding and bracketing which are the responsibility of the D-III men's and women's soccer committees.  In other words, those imposing the financial constraints are not the same people who have to operate within those constraints in administrating the tournament.

Given the financial constraints imposed upon the D-III men's and women's soccer committees, I have much fewer complaints than others about the bracketing each year. Back in the 80's, 90's and into the 00's, the first two (or three) rounds were originally strictly regional and later roughly regional with the same teams meeting time and time again over the years. Around the same time that the tournament field really expanded in the mid-00's there was also a notable shift in bracketing with more and more inter-regional match-ups in the early rounds.  The expanded field made that possible, but given the travel cost concerns, it was not inevitable or necessary to mix things up like they started doing.  So I credit the committees for that. Yes, teams would drive past other host sites to get to where they were playing.  It was a great change to break up the stale repeated match-ups of both regular season games and previous NCAA tournaments.  It was a very welcomed development that made the tournament more interesting with match-ups that otherwise wouldn't happen.  It almost seems like there is some complaining now about sending teams to mixed-region pods.  Do you really want the alternative. 

Now I get wanting the top seeds to be rewarded with hosting or whatever gives them an advantage that they apparently have earned (such as a shorter drive if not hosting).  But for all the complaining about not enough money being made available for the tournament, why would we complain when they do spend some money to mix things up and create inter-regional match-ups in round 1 and 2?


Agree with this as by the late 90's it was just assumed that if you got out of New England you would be playing a NJAC school. I will say that these regional matchups every year did make for some really great rivalries that would have never occurred otherwise. Trivia question: Why did the NCAA in 2004 decide to expand the tournament to make for about 16 more Pool C's?

PaulNewman

"it's possible to hold those two thoughts at the same time -- the thought that your side is unlucky for having to face Calvin in the first round, and the thought that it makes sense in terms of bracketing."

Exactly.

And Calvin very easily could have been #5.  I think they were at points last year.  And they could be unranked.  And not necessarily because of more losses.  They had just about the same record last year.

And all I said at the beginning was that the cmte would agree Calvin was a top side.  You call that mind-reading.  I call that common sense, especially when you say everyone here on this board is in agreement about that.  There is a dissonance between what we understand to be a general consensus and the criteria that I am agreeing with you the cmte must follow.

Christan Shirk

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 08:04:49 PM
Yeah, I would vote for, not a 5th ranking, but considering RvR based on the 4th rankings and not just the 3rd.  Sounds like you're saying they do that for at-large comparisons between regions but not within regions.  That just doesn't follow for me, but I'll leave that there until next year when my team or another I like gets snubbed  ;)

You're just messing with me, right?  Please don't tell me you don't grasp that you can't use data (RvR) based on the fourth rankings in the formulation of the fourth rankings.  Unless there is some staffer with a crystal ball, the data sheets that are provided to the committees Sunday afternoon when they sit down to formulate the fourth rankings can't possibly have RvR based on the yet to be done fourth rankings.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

PaulNewman

Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 07, 2017, 08:17:19 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 08:04:49 PM
Yeah, I would vote for, not a 5th ranking, but considering RvR based on the 4th rankings and not just the 3rd.  Sounds like you're saying they do that for at-large comparisons between regions but not within regions.  That just doesn't follow for me, but I'll leave that there until next year when my team or another I like gets snubbed  ;)

You're just messing with me, right?  Please don't tell me you don't grasp that you can't use data (RvR) based on the fourth rankings in the formulation of the fourth rankings.  Unless there is some staffer with a crystal ball, the data sheets that are provided to the committees Sunday afternoon when they sit down to formulate the fourth rankings can't possibly have RvR based on the yet to be done fourth rankings.

OK, so maybe I am talking about a 5th ranking.  I really just meant using the 4th rankings to see where everyone ended up based on those....like how you are saying they are doing region vs region but not within region when selecting.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: Mr.Right on November 07, 2017, 07:25:36 PM
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

Well, you asked for speculation, and I provided some. And we're not talking about three average sides, since average by definition means .500. We're talking about two slightly-above-average sides (North Central = .531 for NPU's SOS, and Washington MO = .533 for the U of C's SOS) and one substantially-above-average side (Carthage = .675 for NPU's SOS), causing a bigger gain in SOS this past week for the Vikings than for the Maroons, plus NPU going 2-0 to improve from a .906 winning percentage to .917 (a boost of 11 percentage points) while the U of C went 1-0 to improve from a .882 winning percentage to an .889 winning percentage (a boost of 7 percentage points). Those are definitely miniscule movements in SOS and W%, but they may have been all that was necessary to sway the committee. Again, I don't know for a fact that this was their thinking. I'm just speculating, based upon the evidence at hand.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Christan Shirk

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 08:20:13 PM
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 07, 2017, 08:17:19 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 08:04:49 PM
Yeah, I would vote for, not a 5th ranking, but considering RvR based on the 4th rankings and not just the 3rd.  Sounds like you're saying they do that for at-large comparisons between regions but not within regions.  That just doesn't follow for me, but I'll leave that there until next year when my team or another I like gets snubbed  ;)

You're just messing with me, right?  Please don't tell me you don't grasp that you can't use data (RvR) based on the fourth rankings in the formulation of the fourth rankings.  Unless there is some staffer with a crystal ball, the data sheets that are provided to the committees Sunday afternoon when they sit down to formulate the fourth rankings can't possibly have RvR based on the yet to be done fourth rankings.

OK, so maybe I am talking about a 5th ranking.  I really just meant using the 4th rankings to see where everyone ended up based on those....like how you are saying they are doing region vs region but not within region when selecting.

And then you using a RvR criteria for both regional rankings and for at-large selections that can't be known by the teams and fans because it's based on a ranking unknown to them until after the fact.  The new RvR criteria was put in place precisely to eliminate this.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

PaulNewman

#506
So they could publish that data as this site did but do it before the selections, the night before or that morning.

And based on what you are saying, teams STILL won't know if they are getting a Pool C because the new data will be considered region versus region.  I don't see the huge gain in terms of transparency if they are going to use the data for everything EXCEPT within region.

PaulNewman

So, LAST YEAR, national finalist Calvin, as late as the 3RD RANKING, was ranked #6 out of 6 in Central.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 08:10:43 PM
"it's possible to hold those two thoughts at the same time -- the thought that your side is unlucky for having to face Calvin in the first round, and the thought that it makes sense in terms of bracketing."

Exactly.

And Calvin very easily could have been #5.  I think they were at points last year.  And they could be unranked.  And not necessarily because of more losses.  They had just about the same record last year.

And all I said at the beginning was that the cmte would agree Calvin was a top side.  You call that mind-reading.  I call that common sense, especially when you say everyone here on this board is in agreement about that.

Here's some words to live by: Never assume common sense in anybody.  :D Still, we don't have an argument here. All I'm saying is that I'm not going to put words into the mouths of committee members when I have no proof that they've said them.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 07, 2017, 08:10:43 PMThere is a dissonance between what we understand to be a general consensus and the criteria that I am agreeing with you the cmte must follow.

This seems to be the only thing upon which we disagree. I don't experience dissonance in this regard, because these aren't two ideas that I consider to be in tension with each other. You do. So be it.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

PaulNewman

Last thing on what you think we disagree on.  There are different kinds of dissonance....emotional versus intellectual is one, and shades  of those.  When folks first saw Kenyon ranked #7 or something in the first two weeks last year many experienced initial dissonance.  Upon studying what happened, that lessened, but as non-Spock humans, lessening doesn't always equal total absence.