Bracket of Death Question

Started by jeffjo, February 28, 2013, 06:06:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AO

#15
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2013, 09:10:40 AM
This discussion is great for newbies to the boards.  I think that the committee did a very good job of handling the challenge that is presented by the "D-3 basketball stronghold" that is a 500 mile radius of Chicago.

When you look at the 40-odd conferences in D-3, there are about 8-10 weaker conferences in the classification.  Most of them are located in a 300-mile radius from Hartford CT.  Until the presidents of D-3 institutions change to focus and emphasis of intercollegiate athletics in D3, we will be stuck with this every year.

Midwesterners can take pride in the quality of basketball played in the area.
I think I'm coming around to the positive point of view towards the midwest "bracket of death".  I'm far more likely able to see great games in person every year.  It would certainly be more fair to send a few weak East AQs to the midwest for first round games, but it wouldn't be as good of a game and the atmosphere would obviously suffer as the opposing team wouldn't have much of a traveling fan base.

Let's just compromise fairness in bracketing for transparency in seeding.  Have the committee rank/release the seeding for 1-62, and create a little extra hype for the newbies who may not understand that the 2nd round game they're thinking of going to is really #3 vs #5.

AndOne

OK. I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but I'm really confused about something.

There was talk on the previous page about which teams being #1, #2, and #3 in the Midwest, and #3 in the West. My question is-If the NCAA does not release/publicize the final regional rankings/seeding as I've heard, how is it known in what current position the NCAA committee has them? And, who is 1, 2, and 3 in the Midwest?
Also, am I right in assuming Whitewater is the current #3 in the West?

John Gleich

Quote from: AndOne on March 01, 2013, 03:17:48 PM
OK. I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but I'm really confused about something.

There was talk on the previous page about which teams being #1, #2, and #3 in the Midwest, and #3 in the West. My question is-If the NCAA does not release/publicize the final regional rankings/seeding as I've heard, how is it known in what current position the NCAA committee has them? And, who is 1, 2, and 3 in the Midwest?
Also, am I right in assuming Whitewater is the current #3 in the West?

Whitewater was #3 in the last-revealed regional rankings. Stevens Point did lose a day after the rankings came out, while Whitewater went 2-0, including a victory against a reg ranked opponent (Stout) but UWSP is 2-0 against the Warhawks this season.

Both teams have very high SOS's and numerous games vs regionally ranked opponents, but Point holds the edge there, 7-2 vs WW's 5-3.

The point became moot from the standpoint of Pool C, as UWW won the WIAC's automatic bid and Point likely was one of the first off the table in Pool C selection... so it effectively didn't matter what the order was.

I (rather passively) listened to the Hoopsville broadcast with Coach DeWitt, the national committee chair of the selection committe and he was very transparent and forthcoming with information... he may have given more information about the final seeding in those two regions, but I didn't catch it.
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

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: John Gleich on March 01, 2013, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: AndOne on March 01, 2013, 03:17:48 PM
OK. I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but I'm really confused about something.

There was talk on the previous page about which teams being #1, #2, and #3 in the Midwest, and #3 in the West. My question is-If the NCAA does not release/publicize the final regional rankings/seeding as I've heard, how is it known in what current position the NCAA committee has them? And, who is 1, 2, and 3 in the Midwest?
Also, am I right in assuming Whitewater is the current #3 in the West?

Whitewater was #3 in the last-revealed regional rankings. Stevens Point did lose a day after the rankings came out, while Whitewater went 2-0, including a victory against a reg ranked opponent (Stout) but UWSP is 2-0 against the Warhawks this season.

Both teams have very high SOS's and numerous games vs regionally ranked opponents, but Point holds the edge there, 7-2 vs WW's 5-3.

The point became moot from the standpoint of Pool C, as UWW won the WIAC's automatic bid and Point likely was one of the first off the table in Pool C selection... so it effectively didn't matter what the order was.

I (rather passively) listened to the Hoopsville broadcast with Coach DeWitt, the national committee chair of the selection committe and he was very transparent and forthcoming with information... he may have given more information about the final seeding in those two regions, but I didn't catch it.

It also seems like the final rankings from a number of regions leaked out.  Dave seemed pretty confident he knew all the rankings from several regions.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

jeffjo

Wow. I didn't expect such a wide and varied response. I had intended to respond to whatever answers I got this morning before work, but there were too many.

Some background on me, so I can't be accused of hiding it. I graduated from Wash U with a Masters in Applied Math, summa cum laude, after only four years. But I attended during the interregnum, so I never was much of a college hoops fan until my kids were big enough to attend major Div I schools. I started following Wash U the same time I started following college hoops in general, at the end of the heyday (not that the last 6 years are anything to be ashamed of) of the women's program. I have read D3HOOPS ever since, but never posted here (I did think about it two years ago, when I registered). I even attended the "cruise" to the championship in Salem, 2009; much buoyed by da Bears (sorry; Chicago roots, too) surviving a true "bracket of death." I may even go again this year (fingers crossed for luck) for the quarters/semis.

My point is that I am not a newbie in any sense of the word. And I resent any implication that I was, and any inaccurate claims that I was wrong in any of the rankings (yes, I know what the different kinds are, thank you) I cited. I thought I indicated, pretty clearly, if I was talking about an 8-team or 16-team "bracket." And even though I left out the bottom half, I was accurate for what I was describing.

In fact, it was the differences in the kinds of rankings that I was trying to emphasize. Massey is an objective assessment of performance. Whether or not you agree that it succeeds, it is trying to rate each team's performance against the performance-strength of its opponents. Regional rankings - which I did not even consider accessing, since they aren't public AFAIK - are an objective assessment of merit, not performance. The difference is that merit's baseline is what is possible for a team given their schedule (or what they potentially could schedule). It's not an absolute measure.

I fully understand the difficulty the committee faces in creating this ranking, and in organizing a national tournament without the existence of anything better to base it on. I applaud their results. But each "regional" bracket is only three tiers deep; I just don't see much point in bemoaning whether the very-necessary constraints on scheduling make matchups occur one round too soon, which realistically is all that happens. I just don't place much stock in the numbers when comparing the capability of teams from different regions, so the national view is what I wanted to look at.

The D3HOOPS *poll*, on the other hand, is a subjective assessment. Whether it measures performance or merit is in the eyes of the voter, but it also is a trans-region measurement. So when I think about a "bracket of death," I think about imbalances on the national scale, not the regional scale. Both the D3HOOPS *poll* and the Massey ratings can indicate this imbalance, by comparing the actual seedings (whether or not they are based on a ranking statistic) to what they would suggest, if they had been used.

But none of that is really the reason I posted. At Wash U, we have come to expect to be in the most death-like region, and 2009 was not the only example [see note] of an extreme. My impression, from DeWitt's comments, was that the biggest concern the committee had about this issue was St. Thomas's bracket (whether 8 or 16). But the same impression I got from D3HOOPS interviewers was that it was Whitewater's (yes, I think of it as Whitewater's). And I agree with my impression of D3HOOPS. But it wasn't clear, so I asked.

[Note] Look at the women's side, in 2000 and 2011. Yes, I know the regional constraints were stiffer in 2000; but their 8-team bracket had D3HOOPS #1, #2, #5, and #12; the 16-team bracket added #3 and #6. One computer rating had it at #1, #2, #3, and #6, adding #9. (I strongly suspect there was a database error that elevated #12 to #3.) In 2011, their 8-team bracket had #1, #14, and #10 ahead of them at #12. Their path to the championship game was #10 Denison, #4 Hope at Hope, #1 Thomas More at Thomas More, #6 Chicago, #7 Illinois Wesleyan at Illinois Wesleyan, and #2 Amherst. I consider that worse than the 2009 Bracket of Death, because the pain was spread out to each game AND three were in hostile venues. I don't think any potential champion could hope to win all six such games, so in my mind Wash U's women are the true champions of 2011. Yes, this is my subjective assessment of merit. :)

I really am not trying to criticize the selection process. I understand the huge problems involved. But would it be too much to ask to receive some acknowledgement, especially when that acknowledgement is given to others?

+++++

But my next question, quite seriously, is this: What do you now think of the sideshow in Atlanta? I hated the idea the first I heard of it, for the very reasons exposed here.

Ralph Turner

As I scanned the previous 1.5 pages of really great posts, I think that I was the first to use the term "newbies", but the comment was geared towards the outstanding comments that were being made.

Jeffjo, I was not trying to call you out.  I just liked the discussion that you started!  :).

I am glad that you have come out from your "lurker" status!

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

I did get the final regional rankings for all of the regions (except for 10-12 in the Northeast)... so what I am indicating in that information is factual.
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 02, 2013, 12:11:16 PM
I did get the final regional rankings for all of the regions (except for 10-12 in the Northeast)... so what I am indicating in that information is factual.
When do you plan to publish the final rankings?  -or did I miss it?  Maybe we can seed the tourney 1-62 on our own.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

I have been mentioning them when needed... not going to publish the entire list.
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 02, 2013, 12:20:37 PM
I have been mentioning them when needed... not going to publish the entire list.
Why would they not be needed?  They explain hosting and pool c selections.   Did someone threaten to break your thumbs?

jaybird44

I don't think the NCAA would be all that happy with publishing a list that it works so hard to keep veiled. 

mailsy

Quote from: jaybird44 on March 03, 2013, 10:40:59 AM
I don't think the NCAA would be all that happy with publishing a list that it works so hard to keep veiled. 

Ah Yes. So much "transparency" in another large bureaucracy.  ???
Cabrini Cavaliers 2012 National Runner-Up.
First official poster on the Atlantic East forum board.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Well there are several committees not happy with the fact the NCAA doesn't allow them to release the final rankings... but per that... I am not releasing everything formally.
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.