Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Christan Shirk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
Men's soccer / Re: Hot Stove Action
« on: March 27, 2018, 04:46:11 pm »
I thought announcing an incoming recruiting class was a D1 practice...didn't realize D3 schools did that...

There is no NCAA rule against D-III programs announcing their recruits (as has already be mentioned, the language will be different given the non-binding nature of the "commitment").  However, some conferences do have rules either prohibiting their members for announcing recruiting classes or only allowing announcement to be made after a certain date.  And some schools may also have a policy against recruiting class announcements.

Men's soccer / Re: Hot Stove Action
« on: March 27, 2018, 04:32:39 pm »
When published the 2016 Men's Recruiting Classes, we provided this information about the non-binding "commitments":

Division III Non-Binding Commitments

Division III institutions are not permitted to use any form of a letter of intent or similar form of commitment in the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete (Note: the National Letter of Intent program is designed for NCAA Division I and II programs that offer athletic scholarships). However, as of August 1, 2015, a Division III institution may use a standard, nonbinding athletics celebratory signing form after a prospective student-athlete has been accepted for enrollment to the institution.

The standard form shall be made available by the NCAA national office and its content cannot be altered or customized by individual institutions. However, the form may be placed on institutional letterhead or have an institutional logo of some form attached to it. Use of the nonbinding athletics celebratory signing form is not required, giving Division III institutions discretion in determining whether to make use of the form. Other forms, however, are not be permitted.

There is no restriction on how the form is delivered to the prospective student-athlete. However, coaches are not permitted to be in attendance during the signing of the form, regardless of whether the signing is public with media present.

Men's soccer / Re: Hot Stove Action
« on: March 24, 2018, 02:58:12 pm »
Awesome work compiling the list of recruits/"commitments".  I really wish was able to do this each season.  With ommadawn's initial help, I made a go of it in 2016--over-extended myself to do so when I should have already been phasing myself out of responsibilities with the website.  For this year it's not going to happen, but if anyone was interesting in working with the website next year to get a "commitment" list posted, let me know and I'll put you in touch with the right person(s).

Men's soccer / Re: NESCAC
« on: March 08, 2018, 09:05:20 am »
FYI - In a very rare instance of using my moderator "powers", I have modified some of mom1234's recent posts, pulling her replies out of the quote boxes for clarity.  mom1234, not knowing what you are doing, I unfortunately am at a loss to know what tip I could provide to help you get your replies showing as replies.  Anyway, carry on.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: December 09, 2017, 02:38:59 pm »
With regard to the Top 25 poll and voters, we have never given our voters s specific set of criteria to follow or apply at any time of the season (regular season or final poll).  We ask them to use their own good judgement and discernment, to make their own considerations, and vote their opinion. We do encourage them to take strength-of-schedule into account, but we do not suggest (or discourage) consulting any specific SOS computations (e.g. NCAA, Bennett/Hero Sports, Massey Ratings)(I  personally think each of them has their flaws, but each also probably has its merits.) We suggest two questions for them to ask themselves while recognizing there are many other considerations and ways of comparing teams and completing one's ballot: (1) If these teams played in the next few days, all things being equal and neutral, who in your judgement is more likely to win? (2) If these teams played a series of ten games, who in your judgement is more likely to win more often?

Specifically with regard to the final poll after the NCAA Tournament, we ask our voters to judge teams on their full body of work. We clearly communicate to them that we are not interested in a final ranking that merely reflects the teams' advancement and finish in the NCAA tournament. The tournament matches are part of teams' full body of work, and we leave it up to each voter to decide to what extent if at all he/she gives extra weight to tournament matches. We let them know that they should feel free
• to consider a team who picked up a rare tie or loss (maybe even their only one of the season) at the "wrong" time in the tournament to be better than a team who advanced further than them but on the whole did not have as good a season,
• to consider the bracketing, recognizing that some teams were dealt tougher match-ups in the early rounds and a tougher path to the final,
• to consider an upset to be just that--the better team being beaten by a inferior team on that day, and 
• even to cast a No. 1 vote for a team other than the NCAA champion.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: December 09, 2017, 01:51:41 pm »
I agree 100% also how can chicago finish above NPU. don’t the teams play a final 4 to determine who is 1 and 2? usually 3 and 4 are an easier determination.

The NCAA has a tournament to determine who wins it for the NCAA... not a national poll which isn't even involved. A national poll isn't obligated to take that information and plot it out accordingly especially when the bracket doesn't include only the best teams and in a way that would help make sure the top teams get to the end (not arguing for changing the tournament, just pointing out the differences).

No voter should be obligated to vote how the tournament finishes outside of the top team - though, I know of times it has been an interesting conversation.

Chicago dominated North Park in their semifinal appearance. Because North Park advanced on a shoot-out that went eight frames, they are automatically better and should be ranked higher than Chicago? The Maroons outshot the Vikings 20-5 (18-1 after regulation, I think). The Maroons actually scored on the Vikings, despite the call being incorrect. And North Park was searching for answers throughout the game.

If I was voting (and I used to), I would have had Chicago ahead of North Park in the final rankings as well. I am sure the voters saw the same game most of us saw and the only way I would have ranked North Park ahead of Chicago was if they won the national championship (interestingly if that had happened, I would have put Chicago second as well).

Yea I would think so especially with north park defeating Chicago in the regular season as well.

That game in most voter's minds is going to be irrelevant compared to the most recent game. The poll is about now, not October.

im going to go out on a limb here and say you are one of the ones who voted Chicago ahead of NPU...    you are very passionate about the NCAA it’s cool to hve someone like that around here. but all we think is they screwed that one up a little. not the end of the world

I can unequivocally and authoritatively state that Mr. Dave McHugh is not a member of the men's or women's Top 25 panels.   However, given the clear demonstration of his reason, level-headedness, and grasp on reality, maybe we should consider inviting him back.  :D

Men's soccer / Re: The Big Dance
« on: November 13, 2017, 02:22:04 pm »
That's 6 straight sweet 16 appearances for Brandeis. I'm curious who else has this long (or longer) of a streak going. Calvin? Amherst?

Amherst has 8, including this year. No idea about Calvin.

I did some digging and this is Calvin's 3rd straight sweet 16. What a streak for Amherst and Brandeis at 8 and 6 respectively.

You wouldn't have to do any digging if you read the articles on!!!   ;)

Check out the seventh item in the article 2017 Tournament Field Factoids.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: November 08, 2017, 07:44:03 am »
Here is where things get interesting. These final rankings do then result in another data set of vRRO. The national committee will then consider that new set of vRRO and rearrange if they need to. This is how I understand all committees do in all sports. The fourth set of vRRO is considered and is used by the national committee to make any final changes to the final rankings. Basically, they create a fourth week's rankings, get a final data set of the vRRO, and make their final adjustments accordingly.

Not sure if that helps anyone, but that is how the fourth set of vRRO is used and, no, a fifth set is not suddenly created. It simply brings everything to a close.

I know you know your stuff, so I am sure this is true.  And thanks for sharing your insight and knowledge.

So, than in essence their is a "fifth ranking", or call it a "modified fourth ranking" ("final changes" as you call it), or say it's merely the "at-large regional queue".  It's just semantics, I guess, except that the Pre-Championships Manual makes no mention of a fifth ranking or a modified fourth ranking, probably better to stick with the later description: "at-large regional queue".  Or I guess the initial fourth ranking could be considered a pre-fourth ranking, so that the final order is the official fourth ranking. 

Not sure why the Pre-Championship Manual couldn't spell the process out a bit more, a bit better.  If there is a sequence of two rankings/orderings of teams done Sunday afternoon/evening, than why not just say that in the manual.  And why not clearly say which ranking(s) the RvR data is based on for each of the four five rankings.

This leads to some questions. First, can these "final changes" involve teams moving in and out of the ranking/queue? Or is it only a matter of rearranging the same set of teams that were in the initial fourth ranking?

And, what are the rankings that they release after the tournament fields are announced?  The initial fourth rankings or the modified fourth rankings/fifth rankings/at-large qeue?

Anyway, Paul Newman, seems it does work the way you want it to.  That's fine with me, I just don't know what's so hard about spelling out the process in the Pre-Championships Manual.  And I'll concede that Ryan Harmanis may have been trying to relay to me the possibility of a "fifth" ranking or a reordering and I just couldn't be convinced enough to put that in writing on the website because nothing in the Pre-Championship Manual alluded to that extra step.  Of course the Manual doesn't explain that only one team for each region is on the board at one time.  It's seems to have become well known that it works like this, but again why not simply state that that's how the process works in the Pre-Championships Manual.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: November 07, 2017, 09:48:03 pm »
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.

You are correct that the final RvR data for at-large consideration cannot be known precisely, but the new RvR definition doesn't allow for as big a change from what can be known.  By reducing the change that is possible, the chance for surprise is reduced.

For example, if from the third to the fourth ranking two teams drop out and, naturally, two new ones come in, a team's RvR could change dramatically if the RvR goes from being based on one ranking to being based on the other.  Let's say Team A had wins against Teams D and E who were in the third rankings.  And then in the final week Team A defeats Team D a second time in the conference playoff.  Then, when the fourth rankings come out Team D and E are replaced by Teams X and Y, who both defeated Team A during the regular season.  Team A's RvR based on the third ranking was an impressive 4-1-0.  But based on the fourth rankings they lose the two wins over Teams D and E (and don't pick up that 2nd win vs. Team D), and instead pick up the two loses vs. Teams X and Y, for a much less impressive RvR of 2-3-0.  That's the kind of swing that we can clearly agree could cost Team A an at-large berth.  Team A thought they were well-positioned for a berth and couldn't predict that both Team D and E would drop from the rankings, nor that two teams they lost to would be the ones to replace them.  They were surprised when they didn't hear their name called when the tournament field was announced. 

However, under the new RvR definition, Team A would have known that they would hold onto their 2 wins over Teams D and E and would have known they would pick up the second win vs. Team D as well.  They wouldn't have known they would be picking up the two loses to Teams X and Y.  Their RvR for at-large selections would end up being 5-3-0.  Having your RvR change from 4-1-0 to 5-3-0 is much less drastic and costly than going from 4-1-0 to 2-3-0.  The additional two losses could be the difference in being selected or not, but much less likely than losing the 2 (really 3) wins in addition to picking up the losses as under the  previous RvR definition.  Still dealing with some unknown, but less unknown.  Still not completely predictable, but more predictable.  Still could have surprise when the at-large selections are announced, but less chance of that.

This is what the new RvR definition was attempting to accomplish.

I just made up that example, because I was too lazy to look up the exact details of John Carroll's situation in 2014.  But it was something along those lines of going from a pretty good winning RvR to a losing RvR.  The change in the RvR data used for the regional rankings versus that used for the at-large selections is perhaps an unintended consequence of trying to avoid another large surprise like the John Carroll snub produced.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: November 07, 2017, 08:25:07 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 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.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: November 07, 2017, 08:17:19 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.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: November 07, 2017, 07:58:12 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.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: November 07, 2017, 07:40:53 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.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: November 07, 2017, 05:52:58 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).

7. 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.

10. 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.

18. 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.

Men's soccer / Re: 2017 Season - National Perspective
« on: November 07, 2017, 05:40:50 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.
Following 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13