Author Topic: Boyd's ISR rankings  (Read 17987 times)

OshDude

  • Guest
Re: Boyd's ISR rankings
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2011, 01:38:49 pm »
Crash, with your criteria the best teams are not in the D-I basketball tournament either. If it was about the best 55 teams (or 68 in this year's basketball) in the tournament, NCAA conferences wouldn't have one of their current (and necessary, in my opinion) functions.

I think the Committee has done a very good job each year in selecting the at-large baseball teams. If another at-large West team deserves to be there, like Linfield a few years ago, the NCAA has proven that the team will be there, flight money be damned.

If the complaint is fewer teams at the West regional, it's a matter of numbers on the D-III map. Look at how many NE and M-A teams there are compared to the West, Central and Midwest. There are some quality teams left out in the Midwest, too. That makes for some stacked six-team MW regionals most years. But if the MW has only 38 teams, there's no reason to think we'll have more than six teams at regionals. Well, maybe seven teams if bids and hosts work out perfectly.
I hear what you are saying. I will back off what I said a little. I agree with conferences winners. They won it on the field. Either by winning their conference or their conference tourney. The committee has no real say into these. I just hate when it takes committee's to make the choices for Pool B and Pool C with such complex criteria that is used. As always someone will always not be happy about the selection process. I would like them just to combine Pool B/Pool C into 1 at large Pool like D1 and D2. Then select the best teams nationally remaining from this pool regardless of region. Cost of course is the issue.
I like the committees. Not a baseball reference, but I like that a human can see how a Kenyon Martin injury affects a team's record. That's just an example. It would take a complex computer formula to take in contingencies like that. I think the dozen or so criteria in D-III baseball are fairly straight forward and thorough. It's much better than the ridiculous formula that formed the process a few years ago.

The Committee turns a potential math equation into an art, for sure. But I also think the Committee has been correct most of the time. Of course there are always a handful of teams at the end that are similar. I don't recall a year when the last few selections were obvious.

As far as combining the at-large pools, with two Pool B's there's not much difference in the outcome. Rarely, if ever, are there zero slam dunk Pool B baseball teams. At most the process will usually cost maybe one team a spot in years with two Pool B's. If we're talking four Pool B's, the case for combining pools could get better. That gets back to a cornerstone of NCAA conferences access to championships. On the flip side, I think it's fair for the NCAA to set aside bids for schools in non-Pool A conferences. There are many reasons for schools to be in non-Pool A leagues. Not all of those reasons are by choice. Even if it is a choice, I still think Pool B is a valid alternative for those schools.

I know you know this, but I just wanted to clarify one thing in your post. At-large teams are selected on a national basis while using regional results (in the primary criteria). There are no regional minimums or maximums for at-large bids. In theory, all 17 at-large bids (15 Pool C, 2 Pool B) could go to Mideast Region teams.

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28542
  • Karma: +1792/-382
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Boyd's ISR rankings
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2011, 01:41:44 pm »
Too many fans only look at the tree instead of the forest. (Another soliloquy on the benefits of Pool B!)

Pool B is like one big conference for the independents and for teams that don't have enough members to earn an AQ.  The access ratio is the average of teams in the Pool A conferences.  It is as fair as they can make it.  Yes, some of the lower quality Pool B teams have formed Pool A conferences, but the Pool system has given stable structures over the last decade for schools to strengthen the opportunities for student athletes.  Good examples include the Landmark Conference, the NEAC, the UMAC and the NECC.

(The examples in football have been truly dramatic in the last 10-15 years!)

Pool B is a fair and systematic way for independents, small conferences, newly organizing conferences and new members to get access to the playoffs in all sports.  I have never seen a Pool B field in baseball where the last Pool B team wasn't better than at least a handful of the Pool A winners in the field.  The move to Pools has had the effect of prompting schools to align in conferences, and to add sports where access to a playoff bid is a possibility in their conference.

More schools have added sports (all sports, too) in D-III since the move to Pools System in the late 1990's.  IMHO, this has been a big win for D-III and student-athletes.

Look at the UMAC.  Was Bethany Lutheran ever likely to get Pool B ahead of St Scholastica over the course of a season?  Now, BLC can beat CSS on the field in the conference tourney and get the Pool A bid from the UMAC.  The 8 schools in the UMAC came from Pool B; one fewer Pool B bid was awarded and another Pool A bid "took its place".

If there were only 2 Pool B bids, and you were considering adding a sport where the competition for the 2 Pool B bids were: Chapman, Emory, Wash StL and Ithaca, wouldn't you have a second thought as to how smart that might be?  UDallas is glad to be out of Pool B and into a conference.  The UAA has other agendae in its conference.  They will get a Pool B bid when they are good enough, which is often.

Currently, what if you are Lesley and adding baseball makes your conference (the New England Collegiate Conference -- NECC) a full Pool A member that now gets an AQ?  25 more D-III student-athletes get a chance at baseball at Lesley's new program, and a new conference with 7 teams, and possibly growing, now can look forward to an NCAA bid!)

And Oshdude's [aka Ricky Nelson] simultaneous post is also excellent!  :)


2012 update...  See below.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 11:37:38 pm by Ralph Turner »

Offline CrashDavisD3

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2494
  • Karma: +289/-78
  • If winning isn't everything,why do they keep score
    • View Profile
    • Crash Davis in Action
Re: Boyd's ISR rankings
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2011, 01:51:12 pm »
Ralph and Oshdude both excellent posts and information. Thanks for the detail on this. I just disagree with the PoolB/PoolC process as is. But that is my opinion but I respect the views of others and hear their points. I belief it would be better to combine Pool B and Pool C into one at large pool like D1, DII do. I also believe that the at large pool should be the best of those who did not get a Pool A bid. My opinion of course. Cost is also a issue like always.

Human factor with committee's is important. See the mess the BCS has with its computers. I think a more simplified formula for DIII selection would also be better also.  Overall DIII W-L with OWP, and should be enough in my opinion.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 01:55:51 pm by CrashDavisD3 »
This... is a simple game. You throw the ball. You hit the ball. You catch the ball.  "There are three types of baseball players: those who make things happen, those who watch it happen, and those who wonder what happened."
Crash Davis Bio - http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/minors/crash0908.html

OshDude

  • Guest
Re: Boyd's ISR rankings
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2011, 01:55:11 pm »
I may be a writer, but I'm a slow typer. ;)

Yours was the better post, by the way. Far more angles. And smarter angles.

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28542
  • Karma: +1792/-382
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Boyd's ISR rankings
« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2012, 11:53:33 pm »
2012 Update...

Chapman joined the SCIAC and has left Pool B.

The Southern Athletic Association (SAA) including Birmingham-Southern will be in Pool B in 2013 and 2014. They will get their Pool A in 2015.

From where does that Pool A bid come?  The SAA and the SCAC will have 2 bids in 2015.

The NCAA gives one bid for every 6.5 schools sponsoring a sport.

Three new schools have joined D-III over the time period...Birmingham-Southern, Berry GA and Centenary.  (There is 3/ 6.5 or 6/13ths of bid).

The SCAC teams who were left over from DePauw moving to the NCAC have:

--split into in the SAA...6 former SCAC teams plus B-SC and Berry.  Those 8 schools have genuinely earned the new bid just like the Landmark Conference schools did about 4 years ago.

--The remaining SCAC teams have added UDallas out of Pool B, added Centenary from D-I, and "taken" Texas Lutheran and Schreiner from the 15 team ASC.  The ASC was way too big, but there was little in the way of options to be anything else but a 15-team conference.  The ASC membership was providing the numerical basis for 2.31 (15 divided by 6.5) bids in D-III. The ASC did not earn a Pool C bid most years, so all of D-III was "getting" the extra bid in the form of Pool C and a slightly higher access ratio for Pool B determination.

In 2013 the SAA will have 7 teams counting towards Pool B. Berry should be a full member in 2014-2015). The SCAC keeps its Pool A bid for 2 years so it can boost its membership, with the three new schools. (Centenary should be a full member in academic year 2014-15.)

The result of the changes in the South was that in 2010, the SCAC and the ASC had 25 schools playing baseball as full members.  They have added 4 new Pool A schools and seen DePauw go to the NCAC and McMurry go to D-II.

Those 27 schools will have 3 bids in 2015: the 8-team SAA, the 7-team SCAC (Colorado College does not play baseball.) and the 12-team ASC.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 11:55:43 pm by Ralph Turner »