Author Topic: 2017 Playoffs  (Read 19512 times)

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4606
  • Karma: +762/-109
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #150 on: November 16, 2017, 09:30:34 pm »
What no one realizes is dropping it to just Washington isn't that smart... there is already a Washington College and a Washington University (of St. Louis; WashU).

Things seem so simple, yet they aren't. Not to mention the fact that Lee, when not a military officer, lead the now W&L in a very substantial way in its history.

You couldn't drop it to just Washington. You'd have to do something else.

Offline edward de vere

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +106/-42
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #151 on: November 16, 2017, 09:47:53 pm »

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

There is a whole lot of alumni opposition to that move. But W&L has made moves in the past that were incredibly unpopular with the alumni such as going coed and removing the Confederate Flag from the main floor of Lee Chapel. Certainly I don't think it will happen any time soon. I even go back and forth on the idea and I understand the problem it causes. W&L is the least diverse of the top liberal arts schools in this country, and it's not even close. And that affects the rankings and, if you buy into diversity as a benefit as I do, it affects the quality of the experience. As a small example, there are 2, count them 2, black football players. Last year there was 1. It's a huge image problem.

On the other hand, the side Lee chose in the Civil War had little to do with the benefits he brought to the school after the war. He instituted the single sanction honor code, the speaking tradition, he built Lee House, started the first Journalism school in the South, defined a W&L Gentleman (yes, it's a thing and yes it predates our coed integration by over 100 years!), and it's possible he saved a school that was teetering on the brink after losing so many students to the war itself. Did he support some bad things while at W&L as well? Certainly in the context of today he did when looking at the historical record. Though the school had racial issues before his Presidency as well including owning slaves.

W&L's racial past is checkered. The name Lee attached to the school is both a source of pride and a millstone around its neck. I am capable of appreciating Lee's contributions to the school while still understanding he fought on the morally wrong side of a war. But that kind of complexity is not so easy to explain to people all around.

I do not know if Lee's name will always adorn the school, nor do I know if I want it to. But I suspect it will not be going anywhere any time soon.

Of course, then you go to Washington.  Doesn't have ALL the same issues as Lee but certainly a slave owner to his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/historic-alexandria-church-decides-to-remove-plaques-honoring-washington-lee/2017/10/28/97cb4cbc-bc1b-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

I'm willing to draw the line at someone who was following the norms of the day, as badly as we view them through modern eyes, versus someone who was willing to fight a war to keep those norms in place after a significant part of the world and his own country decided it was no longer acceptable. There is a difference. Washington, Jefferson, the Founding Fathers in general, existed in a time when slavery was barely questioned. Lee... well Lee was in charge of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands to preserve an institution that was no longer acceptable in his own time. It's a little different. Though I have no doubt the pendulum will continue swinging too far today and only hope some rationality will return at some point.

While I am NOT in favor of all these name changes, I think "in a time when slavery was barely questioned" is WAY off-base.  There was ENORMOUS arguing over slavery at the time of the Constitutional Convention and at the Constitutional Convention ITSELF.

(This is why it's hilarious to hear some people say we need to have a conversation about race in this country.  Hell, we've been having a NON-STOP conversation about race in this part of the world for 400 years.)

Offline retagent

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Karma: +1689/-999
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #152 on: November 16, 2017, 09:58:33 pm »
And I'm not sure about the abolishment of slavery all over the world at that time. Seems to me it was an accepted practice for long after 1880 in most parts of the world.

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4606
  • Karma: +762/-109
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #153 on: November 16, 2017, 10:06:06 pm »
While I am NOT in favor of all these name changes, I think "in a time when slavery was barely questioned" is WAY off-base.  There was ENORMOUS arguing over slavery at the time of the Constitutional Convention and at the Constitutional Convention ITSELF.

(This is why it's hilarious to hear some people say we need to have a conversation about race in this country.  Hell, we've been having a NON-STOP conversation about race in this part of the world for 400 years.)

Not really a place for a history lesson, but the serious arguments over slavery at the Constitutional Convention were about how to count slaves as part of the population, not about whether slavery should exist in states willing to have it. Don't kid yourself there.

As for slavery existing in the rest of the world in the 1880s, not inside the industrializing Western nations. While the slave trade still hung on, and many undeveloped nations still permitted forms of slavery later than 1865, most nations were well ahead of us in abolishing slavery within their own borders. We were a very sad laggard.

Not that Wikipedia is the best source for all things, but simple history is just fine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 10:08:10 pm by jknezek »

Offline edward de vere

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +106/-42
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #154 on: November 16, 2017, 10:26:58 pm »
If slavery wasn't a SERIOUS concern in revolutionary times why did Washington HIMSELF provide for the freedom of his slaves upon the deaths of he and his wife?

And here is Thomas Jefferson, another SOUTHERN slaveholder (though there were certainly northern slaveholders, as well):  https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

The reason that Jefferson didn't free his slaves is because he eventually figured out how to make them profitable.  (And God knows he needed the money, the way he spent.)

I'll say it again:  Slavery was ALWAYS contentious in this country.

Offline Pat Coleman

  • D3sports.com Guru
  • Administrator
  • All-American
  • *****
  • Posts: 36806
  • Karma: +4442/-2184
  • Check the front page or FAQs before you ask.
    • View Profile
    • D3sports.com
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #155 on: November 17, 2017, 12:55:35 am »
jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

A game from that era doesn't necessary fall under those guidelines, for what it's worth.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Let's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Offline HansenRatings

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Karma: +245/-23
    • View Profile
    • Hansen Ratings - D3FB Computer Ratings
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #156 on: November 17, 2017, 07:59:54 am »
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:


Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:


I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.
Follow me on Twitter. I post fun graphs sometimes. @LogHanRatings

Offline Bob.Gregg

  • All-Region
  • *****
  • Posts: 1222
  • Karma: +204/-125
    • View Profile
    • WJPA Radio Sports
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #157 on: November 17, 2017, 08:56:28 am »
jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

A game from that era doesn't necessary fall under those guidelines, for what it's worth.
Can't tell you how long ago (maybe 1923) when the decision was made but W&J has decided that they're not counting the game as a win, whatever the guidelines say now or then.
Been wrong before.  Will be wrong again.

Offline art76

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
  • Karma: +254/-59
  • # yum update
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #158 on: November 17, 2017, 09:03:19 am »
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:


Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:


I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.

Interesting, If I hit reply I see the links embedded with their tags, but in the "new Firefox", which hit my browser this morning, the links/pictures do not show up on the page. Hmmmm.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. - C.S. Lewis

Offline HansenRatings

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Karma: +245/-23
    • View Profile
    • Hansen Ratings - D3FB Computer Ratings
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #159 on: November 17, 2017, 09:33:18 am »
Follow me on Twitter. I post fun graphs sometimes. @LogHanRatings

Offline wm4

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
  • Karma: +107/-33
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #160 on: November 17, 2017, 10:11:56 am »
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:


Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:


I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.

Careful Hansen, with logic and thoughtfulness like that, you're gonna get asked to consult to the committee next year.  Really well done.

Offline D3MAFAN

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Karma: +74/-29
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #161 on: November 17, 2017, 10:46:57 am »
Will 2017 be the year when the "best" team from the East holds the opponent the ends its season to under 55 points?

2016 #12 Alfred gave up 70 to MUC
2015 #6 Wesley gave up 55 to MUC
2014 #7 Wesley gave up 70 to MUC
2013 #7 Wesley gave up 62 to MUC

The last competitive final score when the best from the East didn't give up 50 or more points was in 2012 when #6 Wesley lost 32-20 to #2 MHB (granted in 2013 they lost 62-59 to MUC in a wild game).

2011 #3 Wesley lost 28-21 to #2 MUC.

Given that the "best" from the East is going to play a beat up MHB/Hardin Simmons/Linfield/St Thomas it would seem to be their best chance.  Normally they face a well rested MUC to end their season.

I guess if history holds true, if Wesley was the representative, it's best case scenario would be to play Linfield.

Offline Pat Coleman

  • D3sports.com Guru
  • Administrator
  • All-American
  • *****
  • Posts: 36806
  • Karma: +4442/-2184
  • Check the front page or FAQs before you ask.
    • View Profile
    • D3sports.com
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #162 on: November 17, 2017, 11:07:14 am »
jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

A game from that era doesn't necessary fall under those guidelines, for what it's worth.
Can't tell you how long ago (maybe 1923) when the decision was made but W&J has decided that they're not counting the game as a win, whatever the guidelines say now or then.

I wasn't attempting to question the decision or anything, Bob, just adding info to the conversation, for what it's worth.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Let's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3549
  • Karma: +699/-517
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #163 on: November 17, 2017, 11:35:16 am »
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:


Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:


I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.

Imagine that, making the impossible- possible, with a bit of mental elbow grease.
Great work Hansen.
Were there other bracket variations that also worked while achieving the same goals?

Offline HansenRatings

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Karma: +245/-23
    • View Profile
    • Hansen Ratings - D3FB Computer Ratings
Re: 2017 Playoffs
« Reply #164 on: November 17, 2017, 11:40:22 am »
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:


Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:


I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.

Imagine that, making the impossible- possible, with a bit of mental elbow grease.
Great work Hansen.
Were there other bracket variations that also worked while achieving the same goals?

This was just the first setup I got to that had fewer flights than the NCAA's, while still making a HSU/UMHB quarterfinal game possible. I'm sure this isn't the only potential bracket that works out that way.
Follow me on Twitter. I post fun graphs sometimes. @LogHanRatings