My biggest gripe with AA selection is the (I'd argue) excessive value placed on the team's success.
Here is the 'formula' use to calculate the AA teams (I know it says 2024 but this has been in place for years). I understand the rational to include team success in an individual player's overall rating, but I do think it hurts the top players in the better conferences (NESCAC, UAA, etc.) since it it much more difficult to end the season with a record that is among the highest winning percentage.
A solution to this? I don't know... maybe a different weighting on the team index, maybe include SoS somehow? But it will always be nearly impossible to pick the true top 45 players in a landscape so large and subjective.
This doesn't take anything way from those who made up the AA teams, congrats and well done!
Here is the 'formula' use to calculate the AA teams (I know it says 2024 but this has been in place for years). I understand the rational to include team success in an individual player's overall rating, but I do think it hurts the top players in the better conferences (NESCAC, UAA, etc.) since it it much more difficult to end the season with a record that is among the highest winning percentage.
A solution to this? I don't know... maybe a different weighting on the team index, maybe include SoS somehow? But it will always be nearly impossible to pick the true top 45 players in a landscape so large and subjective.
This doesn't take anything way from those who made up the AA teams, congrats and well done!