February 23rd NCAA rankings

[nysportsfan29]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

That's exactly what crossed my mind.

The number one East seed could be extremely important this year.

I just don't understand how the West has "earned" 3 byes. CSS barely got past Superior last weekend, the bottom feeder in the NCHA and their record gets two ties as a result (which I'm assuming evens out to a win and a loss). Oswego beats out Norwich, Midd, GAC/Hamline in the Pairwise and is tied with SNC and CSS at this point.

The Lakers have the top winning % and a very good (top?) record against Ranked Opponents. With Middlebury owning the PWC against CSS, wouldn't it make more sense that Oswego, Norwich, SNC, and Midd have "earned" the byes?

I know this whole process is convoluted and the most important thing for the NCAA is to stick to the 500 mile rule, but I think that's a cop out.

Is that really all it is? The 500 mile rule is making Oswego (possibly) play a Play-In game?

I know that if Oswego had just taken care of Geneseo this past weekend, this conversation would be rendered moot right now. Still, it grinds my gears and I don't understand it (especially since Oswego has the edge over Norwich in comparison).

If anyone out there can shed some light, since I've always had a hard time with this stuff, it would be greatly appreciated.

[DIIIFan]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

Thankyou NUPROF for listing the committee members and it does explain a lot as to why OSWEGO isn't the number 1 seed. Lets have some thoughts about Delventhal. Ex coach of RIT when RIT played OSWEGO, AD of PSUC which plays OSWEGO, I believe ex coach of UNION which played OSWEGO. No biases here at all. I really feel bad for the West teams for they as usual can't get a fair selection committee. I am surprised that coaches haven't submitted a complaint about the eastern baises. I know I may sound crazy but what about a committee with 2 member from the east/west and the chair is rotated every2-3 years from a west to a easter chair???
OSWEGO '89

[NUProf]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

I just don't understand how the West has "earned" 3 byes. CSS barely got past Superior last weekend, the bottom feeder in the NCHA and their record gets two ties as a result (which I'm assuming evens out to a win and a loss). Oswego beats out Norwich, Midd, GAC/Hamline in the Pairwise and is tied with SNC and CSS at this point.

The Lakers have the top winning % and a very good (top?) record against Ranked Opponents. With Middlebury owning the PWC against CSS, wouldn't it make more sense that Oswego, Norwich, SNC, and Midd have "earned" the byes?

I know this whole process is convoluted and the most important thing for the NCAA is to stick to the 500 mile rule, but I think that's a cop out.

Is that really all it is? The 500 mile rule is making Oswego (possibly) play a Play-In game?

I know that if Oswego had just taken care of Geneseo this past weekend, this conversation would be rendered moot right now. Still, it grinds my gears and I don't understand it (especially since Oswego has the edge over Norwich in comparison).

If anyone out there can shed some light, since I've always had a hard time with this stuff, it would be greatly appreciated.

Actually, its 4 (of 5) byes that the midWest could get (this changes if all of the Pool C bids go to the East). What is so screwy about that is if that did happen, that we could see due to Geographic Proximity St. Norbert not getting a bye because they are the only West team that could play Adrian. Then the NCAA would have to be rooting for SNC, because if Adrian beat SNC, they'd have to fly for the quarters.

Adrian really doesn't fit the geographic model. Probably the NCAA would be happier if they were upset in the MCHA playoffs.

[jerrynu26]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

Thankyou NUPROF for listing the committee members and it does explain a lot as to why OSWEGO isn't the number 1 seed. Lets have some thoughts about Delventhal. Ex coach of RIT when RIT played OSWEGO, AD of PSUC which plays OSWEGO, I believe ex coach of UNION which played OSWEGO. No biases here at all. I really feel bad for the West teams for they as usual can't get a fair selection committee. I am surprised that coaches haven't submitted a complaint about the eastern baises. I know I may sound crazy but what about a committee with 2 member from the east/west and the chair is rotated every2-3 years from a west to a easter chair???
OSWEGO '89

No doubt to you 9/11 was an inside job as well.
If you would try and leave the irate logic out, you might realize that is the EASTERN committee, and really has very little to do with the WESTERN committee.

[NUProf]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

And just to make it clear, here is the midWest Committee

Mark Ostapina, Milwaukee School of Engineering, chair
Tim Bald, St. Norbert College, co-chair
Sean Goldsworthy, St. Olaf College
Brett Petersen, Gustavus Adolphus College
Terry Watkins, University of Wisconsin, Stout
Jasen Wise, Marian University (Wisconsin)

There is also a lot of internal conflict of interest there two - Assuming GAC is in and SNC is in then the midWest has a very strong interest in ensuring that STS gets in, so that the West reps get 4 of the byes.

The system is flawed and built on self-interest and everything except valid statistical measures.

[DIIIFan]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

No doubt to you 9/11 was an inside job as well.
If you would try and leave the irate logic out, you might realize that is the EASTERN committee, and really has very little to do with the WESTERN committee.

Well my sincere apologies if I miss the word eastern committee for I thought NUPROF was listing the NCAA committee. Also get off your high horse for I can't wait to degrade you for your misunderstanding of one's post. You have posted some good ones here. So before you degrade someone else take a long looook in the mirror and see just how imperfect you are.

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

I just don't understand how the West has "earned" 3 byes. CSS barely got past Superior last weekend, the bottom feeder in the NCHA and their record gets two ties as a result (which I'm assuming evens out to a win and a loss). Oswego beats out Norwich, Midd, GAC/Hamline in the Pairwise and is tied with SNC and CSS at this point.

It has NOTHING to do with earned.

It has EVERYTHING to do with budgets.

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

Well my sincere apologies if I miss the word eastern committee for I thought NUPROF was listing the NCAA committee. Also get off your high horse for I can't wait to degrade you for your misunderstanding of one's post. You have posted some good ones here. So before you degrade someone else take a long looook in the mirror and see just how imperfect you are.

Well, your post did fly off the handle (not to say we all haven't done that once in a while).

And while we're bashing you if you understand college sports politics, you would understand that Delventhal, if he had a bias at all, would not be biased against Oswego.

[Josh Carey]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

I have a lot of comments, corrections, and opinions to this thread, so let's just get right into it.

IIRC, once your ranked, your always ranked, in terms of record vs. ranked teams??

Absolutely not. Only record against current ranked teams is considered. This is noteworthy because the final NCAA rankings compiled on selection Sunday are not released to the public.

If it's the normal .5W, .5T, that 8-2 for 0.800 compared to 7-1 for 0.875.

I have no reason to believe it's not .5 W and .5 L for a tie, in all calculations.

I'm an NU fan, and I don't see this at all. The main reason, of course this matters is the likelihood that only one East team will get a first round bye.

Maybe. There are still scenarios that can tip the field from a 6-5 east/west split to an 8-3 east/west split. Just because the current most likely projection with all highly seeded teams winning their conference tournaments results in that outcome being most likely doesn't mean there aren't still literally hundreds of bracket configurations still possible. I can almost guarantee projections on the final weekend of the season will look much different than they are now. Let's not get all doom and gloom based on a single possibility.

Wow, Look at that NESCAC Finally getting the respect it deserves!

Honestly, the NESCAC probably gets overrated by the current system. This is something I've discussed in previous years. Because of the interlock, every NESCAC/ECAC-East team has a .500 base WIN in conference play (adding or subtracting their own record). Because those leagues play the vast majority of their non-conference games against the ECAC-NE and MASCAC, the teams improve their overall winning percentage almost universally because those leagues are weaker than the interlock. This in turn improves the base strength of schedule of interlock teams because then they all play each other so many times, multiplying the effect of the SOS increase. This is how you get 7 ranked interlock teams, but only 2 ranked NE teams (at 14 and 15) and no ranked MASCAC teams. The dynamic exists in a similar extent but with less drastic results in the west.

Williams also beat Norwich, thereby boosting all of the NESCAC and it all kind of mathematically cascades... and it doesn't show up immediately.

There is no part of this post that makes sense. Except for changes in Record Against Ranked Teams, all changes show up immediately. as mentioned above, because the NESCAC and ECAC-East play a complete interlocking schedule, the SOS component of those games is .500 at the end of the years (adjusted only for each team's own record). So Williams beating Norwich helps... Williams.

And here is the committee...

Bruce Delventhal, Plattsburgh State University of New York, chair
Michael Letzeisen, Eastern College Athletic Conference
Michael McShane, Norwich University, co-chair
Chris Potter, Wesleyan University (Connecticut)
Chuck Sack, Neumann College

There's only two guys who are involved in placing all the teams, because Delventhal has to sit out when Platty is being discussed, McShane sits out when NU is under consideration, and Sack for Neumann.

I quoted an article last year that I can dig up if I have to that involved media members doing a mock run through of the men's basketball selection process which gels with what I've heard regarding the D3 level. The "leave the room" requirement is more strictly written in the rules than is enforced in the room. In practice it involves abstaining from votes/discussions about affected teams. Saying "there's only two guys who are involved in placing all the teams" while technically accurate, really is a bit alarmist. Since every single committee member is involved in placing all but one of the teams.

I understand the process isn't exactly transparent, but we could probably avoid posts like the following if we take the position maybe the system isn't assuredly crooked.



Post was too long, see part 2 below.

[Josh Carey]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

I just don't understand how the West has "earned" 3 byes. CSS barely got past Superior last weekend, the bottom feeder in the NCHA and their record gets two ties as a result (which I'm assuming evens out to a win and a loss). Oswego beats out Norwich, Midd, GAC/Hamline in the Pairwise and is tied with SNC and CSS at this point.

All true. But the NCAA treats the tournament as a regional entity aimed at minimizing travel in the early rounds - true for all D3 sports. The unique nature of hockey and Adrian's location and expectation of winning the MCHA makes those requirements potentially difficult.

The Lakers have the top winning % and a very good (top?) record against Ranked Opponents. With Middlebury owning the PWC against CSS, wouldn't it make more sense that Oswego, Norwich, SNC, and Midd have "earned" the byes?

Yes. See above.

I know this whole process is convoluted and the most important thing for the NCAA is to stick to the 500 mile rule, but I think that's a cop out.

Is that really all it is? The 500 mile rule is making Oswego (possibly) play a Play-In game?

Yes, but again, let's continue to reiterate, there is no assurance of a 7-4 split with Adrian as a western team. There is also no assurance the NCAA couldn't be convinced to bend the rules and (potentially) fly a team for the quarterfinals.

I know that if Oswego had just taken care of Geneseo this past weekend, this conversation would be rendered moot right now. Still, it grinds my gears and I don't understand it (especially since Oswego has the edge over Norwich in comparison).

If anyone out there can shed some light, since I've always had a hard time with this stuff, it would be greatly appreciated.

As mentioned in another reply, you could potentially make a case that NU's adjustment in RNK combined with each respective adjustment in WIN, combined with the disparity in SOS (which has been highly weighted by the committee in the past) could make the NU-OSU comparison tip in the way the committee described. Again, it's important to note the NCAA rankings, not the projections of anyone on the USCHO Fan Forum will seed the tournament. So analyzing why the rankings came down the way they do might give us a look at how the committee is examining things. Hint: SOS is king. Nor is this news based on previous years.

Potter and Letzeisen are the only two who are involved in all of the rankings/seedings. I'd guess they trade the "hat" back and forth. Talk about conflicts of interest. What a great system! Flawed as it is, I'd rather see them just use the PWR count and be done with it. It's like if MLB were to use a committee to pick the wild card teams for the playoffs

Yes, clearly because several individuals are prohibited from talking about a single specific team each, the entire process is flawed. Are you just choosing to ignore that means 80% of the committee or at least four people is involved in a discussion of each team? I get you have a horse in this race, Prof, but the sky is not falling Chicken Little.

Which adds even more to the conflict of interest thingie - While it would seem that selecting teams for Pool C that aren't you wouldn't be a conflict of interest, it would be in the best interest of all of the East teams - particularly, NU and PSU that the West not get any Pool C bids. If SNC wins the NCHA, then the discussion of STS as a Pool C impacts how many byes the East gets. Both McShane and Delventhal have a vested interest in keeping them out - the rule is that they can't discuss their own team, but the distribution of Pool C bids is important.

It is always in the interests of the eastern committee to have more eastern teams in the tournament and it is always in the interests of the western committee to have more western teams in the tournament. Always. This is why the final committee involves 2 eastern and 2 western representatives and they must all come to an agreement on a bracket together based on the NCAA criteria. Distribution of Pool C is important every year for every region. This is nothing new and again, raising the alarm that this somehow makes the process crooked seems disingenuous. I'd counter that the process is actually rather well balanced to protect against the inherent conflict of interest in each region wanting to see the greatest number of representatives from their region.

Thankyou NUPROF for listing the committee members and it does explain a lot as to why OSWEGO isn't the number 1 seed. Lets have some thoughts about Delventhal. Ex coach of RIT when RIT played OSWEGO, AD of PSUC which plays OSWEGO, I believe ex coach of UNION which played OSWEGO. No biases here at all. I really feel bad for the West teams for they as usual can't get a fair selection committee. I am surprised that coaches haven't submitted a complaint about the eastern baises. I know I may sound crazy but what about a committee with 2 member from the east/west and the chair is rotated every2-3 years from a west to a easter chair???
OSWEGO '89

The final committee, which NUProf fails to mention because it doesn't fall into his tinfoil hat look at the whole process, is comprised of 2 eastern and 2 western representatives, just as you describe. And in fact I believe the chair does rotate annually between an eastern and western representative. But that doesn't make for a compelling conspiracy theory does it? Nor does it help when somebody angling to explain an unfavorable result for his team provides inaccurate information to further a specific viewpoint. The concept that somebody is on the selection committee inherently rigs the process against a specific team/conference/region, whatever is pretty absurd to me.

Imagine you're in charge of selecting a group of people at your place of employment to designate a team for a special project. Your boss gives you a list of rough criteria to go by and says you need to post two preliminary lists of candidates so people can know if they're being considered or not. But the boss understandably doesn't want to make the final list public because that could have a negative effect on morale. So you present your final list and the team is selected. But then people who don't make the project team accuse you of conspiring against them. Does that mean you weren't well-intentioned and didn't give everyone a fair shake? Maybe you were hampered by your boss's criteria? Does that mean you're suddenly a corrupt individual? Given the NCAA guidelines, last year's field was the most appropriate possible I've seen since I've started following the selection process in 2005. It seems like we're beginning to understand the process a lot better and inform people about it in a clearer light. It's just sad to see misinformation put out there which only confuses the issue.

Prof, I know I've taken a few shots at you in this thread and I want to make it clear I have nothing but respect for you and you bring a lot to the table. I just feel like your current "guilty until proven innocent" mentality isn't helping people understand the process, why some things are happening the way they are, and only furthers what I believe to be a mistaken belief the process is corrupt. I think we should all be focused on getting the best information to people we can and helping them understand what actually happens.

[norm1909]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

... I just feel like your current "guilty until proven innocent" mentality isn't helping people understand the process, why some things are happening the way they are, and only furthers what I believe to be a mistaken belief the process is corrupt. I think we should all be focused on getting the best information to people we can and helping them understand what actually happens.

IMO, any process that CAN, yet choose to ignore definitive, quantifiable selection criteria and instead opt for "Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the NCAA Division III Men’s Ice Hockey Committee." - Why bother? There is ample "black & white" "Primary Criteria" & "Secondary Criteria" to fill the bracket. Go with what the numbers say, and there can be no "conspiracy theory" refuse and allow bias and prejudice*, and you have a conspiracy.

* Is there REALLY a need for this: (from here - page 6 of 20)

Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the NCAA Division III Men’s Ice Hockey Committee.

[NUProf]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

Josh, the horse I have in this race is that the process should be like Caesar's wife - totally above suspicion. I don't doubt and was not "wearing a tin hat." I don't doubt that the process is honest. However, it is too open to suspicion - just like questions about congressmen who surface as lobbyists after they leave congress - and working for industries that they had under the purview of one of their committees. In many cases, I'm sure the reason they go to work in that industry is because they know it well - is there a possible problem, to use the phrase of a politician that I detest "you betcha."

I would like to see the seedings, and pool bids decided using a statistical technique in which the only human intervention is determining the criteria and weights of the criteria before the season starts and involves no human intervention after the season starts. Does the committee have a role, yes - it should be their job to determine the appropriate way to weight the criteria. No committee meetings about selection = no conspiracy theory = total transparency.

And once again, even while I was posting, Norm put what I was thinking in a succinct statement.

[OZFEST]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

Well my sincere apologies if I miss the word eastern committee for I thought NUPROF was listing the NCAA committee. Also get off your high horse for I can't wait to degrade you for your misunderstanding of one's post. You have posted some good ones here. So before you degrade someone else take a long looook in the mirror and see just how imperfect you are.

Come on he used a smiley

[Josh Carey]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

* Is there REALLY a need for this: (from here - page 6 of 20)

Working backwards, your quoted text only refers to the ability of the committee members from each region to take imput from their other committee members when making the rankings and apply that into their overall discussion.

There is ample "black & white" "Primary Criteria" & "Secondary Criteria" to fill the bracket. Go with what the numbers say, and there can be no "conspiracy theory" refuse and allow bias and prejudice*, and you have a conspiracy.

Kind of replying to NUProf's similar sentiment here as well. I would like to know how each of you would propose to construct such a system. Let's say we agreed on a hypothetical system that says we only consider winning percentage, opponent's strength, and head to head comparisons. Then take the following for example:

Team A
.750 winning percentage
.550 opponent's winning percentage
1-1-0 vs Team B

Team B
.700 winning percentage
.570 opponent's winning percentage
1-1-0 vs Team A

A purely even weighting would result in a tie. Weighting WIN and SOS on a single scale would tip the comparison in the favor of Team A. But are you comfortable with that? Because WIN values range from about .0000 (Thanks LVC!) to ~ .9300 every season, but OWP values only range from ~.4000 to ~ .6000. But if you then weight on those scales, you might find this comparison ends up in a statistically insigificant difference. Who makes the choice then? Do you go by the pure statistical model no matter how small the difference may be, or do you add in more factors? And no matter how many factors you add in, you don't eliminate the possibility of statistically insigificant distinctions (between conference members especially).

You generally see two schools of valuation in sports: Strict W-L (schedule strength be whatever it is) or a committee valuation based on several factors. The BCS had so many computer issues it eventually devalued them to the point they're meaningless and that's in the most popular collegiate sport and with professional mathematicians trying to solve the issues. I love statistical analysis of teams in sports (and use sabermetrics on my fantasy baseball teams), but I imagine if you surveyed a representative sample of hockey fans and said "Team of hockey professionals" or "Predetermined Computer Model" to determine the playoffs, the vast majority of fans would say they prefer the committee.

[NUProf]

Re: February 23rd NCAA rankings

Kind of replying to NUProf's similar sentiment here as well. I would like to know how each of you would propose to construct such a system. Let's say we agreed on a hypothetical system that says we only consider winning percentage, opponent's strength, and head to head comparisons. Then take the following for example:

Team A
.750 winning percentage
.550 opponent's winning percentage
1-1-0 vs Team B

Team B
.700 winning percentage
.570 opponent's winning percentage
1-1-0 vs Team A

Josh, here's my issue If team A is, say Norwich, and team B is UMB, we know exactly what would happen. We now have introduced into the system an irrelevant factor, namely "reputation." As soon as you introduce the human element into the system, decisions are made on something other than data. My point is determine the system ahead - you can look at your data and know exactly and precisely what you need to do and what your opponents need to do to give you a spot. As long as the system is known throughout the season. There is a reason that the Olympics Hockey tournament didn't have committee decide the seedings for the elimination rounds, and the NHL does doesn't have a committee to pick the wild cards and seedings of the Stanley cup. Whether the systems are perfect or not doesn't matter, what matters is that they come close and are objective.

You generally see two schools of valuation in sports: Strict W-L (schedule strength be whatever it is) or a committee valuation based on several factors. The BCS had so many computer issues it eventually devalued them to the point they're meaningless and that's in the most popular collegiate sport and with professional mathematicians trying to solve the issues. I love statistical analysis of teams in sports (and use sabermetrics on my fantasy baseball teams), but I imagine if you surveyed a representative sample of hockey fans and said "Team of hockey professionals" or "Predetermined Computer Model" to determine the playoffs, the vast majority of fans would say they prefer the committee.

I can't believe you cite the BCS as an argument for subjective choices. The BCS system is exactly an example of why an objective system needs to be used. The objective measures in the early days produced matchups in the final game that didn't agree with the Polls - which are what led to the devaluing of computer and objective measures. Reputation should have nothing to do with. The BCS is all about bringing in revenue for the bowls, not about determining a national champion.