2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

[Fishman'81]

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Despite spending most of their lives in school, fish can't read. I was wondering what part of a team with a Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) of .500 or above is called a “team under consideration" is "arbitrary"?

I usually skip right over your lame posts, but I'm back-sliding tonight.

Larry, look-up the word "arbitrary"... (I volunteer at an English-as-a-second-language center here; I can help.)

 

[norm1909]

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Re: Pairwise in D3?

I usually skip right over your lame posts, but I'm back-sliding tonight.

Larry, look-up the word "arbitrary"... (I volunteer at an English-as-a-second-language center here; I can help.)

Well it is obvious that English is your second language, I am proud of you that you volunteer your fishing skills at the center, I am sure it is nice break from their linguistics studies. That said, someone, such as those you don't like minimum size restrictions on their catch, might consider the decision to select the number .500 as a 1 in 1000 arbitrary choice, nevertheless, once chosen and codified, it is no longer arbitrary.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

Boys!
Behave or you're going to stand in the corner with Mr. Ryd.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Re: Pairwise in D3?

There ya go.

This proposal is just a dumb construct that adds (more) possible smoke-filled-room intrigue to the D-3 selection process... I didn't see anything about objectivity or accountability on the part of the committee there.

You do know that new selection system is JUST for D1. It has nothing to do with D3.

Reading comprehension my dear friend. Reading comprehension.

 

[Ozz]

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Re: Pairwise in D3?

The real problem in the D-3 selection process is the inclusion of unmerited AQs in the PS. If the Ivory-Tower guys want to fix the system, they ought to opt for an objective metric that is blind and transparent.

The AQs are about as objective and transparent as it gets...

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Re: Pairwise in D3?

"Arbitrary", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "not planned or chosen for a particular reason; not based on reason or evidence."

While I suppose that the requisite AQs have been "chosen for a reason", it's certainly unclear what reason or evidence that choice is based upon.

I would much prefer to see the NCAAs select PS teams on the basis of some truly *objective* measure -I can offer a definition of that word later- and to do so irrespective of meaningless conference-affiliations.

(FWIW, I've been complaining about the same crap in D-1 for years and years... AQs are injust at any level.)

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Re: Pairwise in D3?

You do know that new selection system is JUST for D1. It has nothing to do with D3.

Reading comprehension my dear friend. Reading comprehension.

No, I was referring to the link that Predze kindly provided regarding D-3 sports... But thanks for playing.

While it gives me a mild headache to wade-through such a pool of administrative BS, I did read it, and I hate myself for taking the time... That was about as worthwhile as watching that numb-skull from Texas filibuster for 21 hours on C-Span the other night.

(Didn't do that either, but I saw the "highlights", and that D-3 document was cut from the same cloth.)

 

[norm1909]

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Re: Pairwise in D3?

"Arbitrary", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "not planned or chosen for a particular reason; not based on reason or evidence."

While I suppose that the requisite AQs have been "chosen for a reason", it's certainly unclear what reason or evidence that choice is based upon.

I would much prefer to see the NCAAs select PS teams on the basis of some truly *objective* measure -I can offer a definition of that word later- and to do so irrespective of meaningless conference-affiliations.

(FWIW, I've been complaining about the same crap in D-1 for years and years... AQs are injust at any level.)

I do agree that instead of being de facto, the AQ's should be codified to be the conference tournament winner, but clearly, in practice, there has been nothing arbitrary in the assigning of the AQ's - unless you are referring to the codified 7 team conference minimum.

 

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

No, I was referring to the link that Predze kindly provided regarding D-3 sports... But thanks for for playing

What link provided by Prezde? You mean the one provided by joecct that Prezde commented on? And if you weren't responding to Jaslow's post regarding the D1 criteria being introduced, then why did you quote it in your post?

I'm sure there must be some kindergarten student in your area offering services as an "internet forum" tutor... Perhaps you should consider enlisting their services before you continue to post here?


Or perhaps you're just making inane and pointless comments based on 0.01 seconds of skimming through an article, only to change your story once it's shown that the data does not support your argument... Which wouldn't surprise me, as you've done it before (ex. How many times have you changed your opinion on whether KRACH is God's gift to man or man's stupidest creation). Word to the wise: it's hard to have a debate when your position is less solid than yogurt that's been in the sun for a week...

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

Agree entirely and I would expect Middlebury will challenge Bowdoin for the NESCAC title this season. I think Mike Peters sews up the starting Goalie position and Beany sticks with him. Panthers were underserved by the musical chairs at Goalie last season. Panthers return to glory in 13-14.

I'm looking forward to Middlebury visiting Norwich on Jan. 18 as well as obviously the meeting on Nov. 29 at the PrimeLink.

I'm curious with the 14 new faces on the Norwich roster this year who emerges as the Cadets' primary rival for this class.

Castleton quickly became the last year's graduating class's rival and maybe even St. Norbert to an extent.

Will Castleton continue to be the main rival of the current era or will Middlebury re-emerge as the traditional Norwich rival? Or could Plattsburgh poke their heads into the discussion given how good Plattsburgh could be this season.

Should be interesting. Drop the puck yet?

 

[Birds]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

I heard some rumblings as well of bright pastures ahead for the Panthers. They already were on their way last year I feel with some impressive freshmen. Neugold and Silcoff are studs. Just need some more consistent goaltending now.

Agree. Should make for a fantastic Primelink! Let's not forget Superior either. I remember them well!

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

What link provided by Prezde? You mean the one provided by joecct that Prezde commented on? And if you weren't responding to Jaslow's post regarding the D1 criteria being introduced, then why did you quote it in your post?



Or perhaps you're just making inane and pointless comments based on 0.01 seconds of skimming through an article, only to change your story once it's shown that the data does not support your argument... Which wouldn't surprise me, as you've done it before (ex. How many times have you changed your opinion on whether KRACH is God's gift to man or man's stupidest creation). Word to the wise: it's hard to have a debate when your position is less solid than yogurt that's been in the sun for a week...

Right; the link was provided by Joe and quoted by Prezde. Same difference, though, in terms of content...

(Granted, I tend to skim posts on here; I'm a busy man! Thing is, does it really matter who put it out there for us to read?)

I will readily admit that I've stood corrected on a number of points here, but, as far as the KRACH goes, I have remained consistent in regarding it as the best metric out there. It's not The Word of God by any means, but do you think that any other ranking is more accurate?

I have yet to see any of you KRACH-bashers have the nuts to champion a better alternative.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Pairwise in D3?

Re: Pairwise in D3?

I do agree that instead of being de facto, the AQ's should be codified to be the conference tournament winner, but clearly, in practice, there has been nothing arbitrary in the assigning of the AQ's - unless you are referring to the codified 7 team conference minimum.

Well, AQs are arbitrary in the sense that if you win your conference title you get an NCAA berth, even if you are nowhere near the top 11 teams in the country... That sort of inclusion is not based on merit, but rather on "this is just how we do it".

If there must be AQs, I absolutely believe that the PS tournaments shouldn't carry any more import than what they intrinsically possess: ie., they ought to be just a little more fodder for comparison, and nothing more.

Certainly, the RS is a much larger sample-size than a weekend tournament, and should be weighted as such.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

And if you weren't responding to Jaslow's post regarding the D1 criteria being introduced, then why did you quote it in your post?

I took the time to read Russell's link tonight, and there's still a cliff to fall-off there. (Yes, I gather that it deals only with D-1.)

My point in this instance is that accurate comparisons should computed along a continuum, both for D-1 and D-3. Losing to a .499 RPI team, or defeating a .501 RPI team ought not make or break a teams season, as a stand-alone metric.

That's just dumb math. The cliff is still there.

 

[norm1909]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

I took the time to read Russell's link tonight, and there's still a cliff to fall-off there. (Yes, I gather that it deals only with D-1.)

My point in this instance is that accurate comparisons should computed along a continuum, both for D-1 and D-3. Losing to a .499 RPI team, or defeating a .501 RPI team ought not make or break a teams season, as a stand-alone metric.

That's just dumb math. The cliff is still there.

Dumb math ...

 

[NEHockeyFan07]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

Norwich folk have single game tickets gone on sale yet for this season? I went to the Norwich page and it looks like there is an option renew season tickets, but no option for single games. Considering making the 2 hour trek north for the opener against Plymouth St. Any insight would be much appreciated! Thanks

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Norwich folk have single game tickets gone on sale yet for this season? I went to the Norwich page and it looks like there is an option renew season tickets, but no option for single games. Considering making the 2 hour trek north for the opener against Plymouth St. Any insight would be much appreciated! Thanks

Individual game tickets go on sale generally 10 days prior to the date of the game.

 

[neumyer]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

I took the time to read Russell's link tonight, and there's still a cliff to fall-off there. (Yes, I gather that it deals only with D-1.)

My point in this instance is that accurate comparisons should computed along a continuum, both for D-1 and D-3. Losing to a .499 RPI team, or defeating a .501 RPI team ought not make or break a teams season, as a stand-alone metric.

That's just dumb math. The cliff is still there.

Yes, but it has been said many times, each conference can decide what parameter they want to determine the AQ. If the league wants the regular season champion to get it, they can do that. If, when, the ECAC West gets an AQ they can decide how they want to determine the AQ. The only problem with choosing the regular season champion is that the tournament becomes nothing more than an exhibition. I like having the regular season champion getting home ice throughout, but you still have to win the tournament to get the AQ.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

With all due respect, not exactly, IMO...

The PS tournaments, as silly as they are insofar as determining AQs as a general rule, can still serve a purpose in terms of providing a little more comparative data when a couple of teams in the same conference are within a nose of each other. In that respect, these PS shows are not entirely a waste of time, but only if an AQ isn't a low-hanging fruit for some team that has under-performed all season long to snatch-up on the cheap.

Thing is, that should never be the case.

For example, if Genny had won the '12/'13 SUNYAC tournament, or if (say) Amherst had won their conference tournament, two worthy teams (Bowdoin and Plattsburgh) would have stayed home for the NCAAs, while the cherry-pickers would have received gift-berths. That's simply not a fair situation; it negates the RS entirely.

I don't mind PS tournaments couched as spectacles (they are fun to watch), but it's just silly to use them to select a representative of your conference... If that's all that counts in a particular conference, why play the long and much more meaningful RS?

 

[norm1909]

Re: 2013-14 Pre Season banter. Put out the SOS and save us all!!

With all due respect, not exactly, IMO...

The PS tournaments, as silly as they are insofar as determining AQs as a general rule, can still serve a purpose in terms of providing a little more comparative data when a couple of teams in the same conference are within a nose of each other. In that respect, these PS shows are not entirely a waste of time, but only if an AQ isn't a low-hanging fruit for some team that has under-performed all season long to snatch-up on the cheap.

Thing is, that should never be the case.

For example, if Genny had won the '12/'13 SUNYAC tournament, or if (say) Amherst had won their conference tournament, two worthy teams (Bowdoin and Plattsburgh) would have stayed home for the NCAAs, while the cherry-pickers would have received gift-berths. That's simply not a fair situation; it negates the RS entirely.

I don't mind PS tournaments couched as spectacles (they are fun to watch), but it's just silly to use them to select a representative of your conference... If that's all that counts in a particular conference, why play the long and much more meaningful RS?

I am a bit surprised that the Fish would be a creationist, the silly PS tournaments are in fact the epitome of the evolutionary survival of the fittest. Unlike their RS compatriot, the PS champion not only had to the survive RS's day to day grind and roster changes in order to reach the PS, they also had to survive their way through the "top vs bottom" PS bracket. Also, unlike their RS compatriot, the PS champion reflects the final result of the practice, training, coaching, molding and tweaking of the RS that results in them being, not exactly, IMO... the best representative their league has to offer.