Pool C

[scottiedawg]

Add in the fact that there's much less parity on the women's side, and teams that play strong SOS schedules just don't get, IMO, a fair shake.

The fact that there is much less parity is the reason they should not weigh SOS schedule the same way they do on the men's side.

I think maybe you have a different desired outcome than I do?

Cause I think we'd agree that there's a bigger talent/competitive gap between a .900 and .700 team on the women's side than on the men's side. Wouldn't that mean that a point of SOS has relatively stronger value on the women's side?

Case in point -> Hope beating Calvin soundly three times on the women's side. That Calvin team is a quality team, probably top 30 or top 25. But they were no match for Hope. Hope's SOS benefitted a lot from playing Calvin, a team that they probably had 95% win prob against.

Take a top 5 team on the men's side, versus a top 25-30 team, and their win prob is waaaaaaaay less than 95%.

Yet both have the same effect on SOS.

And really it shouldn't be treated as linear. On the women's side the difference in SOS between 0.590 and 0.570 is much more significant that it is on the men's side, because of what kind of teams that +0.20 represents.

[scottiedawg]

though maybe to your point, because of the relative lack of parity, it could totally be that the difference in SOS between 0.520 and 0.480 is smaller than it is on the men's side.

I think that's my takeaway- > SOS differences at the higher end should be valued more and SOS differences at the lower end should be valued less.

[Baldini]

though maybe to your point, because of the relative lack of parity, it could totally be that the difference in SOS between 0.520 and 0.480 is smaller than it is on the men's side.

I think that's my takeaway- > SOS differences at the higher end should be valued more and SOS differences at the lower end should be valued less.

I said, 'The fact that there is much less parity is the reason they should not weigh SOS schedule the same way they do on the men's side'. And after all the rambling you basically agree with me, that is kind of fun.

[ronk]

Also completely sucks for UCSC that committee members docked them for "only 9 wins."

Last time I checked # of wins isn't a primary criteria.

It seems to be part of committee evolution.  Number of wins was a major part of the men's convo in the first half on the 2010s, especially if teams had the same number of losses.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when there's a policy doc or rule book, and the people applying it just decide to do something different or ignore something. At that point what's the point? If you think there's a better way to do it, change the policy/rule.

Every team deserves to have the published criteria applied to them, not 93% of the published criteria + 1 unpublished criteria.

Amen

[scottiedawg]

though maybe to your point, because of the relative lack of parity, it could totally be that the difference in SOS between 0.520 and 0.480 is smaller than it is on the men's side.

I think that's my takeaway- > SOS differences at the higher end should be valued more and SOS differences at the lower end should be valued less.

I said, 'The fact that there is much less parity is the reason they should not weigh SOS schedule the same way they do on the men's side'. And after all the rambling you basically agree with me, that is kind of fun.

lol if that's how you want to interpret it to back pat yourself no one can stop you.

[Baldini]

As much as you may hate it, it is important to keep the human element involved here. It is the only way to keep certain schools from gaming the system more than they already has, like the NESCAC already has in hoops. Unless you are looking to create a have and have not system greater than it already is.

This argument is almost always bad. it usually results in humans making opinionated decisions based on reasons that aren't made public in advance. I don't think anyone should be happy with obfucated, moving targets.

There's already plenty of human element with how there's no specification on how the criteria should be relatively valued. That's fine.

Using something that isn't part of the criteria at all, as part of the criteria, is very bad.

I think using the criteria you can absolutely make the case for the Redlands -> Pacific -> UCSC order in Region 10. I don't think you have to dock UCSC for "only 9 wins" to slot them there. If you want to use that as a reason to dock them, get it added to the criteria. Otherwise using it is patently unfair.

It is the only way to keep certain schools from gaming the system more than they already has, like the NESCAC already has in hoops.

I strongly disagree that the best way to avoid "gaming the system" is to allow committees to use criteria they're not allowed to use.

Unless you are looking to create a have and have not system greater than it already is.

Oh absolutely! This is a massive question. And probably the reason every region got the same number of teams in years ago. There's many ways to mitigate the effect of the strong getting stronger, but IMO, letting the committee elevate unpublished criteria is a bad way to do this.

Think about what you are saying here. You are upset about something like UC-Santa Cruz was regionally ranked behind two other teams that also didn't get in. As much as you hate it you were not in the room, and you are NOT part of the decision-making process. You keep bringing up the committee using criteria that is not allowed but that is complete assuming on your part, you don't really know. In the end they selected ONE team different than what you thought they should have and that is what you have been upset with since the selections? That is just not a good look.     

[Baldini]

though maybe to your point, because of the relative lack of parity, it could totally be that the difference in SOS between 0.520 and 0.480 is smaller than it is on the men's side.

I think that's my takeaway- > SOS differences at the higher end should be valued more and SOS differences at the lower end should be valued less.

I said, 'The fact that there is much less parity is the reason they should not weigh SOS schedule the same way they do on the men's side'. And after all the rambling you basically agree with me, that is kind of fun.

lol if that's how you want to interpret it to back pat yourself no one can stop you.

No need to pat myself on the back, but there has been no shortage of arm waving, look at me posts from your side since the selections have been made. You don't have all the information, you were not there, stop assuming your right and they are wrong, you really don't know.   

[scottiedawg]

Think about what you are saying here. You are upset about something like UC-Santa Cruz was regionally ranked behind two other teams that also didn't get in. As much as you hate it you were not in the room, and you are NOT part of the decision-making process. You keep bringing up the committee using criteria that is not allowed but that is complete assuming on your part, you don't really know. In the end they selected ONE team different than what you thought they should have and that is what you have been upset with since the selections? That is just not a good look.   

Megan gave us a LOT of information on Hoopsville.

yeah I guess it's fine if only one deserving team doesn't make it. Definitely good with not trying to be better.

[scottiedawg]

To level set:

I think the criteria were applied inconsistently to one team: Washington & Lee. I'm not sure who the beneficiary should have been (probably either WPI or Stevens), but I sure don't think it should have been UCSC.

Going forward, I have desires about how the criteria should be relatively valued (changes that would result in a resume like UCSC's or Bowdoin's or Salisbury's being higher ranked regionally), but that's forward looking opinions from me.

[Baldini]

Think about what you are saying here. You are upset about something like UC-Santa Cruz was regionally ranked behind two other teams that also didn't get in. As much as you hate it you were not in the room, and you are NOT part of the decision-making process. You keep bringing up the committee using criteria that is not allowed but that is complete assuming on your part, you don't really know. In the end they selected ONE team different than what you thought they should have and that is what you have been upset with since the selections? That is just not a good look.   

Megan gave us a LOT of information on Hoopsville.

yeah I guess it's fine if only one deserving team doesn't make it. Definitely good with not trying to be better.

Megan did give us a lot of information and I to watch every minute of it.

One different team not deserving team, that is still assuming something on your part. I didn't see the Washington & Lee selection coming, was surprised and noted so here after the selection, but like you I don't know everything that is going on in the room. Because it differed from the opinion of some people on a forum doesn't make it wrong. Some people do have a harder time coming to grips with the fact that they are just fans than others do. 

[ronk]

 The following comps show UCSC significantly bests Redlands in 2 of the 3 primary criteria, meaning the banana slugs should have been at the table before Redlands and allowing them to be considered for selection


UCSC                                    Redlands

WP      .692                           .826

VRRO  4-4                             2-1
#1 - 2x, 2,2,3,7,7,drop out      #5,7,drop out

SOS    .653                           .501

[saratoga]

Ronk:
I believe what I heard the Women's Chair state last evening was that with so few games played, the committee could not create or extrapolate a linear assumption that the Slugs SOS or Winning % would continue at the same pace.
If you take those two elements out...this is where we find ourselves.

[Augie2020]

That is why I asked the question how many games needed to qualify and someone said 18 this year for the tournament!I think one way or the other your damned if you do your damned if you dont.Just glad I'm not the committee!It's a tough one!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Something to keep in mind... Nebraska Wesleyan found themselves in a similar boat to UC Santa Cruz for a number of years. Sometimes their criteria didn't hold up. Sometimes it got interesting. Every time their numbers were based on half the games.

Two things about W&L: First they were on the table the entire night. One thing we mentioned early on and I think we forgot on the show ... women tend to eventually take a team if they have been sitting there. It might be the "human" nature, but they end up talking about them so long that eventually they rise higher than others. Second, he vRRO for W&L was much better than we were giving them credit or realized. They had two wins over teams in he upper half of rankings while St. Lawrence, since that's who we chose and was argued earlier, had wins over teams in the bottom 8, 9, 10. That goes to W&L.

When Megan explained it, it made more sense.

Scott - you were invaluable to the process on the show. I loved it, though admittedly lost track as I was balancing/juggling so many things at the same time, but one thing you admitted is how much you love the SOS. The women have not shown as much love over the years. That changed a bit this year. I think that is why we got 19/20 this time because our natural lean towards SOS is where the women started going with things. That said, ultimately the WL% teams usually are the ones selected or those with other criteria advantages.

I'll give you an example even though I hate it and because I think the person complaining on twitter is being a pawn for a coach ... Rochester has a staggering SOS and other good criteria marks over Cortland for example. However, Cortland has a much better WL%. It basically made the argument moot because Cortland simply won more games. That is where I tend to sit more times than not. I appreciate good SOS numbers and teams that have those pretty high, but eventually you have to prove you won and not just a majority of your games. You should show you won at least 2/3s of the time.

One thing I think needs to enter this equation are losses the fall outside the criteria. It is a much more difficult thing to try and hash out on a message ... but it is something I have on my list to investigate further. Already talked to a committee member in a different sport about some ideas and get-togethers to discuss ways to improve the system - which is always up for tweaks.

[Pat Coleman]

Everything is an evolving process, but there seems to be a common thought with the D3 Hoops people that the men got it right and the women need to be just like the men. Any chance that just maybe the men side of the selections put too much or not enough value in one of the criteria also?

I think if you heard me and Dave and Ryan Scott talking on Hoopsville last night you'd have heard that indeed, perhaps we think that the men might value SOS a little too much at the expense of winning games.