Pool C

[saratoga]

Obviously, not a perfect system regardless of criteria but I think the one school that got shafted today was St. Lawrence.
The winter just got a little bit colder up in the Great White North Country.

[scottiedawg]

If the committee has Emory over Berea in Region 6, I'm not sure how you can put Redlands above UCSC in Region 10.

I still UCSC coulda been left at the table even so (again because of they way the committee weights WP vs SOS), but the ONLY way you slot Emory over Berea in Region 6 is because you're valuing the SOS and RROs.  And UCSC has a much stronger resume than Emory.

idk.

[scottiedawg]

Sheesh, not sure how you can defend Pacific over UCSC in the final regional rankings? Only 10 points of WP between them.

[scottiedawg]

Tinfoil hat back on. Washington & Lee ended up #2 in Region 6.

I think (a) they have a worse resume than 2-4 teams below them in their own region, (b) they were picked because they were the highest regionally ranked team left.

Frankly their resume is a lot worse, using the criteria, than multiple other teams that were at the table.

[scottiedawg]

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.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

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.

[Baldini]

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.

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? You put 10 different members in a room you are going to come up with different opinions. Doesn't make them right or wrong, it could mean they're just different.

[thebear]

Obviously, not a perfect system regardless of criteria but I think the one school that got shafted today was St. Lawrence.
The winter just got a little bit colder up in the Great White North Country.

SLU lost 3x to Ithaca, and lost 3 games at home, OT to Ithaca,  Union [13-14], and Vassar [17-8] - those home losses really hurt SOS because of the lower multiplier.  One of those losses was without their big, Katie Frederick, who is a very good player.

To their credit they scheduled Hamilton and Williams from the NESCAC, normally a great strategy to boost SOS, but those teams had down years.

The also lost a scheduled game vs. SUNY Cortland to COVID which would have beefed up their RRO and SOS.

[scottiedawg]

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.

[scottiedawg]

Obviously, not a perfect system regardless of criteria but I think the one school that got shafted today was St. Lawrence.
The winter just got a little bit colder up in the Great White North Country.

SLU lost 3x to Ithaca, and lost 3 games at home, OT to Ithaca,  Union [13-14], and Vassar [17-8] - those home losses really hurt SOS because of the lower multiplier.  One of those losses was without their big, Katie Frederick, who is a very good player.

To their credit they scheduled Hamilton and Williams from the NESCAC, normally a great strategy to boost SOS, but those teams had down years.

The also lost a scheduled game vs. SUNY Cortland to COVID which would have beefed up their RRO and SOS.

There's no home/road multiplier in women's SOS.

[scottiedawg]

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.

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? You put 10 different members in a room you are going to come up with different opinions. Doesn't make them right or wrong, it could mean they're just different.

The men's committee appears to use the criteria to try and get the best teams in (e.g. digging into the quality of the RROs).

The women's committee (relatively) appears to stay more on the surface and rely on heuristics (e.g. heavily weighting WP, using regional rank to value the strength of a win vRRO, placing weight on being on the table for a long time, and [ my assumption/inference -> using regional rank as a criteria ]).

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.

[scottiedawg]

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.

which is just double counting WP?

[Baldini]

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.

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.   

[Baldini]

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.

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? You put 10 different members in a room you are going to come up with different opinions. Doesn't make them right or wrong, it could mean they're just different.

The men's committee appears to use the criteria to try and get the best teams in (e.g. digging into the quality of the RROs).

The women's committee (relatively) appears to stay more on the surface and rely on heuristics (e.g. heavily weighting WP, using regional rank to value the strength of a win vRRO, placing weight on being on the table for a long time, and [ my assumption/inference -> using regional rank as a criteria ]).

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.

[scottiedawg]

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.