FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[ExTartanPlayer]

Thanks for that post, Frank.  While I do not agree with the statement, that context at least helps explain why the statement may have been made.

[wally_wabash]

So it's impossible for the next team up to be better than the three that are left on the board?  That's garbage, Frank, and you know it.  An accumulation of selection capital just because you're the first Pool C team up in a region that only has one viable Pool C candidate doesn't mean they get to just get in because it's their turn.  Sometimes, sad as it is, a guy withers away on contestant's row for the entire hour's worth of pricing games.  Every round is a new round and these selections are supposed to be made without regional bias.  They clearly weren't, as stated by the chairman himself. 

The quote is there, Frank.  That toothpaste can't get shoved back in the tube.  The man said "you're not gonna get three from one region."  It seems clear that the decision was made, before any discussion of merit, that North 6 and the third North C team would not be considered against East 4/5 and the first East Pool C team.  That's not right.  Not when the same results and record plants SJF somewhere around 8th in the North region. 

[Schwami]

And the other part of the deal here is that you don't know what a committee values from year to year.  In 2010 Wabash was 8-2 (8-1 in region if we're being completely accurate) with a 0.574 SOS and 2-1 vs RROs.  That résumé is IDENTICAL to the one that got SJF in this year.  Freaking identical.  Wabash didn't get picked.  Instead the committee picked Montclair State at their 9-1 record and .493 SOS. 

Whoa.

[firstdown]

Frank Rossi

I think that we were all a bit shocked by Director Naatz's statment about a limit of 2 at large teams per region.  I understand that you want to defend your guest, (and we appreciate you havng done the interview), but I also think that is fair to say that your interests lie overwhelmingly with the East Region and thus it is difficult for you to be totally objective.

There is method available to compare a team in one region to a team in another - their respective rankings in the AFCA poll.

The race for the wild card slots in the NFL and the at large bids in the BB March Madness, add some fun to the season, and give teams a reason to continue to play hard until the final whistle or buzzer.  The 2 team limit takes a lot of this away from both the North and West Regions where there are lot very good teams.

[Frank Rossi]

So it's impossible for the next team up to be better than the three that are left on the board?  That's garbage, Frank, and you know it.  An accumulation of selection capital just because you're the first Pool C team up in a region that only has one viable Pool C candidate doesn't mean they get to just get in because it's their turn.  Sometimes, sad as it is, a guy withers away on contestant's row for the entire hour's worth of pricing games.  Every round is a new round and these selections are supposed to be made without regional bias.  They clearly weren't, as stated by the chairman himself. 

The quote is there, Frank.  That toothpaste can't get shoved back in the tube.  The man said "you're not gonna get three from one region."  It seems clear that the decision was made, before any discussion of merit, that North 6 and the third North C team would not be considered against East 4/5 and the first East Pool C team.  That's not right.  Not when the same results and record plants SJF somewhere around 8th in the North region.

Wally, two things:

1) Bad analogy: we're not voting on the contestants on TPIR, so this isn't a subjective choice of a contestant based on a set of objective principles; and

2) Take off the homer glasses for a minute and take a good look at what I wrote.  If nothing else came through from our interview, it was the common sense style of the Chairman.  In true Wisconsin style, he basically stated a reality with no frills, and I'm explaining why it pretty much is a reality.  He does not get to make a unilateral decision.  The Committee members vote, and he sees the results of the secret ballots.  I'm guessing that he saw exactly what I've suggested -- the last team joining consideration receiving all #3 and #4 positionings.  If Wabash was at #6 in the North, they achieved likely the best positioning any 3rd-deep Pool C team could achieve, and the Committee likely didn't give them much of a look.  In other words, if not Wabash this year with five Pool Cs, then no third Pool C team from any region in any year stands a realistic chance.

[nike]

Had been reading these posts regarding the selection process with mild interest.  Now I am awake.  If what he said is any indication of what goes on behind closed doors, then the politics is even worse than imagined.
Watched a special over the weekend on the Big Ten Network about the 1973 Rose Bowl selection process with regards to choosing OSU over Michigan. They tied that year and finished with identical records.  Behind the scenes maneuvering with the athletic directors' votes.
We now have a glimpse of something that does not seem right here for all schools involved.

[Schwami]

"With 5 at large Pool C teams in the country you're not gonna get 3 from one region"

So, the final Pool C selection came down to SJF and Thomas More, not SJF and Wabash.

[Frank Rossi]

And the other part of the deal here is that you don't know what a committee values from year to year.  In 2010 Wabash was 8-2 (8-1 in region if we're being completely accurate) with a 0.574 SOS and 2-1 vs RROs.  That résumé is IDENTICAL to the one that got SJF in this year.  Freaking identical.  Wabash didn't get picked.  Instead the committee picked Montclair State at their 9-1 record and .493 SOS. 

Whoa.

Except, between 2010 and 2011, Joy Solomen, Chair from 2009-2011, finally got the NCAA to endorse some changes in the system that allowed for a little more subjectivity when viewing SOS.  Thus, the 2010 problem led to 2011 changes... And in 2011, SJF jumped Endicott despite two losses.  Since that point, we've seen some consistency in the selection process.

[EDIT: This was in large part due to the constraints the 2009 and 2010 Committees felt in terms of being forced to stick to the numbers only -- which didn't work as well for a sport like football with just 9 or 10 data points, as it did for basketball and baseball with 30+ data points in some cases.  The feeling was that while SOS numbers told us something, the team might have scheduled in OOC games all softballs that happened to achieve 6-4 records.  As such, the numbers did lie somewhat.  Again, the attempt to get the NCAA to endorse a slight modification was a common sense approach that would lift the constraints off the Committee.]

[wally_wabash]

So it's impossible for the next team up to be better than the three that are left on the board?  That's garbage, Frank, and you know it.  An accumulation of selection capital just because you're the first Pool C team up in a region that only has one viable Pool C candidate doesn't mean they get to just get in because it's their turn.  Sometimes, sad as it is, a guy withers away on contestant's row for the entire hour's worth of pricing games.  Every round is a new round and these selections are supposed to be made without regional bias.  They clearly weren't, as stated by the chairman himself. 

The quote is there, Frank.  That toothpaste can't get shoved back in the tube.  The man said "you're not gonna get three from one region."  It seems clear that the decision was made, before any discussion of merit, that North 6 and the third North C team would not be considered against East 4/5 and the first East Pool C team.  That's not right.  Not when the same results and record plants SJF somewhere around 8th in the North region.

Wally, two things:

1) Bad analogy: we're not voting on the contestants on TPIR, so this isn't a subjective choice of a contestant based on a set of objective principles; and

2) Take off the homer glasses for a minute and take a good look at what I wrote.  If nothing else came through from our interview, it was the common sense style of the Chairman.  In true Wisconsin style, he basically stated a reality with no frills, and I'm explaining why it pretty much is a reality.  He does not get to make a unilateral decision.  The Committee members vote, and he sees the results of the secret ballots.  I'm guessing that he saw exactly what I've suggested -- the last team joining consideration receiving all #3 and #4 positionings.  If Wabash was at #6 in the North, they achieved likely the best positioning any 3rd-deep Pool C team could achieve, and the Committee likely didn't give them much of a look.  In other words, if not Wabash this year with five Pool Cs, then no third Pool C team from any region in any year stands a realistic chance.

Why is the new team to the table automatically the 3rd or 4th best selection?  That part doesn't make sense, Frank. The regions are not equal. North 6 can be better than East 4. To be closed off to that idea fails this process in an inexcusable way.

[Li'l Giant]

Frank, I appreciate your posts about the context and the voting process, but that still reveals a region based bias by the committee.

SJF built up "vote capital" because it has the benefit of being in a region with fewer viable Pool C candidates and thus was discussed more. Whether the bias is intentional or the by-product of this "vote capital" it still has the effect of a region based bias. Intent (or lack thereof) matters, but the effect should matter more because the effect (the actual selection/bracket) is the point, not the process.

[Frank Rossi]

Why is the new team to the table automatically the 3rd or 4th best selection?  That part doesn't make sense, Frank. The regions are not equal. North 6 can be better than East 4. To be closed off to that idea fails this process in an inexcusable way.

Of course they CAN be, Wally.  But the point here is, how do the Committee members know that when we have virtually no cross-regional data points that could prove that idea?  That's not the Committee's fault.  That's the teams protecting their budgets and the NCAA protecting this regional system.  As I stated earlier, the ordinal system they use now sort of makes the process more predictable if you see new teams on the board not jumping to the top of everyone's secret ballot.  Again, my guess is that the Chair saw this happen and deduced the same thing I've stated for a couple years here -- the ballot system permits the slow rolling up of teams by many members.

Li'l Giant, the region bias is endorsed by the NCAA.  That's where you should aim your critique.  Just because they took "in-region" results out of the consideration (replaced by "in-division" results), they haven't done much to take out the regional notion.  They ensure equal regional representation on the Committee for that reason.

[ExTartanPlayer]

So it's impossible for the next team up to be better than the three that are left on the board?  That's garbage, Frank, and you know it.  An accumulation of selection capital just because you're the first Pool C team up in a region that only has one viable Pool C candidate doesn't mean they get to just get in because it's their turn.  Sometimes, sad as it is, a guy withers away on contestant's row for the entire hour's worth of pricing games.  Every round is a new round and these selections are supposed to be made without regional bias.  They clearly weren't, as stated by the chairman himself. 

The quote is there, Frank.  That toothpaste can't get shoved back in the tube.  The man said "you're not gonna get three from one region."  It seems clear that the decision was made, before any discussion of merit, that North 6 and the third North C team would not be considered against East 4/5 and the first East Pool C team.  That's not right.  Not when the same results and record plants SJF somewhere around 8th in the North region.

Wally, two things:

1) Bad analogy: we're not voting on the contestants on TPIR, so this isn't a subjective choice of a contestant based on a set of objective principles; and

2) Take off the homer glasses for a minute and take a good look at what I wrote.  If nothing else came through from our interview, it was the common sense style of the Chairman.  In true Wisconsin style, he basically stated a reality with no frills, and I'm explaining why it pretty much is a reality.  He does not get to make a unilateral decision.  The Committee members vote, and he sees the results of the secret ballots.  I'm guessing that he saw exactly what I've suggested -- the last team joining consideration receiving all #3 and #4 positionings. If Wabash was at #6 in the North, they achieved likely the best positioning any 3rd-deep Pool C team could achieve, and the Committee likely didn't give them much of a look.  In other words, if not Wabash this year with five Pool Cs, then no third Pool C team from any region in any year stands a realistic chance.

Why is the new team to the table automatically the 3rd or 4th best selection?  That part doesn't make sense, Frank. The regions are not equal. North 6 can be better than East 4. To be closed off to that idea fails this process in an inexcusable way.

He's not saying that the new team to the table automatically SHOULD be the 3rd or 4th best selection in any discussion.  He's saying, or speculating, that the committee chair may have made this comment causing all the hand-wringing because that's what he saw actually happening in the voting process - that each time a new team came up it tended to get 3's and 4's on the first ballot.  That doesn't mean it's the way the process should work - but if the committee chair is reporting that the process showed him what Frank describes above, I'm not going to fault him for making an observation about the way that the process WENT.  I will argue that is not the way things SHOULD happen, yes, and wonder if he would say the same if given an opportunity to comment further.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

About that whole new team to the discussion getting all 3s and 4s... assuming that a north and a west went in the first two slots... that means that the 2nd team from one of those two regions didn't get discussed until the 3rd round yet still was selected pretty quickly so that seems to contradict that notion.

[Frank Rossi]

About that whole new team to the discussion getting all 3s and 4s... assuming that a north and a west went in the first two slots... that means that the 2nd team from one of those two regions didn't get discussed until the 3rd round yet still was selected pretty quickly so that seems to contradict that notion.

As I stated in the original post I made here, you might see a team rocket up after a first selection, but that effect dissipates in this type of voting system as the "no-brainer" mentality subsides.  Once you get to Rounds 3 and 4, it's not really a "no-brainer" as much for all the members, and you'll see this type of "rolling up" activity begin to dominate in my estimation.

[wabndy]

Frank - thanks for hanging in here with us - and thank you for doing the interview.   A problem with your argument that there is scant inter-regional data to rely upon is that, frankly, there is often very little intra-regional data to rely upon either.  JC, IWU and Wabash have exactly zero common opponents.  No one has any argument here about the North region batting order for Pool C.  How do we sort them out - the published criteria.  How do we eliminate allegations of gamesmanship by those selected to be on the committee?  Strict reliance on the published criteria. 

I think the one-up-per-region selection method is a common sense and straightforward way of comparing different lists of teams compiled by different RACs.  However, it only is useful, based on the published criteria, if each round starts with a clean slate.  I agree that - subjectively - a team that's been on the board and discussed in previous rounds is going to be in a better place against a new team up on the board.  But thats exactly what the published criteria is supposed to guard against.  All your guest had to say was, "we followed the published criteria."  The NCAA might be well with their rights to add published criteria which provide for some regional balance in allocating at-large bids.  They didn't.  As we've discussed ad nauseum, there is already a built in regional bias when teams from weaker regions can rack up RRO wins against opponents who (probably) wouldn't be ranked in some of the other regions.  That's ok - why - because its in the published criteria. 

I'd think it would have been perfectly reasonable, and dare I say most appropriate, for any committee chairman to set the tone and remind other committee members to rank the four teams up on the board based on the published criteria irrespective of what happened in the previous rounds.  It's clear that your guest didn't do that.  It's clear that your guess saw the opposite happening - a bias in favor of teams that were still standing from the first board up.  It obviously did not trouble him to the point that he felt free to comment on its existence to the media.  Given the NCAA's laughable insistence on keeping much of the selection process confidential, keeping the only RRs that count confidential, and keeping the seedings confidential, etc. it becomes all the more troubling when the chair of the committee admits that there is effectively an unwritten regional bias.  I'm happy for that Pat and Keith that they managed to pick the field - following a reasonable interpretation of the published criteria.  If the committee would do what Pat and Keith do - what we all learned to do in middle school math class - to show our work - then we'd be having a different discussion.  The veil of secrecy coupled with a very ill advised admission like this - and I think the last team still standing has every right to be teed off.

I also concur with wally's comments on the meaning of the word "bias" in this context.  There is still nothing to suggest that the committee was showing any animus toward one region or one team over another.