Pool C

[Titan Q]

To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.

I don't think calling it "willy-nilly" if fair though.  It seems to me that there comes a point in the Pool C selection process every year - and I suspect it comes at about Round 15 or 16 - that it's just really hard to create separation using the primary criteria alone.

For example, in the post I made last night (projecting how the process may have played out), here is my Round 16...

Round 16
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2


Doesn't it make sense to go to secondary criteria at this point to look for help in making a decision?  And isn't it fair to say that Round 16 looks just about like this most years?

[smedindy]

I really need we need to stop with the ashes and sackcloth routine. There are issues - there will always be issues. Even a purely numerical autocratic unthinking system will have its biases and unfairness based on the criteria. I would rather have the ones from lesser conferences have a chance instead of loading up the tourney with the few.

Decision making of this type isn't ones and zeroes, and it shouldn't be. I'm a numbers guy but they are tools, not the shed.

If I'm reading the Snyder brothers correctly, they're just as concerned about the national selection committee using the criteria in the manner in which those criteria are defined in the handbook as they are with the issue of the subjective weighting of said criteria. To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.

They did it for football too, though, by 'ignoring' Case's 9-0 regional record and bringing in their one loss to Rochester, which was out of region.

I don't mean to get all huffy - I just think that some teams need a deeper look because of their isolation, travel budgets and conferences (or a combo of all three) that may supercede strict adherence to the criteria. Tournaments are fun because of Cinderella - when a controversial at-large selection says "haters gonna hate" and wins a couple.

Some schools CAN plan a schedule to improve their "C" chances, and others have no such luxury because of where they are, and how few non-conference games they have. Is that truly a level playing field? The teams like Calvin, like IWU, like Amherst CAN stack games up. How can Birmingham Southern without breaking the bank?

Oh, and I'm not saying it's not improved!

[Titan Q]

In fairness to the NCAA, the system is improved quite a bit from when it was first introduced.  I hope they continue to tweak it, but mostly I hope they will be transparent.  Not just for the fans, but because the coaches and administrators that have to put together their schedules need to know clearly what the criteria are, not what they might or might be.

Two really good points here by sac...

First, the system has gotten a lot better over the last 10 years or so - when this first came out, I think it was almost exclusively about in-region winning %.

And second, all involved with the selection process need to think long and hard about the decision to not release the final regional rankings.  That situation is, quite frankly, disturbing and disappointing. 

In my professional life, I'm remind almost daily of the importance of transparency.  People might not always agree with a difficult decision you've had to make, but if they know you are being open and honest throughout the process, 9 times out of 10 they will respect and support your decision.  When you create a perception that you are hiding stuff, or when you don't make the "rules" clear, you are in a lot trouble.  I would hope that the D3 selection committee values transparency and would like to create a sense of confidence and trust in the fans.

[smedindy]

I agree with the transparency. I was glad when they released the RPI for D-1 for the world to see.

[Gregory Sager]

To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.

I don't think calling it "willy-nilly" if fair though.  It seems to me that there comes a point in the Pool C selection process every year - and I suspect it comes at about Round 15 or 16 - that it's just really hard to create separation using the primary criteria alone.

For example, in the post I made last night (projecting how the process may have played out), here is my Round 16...

Round 16
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2


Doesn't it make sense to go to secondary criteria at this point to look for help in making a decision?  And isn't it fair to say that Round 16 looks just about like this most years?

You and Matt already had this discussion, so I don't see any need for me to rehash it -- especially since he's more than capable of articulating his own position. My concern isn't with the mixing-in of the secondary criteria per se as a functional tool for separating out teams, as much as it is with the fact that it violates the rules in the handbook under which the committee is supposed to operate. That's why I call it "willy-nilly" ... it's as if the committee has a prearranged agreement to abide by the rules for the first fourteen rounds of the Pool C selection process, and to then throw the handbook into the trashcan for the final five rounds.

One big problem which keeps getting brought up here is transparency. This is a classic case of the committee's lack of transparency being glaring. And I suspect that the lack of transparency stems from the fact that the committee is flouting the rules by doing away with the terms "primary" and "secondary" towards the end of the Pool C selection process.

I really need we need to stop with the ashes and sackcloth routine. There are issues - there will always be issues. Even a purely numerical autocratic unthinking system will have its biases and unfairness based on the criteria. I would rather have the ones from lesser conferences have a chance instead of loading up the tourney with the few.

Decision making of this type isn't ones and zeroes, and it shouldn't be. I'm a numbers guy but they are tools, not the shed.

If I'm reading the Snyder brothers correctly, they're just as concerned about the national selection committee using the criteria in the manner in which those criteria are defined in the handbook as they are with the issue of the subjective weighting of said criteria. To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.

They did it for football too, though, by 'ignoring' Case's 9-0 regional record and bringing in their one loss to Rochester, which was out of region.

I don't mean to get all huffy - I just think that some teams need a deeper look because of their isolation, travel budgets and conferences (or a combo of all three) that may supercede strict adherence to the criteria. Tournaments are fun because of Cinderella - when a controversial at-large selection says "haters gonna hate" and wins a couple.

Some schools CAN plan a schedule to improve their "C" chances, and others have no such luxury because of where they are, and how few non-conference games they have. Is that truly a level playing field? The teams like Calvin, like IWU, like Amherst CAN stack games up. How can Birmingham Southern without breaking the bank?

Oh, and I'm not saying it's not improved!

Hey, I like Cinderellas as much as the next guy. In fact, I got into an argument last week in the CCIW football room with a North Central fan who would like more at-large football berths at the expense of the Pool A's given to the weak leagues, so that D3 can have a more competitive, blowout-free football tournament.

But Cinderellas, isolation, travel budgets, etc., aren't really things that concern me in this particular conversation. I'm more concerned with the committee abiding by its own rules and being transparent as to how it goes about its business.

[smedindy]

But if you're not going to have some interpretation, then it's back to the unthinking technocrat and not bringing nuance and interpretation into it. Otherwise teams like Birmingham Southern this season will have no chance to get a "C". Yes, they should have won their tournament, but it's awful cold and callous to say "Sorry, we know you have to play your schedule and you wanted to help your future conference mate and you're stuck down in AL so it's hard to get games, but I MUST adhere to THIS criteria and you missed out by .05%"

[dahlby]

Titan Q:

Plus K.... I agree 100%.

[Titan Q]

As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.

[Gregory Sager]

There's no "nuance" and "interpretation" involved here. The terms "primary" and "secondary" mean what they mean. If you're not going to abide by those two terms, even if you have good reasons to jettison them, then either change the handbook or do away with it altogether.

Throwing out the rules on your own discretion, even if done with the best of intentions, is neither transparent nor ultimately in the best interest of fairness. What you sacrifice in the name of temporary expedience costs you in the long run in terms of credibility.

[smedindy]

There obviously was nuance and interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't be spewing bandwidth. There's ALWAYS nuance and interpretation of primary and secondary criteria. It's obvious the handbook in football wasn't followed to the letter, and now here as well.

But is it the LETTER or the SPIRIT that we want? Is it better to reward a team for an outstanding season in a conference where they can't pile up the SOS, or a third-place team in a conference that can pile up the SOS because of where they are?

[Gregory Sager]

As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.

I think that this, as well as sac's two earlier points about the process getting better over time and the unfortunate decision by the committee not to publish the final regional rankings, falls into the category of "preaching to the choir." I mean, I'm glad for the record that the two of you have reiterated these points for everyone to read, but I doubt that there's any D3 basketball fans out there who really believe at this point that the idea of a nationally-based tournament assembled by regionally-gathered data is sound in any way, shape, or form.

[Titan Q]

You and Matt already had this discussion, so I don't see any need for me to rehash it -- especially since he's more than capable of articulating his own position. My concern isn't with the mixing-in of the secondary criteria per se as a functional tool for separating out teams, as much as it is with the fact that it violates the rules in the handbook under which the committee is supposed to operate. That's why I call it "willy-nilly" ... it's as if the committee has a prearranged agreement to abide by the rules for the first fourteen rounds of the Pool C selection process, and to then throw the handbook into the trashcan for the final five rounds.

So let me clarify what I was told.  It was basically that at some point in the process every year, the committee gets to this point (handbook quote)...

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."

On average, that tends to be with about 4-5 selections left to make.

I just don't see anything willy-nilly about the fact that the process gets extremely difficult late, and that at some point, the committee benefits from considering more data.

[Gregory Sager]

There obviously was nuance and interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't be spewing bandwidth. There's ALWAYS nuance and interpretation of primary and secondary criteria.

Nuance and interpretation as to the particulars of the criteria as they're applied, yes. But there's no nuance and interpretation as to the meaning of the words "primary" and "secondary", or as to what constitutes the criteria that are called by those names. The five primary criteria are clearly listed in the handbook, and the word "primary" itself means that these five criteria take automatic precedence and are to be both the focal point of data analysis by the committee and distinct from the secondary criteria. These matters of definition are cut-and-dried.

But is it the LETTER or the SPIRIT that we want?

Where the letter is no longer honored, what spirit remains?

Is it better to reward a team for an outstanding season in a conference where they can't pile up the SOS, or a third-place team in a conference that can pile up the SOS because of where they are?

In all honesty, I think that the answer is: c) none of the above. This takes us right back to the metanarrative, which is that a nationally-based tournament assembled by regionally-gathered data is by its very nature going to be blatantly unfair to teams that are handicapped by the NCAA's construction of its regions.

[KnightSlappy]

As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.

I think that this, as well as sac's two earlier points about the process getting better over time and the unfortunate decision by the committee not to publish the final regional rankings, falls into the category of "preaching to the choir." I mean, I'm glad for the record that the two of you have reiterated these points for everyone to read, but I doubt that there's any D3 basketball fans out there who really believe at this point that the idea of a nationally-based tournament assembled by regionally-gathered data is sound in any way, shape, or form.

But we wouldn't need to go completely national to make the system better. I think the regional criteria could stand to be expanded so that more (very reasonable) games should be counted. There's a middle ground between finding a way to get Calvin-Wheaton type games to count without necessarily having to go national. I think it's likely that this could happen (adjacent states, or whatnot).

[smedindy]

Again, to go back to what TQ was saying, if you apply interpretation and nuance to the primary criteria and get no result, then you move to the secondary. That's what I was trying to say too, as well as stick up for the little guy and remind folks that not everyone can stack their schedules.