Pool C

[smedindy]

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).

How does that help the D-3 teams on islands? How does that help a Birmingham Southern or Colorado College or teams in the ASC where they have little opportunity to play outside of their league?

Again, not everyone can just be flip and schedule SOS padding games.

[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).

How does that help the D-3 teams on islands? How does that help a Birmingham Southern or Colorado College or teams in the ASC where they have little opportunity to play outside of their league?

Again, not everyone can just be flip and schedule SOS padding games.

It wouldn't necessarily help everyone, but it wouldn't hurt them either, would it? Why shouldn't we make improvements to the system if we can't get a perfect system.

And I don't understand your continual point that an adjustment for geographical limitations couldn't be applied to a one-number system.

[smedindy]

We should make improvements, but the regional system can be just jettisoned and that'll be a big improvement.

Who makes determination of the adjustments? How much data do you use? What happens if your assumptions prove faulty as the year goes on? It's why they have multiple criteria for consideration. Again, I love numbers and number crunching but they're tools.

I'd rather have the committee take a chance than play it safe. That's just me.

[KnightSlappy]

We should make improvements, but the regional system can be just jettisoned and that'll be a big improvement.

Who makes determination of the adjustments? How much data do you use? What happens if your assumptions prove faulty as the year goes on?

Who decides what the criteria is now? Who decided to use a 1.25/0.75 home/away weighting? The currently have numbers that the championship committee has decided upon. It would take that committee consulting with several groups of smart people to come up with good numbers.

I'm sure the NCAA has years and years worth of D3 data available. You would obviously test any system multiple times to be sure that it selected an agreeable field every time.

[smedindy]

You will never get an 'agreeable' field. Someone will always kvetch that it was stacked against them. Plus I think the 'island' or 'travel budget' data is a lot more subjective than the home / road where there's more tangible results.

[Gregory Sager]

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.

There's nothing willy-nilly about that at all. That's the way that the system was designed to work, as spelled out in the handbook.

But here's what you originally said:

I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

The implication here is that the committee is automatically moving into the secondary criteria in those final five rounds, as part of its normal deliberative process. At least, that's how everyone seems to have inferred what you said. And my complaint is that, by making it a prearranged part of the process, for however many iterations -- be it four rounds, five rounds, ten rounds, nineteen rounds, it doesn't matter -- the committee has compromised the distinction between the terms "primary" and "secondary" by enfolding all games played under the rubric of "primary criteria." In other words, it completely does away with the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" if you know ahead of time that you're going to use the secondary criteria.

Now, if that's not what you meant at all; if what you really meant was something more along the lines of what smeds said:

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.

... then there's no problem here. Because, as you can see, smeds applies both chronology and contingency to the process. It's chronological, because you go first to primary, and only afterwards to secondary. And it's contingent, because of the words "and get no result." If you do get a result, then you don't have to move on to the secondary criteria at all.

Now, if what you actually meant when you said this:

I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

... was something along the lines of, "I'm told that the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so, not as a rule but because the teams are so tightly bunched together at that point that you're never able to pry them apart using only the primary criteria, so you're forced almost as a habit to go to the secondary criteria," then I don't think we have a problem with how the committee operates. But I didn't get that perception from your original post ... and, not to speak for the Dean of KnightSlappy U., but I don't think that he read it that way, either.

[KnightSlappy]

You will never get an 'agreeable' field. Someone will always kvetch.

But then, at least, we'd have the discussion narrowed down to how much to weigh each of the criteria, not about whether or not we're applying the criteria, as written, fairly across the nation.

[KnightSlappy]

... and just to keep things friendly, I'm not trying to attack anyone individually or as a group, I just am really interested and passionate about this type of stuff...

[smedindy]

I think we all are. It's as if we should be in an establishment with beverages and our laptops accessing data, making sure that the beverages did not spill on the laptops.

[KnightSlappy]

I think we all are. It's as if we should be in an establishment with beverages and our laptops accessing data, making sure that the beverages did not spill on the laptops.

because that would ruin the beverage and ruin the laptop :/

[Titan Q]

Now, if what you actually meant when you said this:

I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

... was something along the lines of, "I'm told that the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so, not as a rule but because the teams are so tightly bunched together at that point that you're never able to pry them apart using only the primary criteria, so you're forced almost as a habit to go to the secondary criteria," then I don't think we have a problem with how the committee operates. But I didn't get that perception from your original post ... and, not to speak for the Dean of KnightSlappy U., but I don't think that he read it that way, either.

This reflects exactly what I was told by a recent committee member.  I should have said that more carefully knowing the passion around this conversation.

[KnightSlappy]

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.

There's no need to interpret something that has been clearly defined. Let's clearly define what we want the criteria to be, so that it's not left in the hands of coaches and AD's who've clearly not read the handbook.

[Hugenerd]

I really liked what Dave McHugh said about transparency regarding the process at the end of Hoopsville. It is still baffling to me that they are witholding the final regionsal rankings despite releasing them in previous years and the handbook saying that they should be released.  If everything was carried out properly, why not just release them?  It makes you think that there may be a mistake or something that they dont want to admit to.  Not saying this is true, just that the fact that they are witholding the final rankings makes you think that there may be a reason for it.

To carry on the theme of transparency, why not also release the justification for the home/away SOS weight factors?  If those factors (0.75/1.25) are really well thought out and justified, why not just provide the justification to be as transparent and upfront as possible?

[KnightSlappy]

I forgot about a blog post I wrote in the summer about a one-number system.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/07/baseball-writers-mark-simon-and-tom.html

pretty much the same things I've already said here.

[AO]

In a system where teams don't play a national schedule, perhaps we're using too much objective criteria for determining national at-large bids.  We need people who will actually take the time to watch Illinois Wesleyan, WPI and Birmingham Southern.  Who would beat who rather than who could schedule better.