Pool C

Started by Pat Coleman, January 20, 2006, 02:35:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ronk

Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2013, 11:23:39 PM
Quote from: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.

SOS weights the opponents' record at two-thirds, with the opponents' opponents' record as one-third. Plus the home-road adjustment.

Those computations will be left with the students as an exercise. ;D

Greek Tragedy

Quote from: ronk on January 29, 2013, 08:45:32 AM
Greek,
  With all due respect to Knightslappy's objective data, my interest was in our subjective opinions on what the regional rankings "should" be.

So, what do you think it should be? 
Pointers
Breed of a Champion
2004, 2005, 2010 and 2015 National Champions

Fantasy Leagues Commissioner

TGHIJGSTO!!!

KnightSlappy

Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2013, 11:23:39 PM
Quote from: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.

SOS weights the opponents' record at two-thirds, with the opponents' opponents' record as one-third. Plus the home-road adjustment.

Also -- for the sake of bookkeeping -- I believe the OWP and OOWP components (after home/road weighting) are computed using the average of each team's component percentages, not the sum of the W/L totals. So:

If you played two teams who provide you with respective component OWP's of 5-5 (.500) and 20-0 (1.000), your OWP for these two combined woule be (1.000 x 0.500 / 2 = 0.750) not 25-5 (.833).

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Just a quick note in case anyone is curious... neutral games are considered 1.0 on the weighted scale and the weighted scale is used on OWP AND OOWP. :)
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

John Gleich

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 12:30:05 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 28, 2013, 05:02:39 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2013, 03:52:36 PM
Well, the 1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday, Feb. 6th. That means results through this weekend will count. 

blah blah, long post

Anyone else got some thoughts on this region or their guesses on other regions?

If you look at KS's regional rankings, it looks a bit different:

blah blah other long post


And to make myself clear, in no way was I comparing my subjective thoughts to Knightslappy's strict objective results by the numbers.  I actually posted my thoughts in the West Region board and then copied to the appropriate Pool C board here.

Right. I wasn't saying you were. I actually wasn't, either. I was just taking data that was available that some might try to use to refute what you had there and put it into its proper context.

There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.
UWSP Men's Basketball

National Champions: 2015, 2010, 2005, 2004

NCAA appearances: 2018, '15, '14, '13, '12, '11, '10, '09, '08, '07, '05, '04, '03, '00, 1997

WIAC/WSUC Champs: 2015, '14, '13, '11, '09, '07, '05, '03, '02, '01, '00, 1993, '92, '87, '86, '85, '84, '83, '82, '69, '61, '57, '48, '42, '37, '36, '35, '33, '18

Twitter: @JohnGleich

KnightSlappy

#4070
Quote from: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.

John Gleich

Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2013, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.

Perhaps subjective is the wrong word... but I'm not sure what the right word would be.

The adjustments that need to be made due to head-to-head matchups, for example... what would you call those, if not subjective? The different regions treat the different criteria differently based on their interpretation... which is, by nature, subjective.
UWSP Men's Basketball

National Champions: 2015, 2010, 2005, 2004

NCAA appearances: 2018, '15, '14, '13, '12, '11, '10, '09, '08, '07, '05, '04, '03, '00, 1997

WIAC/WSUC Champs: 2015, '14, '13, '11, '09, '07, '05, '03, '02, '01, '00, 1993, '92, '87, '86, '85, '84, '83, '82, '69, '61, '57, '48, '42, '37, '36, '35, '33, '18

Twitter: @JohnGleich

John Gleich

By the way, I'm not trying to disagree with you... I think we're ultimately saying the same thing. We're just using language, of which our postmodern culture has watered down and stripped true and absolute meaning.   ???
UWSP Men's Basketball

National Champions: 2015, 2010, 2005, 2004

NCAA appearances: 2018, '15, '14, '13, '12, '11, '10, '09, '08, '07, '05, '04, '03, '00, 1997

WIAC/WSUC Champs: 2015, '14, '13, '11, '09, '07, '05, '03, '02, '01, '00, 1993, '92, '87, '86, '85, '84, '83, '82, '69, '61, '57, '48, '42, '37, '36, '35, '33, '18

Twitter: @JohnGleich

AO

Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2013, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Greek Tragedy

Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?
Pointers
Breed of a Champion
2004, 2005, 2010 and 2015 National Champions

Fantasy Leagues Commissioner

TGHIJGSTO!!!

AO

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 07:19:58 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?
Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule? 

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 08:33:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 07:19:58 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?
Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule?

Nope.  Some are too big to do a double, others would prefer to inflate their records by playing weaker competition.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Greek Tragedy

Of course not, but to say the conference tournament is the most difficult portion of the schedule is hardly accurate.  It's not even part of the schedule for some teams.  In some leagues, only the top four teams make it.  If the top 8 teams make it, that gives those teams 3 extra games after the regular season.  So, are you telling me we should determine the regional rankings on 3 games or two in some cases?  The last regional rankings would include those results, that's why there are 3 or 4 regional rankings. 
Pointers
Breed of a Champion
2004, 2005, 2010 and 2015 National Champions

Fantasy Leagues Commissioner

TGHIJGSTO!!!

Greek Tragedy

Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 29, 2013, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 08:33:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 07:19:58 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?
Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule?

Nope.  Some are too big to do a double, others would prefer to inflate their records by playing weaker competition.

There has been complaints that the NESCAC doesn't play a full round robin...maybe because they are "too big".  But, the MIAC has 11 teams and they play a full round robin.  The MWC has 11 teams as well, they don't play a full round robin, but they play an unbalanced schedule to make an 18-game conference schedule.
Pointers
Breed of a Champion
2004, 2005, 2010 and 2015 National Champions

Fantasy Leagues Commissioner

TGHIJGSTO!!!

AO

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 09:06:03 PM
Of course not, but to say the conference tournament is the most difficult portion of the schedule is hardly accurate.  It's not even part of the schedule for some teams.  In some leagues, only the top four teams make it.  If the top 8 teams make it, that gives those teams 3 extra games after the regular season.  So, are you telling me we should determine the regional rankings on 3 games or two in some cases?  The last regional rankings would include those results, that's why there are 3 or 4 regional rankings.
I'd think for a lot of teams the conference tournament is the most difficult portion; you're facing teams who are either in the top 4 or are in a "win or go home" situation.  Teams also tend to be stronger at the end of the schedule versus the start barring injuries to star players.  There's not enough uniformity in scheduling or play across regions to claim that any objective ranking system is going to come up with the best at-large bids.  Subjectivity can go past the numbers to analyze the true strength of schedule.