FB: Empire 8

[pg04]

We can all hope that Hartwick is better this year.  Just the fact that they've won on the road almost makes me believe they are better this year.  Honestly I'm not even sure if last year's team was as bad as the loss to Curry -- it may have just been them being new to the playoffs where as the Colonials have gone a few times.  Maybe it was just their time to finally win

[Frank Rossi]

The funny thing is that even though the E8 tie-breaker criteria might not make that much sense, it actually helps them in the sense that better teams who end up 2nd (and third last year) still make it too the playoffs.  Teams from the E8 might not make the playoffs if the most deserving team actually won the pool A bid.

That being said, the E8 doesnt have enough teams to have a perfect system and no one has the right to complain that much.  SJF had their chance to beat Hartwick and cant really complain about not making it.  IC had their chance and got beat pretty bad, and Hartwick the same.

In the end I dont think there will be too many people complaining,

OK.  Then here we go again:

Team A's teams could be:  9-0 Curry, 8-1 Coast Guard, 6-3 Mount Ida

Team B's teams could be:  5-4 Union, 5-4 Carnegie Mellon, 6-3 Hobart

Team C lost 2 out of 3 and has an inferior SoS.  Now, Team A lost all 3; Team B won 2 out of 3 (losing the Union game). 

Team A is 5-4.

Team B is 7-2.

Team C is 6-3.

Team B BEAT Team A.

Team B and Team C would likely not win a Pool C bid.

Team A wins the AQ.

You like it now, Jonny?

[SJFF82]

We can all hope that Hartwick is better this year.  Just the fact that they've won on the road almost makes me believe they are better this year.  Honestly I'm not even sure if last year's team was as bad as the loss to Curry -- it may have just been them being new to the playoffs where as the Colonials have gone a few times.  Maybe it was just their time to finally win

My thoughts as well

[SJFF82]

Frank, is it fair to say that a much simpler position that you are advocating for is that the 4th (OSS) and 5th (overall record) should simply be flip-flopped?  If so, I agree completely, and it would almost seem as if the E8 made a inadvertant mistake in the present order.  It seems counter-intuitive in sports to not first consider a team's record before something a bit more subjective like their SOS, and the like.

Now certainly, I personally think that a 7-3 SJF team, having lost to MUC and Salisbury is as good as or better than a 9-1 Hartwick team (forget head to head for a minute) that beat two mediocre teams while SJF was getting their brains beat in by MUC, but subjective voting does not and cannot be used when making these Automatic Qualifier determinations in 3 way ties.  There is an objective/numbers process that gets used and we must live with it and hope that it results in what most would subjectively come up with. 

Otherwise, throw out the present objective systems all together, come-up with a master poll, and just stick the top 32 in the play-offs and seed them, regardless of record, SOS, OSS, DSS, ADD, ADHD, OCD, NBA, USA, USSR, KGB, DWI, DUI, and the other present criteria.

[Frank Rossi]

That being said, the E8 doesnt have enough teams to have a perfect system and no one has the right to complain that much.

I have to take you to task on this point, as well.  You're suggesting that since there are only 7 teams in the E8, it's okay that the system is problematic because it doesn't really matter.  Well, actually, the truth is the complete opposite.

Getting the fourth tiebreaker right in a conference with seven teams is actually more important because -- THERE ARE MORE OOC GAMES PLAYED IN SUCH CONFERENCES.  You actually have MORE data to measure and weigh in the E8 than you would in the LL, NEFC, MAC or NJAC.  The likelihood of such three-way unbreakable ties is highest in a conference with fewer teams.

If this is truly your view of things, why don't we just line up and play our in-conference games and award the winner of the league based on the scheduling of teams only -- no need to actually play the games.  It's the team that GUESSES the other teams' records best that wins the league.

[SJFF82]

The funny thing is that even though the E8 tie-breaker criteria might not make that much sense, it actually helps them in the sense that better teams who end up 2nd (and third last year) still make it too the playoffs.  Teams from the E8 might not make the playoffs if the most deserving team actually won the pool A bid.

Is this correct JU?  I thought SJF and IC got at large bids last year?  Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that it was the E8's tie-breaking system 'doing its job' that catapaulted SJF and IC last year. 

[fisheralum91]

wow - had to catch up on the reading..
et tu 82?
sheesh- thew me under the bus there
yanks-- man crush- no-- just got to know the guys-- good bunch of ppl
as for the tie breaker sys----who knows -frank you are right it does seem off......how to solve it is the key

[Frank Rossi]

Frank, is it fair to say that a much simpler position that you are advocating for is that the 4th (OSS) and 5th (overall record) should simply be flip-flopped?  If so, I agree completely, and it would almost seem as if the E8 made a inadvertant mistake in the present order.  It seems counter-intuitive in sports to not first consider a team's record before something a bit more subjective like their SOS, and the like.

Now certainly, I personally think that a 7-3 SJF team, having lost to MUC and Salisbury is as good as or better than a 9-1 Hartwick team (forget head to head for a minute) that beat two mediocre teams while SJF was getting their brains beat in by MUC, but subjective voting does not and cannot be used when making these Automatic Qualifier determinations in 3 way ties.  There is an objective/numbers process that gets used and we must live with it and hope that it results in what most would subjectively come up with. 

Otherwise, throw out the present objective systems all together, come-up with a master poll, and just stick the top 32 in the play-offs and seed them, regardless of record, SOS, OSS, DSS, ADD, ADHD, OCD, NBA, USA, USSR, KGB, DWI, DUI, and the other present criteria.

Overall records alone are somewhat suspect, too, as the quality of opponents is not measured there.  I would advocate for any conference that truly wants to put some effort into finding a deserving team to enter the playoffs a weighted scoring system for tied teams:

Regional Win/Loss % + (OWP x 0.5) + (OOWP x 0.5)

OOWP lacks a lot of statistical noise, so the numbers there would be similar unless a team plays OOC games against teams in lackluster conferences.  What I'm doing here is rewarding a team with in-region wins with a head start.  Then, I'm letting the SoS come into play and allowing it to affect that team ONLY IF THAT TEAM PLAYED SUCH AN INFERIOR SCHEDULE THAT ITS REGIONAL W/L % IS PROBABLY ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED.

In cases where teams have tied Regional W/L %, then strength of schedule makes more sense and is weighed appropriately here, as well.

The key here is to reward winning, but to discourage poor scheduling when there are certain trends we know about teams and their conferences a couple years in advance to avoid truly inferior scheduling issues.

[Edit:  The OWP and OOWP multipliers are not in stone... it might require weighting them slightly more, as there are several common opponents in the mix for the tied teams (i.e., their league opponents).  This is just an example and could be perfected with just a little work.]

[union89]

With all the talk of St. John Fisher scheduling MUC and Salisbury, I got to thinking...

What are people's thoughts on the emotional impact back to back blowout losses to MUC had on Fisher?  Could such losses have forced the players to second guess their own abilities and relative strength within D3?  Could the manner of defeats to MUC caused the Fisher players to feel bad for themselves, thus losing focus on matters at hand?

I know Fisher lost to Hartwick in '07 as well, but that loss should have been motivation to not let it happen again in '08.

Just curious on others thoughts..

[fisheralum91]

union-- i understand your point but you kind of sound like the new wave of parents out there.

"we shouldnt keep score because it would indicate that someone was a loser"
or
"everyone should play so that nobody feelings get hurt"

Now i for one dont by into that line-----

my own thoughts---you learn and succeed from learning from your mistakes ---
hence:
"those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it"

is it possible that fisher got down after they got beat--probably
did it hurt as bad as the loss to wic--probably not

if you leave everything on the field and say that you did your best--you should be able to sleep at night

[Jonny Utah]

The funny thing is that even though the E8 tie-breaker criteria might not make that much sense, it actually helps them in the sense that better teams who end up 2nd (and third last year) still make it too the playoffs.  Teams from the E8 might not make the playoffs if the most deserving team actually won the pool A bid.

Is this correct JU?  I thought SJF and IC got at large bids last year?  Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that it was the E8's tie-breaking system 'doing its job' that catapaulted SJF and IC last year. 

Im saying this.

If the tie-breaker system was common sense and the best team (and/or team that the consensus thinks deserves it) got it last year (SJF), then Hartwick might not have made the playoffs.  Instead, the worse of the three (Hartwick) made it, and the other two teams left both got at large bids.  If either IC or SJF got the crown, then only 2 total teams would have made it.

This year, if Hartwick gets the pool-A bid, and everyone thinks like Frank that Hartwick is so undeserving, then Ithaca would bet the at-large bid with 1 or maybe 2 losses over the LL team.  SJF probably shot themselves in the foot with the tough schedule and will have a tough time getting the at large bid this year, even over Ithaca if Ithaca beats Cortland.

[Jonny Utah]

The funny thing is that even though the E8 tie-breaker criteria might not make that much sense, it actually helps them in the sense that better teams who end up 2nd (and third last year) still make it too the playoffs.  Teams from the E8 might not make the playoffs if the most deserving team actually won the pool A bid.

That being said, the E8 doesnt have enough teams to have a perfect system and no one has the right to complain that much.  SJF had their chance to beat Hartwick and cant really complain about not making it.  IC had their chance and got beat pretty bad, and Hartwick the same.

In the end I dont think there will be too many people complaining,

OK.  Then here we go again:

Team A's teams could be:  9-0 Curry, 8-1 Coast Guard, 6-3 Mount Ida

Team B's teams could be:  5-4 Union, 5-4 Carnegie Mellon, 6-3 Hobart

Team C lost 2 out of 3 and has an inferior SoS.  Now, Team A lost all 3; Team B won 2 out of 3 (losing the Union game). 

Team A is 5-4.

Team B is 7-2.

Team C is 6-3.

Team B BEAT Team A.

Team B and Team C would likely not win a Pool C bid.

Team A wins the AQ.

You like it now, Jonny?

If team B lost two games like last year (Ithaca) then they should still make it, so the "not likely" might not be true in this case.  And I never said the team A (SJF) really deserves the at large bid this year anyway.

[maxpower]

Nobody has noticed that we have PASSED the famed LLPP in pages! +k all around!!!

[Jonny Utah]

That being said, the E8 doesnt have enough teams to have a perfect system and no one has the right to complain that much.

I have to take you to task on this point, as well.  You're suggesting that since there are only 7 teams in the E8, it's okay that the system is problematic because it doesn't really matter.  Well, actually, the truth is the complete opposite.

Getting the fourth tiebreaker right in a conference with seven teams is actually more important because -- THERE ARE MORE OOC GAMES PLAYED IN SUCH CONFERENCES.  You actually have MORE data to measure and weigh in the E8 than you would in the LL, NEFC, MAC or NJAC.  The likelihood of such three-way unbreakable ties is highest in a conference with fewer teams.

If this is truly your view of things, why don't we just line up and play our in-conference games and award the winner of the league based on the scheduling of teams only -- no need to actually play the games.  It's the team that GUESSES the other teams' records best that wins the league.

Im saying there is more of a chance of a tie in a 7-team conference than in a 10 team conference.

And the out of conference games are so varied, that they really dont matter as you think they might.  SJF losing to MUC is worse for them than Hartwick beating WNEC by a few points (if they did)

The only reason we even have these silly stat-systems is so the NCAA can have a build in excuse to why team A didnt get in over team B.  I shouldnt call it that silly, because Ive only seen a few instances where teams have really gotten screwed from the playoffs over the past 20 years.

And thats what Im saying.  Lets not GUESS at anything.  Lets look at the schedules at the end of the year, factor in a bunch of things, and let some common sense prevail over a possible SOS% for nonconference teams that lost a coinflipp to a team that had a higher pointdifferential vs an out of region team that just dropped its cheerleading program.

[theoriginalupstate]

Nobody has noticed that we have PASSED the famed LLPP in pages! +k all around!!!

With the stock market fluxuating they realized that they should actually work for once instead of playing grab ass at work and talking about cah bombs and cat turds on here....