FB: Liberty League

[Frank Rossi]

But this isnt an even scoring point for point system here either right?  I mean it even uses the word (or Pat did) "reviewed" in terms of looking at the factors.

I mean, lets say it comes down to Alfred or Hobart for the pool C and both teams have two loses, I dont care what the SOS, common opponents or wins vs. ranked teams is, Hobart will get in over Alfred for the pool C right?

And I would think ICs win over Cortland late in the season (wins vs. common opponents) would count more than SOS (kind of crappy system anyway we can all agree) or a win versus a ranked opponent at the begininng of the year right?

The timing of the win vs. Cortland does not matter unless the teams are tied after consideration of the secondary criteria listed, as the Manual continues:

"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships."

So, Hartwick's WNEC loss will matter.  Montclair's win vs. Wesley will matter.  Ithaca's win against Cortland will matter.  However, they will not matter differently because they happened early or late.

You bring up head-to-head competition -- but there is no head-to-head here.  I agree that if you have head-to-head competition in which the two teams have the same (or nearly the same based on the 9/10 game distinction) winning percentages, you will have a definite advantage.  Why?  Well, part of it is because if the teams are that close, then they both will be ranked.  So you get the benefit of winning a primary criterion AND the benefit of a "Quality Win" when that criterion is viewed.  So, unless the remaining two criteria (SoS and common opponents) are so out of whack, head-to-head victories will dominate a discussion.

So, no, it's not a "point scoring system" -- but Montclair has a clear advantage even with the Cortland issue.  The Wesley win seems to forgive that.

So what if Alfred and Hobart are going for the pool C bid, and Alfred has 6 of the 7 criteria in their favor? or 4 of 7 for that matter?

There are only 5 primary criteria.  I'll play along just for the hell of it:

Regional Win Percentage:  TIE
SoS:  HOBART should win
Head-to-Head:  HOBART
Common Opponents:  TIE with both beating SLU
Regional Ranked Opponents:  HOBART (W vs. Alfred, L vs. #1 East and Unranked -- Alfred has L vs. Hobart and either #4 East or Unranked)

That's an easy comparison, easier than Montclair.

[Jonny Utah]

But this isnt an even scoring point for point system here either right?  I mean it even uses the word (or Pat did) "reviewed" in terms of looking at the factors.

I mean, lets say it comes down to Alfred or Hobart for the pool C and both teams have two loses, I dont care what the SOS, common opponents or wins vs. ranked teams is, Hobart will get in over Alfred for the pool C right?

And I would think ICs win over Cortland late in the season (wins vs. common opponents) would count more than SOS (kind of crappy system anyway we can all agree) or a win versus a ranked opponent at the begininng of the year right?

The timing of the win vs. Cortland does not matter unless the teams are tied after consideration of the secondary criteria listed, as the Manual continues:

"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships."

So, Hartwick's WNEC loss will matter.  Montclair's win vs. Wesley will matter.  Ithaca's win against Cortland will matter.  However, they will not matter differently because they happened early or late.

You bring up head-to-head competition -- but there is no head-to-head here.  I agree that if you have head-to-head competition in which the two teams have the same (or nearly the same based on the 9/10 game distinction) winning percentages, you will have a definite advantage.  Why?  Well, part of it is because if the teams are that close, then they both will be ranked.  So you get the benefit of winning a primary criterion AND the benefit of a "Quality Win" when that criterion is viewed.  So, unless the remaining two criteria (SoS and common opponents) are so out of whack, head-to-head victories will dominate a discussion.

So, no, it's not a "point scoring system" -- but Montclair has a clear advantage even with the Cortland issue.  The Wesley win seems to forgive that.

So what if Alfred and Hobart are going for the pool C bid, and Alfred has 6 of the 7 criteria in their favor? or 4 of 7 for that matter?

There are only 5 primary criteria.  I'll play along just for the hell of it:

Regional Win Percentage:  TIE
SoS:  HOBART should win
Head-to-Head:  HOBART
Common Opponents:  TIE with none
Regional Ranked Opponents:  HOBART (W vs. Alfred, L vs. #1 East and Unranked -- Alfred has L vs. Hobart and either #4 East or Unranked)

That's an easy comparison, easier than Montclair.

Ok, play with me a little here Frank.

Just say what if Aflred has a higher SOS, and they also beat Dickinson but lost to Lewis And Clark (giving them better regional win percentage and common opponents).....

Then what?

But the larger issue here Frank is this.  Dont you see the ambiguity with the wording regarding the criteria here? 

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed


I mean that says nothing like " If team A has more of the following factors than team B, then team A will get in"

Am I right here?

[Frank Rossi]

Jonny - Additional note:

SoS matters a lot when you aren't comparing two geographically close teams that are not in the same conference.  Here's why:

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. (Most likely tied if we're already comparing them)
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
• In-region head-to-head competition. (Chances are low this exists when not in same conference)
• In-region results versus common regional opponents. (Chances are still low this exists if in different conf.)
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

Thus, there are only two primary criteria remaining, should we be comparing two far-removed teams -- my favorite example being an NEFC team and an NJAC team.  That places much more stress on the SoS.  You picked a matchup in which the two teams are playing similar enough opponents and geographically are located relatively close such that SoS had a lot of company in terms of other relevant criteria.

[Jonny Utah]

Jonny - Additional note:

SoS matters a lot when you aren't comparing two geographically close teams that are not in the same conference.  Here's why:

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents. (Most likely tied if we're already comparing them)
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
• In-region head-to-head competition. (Chances are low this exists when not in same conference)
• In-region results versus common regional opponents. (Chances are still low this exists if in different conf.)
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

Thus, there are only two primary criteria remaining, should we be comparing two far-removed teams -- my favorite example being an NEFC team and an NJAC team.  That places much more stress on the SoS.  You picked a matchup in which the two teams are playing similar enough opponents and geographically are located relatively close such that SoS had a lot of company in terms of other relevant criteria.

No I totally agree.  Thats why SOS is kind of crappy here....(and is in d1 too)

[Frank Rossi]

But this isnt an even scoring point for point system here either right?  I mean it even uses the word (or Pat did) "reviewed" in terms of looking at the factors.

I mean, lets say it comes down to Alfred or Hobart for the pool C and both teams have two loses, I dont care what the SOS, common opponents or wins vs. ranked teams is, Hobart will get in over Alfred for the pool C right?

And I would think ICs win over Cortland late in the season (wins vs. common opponents) would count more than SOS (kind of crappy system anyway we can all agree) or a win versus a ranked opponent at the begininng of the year right?

The timing of the win vs. Cortland does not matter unless the teams are tied after consideration of the secondary criteria listed, as the Manual continues:

"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships."

So, Hartwick's WNEC loss will matter.  Montclair's win vs. Wesley will matter.  Ithaca's win against Cortland will matter.  However, they will not matter differently because they happened early or late.

You bring up head-to-head competition -- but there is no head-to-head here.  I agree that if you have head-to-head competition in which the two teams have the same (or nearly the same based on the 9/10 game distinction) winning percentages, you will have a definite advantage.  Why?  Well, part of it is because if the teams are that close, then they both will be ranked.  So you get the benefit of winning a primary criterion AND the benefit of a "Quality Win" when that criterion is viewed.  So, unless the remaining two criteria (SoS and common opponents) are so out of whack, head-to-head victories will dominate a discussion.

So, no, it's not a "point scoring system" -- but Montclair has a clear advantage even with the Cortland issue.  The Wesley win seems to forgive that.

So what if Alfred and Hobart are going for the pool C bid, and Alfred has 6 of the 7 criteria in their favor? or 4 of 7 for that matter?

There are only 5 primary criteria.  I'll play along just for the hell of it:

Regional Win Percentage:  TIE
SoS:  HOBART should win
Head-to-Head:  HOBART
Common Opponents:  TIE with none
Regional Ranked Opponents:  HOBART (W vs. Alfred, L vs. #1 East and Unranked -- Alfred has L vs. Hobart and either #4 East or Unranked)

That's an easy comparison, easier than Montclair.

Ok, play with me a little here Frank.

Just say what if Aflred has a higher SOS, and they also beat Dickinson but lost to Lewis And Clark (giving them better regional win percentage and common opponents).....

Then what?

But the larger issue here Frank is this.  Dont you see the ambiguity with the wording regarding the criteria here? 

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed


I mean that says nothing like " If team A has more of the following factors than team B, then team A will get in"

Am I right here?

It's worded in a way that gives the Committee some leeway to be subjective, if need be.  However, each of the criteria are called "PRIMARY" criteria for a reason -- they are to be reviewed together.  If you have one team leading in two criteria, the other team leading in one, and ties or no data in the remaining two, then I don't think the subjectivity would allow the Committee to go to the next step.  Subjectivity is more in the comparisons of results against regional ranked teams, since there's no calculus for that -- but here, there's a clear lead by Montclair through its win against Wesley.  If there's only a slight bias in one direction or the other in some of the criteria, then that/those criteria/criterion can be downplayed by the Committee, if they so choose.

[Jonny Utah]

But this isnt an even scoring point for point system here either right?  I mean it even uses the word (or Pat did) "reviewed" in terms of looking at the factors.

I mean, lets say it comes down to Alfred or Hobart for the pool C and both teams have two loses, I dont care what the SOS, common opponents or wins vs. ranked teams is, Hobart will get in over Alfred for the pool C right?

And I would think ICs win over Cortland late in the season (wins vs. common opponents) would count more than SOS (kind of crappy system anyway we can all agree) or a win versus a ranked opponent at the begininng of the year right?

The timing of the win vs. Cortland does not matter unless the teams are tied after consideration of the secondary criteria listed, as the Manual continues:

"Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships."

So, Hartwick's WNEC loss will matter.  Montclair's win vs. Wesley will matter.  Ithaca's win against Cortland will matter.  However, they will not matter differently because they happened early or late.

You bring up head-to-head competition -- but there is no head-to-head here.  I agree that if you have head-to-head competition in which the two teams have the same (or nearly the same based on the 9/10 game distinction) winning percentages, you will have a definite advantage.  Why?  Well, part of it is because if the teams are that close, then they both will be ranked.  So you get the benefit of winning a primary criterion AND the benefit of a "Quality Win" when that criterion is viewed.  So, unless the remaining two criteria (SoS and common opponents) are so out of whack, head-to-head victories will dominate a discussion.

So, no, it's not a "point scoring system" -- but Montclair has a clear advantage even with the Cortland issue.  The Wesley win seems to forgive that.

So what if Alfred and Hobart are going for the pool C bid, and Alfred has 6 of the 7 criteria in their favor? or 4 of 7 for that matter?

There are only 5 primary criteria.  I'll play along just for the hell of it:

Regional Win Percentage:  TIE
SoS:  HOBART should win
Head-to-Head:  HOBART
Common Opponents:  TIE with none
Regional Ranked Opponents:  HOBART (W vs. Alfred, L vs. #1 East and Unranked -- Alfred has L vs. Hobart and either #4 East or Unranked)

That's an easy comparison, easier than Montclair.

Ok, play with me a little here Frank.

Just say what if Aflred has a higher SOS, and they also beat Dickinson but lost to Lewis And Clark (giving them better regional win percentage and common opponents).....

Then what?

But the larger issue here Frank is this.  Dont you see the ambiguity with the wording regarding the criteria here? 

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed


I mean that says nothing like " If team A has more of the following factors than team B, then team A will get in"

Am I right here?

It's worded in a way that gives the Committee some leeway to be subjective, if need be.  However, each of the criteria are called "PRIMARY" criteria for a reason -- they are to be reviewed together.  If you have one team leading in two criteria, the other team leading in one, and ties or no data in the remaining two, then I don't think the subjectivity would allow the Committee to go to the next step.  Subjectivity is more in the comparisons of results against regional ranked teams, since there's no calculus for that -- but here, there's a clear lead by Montclair through its win against Wesley.  If there's only a slight bias in one direction or the other in some of the criteria, then that/those criteria/criterion can be downplayed by the Committee, if they so choose.

I disagree. 

Just by using a word like "reviewed" means to me that they can choose which category is important and which one isnt whenever they want.  Sometimes things make more sense when you just look at the whole picture.  And now if the "primary" categories are close 4-3 or 5-2, then they even have a secondary criteria!

I dont know.  Just seems to be that they can pick whoever they want and there is no formula.......

[union89]

I have 'reviewed' the team and school in Troy, NY and must agree with Frank....


RPI SUCKS!!!

PS - Hobart sucks too....just not as much.

[redswarm81]

Stay classy San Diego...

Hey Superman, what is a 'prositute'?

Prositute = Bitter Yankees fan.

A-Rod we hate you.  Leave now.  You're not welcome here.

I can't believe he would opt out.  How selfish is that?  Who wouldn't want to play in the Bronx?

SUperman is not necisarlily bitter that he opted out...but more bitter that he decided to be a schmuk and do it during game 4 of the world series...he showed that he is a true drama queen and only cares about him self...

and Prositute is the only women (tranny) that red swarm can get

Supe, I got your mother--what are you saying?

[redswarm81]

Would a 2 loss Ithaca (wick, SJF) get in over a 2 loss Hobart (RPI, Dickinson)?

I think a 2 loss IC gets in over a 2 loss RPI because that would mean RPI is going the wrong direction at the wrong time.

I don't think direction and time are Playoff selection criteria.

Edit:  I now learn that time is a secondary criterion, but if I RTFM correctly, in order to consider "late season record" as a secondary criterion, the Selection Committee has to ask "mother, may I?"

[lewdogg11]

-Frank, (Im not going to post the whole thing again, but wouldnt a two loss IC get in over a 2 loss Montclair?

Currently, absolutely not.

Damn it Utah.....how clear does my man Frank need to make this for you!!!

Yea, currently Ithaca has not played Alfred or Cortland.  But if both IC and Montclair finish the season with 2 loses, IC would beat them for the pool C (common opponent Cortland)

Yeah whatever Utah.  Enjoy the ECACs against Plymouth.  :-)

You just better hope an 8th ranked IC doesnt head into troy for another beatdown of the second most overated team in d3football history.....(2001 RPI being #1, but you cant blame them, there were no seniors that were any good on that team.....)

Hope to see you there...loser :-)

[lewdogg11]

'Hey there boys.  It's me Danny Gans.  I don't know if you heard, but the votes just came in, and I was voted 'Entertainer of the Year' again in Las Vegas.  Too bad LD11 and his buddies left here.  I was having a good time heckling those losers.  Who goes to Hooters in Vegas at 8am?  Seriously, what a bunch of losers.  Anyway, just so you know, next time you're out in Vegas, with a ticket to my show, you get a free appointment to 'The Clinic'(If you know what I mean)...I heard some of you have been out with some doozies lately.  Yeah I mean you, Union89.  Gro', you really need to start re-evaluating your life...loser.  Hey Regulator, why don't you go buy another boat money bags.  RT, grow up.  get off myspace...nerd.'

........Welcome to my world....Everywhere we went in Vegas, Danny Gans was staring at us, laughing, and calling us losers.  I HATE DANNY GANS!!!

[FisherAlum05]

Stay classy San Diego...

Hey Superman, what is a 'prositute'?

Prositute = Bitter Yankees fan.

A-Rod we hate you.  Leave now.  You're not welcome here.

I can't believe he would opt out.  How selfish is that?  Who wouldn't want to play in the Bronx?

SUperman is not necisarlily bitter that he opted out...but more bitter that he decided to be a schmuk and do it during game 4 of the world series...he showed that he is a true drama queen and only cares about him self...

and Prositute is the only women (tranny) that red swarm can get

Supe, I got your mother--what are you saying?

dude, dont talk about peoples mothers.  too far.  

[Jonny Utah]

Stay classy San Diego...

Hey Superman, what is a 'prositute'?

Prositute = Bitter Yankees fan.

A-Rod we hate you.  Leave now.  You're not welcome here.

I can't believe he would opt out.  How selfish is that?  Who wouldn't want to play in the Bronx?

SUperman is not necisarlily bitter that he opted out...but more bitter that he decided to be a schmuk and do it during game 4 of the world series...he showed that he is a true drama queen and only cares about him self...

and Prositute is the only women (tranny) that red swarm can get

Supe, I got your mother--what are you saying?

dude, dont talk about peoples mothers.  too far.  

Oh god, here we go again........


_{Fisheralum05 leads superman out of the LL room...}

[Frank Rossi]

Jonny -

Let me put this as nicely as I can...

IT AIN'T HAPPENING, ASSUMING SoS AND RANKINGS DON'T CHANGE...DROP IT.

You're basically saying the NCAA Committee is going to sit there and say, "Well, just because it's primary doesn't mean it really matters."  Your team bests Montclair in only one category.  Unless the Ithaca Bomber himself is sitting in that Committee, they'll be looking at several criteria, not just that one.  If this were head-to-head results, I'd say you have a better leg to stand on, as we all agree that head-to-head results are probably the best comparison of teams.  However, we don't here -- and you're being pig-headed about a scenario that won't happen.  If you want this to happen so bad, then start rooting against Wesley, Montclair, Hobart, SJF and Alfred and start rooting for Hartwick and Cortland.

[Jonny Utah]

-Frank, (Im not going to post the whole thing again, but wouldnt a two loss IC get in over a 2 loss Montclair?

Currently, absolutely not.

Damn it Utah.....how clear does my man Frank need to make this for you!!!

Yea, currently Ithaca has not played Alfred or Cortland.  But if both IC and Montclair finish the season with 2 loses, IC would beat them for the pool C (common opponent Cortland)

Yeah whatever Utah.  Enjoy the ECACs against Plymouth.  :-)

You just better hope an 8th ranked IC doesnt head into troy for another beatdown of the second most overated team in d3football history.....(2001 RPI being #1, but you cant blame them, there were no seniors that were any good on that team.....)

Hope to see you there...loser :-)

Yea, bring your show shovel.  Its the only chance you have....