FB: Liberty League

[labart96]

A story that makes TGP very proud to be an Avon High School Falcon Alumnus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdDoeNIWYJc

[Frank Rossi]

It's not polite to say that the playoff seeding process involves subjectivity, no matter how obvious the subjectivity might be.

Frank, I take your point, but I can't completely reconcile it with practical reality, for two big reasons.  First, the selection and seeding committees are required to select and seed playoff teams using only the selection and seeding criteria (which are nearly identical).  Those criteria are almost entirely limited to in-Region stats, which are objective.*  There are a few secondary criteria that include non-Region considerations, but in any group of playoff-eligible teams who are being evaluated by the criteria, it's highly likely that most if not all of those teams have no non-Region games.  (This makes sense, when you consider that the NCAA actively encourages Regional competition, and--if only by implication--discourages non-Regional competition.)

Second, the 500 mile travel limitation forces the playoffs to be geographically structured to such a large extent that it's impractical, if not impossible, to structure them non-geographically.  Yes, there are ways to play with the structure, and the Committee has done so in the past, with such things as the "Texas sub-bracket" and last year's MUC-Randolph Macon "exportation" out of region, but for the most part, the playoff structure will necessarily remain much more geographically based than non-geographically based.

Given that the NCAA (properly, IMO) encourages Regional competition, I think that's a good thing.

* There is plenty of room for subjectivity in deciding how to apply the selection and seeding criteria, however.  For instance, in-region winning percentage and opponents' winning percentage are both primary selection and seeding criteria.  The committee has the latitude to apply whatever priority they wish to those two objective statistics.  Thus, for example a NEFC team with a 1.000 winning percentage and a .500 OWP could find itself seeded behind an E8 team with a .750 winning percentage and a .600 OWP, if the seeding committee were to determine subjectively that between the two teams (NEFC and E8), the OWP statistic deserved higher priority than the winning percentage statistic.

RS81 -

First, I think you need to go back and listen to the 11/16/08 episode of "In the HuddLLe" with Dr. Kaiser to understand that the criteria on which you're basing your initial points are somewhat more flexible than you're insinuating here.  I don't write this stuff -- I just report on it.

Second, you're wrong about the regionality of the system dictating the selection of teams.  The process goes like this:

- Pool A accounts for 23 teams that receive automatic bids;

- Pool B accounts for 3 teams from the independent and non-Pool-A conferences, and those teams are chosen based on no particular regional influence (just the teams strengths based on the criteria listed;

- Pool C accounts for 6 teams.  The Committee, with the help of their regional subcommittees' work the prior week, takes the top from each region left in the at-large pool and lists them on the board.  There are four teams on the board at any time:  one from the West, one from the North, one from the South and one from the East.  From those teams, one team is chosen based on the which the Committee believes is the strongest team (based on the criteria listed).  After that team is selected, the next-highest ranked team in the now-empty region rolls onto the board.  This process is repeated a total of 6 times, with it being possible that all 6 teams could be picked from one region.

At that point, once the 32 teams are selected, the brackets are created.  This is when location begins to matter -- however, it does not dictate the entire equation.  The more important variables were already determined in the prior process -- there could technically be 15 teams from one of the four regions in the field of 32.  Obviously, this would require some geographic issues -- and it is in the bracketing process that this is ironed out.

Your post is a chicken-and-egg issue -- if there are more than 8 teams in a region selected, obviously bracketing will need to ensure some geographic consistency to avoid flights.  That means the East could have as few as 5 teams (NEFC, E8, LL, NJAC, MAC bids) -- requiring the importation of 3 teams from other regions.  Mount Union has been selected for the East #1 twice now based, as you're insinuating, on the geography (most teams in the East Region are withing the 500 miles to Mount Union).  This isn't going to happen with every team imported, though.  So this is why I think Mount Union is the exception to this geographical bracketing more than the rule -- the Committee would much rather see a team at the bottom of the list placed in a must-fly situation since the odds say that team will likely lose and not require a potential second flight.  That is why a 2-loss Liberty League team will not be seeded #8 this year (so long as there are 3-loss teams in the North or South Regions from Pool A).

Geography matters, but it does not control the selection of at-large teams and has a limited control on the bracketing and seeding process.

(Pat, feel free to weigh in on this one if you feel I'm way off base.)

[union89]

A story that makes TGP very proud to be an Avon High School Falcon Alumnus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdDoeNIWYJc

God Bless Nick Reardon.....U89 will say a quick prayer for him tonight.

[Pat Coleman]

I think you're a little overboard on the 2-loss teams in the 8 slot since there is definitely precedent. I only had to look at one bracket to find one: Dickinson at 8-2 seeded 8 in the South in 2006.

[redswarm81]

It's not polite to say that the playoff seeding process involves subjectivity, no matter how obvious the subjectivity might be.

Frank, I take your point, but I can't completely reconcile it with practical reality, for two big reasons.  First, the selection and seeding committees are required to select and seed playoff teams using only the selection and seeding criteria (which are nearly identical).  Those criteria are almost entirely limited to in-Region stats, which are objective.*  There are a few secondary criteria that include non-Region considerations, but in any group of playoff-eligible teams who are being evaluated by the criteria, it's highly likely that most if not all of those teams have no non-Region games.  (This makes sense, when you consider that the NCAA actively encourages Regional competition, and--if only by implication--discourages non-Regional competition.)

Second, the 500 mile travel limitation forces the playoffs to be geographically structured to such a large extent that it's impractical, if not impossible, to structure them non-geographically.  Yes, there are ways to play with the structure, and the Committee has done so in the past, with such things as the "Texas sub-bracket" and last year's MUC-Randolph Macon "exportation" out of region, but for the most part, the playoff structure will necessarily remain much more geographically based than non-geographically based.

Given that the NCAA (properly, IMO) encourages Regional competition, I think that's a good thing.

* There is plenty of room for subjectivity in deciding how to apply the selection and seeding criteria, however.  For instance, in-region winning percentage and opponents' winning percentage are both primary selection and seeding criteria.  The committee has the latitude to apply whatever priority they wish to those two objective statistics.  Thus, for example a NEFC team with a 1.000 winning percentage and a .500 OWP could find itself seeded behind an E8 team with a .750 winning percentage and a .600 OWP, if the seeding committee were to determine subjectively that between the two teams (NEFC and E8), the OWP statistic deserved higher priority than the winning percentage statistic.

RS81 -

First, I think you need to go back and listen to the 11/16/08 episode of "In the HuddLLe" with Dr. Kaiser to understand that the criteria on which you're basing your initial points are somewhat more flexible than you're insinuating here.  I don't write this stuff -- I just report on it.

I could go back and listen to it, but the situation I describe existed when I listened to the 11/16/08 episode of "In the HuddLLe" with Dr. Kaiser.  I well remember Eric the RedTackle's shocked response to Dr. Kaiser's testimony.

During that webcast Dr. Kaiser talked about how the playoffs are not a Regional selection process.  Still, as I have pointed out both before and after the 11/16/08 episode of "In the HuddLLe" with Dr. Kaiser, the selection and seeding criteria are almost entirely based on in-Region statistics.

There are very few data points available to make comparisons across Regions.

Second, you're wrong about the regionality of the system dictating the selection of teams.  The process goes like this:

- Pool A accounts for 23 teams that receive automatic bids;

- Pool B accounts for 3 teams . . . based on no particular regional influence (just the teams strengths based on the criteria listed;

- Pool C accounts for 6 teams.  . . . , with it being possible that all 6 teams could be picked from one region.

At that point, once the 32 teams are selected, the brackets are created.  This is when location begins to matter -- however, it does not dictate the entire equation.  The more important variables were already determined in the prior process -- there could technically be 15 teams from one of the four regions in the field of 32.  Obviously, this would require some geographic issues -- and it is in the bracketing process that this is ironed out.

I understand what you're describing, and some of it is relevant to the point I was making, some of it isn't--I'd probably say the same thing to Dr. Kaiser.

The locations of the Pool A conferences are known, and to use your apt term, it is a chicken-and-egg issue that the Regions are defined so that no Region has more than 8 Pool A conferences.

Yes, the Pool B selections are made without regard to geographical location per se.  However, the Pool B selections are made exactly as you say: based on the criteria listed.  (I'm pretty darned certain that) The Pool B selection criteria are the same selection criteria that are used for Pool C.  Those selection criteria are heavily based on in-Region results.  When Pool B teams are evaluated for selection, they are often evaluated based on results from different Regions.

The Pool C selection process runs into the same thing.  The selection criteria include such items as wins v. regionally ranked opponents.  The regional rankings are based on in-region results.  For all practical purposes, during each round of Pool C selection, the 4 teams from 4 different regions who are being considered are being compared using 4 different mutually exclusive sets of data, each data set from a different region.

So, 32 teams are selected for the Playoffs using criteria (including the awarding of Pool A status to conferences) that are almost entirely regional criteria.

Dr. Kaiser stressed that  the bracketing process is not a geographical process.  However, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the seeding and selection criteria that are applied to the 32 teams are in-Region data.

Your post is a chicken-and-egg issue -- if there are more than 8 teams in a region selected, obviously bracketing will need to ensure some geographic consistency to avoid flights.  That means the East could have as few as 5 teams (NEFC, E8, LL, NJAC, MAC bids) -- requiring the importation of 3 teams from other regions.  Mount Union has been selected for the East #1 twice now based, as you're insinuating, on the geography (most teams in the East Region are withing the 500 miles to Mount Union).  This isn't going to happen with every team imported, though.  So this is why I think Mount Union is the exception to this geographical bracketing more than the rule -- the Committee would much rather see a team at the bottom of the list placed in a must-fly situation since the odds say that team will likely lose and not require a potential second flight.  That is why a 2-loss Liberty League team will not be seeded #8 this year (so long as there are 3-loss teams in the North or South Regions from Pool A).

Geography matters, but it does not control the selection of at-large teams and has a limited control on the bracketing and seeding process.

(Pat, feel free to weigh in on this one if you feel I'm way off base.)

I don't really disagree with what you're saying here (to the extent I understand it).  Mount Union will always be "imported" to the East Region if the only other candidate for importation is, say, Mary Hardin Baylor or Pacific Lutheran.

But when you say--and you're not alone when you say--"geography matters, but it does not control the selection of at-large teams," you're ignoring the fact that all selection is based almost entirely on in-Region results.

I realize I'm a Johnny One-note on this issue, but the fact remains that there is no published process for comparing teams across Regions.  If Cortland St. had not lost the Cortaca Jug last year, they'd have gone into the bracketing process with a 1.000 winning percentage v. exclusively East Region teams, and there would have been no basis using the published selection and seeding criteria to seed a team from another Region higher than Cortland St.

[Mr. Ypsi]

This has been an annual discussion on the bball boards.  The general consensus is that the procedure IS irrational, in selecting nationally on mostly regional criteria.  That would make sense only with the very dubious assumption that all regions are exactly equal.

One correction: the wording (at least in bball; I assume it is the same for fball) is 'record' vs. regionally-ranked teams (not 'wins'), and the data for each region is not completely mutually exclusive, since this means ranked in ANY region (e.g., assuming SJF is regionally ranked, the opening game against MUC will count for both teams).  One thing I don't think anyone has ever been able to pin down: is, for example, 2-0 or 3-1 a 'better' record?  2-0 is 'perfect', but 3-1 means you played twice as many ranked teams, and beat 3 of them.

[Pat Coleman]

Actually, the word isn't "record," either. It's "results."

[Mr. Ypsi]

Actually, the word isn't "record," either. It's "results."

Dang - I hate it when my 'corrections' are incorrect!

Since they specifically rule out (I believe! ) such things as margin of victory, I can live with 'record' and 'results' being interchangeable terms in my memory.

[redswarm81]

This has been an annual discussion on the bball boards.  The general consensus is that the procedure IS irrational, in selecting nationally on mostly regional criteria.  That would make sense only with the very dubious assumption that all regions are exactly equal.

Really?  How many bball boards did you guys get shut down on the way to that general consensus?

[Frank Rossi]

I think you're a little overboard on the 2-loss teams in the 8 slot since there is definitely precedent. I only had to look at one bracket to find one: Dickinson at 8-2 seeded 8 in the South in 2006.

Finish my statement, though -- I stated that there's no precedent for it when there is a 3-loss team in an oversubscribed region available to be imported into said region.  And I can see us most likely facing at least one 3-loss team in the North or South this year. 

[Pat Coleman]

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/06/bracket.htm

What do you call W&L?

[mattvsmith]

Rev.....to pull for a team which is going to take the crown to another conference next year seems kind of silly.

The Rev is a silly goose.

[TheGrove]

Well shucks guys... I wasn't fishing for +k, but I do appreciate it.

U89, do I earn another or do I lose one if I tell you I'm not a bro? ;-)

Can't give you another today.....that's worth 1 for tomorrow though....

got ya with more +K.

You gents are most generous (well, don't want to assume, but I'm guessing you're gents). May I stay and play here even after my team departs the LL?  

By the way, did anyone end up making the trek to Selinsgrove on Saturday? I forgot to check before the game.

[SaintsFAN]

Malkin still has a strange look about her.  But I do like this fake pic or her that floated around:

me gusta!! 

JT could be off by a few days, but right about now Reggie was hitting three jacks to end it all against the Dodgers in 1977.  At least there are half innings to warm up.  A weak El Nino is supposed to be to blame.  JT is used to hitting dudes in football gear when its this cold, not a baseball.

JT's nephew a 12 yr old goes tomorrow in football.  His coaches offer little in technique instruction.  Nephew has been having trouble against bigger kids.  1st year of football for the nephew. Great baseball player, might not be nasty enough for football.  Nephew plays guard and DE. Not fast but very quick.  JT schooled him on some advanced techniques on both sides of the ball.  Nephew now knows some real sh*t.

At 12 years old, coaches were at a minimum teaching the swim technique to JT.  Nephew will probably concentrate on baseball after this, but JT would like him to go out in style.

JT --- SF goes to watch his 10 year old nephew play football.  The nephews team has a couple really good coaches, who relate to the kids.  Most teams  who they play don't have coaches like this and play awful football (even by 10-11 year old standards).   SF thinks the nephew is lucky because his coaches can relate to the players... its not so much the X's and O's at that level, its schooling the "Jimmys and Joes".

If any of you guys are around, what's the protocol woth neighbor above your apartment of the south amaerican persuasian blasting spansogh house music?  It's only 12ish, I'm drunk from the Tech/Tech game, but my wife is in bed and has to be in work at 9:30 tomorrow (she's a retail mgr).  Should I just let it go, party with the latina faction, or go up there and ask them to take it down a notch?

PA --- what action did you take here?  SF didn't read about a riot in Hotlanta on Saturday night, so assuming you went the peaceful way?

[dlippiel]

If any of you guys are around, what's the protocol woth neighbor above your apartment of the south amaerican persuasian blasting spansogh house music?  It's only 12ish, I'm drunk from the Tech/Tech game, but my wife is in bed and has to be in work at 9:30 tomorrow (she's a retail mgr).  Should I just let it go, party with the latina faction, or go up there and ask them to take it down a notch?

PA --- what action did you take here?  SF didn't read about a riot in Hotlanta on Saturday night, so assuming you went the peaceful way?

dlip hopes all went well pa. Tough call on the situation, let us know how it turned out.