FB: Liberty League

[lewdogg11]

I'm in near total agreement with the Tank, but I haven't heard anyone address Jonny U's concern the way I would express it:  The Manual uses the word "priority."  My concern is that since the word "priority" is used, AND there is no indication of the relative weight of each of the primary criteria, that the Committee could choose to assign priority to one or more of the primary criteria, and use that priority to conclude that say, one team's advantage in SoS is more valuable by virtue of higher priority than another team's advantage in both common opponents and wins v. regional competition.

Fortunately, I think that each of the primary criteria is sufficiently weighty that such overt manipulation is unlikely, which is why I'm with the Counselor on the ultimate application of the criteria.

But I'm still squeamish about that use of the word "priority."

And how do you feel that "head to head" is simply a category like "SOS"?

Who is "you?"  What do you mean by "category?"  Do you mean primary criterion?

Head to Head-ON...Apply Directly to Redswarm's forehead.

[Frank Rossi]

RS, Jonny is trying to make this happen:

"The Committee will look at the following criteria in the following order, once we start comparing two teams with similar regional winning percentages:

1) Head-to-Head Competition
2) Common Opponents
3) Results vs. Regional Opponents
4) SoS

If at any point, the Committee believes that one team is better than the other, it shall immediately halt analysis and declare the better team as the recipient of the playoff slot."

[Jonny Utah]

I'm in near total agreement with the Tank, but I haven't heard anyone address Jonny U's concern the way I would express it:  The Manual uses the word "priority."  My concern is that since the word "priority" is used, AND there is no indication of the relative weight of each of the primary criteria, that the Committee could choose to assign priority to one or more of the primary criteria, and use that priority to conclude that say, one team's advantage in SoS is more valuable by virtue of higher priority than another team's advantage in both common opponents and wins v. regional competition.

Fortunately, I think that each of the primary criteria is sufficiently weighty that such overt manipulation is unlikely, which is why I'm with the Counselor on the ultimate application of the criteria.

But I'm still squeamish about that use of the word "priority."

And how do you feel that "head to head" is simply a category like "SOS"?

Who is "you?"  What do you mean by "category?"  Do you mean primary criterion?

No, I was asking Danny Ganz.  Of course I was asking you, it was your post I quoted wasn't it?

But seriously, yea, there are 5 "primary criterion" (first and last time Ill ever use that word) listed there.  And head to head is one just like SOS is.  And its clear to me (with the ambigous wording like "reviewed") that some of them can be used more than others.  

And then theres this......

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated"

Now again, there is not set formula to evlauate the primary categories, so the committee can go to the secondary categories.  And of course after that there is this..........

"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 committee."

Which I could easily see them doing in a Montclair/IC situation since the other categories arent that clear.

"

[superman57]

Dood, chill out...It's all fun...you don't see me making fun of Franks mom when he talks about me and crack whores....


and can someone answer me what a clod is...

and p.s. just because I can't spell deos not mean I am illiterate...

[Frank Rossi]

You used it wrong - It's "criteria" if it's plural.  It's "crtiterion" if it's singular.

[Frank Rossi]

Dood, chill out...It's all fun...you don't see me making fun of Franks mom when he talks about me and crack whores....


and can someone answer me what a clod is...

and p.s. just because I can't spell deos not mean I am illiterate...

That's right -- since you can read...You just can't write.

[superman57]

+k frank for agreeing with me...

[Jonny Utah]

RS, Jonny is trying to make this happen:

"The Committee will look at the following criteria in the following order, once we start comparing two teams with similar regional winning percentages:

1) Head-to-Head Competition
2) Common Opponents
3) Results vs. Regional Opponents
4) SoS

If at any point, the Committee believes that one team is better than the other, it shall immediately halt analysis and declare the better team as the recipient of the playoff slot."

Well Frank is trying to make this happen:

NCAA d3 playoffs

Determining pool C bids

1) Lagre calculations in my head will decide who is the better team, and only I know which team that will be better because I have a time machine and I went to the future, saw all the games, came back, went back to the future again just to make sure Union still lost the final two games, then came back again and made another formula to show that the NCAA committee has to go by some scientific system that only Stephen Hawking and myself can figure out.

[Frank Rossi]

While yours may have a tinge of humor, Utah, your logic still...


SUCKS.

[Frank Rossi]

In other news...

TORRE TO MANAGE DODGERS THROUGH 2010

Congrats to Joe -- and congrats to Boston fans since he's no longer in their League. 

[superman57]

In other news...

TORRE TO MANAGE DODGERS THROUGH 2010

Congrats to Joe -- and congrats to Boston fans since he's no longer in their League. 

Good for Joe, I will always cheer for him to do well

[Jonny Utah]

While yours may have a tinge of humor, Utah, your logic still...


SUCKS.

In all seriousness.  I think these committees have all the numbers in front of them when they pick, but head to head competition is still going to be weighed more than any of the others.  And thats exactly why they use the ambigous wording like they do so they can pick which team they think is better, or more deserving, and still back it up with some sort of number, because in the end, they are going to have 5 and then 8 criteria to pick from.

[redswarm81]

RS, Jonny is trying to make this happen:

"The Committee will look at the following criteria in the following order, once we start comparing two teams with similar regional winning percentages:

1) Head-to-Head Competition
2) Common Opponents
3) Results vs. Regional Opponents
4) SoS

If at any point, the Committee believes that one team is better than the other, it shall immediately halt analysis and declare the better team as the recipient of the playoff slot."

Ah, I see.  Thank you for the translation.  If I recall, the rules permit/encourage/require the Committee to "declare a winner" if there is a clear advantage after the primary criteria are reviewed for two teams with similar winning percentages, am I right?

(Start the negative karma team stretch)

If I were in the Committee room, I personally would advocate in favor of assigning priority, using a system where each primary criterion is weighted, so it might look like this:

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents first, with a maximum nominal weight of 10¹;
• In-region head-to-head competition; with a nominal weight of maybe 6 or 7²;
• In-region results versus common regional opponents, maximum nominal weight of 4;
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams, maximum nominal weight of 2; and
• Strength-of-schedule, with a maximum nominal weight of 1.

Frankly, I object to SoS even being a primary criterion, since SoS, no matter how it's calculated, is a flawed statistic, and furthermore, it's the only criterion on the list that is--by definition,³ even--completely unrelated to the performance on the field by either of the teams being evaluated.

¹ The maximum would be applied where the two teams' records would, if they were in the same conference, be separated in the standings by one full game or more.
² The idea is that even if you beat a team head to head, if you have 2 losses and they have only one, their record trumps.
³ Compounding the cruel irony is the (entirely appropriate) calculation of a team's OWP by removing that team's results from the calculation.  So Union's OWP has NOTHING to do with the games that Union played against its opponents.

[Jonny Utah]

RS, Jonny is trying to make this happen:

"The Committee will look at the following criteria in the following order, once we start comparing two teams with similar regional winning percentages:

1) Head-to-Head Competition
2) Common Opponents
3) Results vs. Regional Opponents
4) SoS

If at any point, the Committee believes that one team is better than the other, it shall immediately halt analysis and declare the better team as the recipient of the playoff slot."

Ah, I see.  Thank you for the translation.  If I recall, the rules permit/encourage/require the Committee to "declare a winner" if there is a clear advantage after the primary criteria are reviewed for two teams with similar winning percentages, am I right?

(Start the negative karma team stretch)

If I were in the Committee room, I personally would advocate in favor of assigning priority, using a system where each primary criterion is weighted, so it might look like this:

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents first, with a maximum nominal weight of 10¹;
• In-region head-to-head competition; with a nominal weight of maybe 6 or 7²;
• In-region results versus common regional opponents, maximum nominal weight of 4;
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams, maximum nominal weight of 2; and
• Strength-of-schedule, with a maximum nominal weight of 1.

Frankly, I object to SoS even being a primary criterion, since SoS, no matter how it's calculated, is a flawed statistic, and furthermore, it's the only criterion on the list that is--by definition,³ even--completely unrelated to the performance on the field by either of the teams being evaluated.

¹ The maximum would be applied where the two teams' records would, if they were in the same conference, be separated in the standings by one full game or more.
² The idea is that even if you beat a team head to head, if you have 2 losses and they have only one, their record trumps.
³ Compounding the cruel irony is the (entirely appropriate) calculation of a team's OWP by removing that team's results from the calculation.  So Union's OWP has NOTHING to do with the games that Union played against its opponents.

Well now we are talkin RS.  At least you can now come up with some sort of system to rank these teams (which could be done)

[redswarm81]

And how do you feel that "head to head" is simply a category like "SOS"?

But seriously, yea, there are 5 "primary criterion" (first and last time Ill ever use that word) listed there.

Oh, use it again sometime--live it up.  But keep in mind that "criterion" is singular, its plural form is "criteria."