FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

eh, Hasa is usually on the ball. The SJF thing was just a mistake. His team got left out. Probably one of the last teams standing and was pretty irritated. I get where he's coming from. Personally I think Whitworth benefited from having a committee member. Can you really see this conversation?

Whitworth coach excuses himself from West RAC discussion --

"OK guys. We all know UWP is better and should jump Whitworth, but who wants to tell him? It pretty much takes his team from a good chance at getting in to almost no chance. You want to be the one to tell him?"

Whitworth coach excuses himself from the National discussion --

"Well now what do we do? We all know we should restructure these West rankings. UWP should top Whitworth. Who wants to tell him when he comes off mute?"

Yeah. That probably wasn't going to happen. Whitworth got lucky their rep was both regional and national member. It happens, and in this case, I think it bit Guilford. As for ONU, that's just bad. I get they were on the table forever, but...

[wally_wabash]

eh, Hasa is usually on the ball. The SJF thing was just a mistake. His team got left out. Probably one of the last teams standing and was pretty irritated. I get where he's coming from. Personally I think Whitworth benefited from having a committee member. Can you really see this conversation?

Whitworth coach excuses himself from West RAC discussion --

"OK guys. We all know UWP is better and should jump Whitworth, but who wants to tell him? It pretty much takes his team from a good chance at getting in to almost no chance. You want to be the one to tell him?"

Whitworth coach excuses himself from the National discussion --

"Well now what do we do? We all know we should restructure these West rankings. UWP should top Whitworth. Who wants to tell him when he comes off mute?"

Yeah. That probably wasn't going to happen. Whitworth got lucky their rep was both regional and national member. It happens, and in this case, I think it bit Guilford. As for ONU, that's just bad. I get they were on the table forever, but...

I really don't think this happens.  These people are professionals.  Let's give them a little more credit. 

I believe Concordia-Moorhead once got left out in a last in/first out situation while their coach was on the committee.  In fact I think it was the year they got beat by Bethel in that game with the crazy end that C-M absolutely should have won.  2012 I believe.  THAT was brutal and to get left out because of that?  How hard was it to tell that guy that his team wasn't going to play another game?  It happened though. 

[jknezek]

eh, Hasa is usually on the ball. The SJF thing was just a mistake. His team got left out. Probably one of the last teams standing and was pretty irritated. I get where he's coming from. Personally I think Whitworth benefited from having a committee member. Can you really see this conversation?

Whitworth coach excuses himself from West RAC discussion --

"OK guys. We all know UWP is better and should jump Whitworth, but who wants to tell him? It pretty much takes his team from a good chance at getting in to almost no chance. You want to be the one to tell him?"

Whitworth coach excuses himself from the National discussion --

"Well now what do we do? We all know we should restructure these West rankings. UWP should top Whitworth. Who wants to tell him when he comes off mute?"

Yeah. That probably wasn't going to happen. Whitworth got lucky their rep was both regional and national member. It happens, and in this case, I think it bit Guilford. As for ONU, that's just bad. I get they were on the table forever, but...

I really don't think this happens.  These people are professionals.  Let's give them a little more credit. 

I believe Concordia-Moorhead once got left out in a last in/first out situation while their coach was on the committee.  In fact I think it was the year they got beat by Bethel in that game with the crazy end that C-M absolutely should have won.  2012 I believe.  THAT was brutal and to get left out because of that?  How hard was it to tell that guy that his team wasn't going to play another game?  It happened though.

I think it's harder than you think. What are the things people hate to do most? Give bad news. In any professional environment it's the same, so people, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously, do what they can to avoid it. I can't tell you  how many people I know will avoid giving bad news and twist themselves up into knots to the point of being ill. I honestly believe that if he was on the Regional, but not the National, Whitworth doesn't get in. They National talks to the Regional Reps who squirm about the issue a bit and then re-order it to everyone's relief and common sense. Hard to do that knowing you need to work with the guy for the next several hours to get everything else done.

As for them being professional, they aren't. At least not at this. They are professional coaches and ADs, they aren't professional bracket setters. Who is? No one but some ESPN guys that seem to put out Mock NCAA brackets once a week 52 weeks a year. To even call this a part time gig is being generous. It's a couple hours a year. It's a hard job, pretty thankless, and always getting second guessed (at least for a few weeks), but it's only a couple hours a year. I doubt the Regional Committee calls are more than an hour or two a piece. The national call obviously is longer because you have to build the brackets. But all in, do you really think this is more than 15 hours total for someone on both the RAC and National?

[wally_wabash]

You don't think coaches and ADs aren't adult enough to handle bad news?  How much bad news does a coach dish out on a weekly basis?  You don't get to start.  You 40 kids don't get to travel.  Come on.  Whitworth did not make this tournament because people on the committee were afraid to tell him no.  That's foil hat lunacy, man.  These people deserve way more credit than that. 

[jknezek]

You don't think coaches and ADs aren't adult enough to handle bad news?  How much bad news does a coach dish out on a weekly basis?  You don't get to start.  You 40 kids don't get to travel.  Come on.  Whitworth did not make this tournament because people on the committee were afraid to tell him no.  That's foil hat lunacy, man.  These people deserve way more credit than that.

I'm not much of a foil hat guy but I disagree here. Giving bad news to a kid you have power over as coach is one thing. Ending a guy's season, essentially, while still having to work with him? Much, much harder. I'm not saying the whole committee struggled with it, I'm saying it colored enough that they could talk themselves into something they shouldn't have.

As for these guys acting adult, have you seen the histrionics coaches throw on the sidelines when they don't get their way? Ref's, players, etc? Not all of these guys are as rational as you think.

Yes we did walk on the moon. Yes Kennedy was shot from the book depository. Yes the WTC was brought down by civilian airplanes being flown into it by terrorists. And no, Barack Obama is not a Muslim and was born in Hawaii...

[wally_wabash]

You don't think coaches and ADs aren't adult enough to handle bad news?  How much bad news does a coach dish out on a weekly basis?  You don't get to start.  You 40 kids don't get to travel.  Come on.  Whitworth did not make this tournament because people on the committee were afraid to tell him no.  That's foil hat lunacy, man.  These people deserve way more credit than that.

I'm not much of a foil hat guy but I disagree here. Giving bad news to a kid you have power over as coach is one thing. Ending a guy's season, essentially, while still having to work with him? Much, much harder. I'm not saying the whole committee struggled with it, I'm saying it colored enough that they could talk themselves into something they shouldn't have.

As for these guys acting adult, have you seen the histrionics coaches throw on the sidelines when they don't get their way? Ref's, players, etc? Not all of these guys are as rational as you think.

Yes we did walk on the moon. Yes Kennedy was shot from the book depository. Yes the WTC was brought down by civilian airplanes being flown into it by terrorists. And no, Barack Obama is not a Muslim and was born in Hawaii...

We'll have to disagree.  I really think you (and it's not just you...it's so many people here) do the people on that committee a severe disservice with this kind of stuff though.  They're better than that.  The selection committee takes a BEATING in these forums and maybe 1% of it is legitimate.  This isn't one of those things.  I think those people who sign up to do this deserve the benefit of the doubt instead of everybody immediately jumping to accusations, nay, assumptions of chicanery. 

[Pat Coleman]

eh, Hasa is usually on the ball. The SJF thing was just a mistake. His team got left out. Probably one of the last teams standing and was pretty irritated. I get where he's coming from. Personally I think Whitworth benefited from having a committee member. Can you really see this conversation?

Whitworth coach excuses himself from West RAC discussion --

"OK guys. We all know UWP is better and should jump Whitworth, but who wants to tell him? It pretty much takes his team from a good chance at getting in to almost no chance. You want to be the one to tell him?"

Whitworth coach excuses himself from the National discussion --

"Well now what do we do? We all know we should restructure these West rankings. UWP should top Whitworth. Who wants to tell him when he comes off mute?"

Yeah. That probably wasn't going to happen. Whitworth got lucky their rep was both regional and national member. It happens, and in this case, I think it bit Guilford. As for ONU, that's just bad. I get they were on the table forever, but...

I really don't think this happens.  These people are professionals.  Let's give them a little more credit. 

I believe Concordia-Moorhead once got left out in a last in/first out situation while their coach was on the committee.  In fact I think it was the year they got beat by Bethel in that game with the crazy end that C-M absolutely should have won.  2012 I believe.  THAT was brutal and to get left out because of that?  How hard was it to tell that guy that his team wasn't going to play another game?  It happened though.

I've been told that those conversations happen, actually. Nobody wants to be the guy to tell them "Well, while you were gone, we screwed you over."

[Pat Coleman]

As for them being professional, they aren't. At least not at this. They are professional coaches and ADs, they aren't professional bracket setters. Who is? No one but some ESPN guys that seem to put out Mock NCAA brackets once a week 52 weeks a year. To even call this a part time gig is being generous. It's a couple hours a year. It's a hard job, pretty thankless, and always getting second guessed (at least for a few weeks), but it's only a couple hours a year. I doubt the Regional Committee calls are more than an hour or two a piece. The national call obviously is longer because you have to build the brackets. But all in, do you really think this is more than 15 hours total for someone on both the RAC and National?

It's a lot more than that, actually, because these folks are also the NCAA reps on site at playoff games every weekend. They do more than 15 hours in travel alone for that part of the job. And I do truly believe someone on the national committee is following their sport in a significant way outside the conference call. Every time I have talked to a national committee member (well, in football at least), I have always come away believing that they follow the sport and know it. They know what's going on, they know the back stories on teams' losses and unlikely close games.

[jknezek]

We'll have to disagree.  I really think you (and it's not just you...it's so many people here) do the people on that committee a severe disservice with this kind of stuff though.  They're better than that.  The selection committee takes a BEATING in these forums and maybe 1% of it is legitimate.  This isn't one of those things.  I think those people who sign up to do this deserve the benefit of the doubt instead of everybody immediately jumping to accusations, nay, assumptions of chicanery.

There's the difference. I don't even think of it as chicanery. I think of it as human nature. Compare Whitworth and UWP. Each team had some criteria in its favor. I think most of us believe that UWP should have been a slam dunk easy choice. They disagreed. Therefore we consider the West, and by default the National Committee, believed that winning percentage must have been paramount. That is the ONLY criteria in which Whitworth had an edge. It's not SOS, it's not RRO results, it's not H2H, it's not common opponent, it MUST be winning percentage. So the West believed that was most important and kept them in front. The National committee must have believed the same way, correct? Or else they would have been obligated to fix it. They didn't, so they agreed that winning percentage was paramount.

Until it wasn't. And it wasn't when ONU got in over Guilford. Then it became something else. Because Guilford was ahead on SOS, both were 0-1 RROs (unless JCU snuck in after being blown out by UMU), no H2H and no common opponent. So it CAN'T be winning percentage or anything else. IF it's not winning percentage here, then it wasn't winning percentage for Whitworth. OR the committee is inconsistent in application. Then you have to think about why are they inconsistent?

Yes they take a beating. I said it's a thankless task. But they make it worse for themselves by being inconsistent and then getting on ITH and being dismissive and secretive. I get that's the NCAA's way, but it doesn't help.

My final point? You talk about rolling up votes. That's human nature as well and makes as much sense as avoiding conflict. You are willing to accept one, but not the other? Why? Both are valid reasons why someone does something, both are the wrong things to do in this situation.

[jknezek]

As for them being professional, they aren't. At least not at this. They are professional coaches and ADs, they aren't professional bracket setters. Who is? No one but some ESPN guys that seem to put out Mock NCAA brackets once a week 52 weeks a year. To even call this a part time gig is being generous. It's a couple hours a year. It's a hard job, pretty thankless, and always getting second guessed (at least for a few weeks), but it's only a couple hours a year. I doubt the Regional Committee calls are more than an hour or two a piece. The national call obviously is longer because you have to build the brackets. But all in, do you really think this is more than 15 hours total for someone on both the RAC and National?

It's a lot more than that, actually, because these folks are also the NCAA reps on site at playoff games every weekend. They do more than 15 hours in travel alone for that part of the job. And I do truly believe someone on the national committee is following their sport in a significant way outside the conference call. Every time I have talked to a national committee member (well, in football at least), I have always come away believing that they follow the sport and know it. They know what's going on, they know the back stories on teams' losses and unlikely close games.

This is after the bracket, correct? And how does that work for the coaches? Like Whitworth's. He can't possibly be in 2 places at once in the first round. Thank goodness for the second bolded part. At least that helps. Somewhat.

[jknezek]

I've been told that those conversations happen, actually. Nobody wants to be the guy to tell them "Well, while you were gone, we screwed you over."

Well at least I'm not the only one sitting on a tree branch with a pyramid shaped foil hat...

[HSCTiger fan]

eh, Hasa is usually on the ball. The SJF thing was just a mistake. His team got left out. Probably one of the last teams standing and was pretty irritated. I get where he's coming from. Personally I think Whitworth benefited from having a committee member. Can you really see this conversation?

Whitworth coach excuses himself from West RAC discussion --

"OK guys. We all know UWP is better and should jump Whitworth, but who wants to tell him? It pretty much takes his team from a good chance at getting in to almost no chance. You want to be the one to tell him?"

Whitworth coach excuses himself from the National discussion --

"Well now what do we do? We all know we should restructure these West rankings. UWP should top Whitworth. Who wants to tell him when he comes off mute?"

Yeah. That probably wasn't going to happen. Whitworth got lucky their rep was both regional and national member. It happens, and in this case, I think it bit Guilford. As for ONU, that's just bad. I get they were on the table forever, but...

I really don't think this happens.  These people are professionals.  Let's give them a little more credit. 

I believe Concordia-Moorhead once got left out in a last in/first out situation while their coach was on the committee.  In fact I think it was the year they got beat by Bethel in that game with the crazy end that C-M absolutely should have won.  2012 I believe.  THAT was brutal and to get left out because of that?  How hard was it to tell that guy that his team wasn't going to play another game?  It happened though.

I've been told that those conversations happen, actually. Nobody wants to be the guy to tell them "Well, while you were gone, we screwed you over."

I see JK as the little boy in this video and Wally Wabash as the adult- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BkkUvMGz4A0
In your face!

[wally_wabash]

We'll have to disagree.  I really think you (and it's not just you...it's so many people here) do the people on that committee a severe disservice with this kind of stuff though.  They're better than that.  The selection committee takes a BEATING in these forums and maybe 1% of it is legitimate.  This isn't one of those things.  I think those people who sign up to do this deserve the benefit of the doubt instead of everybody immediately jumping to accusations, nay, assumptions of chicanery.

There's the difference. I don't even think of it as chicanery. I think of it as human nature. Compare Whitworth and UWP. Each team had some criteria in its favor. I think most of us believe that UWP should have been a slam dunk easy choice. They disagreed. Therefore we consider the West, and by default the National Committee, believed that winning percentage must have been paramount. That is the ONLY criteria in which Whitworth had an edge. It's not SOS, it's not RRO results, it's not H2H, it's not common opponent, it MUST be winning percentage. So the West believed that was most important and kept them in front. The National committee must have believed the same way, correct? Or else they would have been obligated to fix it. They didn't, so they agreed that winning percentage was paramount.

Until it wasn't. And it wasn't when ONU got in over Guilford. Then it became something else. Because Guilford was ahead on SOS, both were 0-1 RROs (unless JCU snuck in after being blown out by UMU), no H2H and no common opponent. So it CAN'T be winning percentage or anything else. IF it's not winning percentage here, then it wasn't winning percentage for Whitworth. OR the committee is inconsistent in application. Then you have to think about why are they inconsistent?

Yes they take a beating. I said it's a thankless task. But they make it worse for themselves by being inconsistent and then getting on ITH and being dismissive and secretive. I get that's the NCAA's way, but it doesn't help.

My final point? You talk about rolling up votes. That's human nature as well and makes as much sense as avoiding conflict. You are willing to accept one, but not the other? Why? Both are valid reasons why someone does something, both are the wrong things to do in this situation.

The difference is one is an integrity issue and one is a different application (not wrong, but different) of the criteria.  If a committee member gets to Round 4 and now Guilford is new and they don't think Guilford's profile is better than ONU's, that's fine.  I personally disagree, but that's just because I put the pieces together differently.  Altering or changing a vote in order to avoid giving somebody some bad news?  That's an integrity problem and that's what I'm defending here- does it suck to have to tell a guy that we just voted for somebody other than your team?  Sure does.  I don't think for a second they change a vote result to avoid delivering that news.  I really, really don't believe that the people that do this undermine the process whenever they might have to deliver bad news. 

[jknezek]

We'll have to disagree.  I really think you (and it's not just you...it's so many people here) do the people on that committee a severe disservice with this kind of stuff though.  They're better than that.  The selection committee takes a BEATING in these forums and maybe 1% of it is legitimate.  This isn't one of those things.  I think those people who sign up to do this deserve the benefit of the doubt instead of everybody immediately jumping to accusations, nay, assumptions of chicanery.

There's the difference. I don't even think of it as chicanery. I think of it as human nature. Compare Whitworth and UWP. Each team had some criteria in its favor. I think most of us believe that UWP should have been a slam dunk easy choice. They disagreed. Therefore we consider the West, and by default the National Committee, believed that winning percentage must have been paramount. That is the ONLY criteria in which Whitworth had an edge. It's not SOS, it's not RRO results, it's not H2H, it's not common opponent, it MUST be winning percentage. So the West believed that was most important and kept them in front. The National committee must have believed the same way, correct? Or else they would have been obligated to fix it. They didn't, so they agreed that winning percentage was paramount.

Until it wasn't. And it wasn't when ONU got in over Guilford. Then it became something else. Because Guilford was ahead on SOS, both were 0-1 RROs (unless JCU snuck in after being blown out by UMU), no H2H and no common opponent. So it CAN'T be winning percentage or anything else. IF it's not winning percentage here, then it wasn't winning percentage for Whitworth. OR the committee is inconsistent in application. Then you have to think about why are they inconsistent?

Yes they take a beating. I said it's a thankless task. But they make it worse for themselves by being inconsistent and then getting on ITH and being dismissive and secretive. I get that's the NCAA's way, but it doesn't help.

My final point? You talk about rolling up votes. That's human nature as well and makes as much sense as avoiding conflict. You are willing to accept one, but not the other? Why? Both are valid reasons why someone does something, both are the wrong things to do in this situation.

The difference is one is an integrity issue and one is a different application (not wrong, but different) of the criteria.  If a committee member gets to Round 4 and now Guilford is new and they don't think Guilford's profile is better than ONU's, that's fine.  I personally disagree, but that's just because I put the pieces together differently.  Altering or changing a vote in order to avoid giving somebody some bad news?  That's an integrity problem and that's what I'm defending here- does it suck to have to tell a guy that we just voted for somebody other than your team?  Sure does.  I don't think for a second they change a vote result to avoid delivering that news.  I really, really don't believe that the people that do this undermine the process whenever they might have to deliver bad news.

I like your outlook Wally. Experience with human beings has taught me otherwise, but I sure wish the world worked the way you explain it.

[wally_wabash]

We'll have to disagree.  I really think you (and it's not just you...it's so many people here) do the people on that committee a severe disservice with this kind of stuff though.  They're better than that.  The selection committee takes a BEATING in these forums and maybe 1% of it is legitimate.  This isn't one of those things.  I think those people who sign up to do this deserve the benefit of the doubt instead of everybody immediately jumping to accusations, nay, assumptions of chicanery.

There's the difference. I don't even think of it as chicanery. I think of it as human nature. Compare Whitworth and UWP. Each team had some criteria in its favor. I think most of us believe that UWP should have been a slam dunk easy choice. They disagreed. Therefore we consider the West, and by default the National Committee, believed that winning percentage must have been paramount. That is the ONLY criteria in which Whitworth had an edge. It's not SOS, it's not RRO results, it's not H2H, it's not common opponent, it MUST be winning percentage. So the West believed that was most important and kept them in front. The National committee must have believed the same way, correct? Or else they would have been obligated to fix it. They didn't, so they agreed that winning percentage was paramount.

Until it wasn't. And it wasn't when ONU got in over Guilford. Then it became something else. Because Guilford was ahead on SOS, both were 0-1 RROs (unless JCU snuck in after being blown out by UMU), no H2H and no common opponent. So it CAN'T be winning percentage or anything else. IF it's not winning percentage here, then it wasn't winning percentage for Whitworth. OR the committee is inconsistent in application. Then you have to think about why are they inconsistent?

Yes they take a beating. I said it's a thankless task. But they make it worse for themselves by being inconsistent and then getting on ITH and being dismissive and secretive. I get that's the NCAA's way, but it doesn't help.

My final point? You talk about rolling up votes. That's human nature as well and makes as much sense as avoiding conflict. You are willing to accept one, but not the other? Why? Both are valid reasons why someone does something, both are the wrong things to do in this situation.

The difference is one is an integrity issue and one is a different application (not wrong, but different) of the criteria.  If a committee member gets to Round 4 and now Guilford is new and they don't think Guilford's profile is better than ONU's, that's fine.  I personally disagree, but that's just because I put the pieces together differently.  Altering or changing a vote in order to avoid giving somebody some bad news?  That's an integrity problem and that's what I'm defending here- does it suck to have to tell a guy that we just voted for somebody other than your team?  Sure does.  I don't think for a second they change a vote result to avoid delivering that news.  I really, really don't believe that the people that do this undermine the process whenever they might have to deliver bad news.

I like your outlook Wally. Experience with human beings has taught me otherwise, but I sure wish the world worked the way you explain it.

Oh, I'm plenty cynical, believe me.  But this group of people I genuinely believe to be honest and trustworthy.  I don't know what the process is for somebody to get involved with regional advisory committees or national selection committees, but somebody somewhere has to sign off on these folks (presumably) and I have to believe that there's at least a general "we can trust this person" sniff test that has to be passed in order to wind up on one of these committees.