BB: Top Teams in West Region

[forheavendial4999]

There is so little crossover play that you cannot find an easy metric.  I once imagined a Deviation from the Mean to compare the really good SOS scores that you see in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, with the near .500 scores that we see in the West Region.  If the committee did not acknowledge how really lousy our SOS numbers are in the West and ASC/SCAC, comparable to "nationally", then we would be skunked every year.

Well if the SOS is lower (because you're not able/willing/whatever) to travel to play other power programs, isn't the obvious counterweight to win at a higher rate? If you play a weaker schedule, it seems completely reasonable to me to expect a higher winning percentage. Teams have gotten in with .800ish percentages even with wretched SOS (like 300th ish). But if you are down more like .700 and going against .650-.700 teams with much better schedules, then it just makes sense that you're usually going on lose out there.

It's kind of like a sliding scale...if you're lower in one area, you have to make up for it in another.

[Richard Hamstocks]

There is so little crossover play that you cannot find an easy metric.  I once imagined a Deviation from the Mean to compare the really good SOS scores that you see in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, with the near .500 scores that we see in the West Region.  If the committee did not acknowledge how really lousy our SOS numbers are in the West and ASC/SCAC, comparable to "nationally", then we would be skunked every year.

Well if the SOS is lower (because you're not able/willing/whatever) to travel to play other power programs, isn't the obvious counterweight to win at a higher rate? If you play a weaker schedule, it seems completely reasonable to me to expect a higher winning percentage. Teams have gotten in with .800ish percentages even with wretched SOS (like 300th ish). But if you are down more like .700 and going against .650-.700 teams with much better schedules, then it just makes sense that you're usually going on lose out there.

It's kind of like a sliding scale...if you're lower in one area, you have to make up for it in another.

This assumes that strength of schedule measures, well, strength of schedule. If you took the 8 best teams and put them in a conference together on the moon with no travel budget, they all come back with SOS of .500, which puts them at 240th in the nation. By definition though, they have the toughest schedules. 
Is the west region on the moon? No.  Is the SCIAC (or NWC or anybody else) comprised of the best teams in the country? No. Is SOS really comparable across regions when you have these sparsitiy issues. I don't think so.

[forheavendial4999]

There is so little crossover play that you cannot find an easy metric.  I once imagined a Deviation from the Mean to compare the really good SOS scores that you see in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, with the near .500 scores that we see in the West Region.  If the committee did not acknowledge how really lousy our SOS numbers are in the West and ASC/SCAC, comparable to "nationally", then we would be skunked every year.

Well if the SOS is lower (because you're not able/willing/whatever) to travel to play other power programs, isn't the obvious counterweight to win at a higher rate? If you play a weaker schedule, it seems completely reasonable to me to expect a higher winning percentage. Teams have gotten in with .800ish percentages even with wretched SOS (like 300th ish). But if you are down more like .700 and going against .650-.700 teams with much better schedules, then it just makes sense that you're usually going on lose out there.

It's kind of like a sliding scale...if you're lower in one area, you have to make up for it in another.

This assumes that strength of schedule measures, well, strength of schedule. If you took the 8 best teams and put them in a conference together on the moon with no travel budget, they all come back with SOS of .500, which puts them at 240th in the nation. By definition though, they have the toughest schedules. 
Is the west region on the moon? No.  Is the SCIAC (or NWC or anybody else) comprised of the best teams in the country? No. Is SOS really comparable across regions when you have these sparsitiy issues. I don't think so.

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased? If they played back east, they might well hurt SOSes more than they do out west.

Pitzer went 20-8 in the league, 16-8 against not Caltech.
Fox went 17-7.
If either of them won a couple more games, they might look better. Probably if either of them wins 1 out of 3 against Linfield, they're in.

By comparison, Western New England went 15-1 in their league which has 3 teams with 29+ wins. Benedictine went 17-5 in a league with Aurora and Concordia.

DeSales has 32 wins, 17-4 in their league and probably won't sniff a Pool C bid. SOS doesn't discriminate...if you didn't play a great schedule, you need to win more games.

[Richard Hamstocks]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

[Ralph Turner]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

The isolation in the West is unique.

In 2014, Texas Lutheran will have19 potential D-3 opponents in 600 mile radius.  IF, and it is a big IF, TLU can convince Hendrix (usually very average and 599 miles away) and Millsaps (602 miiles away) to play them, you can get the OOWP on the SAA to help.

In the other parts of the country we are talking about 300 mile radii. In New England, we are talking about 150 mile radii for upwards of 50 or 60 opponents.

[forheavendial4999]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

But you're trying to have it both ways...saying that playing the same opponents brings the SOS down...but what it actually does is moderate the SOS, so teams like Caltech would actually not hurt you as much as they would otherwise. Same with CMS. I would submit that Caltech and CMS would hurt you more if there were more cross-conference play.

We do know how good teams actually are because we have these things called tournaments in the postseason. If West teams were basically climbing over each other and then dominating in the championship, then what you all are saying would make some sense.

But that's not happening. A Texas team has never won a game in Appleton, the only California team to win games in Appleton (maybe even to make it to Appleton) Y2K is Chapman, and Linfield is usually the class up north, GF's one-off championship under their previous coach notwithstanding.

Like I said, it's not like GF and Pitzer were just victimized by their schedule. They both lost quite a few games. So you're basically asking for them to be excused both for their schedule and for their losses. Can't have it both ways. If one of them like 35-8 (or 33-7 with no conf tournament) with 3 losses to Linfield, I could understand a little more and might be a little more sympathetic. When you go 28-14 or 26-12, you're relying on fortune. Why didn't GF play the other two games they could play?

[forheavendial4999]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

The isolation in the West is unique.

In 2014, Texas Lutheran will have19 potential D-3 opponents in 600 mile radius.  IF, and it is a big IF, TLU can convince Hendrix (usually very average and 599 miles away) and Millsaps (602 miiles away) to play them, you can get the OOWP on the SAA to help.

In the other parts of the country we are talking about 300 mile radii. In New England, we are talking about 150 mile radii for upwards of 50 or 60 opponents.

So what's your solution? Just cut the Western teams a break because they don't want to get on a bus?

[TexasBB]

Marrietta will be one of the pool C teams as they were just elimnated in the OAC conference tournament, loosing to Otterbein 10-8. They lost twice to Otterbein the #4 team in the tourney. Mt. Union which came up through the winners bracket will play Otterbein for the title. Otterbein has to beat them twice.

TexasBB

[Ralph Turner]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

The isolation in the West is unique.

In 2014, Texas Lutheran will have19 potential D-3 opponents in 600 mile radius.  IF, and it is a big IF, TLU can convince Hendrix (usually very average and 599 miles away) and Millsaps (602 miiles away) to play them, you can get the OOWP on the SAA to help.

In the other parts of the country we are talking about 300 mile radii. In New England, we are talking about 150 mile radii for upwards of 50 or 60 opponents.

So what's your solution? Just cut the Western teams a break because they don't want to get on a bus?

I want the members of the National committee to know D3 so well, that they can assess what the raw number of the SOS of a  New England  teams means versus a team from the West.

[Richard Hamstocks]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

But you're trying to have it both ways...saying that playing the same opponents brings the SOS down...but what it actually does is moderate the SOS, so teams like Caltech would actually not hurt you as much as they would otherwise. Same with CMS. I would submit that Caltech and CMS would hurt you more if there were more cross-conference play.

We do know how good teams actually are because we have these things called tournaments in the postseason. If West teams were basically climbing over each other and then dominating in the championship, then what you all are saying would make some sense.

But that's not happening. A Texas team has never won a game in Appleton, the only California team to win games in Appleton (maybe even to make it to Appleton) Y2K is Chapman, and Linfield is usually the class up north, GF's one-off championship under their previous coach notwithstanding.

Like I said, it's not like GF and Pitzer were just victimized by their schedule. They both lost quite a few games. So you're basically asking for them to be excused both for their schedule and for their losses. Can't have it both ways. If one of them like 35-8 (or 33-7 with no conf tournament) with 3 losses to Linfield, I could understand a little more and might be a little more sympathetic. When you go 28-14 or 26-12, you're relying on fortune. Why didn't GF play the other two games they could play?

Fact: playing the same opponents shrinks your SOS towards 1/2. The greater the proportion of your schedule is comprised of conference play, the less possible variability in your SOS. If you only play a balanced conference schedule, your SOS is .5. This is the problem in the west and why SOS can't be used so freely. West region teams have "moderated" SOS, more so than other regions. For pool C candidates, moderate=lower.
The reason that cal tech still hurts you is the use of unweighted averages and unbalanced schedules. You can do the calculation to see that scheduling cal tech still brings down your SOS.

I'm already on record for being anti-conference tourney for deciding pool A bids. Fun? Yes. But a terrible use of the available information for determining the best team. But that's irrelevant here.  Even if you really believe the best team always wins their conference tournament, this only gives you an ordering within a conference. The topic at hand involves choosing pool C bids, which involves comparing teams from different regions. And I maintain that using SOS without observing these facts (primarily that you can play a tougher schedule AND have a lower SOS than another team) is a bad idea. The extreme example I proposed above had the teams with by far the toughest schedules having an SOS ranking them as having the 240th toughest schedule. 1 vs 240.

I'm not asking for them to be excused for their schedule, I'm saying that SOS doesn't measure what you think it measures. Therefore, I'm asking that you excuse them for their SOS, because they play in the west.

[forheavendial4999]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

The isolation in the West is unique.

In 2014, Texas Lutheran will have19 potential D-3 opponents in 600 mile radius.  IF, and it is a big IF, TLU can convince Hendrix (usually very average and 599 miles away) and Millsaps (602 miiles away) to play them, you can get the OOWP on the SAA to help.

In the other parts of the country we are talking about 300 mile radii. In New England, we are talking about 150 mile radii for upwards of 50 or 60 opponents.

So what's your solution? Just cut the Western teams a break because they don't want to get on a bus?

I want the members of the National committee to know D3 so well, that they can assess what the raw number of the SOS of a  New England  teams means versus a team from the West.

What makes you think they don't?

[Richard Hamstocks]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

The isolation in the West is unique.

In 2014, Texas Lutheran will have19 potential D-3 opponents in 600 mile radius.  IF, and it is a big IF, TLU can convince Hendrix (usually very average and 599 miles away) and Millsaps (602 miiles away) to play them, you can get the OOWP on the SAA to help.

In the other parts of the country we are talking about 300 mile radii. In New England, we are talking about 150 mile radii for upwards of 50 or 60 opponents.

So what's your solution? Just cut the Western teams a break because they don't want to get on a bus?

I want the members of the National committee to know D3 so well, that they can assess what the raw number of the SOS of a  New England  teams means versus a team from the West.

What makes you think they don't?

A 25-18 Bowdoin team getting a pool C last year?

[forheavendial4999]

Fact: playing the same opponents shrinks your SOS towards 1/2.

Not a fact. In the cases of Caltech and CMS, it probably results in those opponents hurting you less than they would otherwise. "Shrink" is an improper term as it assumes that otherwise your SOS would have been over .500.

The greater the proportion of your schedule is comprised of conference play, the less possible variability in your SOS. If you only play a balanced conference schedule, your SOS is .5. This is the problem in the west and why SOS can't be used so freely.

So then don't play as many conference games, or don't play a balanced conference schedule. Wow, I'm a genius.

West region teams have "moderated" SOS, more so than other regions. For pool C candidates, moderate=lower.
The reason that cal tech still hurts you is the use of unweighted averages and unbalanced schedules. You can do the calculation to see that scheduling cal tech still brings down your SOS.

You mean scheduling a bad team hurts your SOS? How unfair!
(snip)

I'm not asking for them to be excused for their schedule, I'm saying that SOS doesn't measure what you think it measures. Therefore, I'm asking that you excuse them for their SOS, because they play in the west.

The last two years, the team with the lowest SOS to get a Pool C bid was from the West. Given this fact, I'm not sure what the complaint is. It seems as if the committee is giving the West special treatment (for whatever reason, this one or another one).

Fine, we'll look at other primary criteria. And Pomona-Pitzer and Texas Lutheran still don't measure up. George Fox was judged by your own region to not be as good as either of them, so they're really not even worth talking about.

Bottom line is Chapman has earned respect. Linfield has earned respect. George Fox won a title almost a decade ago but doesn't seem to have followed up on it that well. No one from Texas has ever done anything at the national level and the successes of the SCIAC teams pre-Chapman are well in the past. I'm not seeing a problem here with regard to nationally-contending Western teams getting shut out.

[forheavendial4999]

Nothing you said is untrue as far as the numbers. But given as you acknowledge that the hypothetical is not reality, and there are real difference between teams within the league, then I'm back to expecting the better teams to have better records. Your example also seems to dull the complaints re: Caltech, as shouldn't their SOS be artificially increased?

I offered the boundary case (what you call a hypothetical, but any example requires knowing how good teams actually are which is unknowable and thus would be a hypothetical as well) to make a point and simplify the calculations. The validity of the observation is not nullified by moving slightly in from the boundary. Diminished to some extent? Sure.  But the point remains, SOS is simply not comparable between the west region and others.
Cal tech has a real effect on SOS, the calculations aren't difficult to see that. It's not fair to talk about just removing cal tech from your schedule and recalculate your SOS, unless you recalculate OWP for your other SCIAC opponents as well. But it is still detrimental to your SOS to have to schedule them 3 or 4 times.

The isolation in the West is unique.

In 2014, Texas Lutheran will have19 potential D-3 opponents in 600 mile radius.  IF, and it is a big IF, TLU can convince Hendrix (usually very average and 599 miles away) and Millsaps (602 miiles away) to play them, you can get the OOWP on the SAA to help.

In the other parts of the country we are talking about 300 mile radii. In New England, we are talking about 150 mile radii for upwards of 50 or 60 opponents.

So what's your solution? Just cut the Western teams a break because they don't want to get on a bus?

I want the members of the National committee to know D3 so well, that they can assess what the raw number of the SOS of a  New England  teams means versus a team from the West.

What makes you think they don't?

A 25-18 Bowdoin team getting a pool C last year?

Bowdoin's in the West?

[Richard Hamstocks]

Fact: playing the same opponents shrinks your SOS towards 1/2.

Not a fact. In the cases of Caltech and CMS, it probably results in those opponents hurting you less than they would otherwise. "Shrink" is an improper term as it assumes that otherwise your SOS would have been over .500.

The greater the proportion of your schedule is comprised of conference play, the less possible variability in your SOS. If you only play a balanced conference schedule, your SOS is .5. This is the problem in the west and why SOS can't be used so freely.

So then don't play as many conference games, or don't play a balanced conference schedule. Wow, I'm a genius.

West region teams have "moderated" SOS, more so than other regions. For pool C candidates, moderate=lower.
The reason that cal tech still hurts you is the use of unweighted averages and unbalanced schedules. You can do the calculation to see that scheduling cal tech still brings down your SOS.

You mean scheduling a bad team hurts your SOS? How unfair!
(snip)

I'm not asking for them to be excused for their schedule, I'm saying that SOS doesn't measure what you think it measures. Therefore, I'm asking that you excuse them for their SOS, because they play in the west.

The last two years, the team with the lowest SOS to get a Pool C bid was from the West. Given this fact, I'm not sure what the complaint is. It seems as if the committee is giving the West special treatment (for whatever reason, this one or another one).

Fine, we'll look at other primary criteria. And Pomona-Pitzer and Texas Lutheran still don't measure up. George Fox was judged by your own region to not be as good as either of them, so they're really not even worth talking about.

Bottom line is Chapman has earned respect. Linfield has earned respect. George Fox won a title almost a decade ago but doesn't seem to have followed up on it that well. No one from Texas has ever done anything at the national level and the successes of the SCIAC teams pre-Chapman are well in the past. I'm not seeing a problem here with regard to nationally-contending Western teams getting shut out.

My usage of the word shrink is not "improper". Rather, it's quite precise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(statistics).
As for your other flippant comments, no one "schedules" Cal Tech, nor decides how many conference games they play, balanced or otherwise.