NCAA DI Women's Soccer Selection Show

You're criticizing his patient (and objective) effort? He doesn't have to throw away one night of his time just to explain the math to you. Don't lash out blindly at the messenger.

i.e. your opinion trumps the data? The NCAA Selection Committee cannot take your opinion into consideration.

Now, it very well could be that the data prove that Texas Tech "met more `no` standards" than team ___". But if that's true, you should be bragging and trumpeting about that, with data to back you up. It would make your complaint infinitely stronger.

 

Sorry all, point I was trying to make is that Texas Tech should not have been even considered finishing in 8th place and losing 7 of last 8 games. Thus the need for stats didn't matter. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

I like to remember that the tournament selections are not made by a big bad entrenched bureaucracy. They are made by a volunteer committee of 9 soccer savvy individuals from Division I women's soccer schools whose membership rotates. The last minutes I could find (2016) showed that there was a mix of coaches and administrators (with coaches dominant) representing 9 different conferences. Mick D'Arcy (Central Connecticut State, Northeast Conference), Tony Luz (Wake Forest, ACC), Shawn Farrell (Seattle University, Western Athletic Conference), Janet Rayfield (Illinois, Big 10), Foti Mellis (California, PAC 12), Karen Hancock (OK State, Big 120, Janet Oberle (St Louis, Atlantic 10), Stephanie Ransom (Georgia, SEC), and Todd Yelton (Samford University, Southern Conference).

So these volunteers are on the committee this year. I suspect that they are doing their best to do it "right" given the criticism they could face from their coaching peers if they were arbitrary. I am also pretty certain that there is a ton of discussion wrestling with thorny decisions and probably some close votes. But overall I trust such volunteer committees to do as good a job as you or I could do were we in their shoes. I congratulate them for their hard work!

....AND I really appreciate the work the CP Thomas does to explain it all to us. He is is real asset to us WOSO fans!

 

I've already apologized. But my last statement stands. No stats needed for a team finishing in 8th place

 

And Chris very sorry if I offended u on my stats questions

 

So the NCAA cannot find retired coaches to volunteer...Sorry, if your presently coaching a D1 program, and I see at least four on this committee, you should not be allowed to take part. Example: You would never see this with college football...can you imagine if Nick Saban, Jim Harbaugh and Urban Meyer were on the selection committee for the college football playoff!

 

There's plenty of precedent for active ADs to serve in committees, e.g. in mbb and mfb. The standing (and obvious) rule is that you recuse self from room while the others discuss your team without you. I'm certain Oklahoma State's coach had zero chance to lobby for his team -- he doesn't carry that much clout with anybody.

We'll probably never see mfb head coaches on the CFP committee because no head coach has that kind of spare time. The idea of recruiting volunteer woso head coaches might actually have merit -- but who's going to do it for free? Maybe they're already trying that, and yet this group is the one that stepped forward.

 

You certainly didn't offend me. On the other hand, you also didn't mention that they lost only 1 of their first 10 games.

Odd season for them.

When I get a chance (after I do my entries into the Tournament Prediction Contest), I'll have something to say about the "Last eight games" criterion that you've referred to. It's a good reference and worth discussing.

 

I also should be clear on what the information I provide is intended for.

My training is in researching and understanding what the rules are that a group (such as the Women's Soccer Committee) is required to follow, how to identify the facts (such as the data) are that relate to those rules, and applying the rules to the data. In other words in learning what the law is and applying it to the facts. As a lawyer by training and most of a lifetime's experience, I'm not really interested in, "The person should go to jail, that's obvious if you simply eyeball it, all these references to the law and to evidence are a waste of time." I'm not against that approach, outside the field of law, it's just not what I do.

So, all of my analyses are based on the rules the Women's Soccer Committee is required to follow and the data related to those rules. And more, I'm not even focused on how I think the Committee should apply the rules to the data. Rather, I'm interested in how the Committee has applied the rules to the data historically, whether its current decisions are consistent with that history, and where there is a reasonable rationale for what the Committee has done in relation to what it's done in the past.

My conclusion generally, over the years, is that the Committee ordinarily does a pretty good job given the rules it's required to follow. I'm confident that is the case this year, although there's more analysis. With more analysis to do, I''m not sure there weren't any goof ups, but I've seen enough so far to say that it's very unlikely there were any goof ups this year at the level of their non-inclusion of Michigan in the Tournament last year.

All of that being the case, and given that the data are what they are and are indisputable, it seems to me that if posters are unhappy with the Committee's decisions, they should focus their attention on which rules they think the NCAA should change. I personally would like to see the exact language unhappy protesters propose, in relation the the specific rules language they don't like. And, if you're a "protester" and don't know what the specific current rules are, you can find them here: NCAA Tournament: Selection, Seeding, and Bracketing Criteria

 

I could not disagree more.

I recall a number of years ago a team finished in the same position, next to last in conference but tied or beat 4 tournament teams during the season.Although there were in no way considered for a bid, it did, to me, point out the great divide between conferences. So although this year I do not like the inclusion of Texas Tech, I would sub for Virginia Tech not the team you champion.

So, my point is, common sense (accumulation of experiences) to me would be different than common sense (accumulation of experiences) to you. THis is why qualifying and quantifying is the only way to go.

 

Most us norms shoot from the hip rather than don a thinking cap.

One thing I do personally know is that the "eye test" is confirmation bias on steroids.

 

I've now done a detailed analysis of the Committee's giving Texas Tech an at large selection. Those of you still interested can check it out HERE. I'm sure it won't provide any solace to those of you who think they shouldn't have gotten the position and that a team you might favor should have instead. But, at least it shows what the Committee's process and analysis might have been.

A little later -- maybe tomorrow -- I'll write up an analysis for Virginia Tech's and Loyola Marymount's not getting selections. Then, unless someone wants an analysis of some other team, I'll probably be done with my post mortems for this year.

 

As I predicted - Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and TCU would be out in the first round. But the motivational speech for next year will be...hey girls we just need to win two conference games and we're back in the NCAA Tournament!

 

Any 3 teams that took their spots would be equally bad (or slightly worse), and would be expected to lose also.

 

If it was 64 teams instead of 4, yes, I could imagine that.

 

I'd request an objective analysis of the question, "why did Minnesota, a seeded team, have to play an ACC team in the first round?" Big 10 conference champion.

Penn played Bucknell for example. Rutgers vs Harvard. Nebraska vs South Dakota... Then look at the other 4 seeds, UCLA vs Seattle, Auburn vs South Alabama, BYU vs UNLV.

This was fair to neither team.

Thoughts?

 

The essential process, based on the information I've been able to find, is this:

1. The Committee does the seeding: 4 #1s, 4 #2s, 4 #3s, 4 #4s.

2. The Committee then places the seeds in the bracket. I think it places all of them, but I don't know that for sure. I'm confident they place at least the #1s.

3. The NCAA staff then opens up a specialized NCAA computer program designed to assign teams to bracket positions not already filled by seeded teams in a manner that will minimize travel costs.

4. Once the bracket assignment program has completed its first cut at assigning bracket positions, the Committee reviews the draft bracket to be sure it is reasonably balanced. This probably means they want the groups of either four teams or eight teams to be relatively even in strength, to the extent that is reasonably possible. In this review, I doubt very much that it matters to the Committee which conference opponents are from, so long as the bracket follows the rule that teams from the same conference can't face each other in the first two rounds.

5. The Committee decides on the final bracket.

This process always generates some odd geographic pairings such as Minnesota v NC State. In this particular case, with Minnesota as a #4 seed and with an ARPI rank of #19 playing NC State with an ARPI rank of #45 is not an unusual pairing. The only odd thing was NC State's having to travel to Minnesota, but that's where the computer program apparently sent them. My best guess on the computer program is that there were going to be a couple of games with significant travel and this simply ended up being one of them. Another, with just about the same travel distance, was Eastern Washington v Southern California.

So, it looks like it just was the "luck of the draw."

 

Thanks
I really appreciate your work here.

And I believe it was the luck of the draw..

That said, it was clearly visible that this was an anomaly in the progrsam and that humans need to intecede in situations like this.

NC state played 8 games currently ranked in the top 15 and as of today likely have the strongest strength of schedule in the county. They were competitive in all and have two top 10 wins. It's an opertunity to tweak the program going forward.

It's too bad for MN but they did have the home crowd And weathetr conditions that NC State has likely not played in.

But even had they won they would have had to play their next two games in CA.
I have talked to algorithm writes in other sports and they concluded that a good algorithm is only a guide.

I think there opinion is valid here and the committee made a mistake.

 

There's a certain irony among some of the posts on this thread. One poster, who feels his/her team was displaced by a team with a conference record below 0.500, says no team with a record below 0.500 is good enough to get an at large selection for the tournament. Another poster, whose team lost a first round game to a team with a conference record below 0.500, says that team was too good for his/her team to have had to play in the first round.

 

As far as the last few at-large teams in selection, would like to see less administrators on the committee using numbers, records, RPI, etc and more coaches using eyes to watch games and video.

 

not me

you never noticed, for example, how the coaches poll is always less accurate than the machines?


no perfect method but give me an unbiased machine any day, tempered by human observation which by rule is rigidly restrained.

I see but one major mistake from this year, no VT in the tourney, instead another Big 12 team.

 

You're talking about a system such as is used for Division I Men's Basketball, which generates vast amounts of revenue for the NCAA. The system is expensive, and it is not the system used for "non-revenue" (i.e., money-losing) sports. And, it gets the same kinds of complaints we get here.

This from the RPI for Division I Women's Soccer website:

"The approach the NCAA takes to women's soccer and other non-basketball sports, with their use of very limited criteria, is not the same as the approach it takes to basketball. Here are some statements from the NCAA's Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Men's Bracket for Division I basketball:

"'The RPI is intended to be used as one of many resources available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. It never should be considered anything but an additional evaluation tool. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties, a team's performance in the last twelve games, the emotional effects of specific games, etc.

"'....

"'Each committee member independently evaluates a vast pool of information available during the process to develop individual preferences. It is these qualitative, quantitative and subjective opinions -- developed after many hours of observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of objective data -- that dictate how each individual ultimately will vote on all issues related to the selection, seeding and bracketing process.

"'....

"'Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls, and the NABC regional advisory committee rankings.'

"This approach, for basketball, is different than the approach for Division I women's soccer."

As said, however, there are comparable fan complaints about the decisions for men's basketball. There is no system that will not leave some fans feeling one or two or more teams got shafted. Occasionally, in my experience, the fans will be right. Most of the time, they will be wrong -- not meaning that the Committee couldn't legitimately have reached a different decision regarding their team, but meaning the Committee's decision was within the realm of decisions it reasonably could have made.

 

I've posted one more analysis of some Committee decisions -- to not give at large selections to Loyola Marymount and Virginia Tech. You can find the analysis HERE.