NCAA selection process

Discussion in 'College & Amateur Soccer' started by FunkFlex61, Nov 9, 2006.

  1. FunkFlex61

    FunkFlex61 New Member

    Oct 22, 2004
    There are coaches that convene around a desk and select teams based primarily on numbers. Most of the coaches haven’t even seen the teams they are numerically evaluating. How can they make assumptions on who the better team is based on numbers that at the end of the season are all fairly close? I could see if they watched the team and judged them based off how they play. But I guarantee very few, and I mean only one or two on that board watched the teams play.

    Take UCI for example. They were ranked in the top ten in the far west for seven weeks of the nine week campaign. They were as high as first and no lower the seventh all the way into the last week. The committee selected eight teams from the west and UCI wasn’t one of them. How do you figure a team as consistent as them and pulling off wins against teams that went ahead of them doesn’t get an invite into the NCAA tournament?

    I’m convinced none of the coaches on the board knew of the collective effort the team put forth offensively and defensively. From the beginning of the season fans applauded the good soccer being played during their games. A soccer player that knows how to play the game can easily identify good talent and a good team. And I think if these coaches on the committee saw how UCI played the selection results would have been different. Instead they take some teams that still numerically didn’t prove they were better. They were selected based on tradition and pure politics.

    As a former player, I am really disappointed and have lost a lot of respect for the committee. I truly feel if they had a clue of the collective effort involved in practice, school, administration, and coaching they would put forth more of an effort themselves and step aside from their biased opinions. They would keep politics out of the NCAA which is suppose to protect the student-athlete from the very people that try to take advantage of athletes and sport for their own personal advantages. Trying to preserve pure competitiveness should be a goal of the NCAA, but I think with the system of ratings and turning sports into a game of politics, competition is being ruined.

    There really is no one better team because you can get relatively the same talents and tweak some factors like ratings, and the boys will believe and play like what everyone says they should play like. All that aside, people who vote better know everything about the team they are voting for and everything about the team they are not voting for before making a decision. That goes beyond sport and into almost every aspect in life where we are faced with making decisions. If you can’t do that then you really aren’t doing the student-athlete a favor, you are only solidifying their place as just another number on the back of a jersey.
     
  2. utah444

    utah444 New Member

    Feb 24, 2005
    You aren't making it terribly difficult to figure out who you are. As an assistant coach (presumably hoping to be a head coach one day), you might want to be careful with your posts in the future.
     
  3. Kick_in_it

    Kick_in_it New Member

    Mar 15, 2005
    FunkFlex,

    Your arguement for UCI getting in the tournament is completely bogus (see below).


    Selection Criteria. When selecting teams, the Division I committee will weigh the following primary and secondary factors and will evaluate won-lost record and strength-of-schedule using the following factors (not in preferential order):
    Primary factors:
    • Adjusted RPI which includes:
    a. Won-lost record (25 percent).
    b. Strength-of-schedule (50 percent).
    c. Opponent’s strength-of-schedule (25 percent).
    d. Bonus/Penalty system.
    • Head to head competition.
    • Common Opponents.
    • Results against teams already selected.
    Secondary factors:
    • Late-season performance (last six games).
    • Eligibility or availability of student-athletes.
    • Results against teams under consideration.

    Rankings have absolutely no place in the selection process. A common misunderstanding but a reality that college soccer fans must understand. Take a look at UCI's RPI and if that's OK then look at "quality" wins - wins against teams with low RPI's. It's not just winning but it's winning against opponents with high RPI's. All the teams that were considered preselection bubble teams had quality wins (UAB, Cincinnati) and teams left out did not (Ohio State).

    I understand your frustration but rankings have absolutely nothing to do with the selection process.

    Good luck next year-
     
  4. cristoforo7

    cristoforo7 New Member

    May 14, 2003
    Actually, you appear to have wrongly quoted an outdated version of the criteria.

    The current criteria, from the 2006 Division I handbook, are:



    It can be found at pages 10 and 11 of the 2006 Division I Handbook found at this link:

    http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/soccer/2006/2006_d1_m_soocer_handbook.pdf
     
  5. Gaucho95

    Gaucho95 Member

    Dec 13, 2004
    Oakland, Ca
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    I don't have a problem with relying heavily on an RPI, but I do not like the bonus system which is vague. The RPI is already heavily weighted to who you play and not what your record is. A full 75% is based on your opponent's and your opponent opponent's record, so I do not understand why there is an additional bonus system. It seems like they are double-counting a part of the RPI that already comprises the majority of the computation.

    I assume this heavily favors teams in the top conferences and all but guarantees a team from a mid-major from getting a top seed no matter how challenging an OOC schedule they put together.

    Do away with the bonus system!
     
  6. collegesoccer

    collegesoccer Member+

    Apr 11, 2005
    The bonus system favors those teams who beat good teams not just who play good teams. If you played 6 top ten teams, lost to all of them and then won your remaining 12 games against average teams (75 and higher) you would have a great RPI, but no bonus points. The bonus points reward you not just for playing a tough schedule but for winning games as well. There are different points given for wins and ties vs. Top 40, wins and ties vs. Top 75. More points for home than away. Not sure of the breakdown for each win.

    UCSB would have bonus this year for AKron, SDSU, LMU, Michigan, Irvine, Northridge and UC-Davis (twice). I think it is fair because it can distinguish you from playing a good schedule and winning against a good schedule.
     
  7. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The thing that you're not accounting for is that there's a lot more variation in teams' records than there is in owpct and oowpct. Hence the much larger weight on the other two, so that the NCAA gets the desired overall contribution. In terms of the actual degree of variation, they contribute a lot less than 75%.
     
  8. nikolo

    nikolo New Member

    Aug 29, 2007
    ok okokokokokokokokokokokokokok
     
  9. osteng2

    osteng2 New Member

    Sep 13, 2004
    check out the dates on the posts you reply to please
     

Share This Page