... and is there another 'ask the committee' meeting? Or did they eliminate that after the Buffalo debacle?
This article, with quotes from the committee chairman, has about 5 or more fallacies on the selection procedure,and the seedings this year:
http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=131155
Either he's incredibly stupid, intentionally spreading misinformation, or I'm very scared. John, care to give it another shot? I'm not even talking about PWR vs. comparisons, I'm just talking basic procedure.
Hell, I'm almost tempted to get tickets and fly to Milwaukee just to confront him on this.
- Fred
[quote Marty Scarano, the chairman of the NCAA Ice Hockey Tournament's selection committee]
The only change was Miami (Ohio) and Cornell were flip-flopped (with Cornell taking a trip to the west for the second year in a row)...
Scarano, the athletic director at the University of New Hampshire[/quote]
Small consolation that the University of No Hardware will retain their nickname for at least another year.
Since I'm home now, I'll expand on my issues:
1)
[Q]Boston University (Northeast), North Dakota (West) and Wisconsin (Midwest) were the host schools for regionals this season and, since all three made the tournament, they were sent to their host sites.[/Q]
Wisconsin was not a host. MTU was the Green Bay host. Alright, small mistake, and its the least of my worries. But it will still be something nice for the committee chair to know.
2)
[Q] The only change was Miami (Ohio) and Cornell were flip-flopped with Cornell being sent to the Wisconsin Regional and Miami coming to the Worcester Regional, he said.[/Q]
Um, no. Miami and Cornell stayed where they were. CC and Mich were the only flip. I was wondering if he might have been thinking about the opponents of the flip, but then it woulda been UND and Cornell.
I would hope the chairman would remember what they did < shakes head >
3)
[Q] He said after the committee was done with the 1-through-16 bracketing, it spent more time looking at its fallibility.
"We said, OK, what about Denver? What about St. Cloud State?", said Scarano.[/Q]
Alright, you can look at it all you want, but you better not do a damn thing about it. I guess with the 5 minute process that NCAA seeding is, they have some time to kill in order to make it look like they can't be replaced by a computer. Or a 12 year old with pen & paper.
4)
[Q]but he likes the system which takes into consideration the PairWise Rankings, the Rating Percentage Index, bonus points[/Q]
Um, you realize those are the same thing, right? RPI is part of PWR. Bonus is part of RPI. Alright, so that wasn't a quote, maybe it was just the reporter who got a little confused, but let's continue this quote.
5)
[Q]and a different program privy only to the NCAA selection committee.[/Q]
What? What?!? What?!?!?! Are you lying out of your ass?? The rulebook specifies exactly what you do. You can't take a "different program". You have no different program. Are you trying to throw some confusion out there so we all think you're special again, and not something I can predict year after year with a pen & paper in 60 seconds? *This* is mainly what I want him to answer to.
6)
[Q] It is a highly quantified formula that "breaks things down to a 100th of a decimal point," said Scarano.[/Q]
Totally meaningless drivel. First off, a "100th of a decimal point" is when you draw a period and erase 99% of it. So, I'm going to assume he meant 100th of a point. Which continues to be entirely meaningless, because a point is a subjective, meaningless unit. RPI goes to the 10-thousandth of a point. Does that make it 100 times better? If we multipled all the RPI scores times 10,000, would it now be a bad system because it only goes to the nearest 'point.' Come on.
So, um, yeah, anyone going to the FF? ;)
[quote DeltaOne81]
5)
[Q]and a different program privy only to the NCAA selection committee.[/Q]
What? What?!? What?!?!?! Are you lying out of your ass?? The rulebook specifies exactly what you do. You can't take a "different program". You have no different program. Are you trying to throw some confusion out there so we all think you're special again, and not something I can predict year after year with a pen & paper in 60 seconds? *This* is mainly what I want him to answer to.[/quote]
I think what this means is that because they keep the actual bonus secret, only the software they run produces the exact ratings they use.
[quote DeltaOne81]Wisconsin was not a host. MTU was the Green Bay host. Alright, small mistake, and its the least of my worries. But it will still be something nice for the committee chair to know.[/quote]That one certainly could just be a mistake on the author's part, couldn't it?
[quote jtwcornell91][quote DeltaOne81]
5)
[Q]and a different program privy only to the NCAA selection committee.[/Q]
What? What?!? What?!?!?! Are you lying out of your ass?? The rulebook specifies exactly what you do. You can't take a "different program". You have no different program. Are you trying to throw some confusion out there so we all think you're special again, and not something I can predict year after year with a pen & paper in 60 seconds? *This* is mainly what I want him to answer to.[/quote]
I think what this means is that because they keep the actual bonus secret, only the software they run produces the exact ratings they use.[/quote]
I hope that's what he means, but its not what he said. Because that and "100th of a point" doesn't make any sense. I suppose he could just not know what 100th means.
I thought they're allowed to futz around with things a little bit, as long as they keep the same 16 teams and in more or less the right order. Like, if they want to bump up attendance or something, I thought they're allowed that wiggle room.
[quote ftyuv]I thought they're allowed to futz around with things a little bit, as long as they keep the same 16 teams and in more or less the right order. Like, if they want to bump up attendance or something, I thought they're allowed that wiggle room.[/quote]
The last time I read the tournament handbook (which may be more recently than the committee did ::rolleyes::) they are allowed to shuffle seeds as long as they keep teams in "bands" (top 4 are 1-seeds, next 4 are 2-seeds, etc), don't have first-round matchups, keep the hosts in their own regionals, and seed and place the top 4 appropriately. (But they arbitrarily decided to ignore their own criteria and seed DU ahead of CC last year.)
[Q]Boston University (Northeast), North Dakota (West) and Wisconsin (Midwest) were the host schools for regionals this season and, since all three made the tournament, they were sent to their host sites.[/Q]
[Q] The only change was Miami (Ohio) and Cornell were flip-flopped with Cornell being sent to the Wisconsin Regional and Miami coming to the Worcester Regional, he said.[/Q]
Perhaps the way the committee looked at it, especially based on the way he's explaining it, is that they placed BU, No. Dak. and Wisconsin as a first step. Then looking at the remaining teams, with No. Dakota out of the equation, we were ahead of Miami since we win the head-to-head comparison. Of course, if that's the case, what would be the rationale for a flip-flop?
What irks me is that last season they definitely juggled things to keep Michigan in Michigan - switching the 2 and 3 overall seeds, sending the two seed east so 3 and 6 could play in Grand Rapids.
Does anybody honestly believe that the committee members understand the process? These are athletic directors. Basic addition is probably a stretch.
Somebody smart runs the seeding and hands them the results, and then they release stuff like this to hide the fact that they're just empty-headed parrots.