|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 11, 2015 14:44:19 GMT -5
As a LaVerne alumnus, I just want to say I am personally glad to see the Leopards back in the national conversation. Jenna has done a great job rebuilding the program. This conversation was refreshing, and although we alumni may feel slighted, I can see the rationale behind the DIII format and grudgingly accept it. Yes and no. I understand the rational, but the practice is not as good. The NCAA says, pick the best at-large teams. I realize D3 comparison across regions can be hard, but there are better ways to do it. Regional rankings only work within regions, and mean nothing in terms of inter-regional selections. They could start by ranking regions, although that has problems associated with it as well.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Nov 11, 2015 20:22:48 GMT -5
One of the major issues in D3 is that because there is a large disparity amongst the regions, conferences often pay the price.
The reason that ONU for instance got so much press, is that they play in one of the top conferences. Even the teams in the middle and upper bottom are better than a lot of teams with really good records in weaker regions. It is an entirely different beast when you play 30 games and 20 of those teams are probably in the top 25% of D3. Same thing for Carnegie Mellon who is one of 4 (?) legitimately nationally ranked teams in their conference alone.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Nov 11, 2015 20:26:59 GMT -5
So much of making the tournament is smart scheduling. A handful of regionally ranked teams you can beat, a lot of teams with deceptively good records, a few well thought out out of region matches, and a few easy wins against teams without an abysmal record.
|
|
|
Post by awgriffey on Nov 11, 2015 20:52:07 GMT -5
So much of making the tournament is smart scheduling. A handful of regionally ranked teams you can beat, a lot of teams with deceptively good records, a few well thought out out of region matches, and a few easy wins against teams without an abysmal record. The problem with the scheduling theory is that it means the West coast teams have to go East, and nobody has to come West. I'm sure if La Verne had the money they would be traveling to the North East, and not Texas. I think that the SCIAC is probably on a very short list of D3 conferences this year, and in general that has 7 solid teams out of 9. I doubt there are many leagues that could challenge a top 4 of Claremont, Cal Lu, La Verne, and Whittier this year. Are there people out there that don't think the SCIAC is one of the top conferences? I look at ONU's schedule, and only see one good win against Hope. I am the first to admit that i don't know their conference well, but there aren't 2 top 10 teams in it. I look at Heidelberg's record, and i don't see any wins that stand out, and they beat ONU to get the bid.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Nov 11, 2015 21:07:58 GMT -5
So much of making the tournament is smart scheduling. A handful of regionally ranked teams you can beat, a lot of teams with deceptively good records, a few well thought out out of region matches, and a few easy wins against teams without an abysmal record. The problem with the scheduling theory is that it means the West coast teams have to go East, and nobody has to come West. I'm sure if La Verne had the money they would be traveling to the North East, and not Texas. I think that the SCIAC is probably on a very short list of D3 conferences this year, and in general that has 7 solid teams out of 9. I doubt there are many leagues that could challenge a top 4 of Claremont, Cal Lu, La Verne, and Whittier this year. Are there people out there that don't think the SCIAC is one of the top conferences? I look at ONU's schedule, and only see one good win against Hope. I am the first to admit that i don't know their conference well, but there aren't 2 top 10 teams in it. I look at Heidelberg's record, and i don't see any wins that stand out, and they beat ONU to get the bid. I didn't say it was fair, just the way it is. Looking at schedules I agree tha LaVerne is good, but how many teams go 1-4 to end the season including 2 non regionally ranked teams and make the tournament. They were 2-5 overall against regionally ranked teams. Looking at the numbers ONU was only 1-4 against regionally ranked teams while Carnegie was 4-5. Simply put if you are 2-5 against regionally ranked opponents, and finish the season 1-4 with two "bad" losses to non RR teams, you're very likely not getting in the tournament unless you have been unbeatable the rest of the year against top competition.
|
|
|
Post by tmb on Nov 12, 2015 6:14:51 GMT -5
I'll echo some thoughts from above. JJ and I were on the RAC at the same time and $ really is not a factor. We evaluated the criteria and select the field, then selected the hosts and then selected who travelled where. A couple of years ago I posted and asked why AREN'T other regions coming to New England to shoot for some ranked wins. I think Umass Boston has had the most resources to try to guarantee some teams at their tournament but MIT hosts 12 team tourneys posted publicly. There are still numerous opening in the region and the d3 coaches can find them on the D3VB tab on the coach's directory or the AVCA open dates section.
The AVCA is a coach's opinion poll. There is not much oversight and I voted on it for several years. We could all see each other's votes and you'd regularly see coaches lose to a team 0-3 and then still vote themselves ahead of that team. I do think several put time in to get the voting right but honestly it's pretty daunting 1/2 way through the year to sort through limited information to see how head to head's or common opponents should balance out.
I'll say at least one coach may be seeing the light and contacted me yesterday about coming to play and could I help them find matches. They have come to the region before so not sure it's totally for this reason and not some seafood but they are 5+ in their region and more ranked wins wouldn't hurt a profile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 10:41:54 GMT -5
So much of making the tournament is smart scheduling. A handful of regionally ranked teams you can beat, a lot of teams with deceptively good records, a few well thought out out of region matches, and a few easy wins against teams without an abysmal record. The problem with the scheduling theory is that it means the West coast teams have to go East, and nobody has to come West. I'm sure if La Verne had the money they would be traveling to the North East, and not Texas. I think that the SCIAC is probably on a very short list of D3 conferences this year, and in general that has 7 solid teams out of 9. I doubt there are many leagues that could challenge a top 4 of Claremont, Cal Lu, La Verne, and Whittier this year. Are there people out there that don't think the SCIAC is one of the top conferences? I look at ONU's schedule, and only see one good win against Hope. I am the first to admit that i don't know their conference well, but there aren't 2 top 10 teams in it. I look at Heidelberg's record, and i don't see any wins that stand out, and they beat ONU to get the bid. You're right that east coast teams don't have to travel west to make good schedules but you're wrong that LA Verne doesn't have the money to go to the north east. If you have the money to go to Texas and Wisconsin, you have the money to go to the north east. The reason they went to those places and not the Northeast was to play better teams. Why spend money to go to Boston and sweep 4 teams 3-0 and not break a sweat when you can go to other places and play good competition? If they made their schedule to get a bid they should've went to the north east. If they made their schedule to get better they should've went to Texas.
|
|
diiifan
Freshman
https://d3vbwest.wordpress.com/
Posts: 95
|
Post by diiifan on Nov 12, 2015 11:06:09 GMT -5
I'll echo some thoughts from above. JJ and I were on the RAC at the same time and $ really is not a factor. We evaluated the criteria and select the field, then selected the hosts and then selected who travelled where. A couple of years ago I posted and asked why AREN'T other regions coming to New England to shoot for some ranked wins. I think Umass Boston has had the most resources to try to guarantee some teams at their tournament but MIT hosts 12 team tourneys posted publicly. There are still numerous opening in the region and the d3 coaches can find them on the D3VB tab on the coach's directory or the AVCA open dates section. The AVCA is a coach's opinion poll. There is not much oversight and I voted on it for several years. We could all see each other's votes and you'd regularly see coaches lose to a team 0-3 and then still vote themselves ahead of that team. I do think several put time in to get the voting right but honestly it's pretty daunting 1/2 way through the year to sort through limited information to see how head to head's or common opponents should balance out. I'll say at least one coach may be seeing the light and contacted me yesterday about coming to play and could I help them find matches. They have come to the region before so not sure it's totally for this reason and not some seafood but they are 5+ in their region and more ranked wins wouldn't hurt a profile. Thanks for the insight. I had talked to a coach (in the west region) about scheduling in the New England region a year or so ago. Their response was that within the West RAC that those wins (if they happened) would not be as valuable as wins within the region. You had to prove yourself inside the region, in other words. So, a win over La Verne (for instance) would be much more valuable than a win over Mary Washington. So, although I strongly advocate going outside the region to help your chances come NCAA selection time, teams that are fortunate enough to travel once in the west almost have to go Northwest, California or Texas. West teams just don't have the luxury to make a trip inside the region and then outside the region. With the fact that the West Region covers the most ground of any region and the facts that Southwestern (deserving team) was not flown out last year and WUSTL was flown in this year, it seems the NCAA is holding the West Region to an impossible standard that D3 travel budgets can't meet. (That standard being you must fly inside your region to get your regional rank but you must fly outside the region to be considered better than other regional ranked teams.) Case in point, CMS and Cal Lu both traveled to Emory this year and came away with impressive wins that weekend. Those wins resonated with the coaches vote but those teams came in 4 and 5 in their regional rankings. Meanwhile UTD only goes to the Northwest (against lesser teams) and drops a match and is the #1 ranked team. (Don't get me wrong, I've seen UTD and they are very good but they didn't challenge themselves.) Colorado College is probably the exception to the rule in the west but really they have no choice in the matter. They have to travel. Question - When you say you were on the RAC, was that for a region? Or a larger NCAA selection committee? My understanding is that although the regional RACs rank the teams that when it comes to selection only the chairman of the individual RACs are on the call. My understanding, as well, is that the NCAA reviews the weekly RAC results and can offer "guidance" where the RAC may have gone wrong. Finally, last year we saw Southwestern regional ranked ahead of Colorado College but Colorado College was selected over Southwestern. So, I will never be convinced the NCAA does't alter rankings (at selection time) for reasons unknown to me and unpublished to all. (Kind of a negative ending there and not my intention. Love all the posts and the great info provided by all.)
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 12, 2015 11:22:59 GMT -5
The AVCA is a coach's opinion poll. There is not much oversight and I voted on it for several years. We could all see each other's votes and you'd regularly see coaches lose to a team 0-3 and then still vote themselves ahead of that team. I do think several put time in to get the voting right but honestly it's pretty daunting 1/2 way through the year to sort through limited information to see how head to head's or common opponents should balance out. But I will tell you, my general impression is that D3 coach's poll is more consistent with Pablo rankings than is, for example, the D1 poll. My interpretation of that has always been that, in fact, D3 coaches DO base their rankings far more on head-to-head outcomes and less on the Coach's Special Insight. Because D3 doesn't have the national exposure that you get for D1, the coaches don't have near as much opportunity to experience all the teams, and so have to rely much moreso on outcomes. I've never done the analysis, but that's always been my impression, that the AVCA and Pablo overlap is generally much better in D3 than other divisions.
|
|
|
Post by tmb on Nov 12, 2015 12:00:37 GMT -5
[ Question - When you say you were on the RAC, was that for a region? Or a larger NCAA selection committee? My understanding is that although the regional RACs rank the teams that when it comes to selection only the chairman of the individual RACs are on the call. My understanding, as well, is that the NCAA reviews the weekly RAC results and can offer "guidance" where the RAC may have gone wrong. Finally, last year we saw Southwestern regional ranked ahead of Colorado College but Colorado College was selected over Southwestern. So, I will never be convinced the NCAA does't alter rankings (at selection time) for reasons unknown to me and unpublished to all.
(Kind of a negative ending there and not my intention. Love all the posts and the great info provided by all.)
[/quote]
I chaired the NE Region for 4 years. We've almost 100% fundraised and travelled to La Verne 2x, Colorado College 2x, Chicago 2x, Wash U 1 or 2 and seen other regions. I've had St. Mary's, N. Central, Eastern, Salisbury, Millikin, Schreiner TX...come to tournaments. 2 of those were their region chairs going to see other regions. No CA have come this way.
Seems like on the call it was ranked wins (region didn't matter) and wins over teams in the field. There are 8 AQ's alone in New England so both of those could be covered.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Nov 12, 2015 12:24:43 GMT -5
I'll say at least one coach may be seeing the light and contacted me yesterday about coming to play and could I help them find matches. They have come to the region before so not sure it's totally for this reason and not some seafood but they are 5+ in their region and more ranked wins wouldn't hurt a profile. This right here is what annoys me. The far and away weakest region is the one wielding the power. Who did the top teams in New England go out and play to warrant, if I am counting correctly, five At Large bids from that region. I'd be interested to see what the Overall Record vs In Region record is for those teams. No one should be having to "see the light". DIII is a different animal. The New England Region is incredibly insular. They don't travel much and when they do, they historically don't do well. So now they can be the ones to say, well my overly inflated record against "good competition", which we all know is incredibly subjective, is better than that West Region teams record. There is no chance of a New England team losing a bunch down the stretch, because the disparity in competition level, even within their own conference, is HUGE. Obviously, the AQs aren't going anywhere, and they shouldn't. However, the number of At Large bids that are still given to the Northeast regions is too many and it leaves out quality teams from other regions. Note how we are really never having a conversation about NorthEast teams getting slighted in this process.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Nov 12, 2015 12:42:59 GMT -5
I chaired the NE Region for 4 years. We've almost 100% fundraised and travelled to La Verne 2x, Colorado College 2x, Chicago 2x, Wash U 1 or 2 and seen other regions. I've had St. Mary's, N. Central, Eastern, Salisbury, Millikin, Schreiner TX...come to tournaments. 2 of those were their region chairs going to see other regions. No CA have come this way. Seems like on the call it was ranked wins (region didn't matter) and wins over teams in the field. There are 8 AQ's alone in New England so both of those could be covered. And that's nice, but if I am a west coast team, and I am getting to go to a big travel tournament every other year, maybe, based on budget, and I think I am a solid contender for NCAAs, would I spend the money to go to New England and play teams I am unlikely to see late in the NCAA tournament or go play someone from a region that has done well and has likely contenders for an NCAA Championship? I would rather go play in a region where the matches will definitely help me prepare for the post season and teams I might actually see. It's great that teams came to you, but outside of Eastern, none of the teams that traveled to your tournaments were contenders in their region.
|
|
|
Post by tmb on Nov 12, 2015 12:56:18 GMT -5
I am not sure NE is wielding power...lol. Lobster, Clam Chowder, Fenway tours, Duck boats...There is nothing new under the sun as far as I can see. # of ranked wins trumps SOS and EOS counts too. I was surprised at # of at larges with the 1 and 2 losing in the NEWMAC Semis. Really surprised Williams made it in but they went to the NESCAC final and played the world.
We/Endicott (for those unaware) travelled to NJ/NY to play 2-3 teams typically ranked in that region and fell to that region 3 and defeated the 7. Along with numerous local ranked matches, that would have been our one out of region weekend to supplement our profile. Too many losses to matter in the long run but that's what we put in place if in the at-large mix.
I do think scheduling has gotten way too early in d3 and couldn't believe in Sept we virtually had schools wanting to set a date or drop us. We didn't even have our conf schedule. If teams want to build a resume, look at the last published list and start scheduling there.
|
|
diiifan
Freshman
https://d3vbwest.wordpress.com/
Posts: 95
|
Post by diiifan on Nov 12, 2015 14:56:49 GMT -5
Three games down and we've lost the defending champions (Hope) and Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by joc on Nov 12, 2015 14:59:51 GMT -5
Everyone talks about the Pablo rankings. There are teams that are 2-7 in conference listed ahead of teams that are 7-2 in the same conference. In a head-to-head match, that 2-7 team got swept 3-0. A team that got beat twice in the last three weeks of the season by another team is still listed 800 points and 184 spots ahead of that other team. I would not call that an accurate indicator of true ranking.
|
|