NCAA Beach tournament bids 2019 week 10

[pd154]

I think it's so close that it might come down to the complaints lodged against FIU for the wild seed movement that Rita always has. It is the way to win those really tight matches. I don't see anything wrong with it, I think coaches should be allowed to coach. Also it makes it harder to scout which I think is good. Why have students spending hours reviewing game tape when they have so little time to study? (which for most is the main reason they are there). I know that kind of movement is against the rules but I don't see how to effectively police it. My 2 cents.

[sonofdogman]

I think Stetson. No known reason.

[newbeach]

I say FIU earns the #3 East Region Bid for these reasons:

1. They win the H2H criteria
2. They have a stronger SoS
3. They are tied with CommOpp

It's who you play and how well you do against these opponents. The head-to-head win is big. 

FIU also did what they should have done at their conference tournament.

It doesn't really matter what your overall record is if you don't have a decent SoS.

Stetson's Significant wins aren't really looking that great anymore with S.Carolina being so inconsistent this year and with LBSU faltering a little. However, the LMU win is looking better now that they won the WCC. I say FIU. 

Stetson also won their conference title and have done well down the final stretch. The committee may want to have a representative from ASUN...but I am not sure that is using the criteria?

[trollhunter]

I *think* that newbeach got the reasoning right. FIU should win the first tie-break which I believe is Head to Head.

This info is 2-3 years old and may have been changed. If you know somebody on current committee or want to send some emails / phone calls, please confirm it

Region Bid tiebreakers (listed in rank priority order):

Head-to-head results;
In-region results;
Results versus common opponents;
Strength of schedule;
Overall results.

At-Large is similar, but I don't know if In-Region results is just dropped, or replaced by Overall results in the order.

[trollhunter]

Tiebreaks are huge implications for At-Large which is even closer, with more teams involved.

If anyone can confirm (or correct) the order, please do so

[txbvbfan]

Apr 21, 2019 20:54:11 GMT -5 newbeach said:

I say FIU earns the #3 East Region Bid for these reasons:

1. They win the H2H criteria
2. They have a stronger SoS
3. They are tied with CommOpp

It's who you play and how well you do against these opponents. The head-to-head win is big. 

FIU also did what they should have done at their conference tournament.

It doesn't really matter what your overall record is if you don't have a decent SoS.

Stetson's Significant wins aren't really looking that great anymore with S.Carolina being so inconsistent this year and with LBSU faltering a little. However, the LMU win is looking better now that they won the WCC. I say FIU. 

Stetson also won their conference title and have done well down the final stretch. The committee may want to have a representative from ASUN...but I am not sure that is using the criteria?

Do they look at the fact that FIU got worse against Stetson as the season went on? They won 5-0 opening weekend, won 3-2 halfway theough season then lost to Stetson for last regular season matches for both teams?

[newbeach]

Thanks trollhunter I actually was not correct with the first criteria for Regional Bids, but Head-to-head is first criteria for At-large. I just found this:

Selection Criteria for the regional bids (in-region comparison):
a. Record versus regional opponents.
b. Head-to-head competition.
c. Results versus common opponents.
d. Strength of Schedule.
e. Overall record (must be.500 or above).

Selection criteria for at-large bids:
a. Head-to-head competition.
b. Results versus common opponents.
c. Strength of schedule
d. Overall record (must be .500 or above).

This is from a NCAA Memorandum April 19, 2019.

I will have to find the link again for this. Once I do I will post.

[noblesol]

My take on the NCAA selection committee manuals: their lists of selection criteria are frequently just lists, without additional rules to establish priority or weighting. Without rigid establishment of priority or weighting, a committee is free to make its own interpretations, judgements, and precedents. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be a need for committee members. An algorithm or AI could decide, and in the unlikely chance of ties, coin flips. Some might prefer it that way.

[trollhunter]

Apr 22, 2019 0:52:24 GMT -5 newbeach said:

Thanks trollhunter I actually was not correct with the first criteria for Regional Bids, but Head-to-head is first criteria for At-large. I just found this:

Selection Criteria for the regional bids (in-region comparison):
a. Record versus regional opponents.
b. Head-to-head competition.
c. Results versus common opponents.
d. Strength of Schedule.
e. Overall record (must be.500 or above).

Selection criteria for at-large bids:
a. Head-to-head competition.
b. Results versus common opponents.
c. Strength of schedule
d. Overall record (must be .500 or above).

This is from a NCAA Memorandum April 19, 2019.

I will have to find the link again for this. Once I do I will post.

That is just the primary selection criteria list from the Pre-Tournament manual. Not necessarily in tie-break order.

A friend just got in touch with the committee chair, I will share her answer shortly.

[trollhunter]

Apr 22, 2019 3:17:38 GMT -5 noblesol said:

My take on the NCAA selection committee manuals: their lists of selection criteria are frequently just lists, without additional rules to establish priority or weighting. Without rigid establishment of priority or weighting, a committee is free to make its own interpretations, judgements, and precedents. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be a need for committee members. An algorithm or AI could decide, and in the unlikely chance of ties, coin flips. Some might prefer it that way.

noblesol knows what is up! There is usually some general framework and guidance given to each committee, via experienced NCAA liaison and chair such as (these are real):

All criteria are weighed equally.

This is how you calculate SOS/RPI for NCAA.

You may not use AVCA poll.

You may not use margin of victory.

This is how you measure Common Opponents in NCAA.

These are the tie-breakers (in order).

Region Record and Overall Record criteria include significant wins and losses. Not just win %.

Etc.

However, there will be unusual situations, or ties, or not much data to compare between teams. Especially with a new NCAA sport and limited criteria. So each committee does have to make some judgements/decisions. Looks like this year they will have some tough choices.

[trollhunter]

A friend just forwarded me an answer from this years NCAA Beach committee chair:

"To answer your question,
there are no tiebreakers for the selection criteria during the selection process.
All the criteria is weighted equally when it is reviewed.
At the end of the day the committee members all vote on the teams that are selected to the bracket.
If there is a tie per se, each committee member votes based on the criteria and the whole body of work."

It appears that the tie-breaks I mentioned earlier were either not passed when Beach moved from "emerging" to "championship" status, or were removed in past couple of years.

Prediction:

Some people will be unhappy with who the committee selects for East region bid #3

[pnw_mark]

I don't know if this will factor into the NCAA's decision or not but here are the number of Pairs each team on the East Bubble used as well as the number of pairs used at each position;

FIU (18 different pairs played)       Position #1. 2 teams #2. 7 teams #3. 10 teams #4. 8 teams #5. 6 Teams
Stetson (9 different pairs)             Position #1. 1 team  #2. 1 team   #3. 1 teams   #4. 5 teams #5. 2 Teams
South Carolina (18 different Pairs) Position #1. 2 teams #2. 2 teams #3. 2 Teams  #4. 8 Teams #5. 10 Teams

Data mining done through each schools stats;

gamecocksonline.com/documents/2019/4/16/2019_Season_Statistics.pdf
fiusports.com/documents/2019/4/22/2019_FIU_BVB_Stat_Packet.pdf



Do you commend Rita for mixing it up and keeping her team competitive or do you reward Stetson for playing the same kids at the same positions ... or does it matter?

[newbeach]

Women's Beach Volleyball Committee Members - 6 Members. Two from each region (East and West); at least 50% administrators.
Liasons: Kristin Fasbender
Chair: Kelcey Roegiers

Andrew Fuller/Stanford University
Rita Buck-Crockett/Florida International University
Kelcey Roegiers/Georgia State University
Todd Rogers/Cal Poly University
Ted Gumbart/ASUN Conference
Joan M. McDermott/University of San Francisco

[newbeach]

So, should we predict FIU for East Bid #3, and Cal Poly and Stetson favored for the at-large bids?

Hawai'i will have to beat Cal Poly head-to-head twice. LBSU would have to beat Cal Poly twice as well and probably Hawai'i at least once to leave little room for debate.

[trollhunter]

Apr 22, 2019 13:31:57 GMT -5 newbeach said:

So, should we predict FIU for East Bid #3, and Cal Poly and Stetson favored for the at-large bids?

Hawai'i will have to beat Cal Poly head-to-head twice. LBSU would have to beat Cal Poly twice as well and probably Hawai'i at least once to leave little room for debate.

I'm really not sure for FIU/Stetson in East #3. I would pick FIU for the reasons you stated earlier, but a case could be made for Stetson's entire body of work including wins in West region. It will really be up to committee members. If they pick Stetson over FIU, it could set a weird precedent for teams to play weaker schedules, since H2H and SoS are not rewarded.

Hawaii is looking better in At-Large with the other 2 BW choking. They may just need to beat Poly once. I will do criteria comparisons again soon.

Either way, I predict the upcoming controversy to spur a few things in next couple years:

1) Criteria will be expanded to include RPI, tie-breaks, and/or other factors.

2) Expansion of tournament field to 10-12 teams.

3) Conference automatic bids.