2022 D1 Selection Committee

[wgdsr]

One year. ONE YEAR, things go not exactly as SOME PEOPLE expected, and the calls are to blow up the system.
C'mon.

"Despite the best that has been done by everyone the... situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage..."

you must be new here. we make calls to blow up the system every year.

[rolldodge]

One year. ONE YEAR, things go not exactly as SOME PEOPLE expected, and the calls are to blow up the system.
C'mon.

"Despite the best that has been done by everyone the... situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage..."

you must be new here. we make calls to blow up the system every year.

[joewillie78]

One year. ONE YEAR, things go not exactly as SOME PEOPLE expected, and the calls are to blow up the system.
C'mon.

"Despite the best that has been done by everyone the... situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage..."

you must be new here. we make calls to blow up the system every year.

Not true, only year I wanted it blown up was 2019, this year, I LOVE this system.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

[wgdsr]

So are you saying Duke should be in? Honestly curious.

if i was appointed to the committee and given:
-- zero power? yes, duke would be in on my vote. last 3 normal years my cohorts went straight rpi, and coaches should have known what gets in.

-- the opportunity to change some things? like tell coaches and media, fans preseason how we were running things this year as an example... then it'd come down to what we decided to do for selection. a group effort.

ftr, i wasn't commenting in previous post on duke getting in. bit on nd's duke wins.

I understand your initial point. I was purposefully pivoting to ask about Duke.

I find that position interesting. I would argue the committee got it 100% correct re: Duke; their RPI was grossly inflated (as I have suggested elsewhere). Also, the last 3 years committee went straight RPI, but that doesn't necessarily mean that straight RPI was the only criteria they were using (and I especially remember them introducing additional criteria when attempting to justify the snub of Cornell in favor of a weak JHU team that barely had a .500 record).

In other words, those last 3 years, the selections may have followed straight RPI, but that doesn't mean straight RPI was the only criteria they used.

(And before you say it's ludicrous to assert that the committee just "happened" to follow RPI for 8 selections, 3 years in row: ultimately, the committee is selecting between a small handful of teams to the last 1 or two slots. That the selections for those 1 or 2 slots happened to follwo RPI is not that surprising. It's one of the criteria, but not the only criteria)

nobody's rpi is grossly inflated. it is exactly what the numbers say it is. it is my opinion that opinions on an individual team's rpi aren't credible. you can hate the metric, but if it's in use in any form it needs to be applied evenly.

when we start going off the reservation, it's anarchy. dogs and cats living together. you don't have to go more than 1 degree of separation. duke. they're out because of too many bad losses. why are they bad losses?

i fully understand your points about straight rpi maybe not being the measuring stick. here is what 2019 chairman jack hayes said about their process:
"we put the top 8 rpi at larges on the board, and then we checked to see if there were any outliers." paraphrasing.

this wasn't a scramble to explain which criteria were important after the fact. this was a window into their process. and when you run the process that way, barring some crazy other factors, the top rpi teams get in.

ftr, straight rpi is not a criterion in the rules. unless it is.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So are you saying Duke should be in? Honestly curious.

if i was appointed to the committee and given:
-- zero power? yes, duke would be in on my vote. last 3 normal years my cohorts went straight rpi, and coaches should have known what gets in.

-- the opportunity to change some things? like tell coaches and media, fans preseason how we were running things this year as an example... then it'd come down to what we decided to do for selection. a group effort.

ftr, i wasn't commenting in previous post on duke getting in. bit on nd's duke wins.

I understand your initial point. I was purposefully pivoting to ask about Duke.

I find that position interesting. I would argue the committee got it 100% correct re: Duke; their RPI was grossly inflated (as I have suggested elsewhere). Also, the last 3 years committee went straight RPI, but that doesn't necessarily mean that straight RPI was the only criteria they were using (and I especially remember them introducing additional criteria when attempting to justify the snub of Cornell in favor of a weak JHU team that barely had a .500 record).

In other words, those last 3 years, the selections may have followed straight RPI, but that doesn't mean straight RPI was the only criteria they used.

(And before you say it's ludicrous to assert that the committee just "happened" to follow RPI for 8 selections, 3 years in row: ultimately, the committee is selecting between a small handful of teams to the last 1 or two slots. That the selections for those 1 or 2 slots happened to follwo RPI is not that surprising. It's one of the criteria, but not the only criteria)

nobody's rpi is grossly inflated. it is exactly what the numbers say it is. it is my opinion that opinions on an individual team's rpi aren't credible. you can hate the metric, but if it's in use in any form it needs to be applied evenly.

when we start going off the reservation, it's anarchy. dogs and cats living together. you don't have to go more than 1 degree of separation. duke. they're out because of too many bad losses. why are they bad losses?

i fully understand your points about straight rpi maybe not being the measuring stick. here is what 2019 chairman jack hayes said about their process:
"we put the top 8 rpi at larges on the board, and then we checked to see if there were any outliers." paraphrasing.

this wasn't a scramble to explain which criteria were important after the fact. this was a window into their process. and when you run the process that way, barring some crazy other factors, the top rpi teams get in.

ftr, straight rpi is not a criterion in the rules. unless it is.

What does he mean by outliers?

[wgdsr]

So are you saying Duke should be in? Honestly curious.

if i was appointed to the committee and given:
-- zero power? yes, duke would be in on my vote. last 3 normal years my cohorts went straight rpi, and coaches should have known what gets in.

-- the opportunity to change some things? like tell coaches and media, fans preseason how we were running things this year as an example... then it'd come down to what we decided to do for selection. a group effort.

ftr, i wasn't commenting in previous post on duke getting in. bit on nd's duke wins.

I understand your initial point. I was purposefully pivoting to ask about Duke.

I find that position interesting. I would argue the committee got it 100% correct re: Duke; their RPI was grossly inflated (as I have suggested elsewhere). Also, the last 3 years committee went straight RPI, but that doesn't necessarily mean that straight RPI was the only criteria they were using (and I especially remember them introducing additional criteria when attempting to justify the snub of Cornell in favor of a weak JHU team that barely had a .500 record).

In other words, those last 3 years, the selections may have followed straight RPI, but that doesn't mean straight RPI was the only criteria they used.

(And before you say it's ludicrous to assert that the committee just "happened" to follow RPI for 8 selections, 3 years in row: ultimately, the committee is selecting between a small handful of teams to the last 1 or two slots. That the selections for those 1 or 2 slots happened to follwo RPI is not that surprising. It's one of the criteria, but not the only criteria)

nobody's rpi is grossly inflated. it is exactly what the numbers say it is. it is my opinion that opinions on an individual team's rpi aren't credible. you can hate the metric, but if it's in use in any form it needs to be applied evenly.

when we start going off the reservation, it's anarchy. dogs and cats living together. you don't have to go more than 1 degree of separation. duke. they're out because of too many bad losses. why are they bad losses?

i fully understand your points about straight rpi maybe not being the measuring stick. here is what 2019 chairman jack hayes said about their process:
"we put the top 8 rpi at larges on the board, and then we checked to see if there were any outliers." paraphrasing.

this wasn't a scramble to explain which criteria were important after the fact. this was a window into their process. and when you run the process that way, barring some crazy other factors, the top rpi teams get in.

ftr, straight rpi is not a criterion in the rules. unless it is.

What does he mean by outliers?

probably teams outside that group that had great other numbers. or within the group that had poor other numbers.

i was paraphrasing. his words also might have been "if it looked right".

[ICGrad]

nobody's rpi is grossly inflated. it is exactly what the numbers say it is.

Duke's RPI was grossly over-inflated vis-a-vis their accomplishments on the field.

Duke's RPI was grossly over-inflated vis-a-vis their results against other teams using RPI as a guide.

Duke's silly-high RPI was based upon playing (not necessarily beating) a bunch of teams who happened to finish with good records. Nothing more. Not necessarily good teams; just teams from lesser conferences who finished with good records.

[PizzaSnake]

So are you saying Duke should be in? Honestly curious.

if i was appointed to the committee and given:
-- zero power? yes, duke would be in on my vote. last 3 normal years my cohorts went straight rpi, and coaches should have known what gets in.

-- the opportunity to change some things? like tell coaches and media, fans preseason how we were running things this year as an example... then it'd come down to what we decided to do for selection. a group effort.

ftr, i wasn't commenting in previous post on duke getting in. bit on nd's duke wins.

I understand your initial point. I was purposefully pivoting to ask about Duke.

I find that position interesting. I would argue the committee got it 100% correct re: Duke; their RPI was grossly inflated (as I have suggested elsewhere). Also, the last 3 years committee went straight RPI, but that doesn't necessarily mean that straight RPI was the only criteria they were using (and I especially remember them introducing additional criteria when attempting to justify the snub of Cornell in favor of a weak JHU team that barely had a .500 record).

In other words, those last 3 years, the selections may have followed straight RPI, but that doesn't mean straight RPI was the only criteria they used.

(And before you say it's ludicrous to assert that the committee just "happened" to follow RPI for 8 selections, 3 years in row: ultimately, the committee is selecting between a small handful of teams to the last 1 or two slots. That the selections for those 1 or 2 slots happened to follwo RPI is not that surprising. It's one of the criteria, but not the only criteria)

nobody's rpi is grossly inflated. it is exactly what the numbers say it is. it is my opinion that opinions on an individual team's rpi aren't credible. you can hate the metric, but if it's in use in any form it needs to be applied evenly.

when we start going off the reservation, it's anarchy. dogs and cats living together. you don't have to go more than 1 degree of separation. duke. they're out because of too many bad losses. why are they bad losses?

i fully understand your points about straight rpi maybe not being the measuring stick. here is what 2019 chairman jack hayes said about their process:
"we put the top 8 rpi at larges on the board, and then we checked to see if there were any outliers." paraphrasing.

this wasn't a scramble to explain which criteria were important after the fact. this was a window into their process. and when you run the process that way, barring some crazy other factors, the top rpi teams get in.

ftr, straight rpi is not a criterion in the rules. unless it is.

What does he mean by outliers?

“Squint” test.

[wgdsr]

nobody's rpi is grossly inflated. it is exactly what the numbers say it is.

Duke's RPI was grossly over-inflated vis-a-vis their accomplishments on the field.

Duke's RPI was grossly over-inflated vis-a-vis their results against other teams using RPI as a guide.

Duke's silly-high RPI was based upon playing (not necessarily beating) a bunch of teams who happened to finish with good records. Nothing more. Not necessarily good teams; just teams from lesser conferences who finished with good records.

that's pretty elitist of you!

again, the first 2 paragraphs are your opinion.
there's some truth to the 3rd (isn't there always?), but the absoluteness is way off. one example, they had 5 top 20 wins.

in any event, my objection to running things the way they did in years like these is no one knows what matters. and in this particular year, applied unevenly. my objection in rpi years is it's a flawed metric. it's my amateur view we can find something credible that betters both.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So are you saying Duke should be in? Honestly curious.

if i was appointed to the committee and given:
-- zero power? yes, duke would be in on my vote. last 3 normal years my cohorts went straight rpi, and coaches should have known what gets in.

-- the opportunity to change some things? like tell coaches and media, fans preseason how we were running things this year as an example... then it'd come down to what we decided to do for selection. a group effort.

ftr, i wasn't commenting in previous post on duke getting in. bit on nd's duke wins.

I understand your initial point. I was purposefully pivoting to ask about Duke.

I find that position interesting. I would argue the committee got it 100% correct re: Duke; their RPI was grossly inflated (as I have suggested elsewhere). Also, the last 3 years committee went straight RPI, but that doesn't necessarily mean that straight RPI was the only criteria they were using (and I especially remember them introducing additional criteria when attempting to justify the snub of Cornell in favor of a weak JHU team that barely had a .500 record).

In other words, those last 3 years, the selections may have followed straight RPI, but that doesn't mean straight RPI was the only criteria they used.

(And before you say it's ludicrous to assert that the committee just "happened" to follow RPI for 8 selections, 3 years in row: ultimately, the committee is selecting between a small handful of teams to the last 1 or two slots. That the selections for those 1 or 2 slots happened to follwo RPI is not that surprising. It's one of the criteria, but not the only criteria)

nobody's rpi is grossly inflated. it is exactly what the numbers say it is. it is my opinion that opinions on an individual team's rpi aren't credible. you can hate the metric, but if it's in use in any form it needs to be applied evenly.

when we start going off the reservation, it's anarchy. dogs and cats living together. you don't have to go more than 1 degree of separation. duke. they're out because of too many bad losses. why are they bad losses?

i fully understand your points about straight rpi maybe not being the measuring stick. here is what 2019 chairman jack hayes said about their process:
"we put the top 8 rpi at larges on the board, and then we checked to see if there were any outliers." paraphrasing.

this wasn't a scramble to explain which criteria were important after the fact. this was a window into their process. and when you run the process that way, barring some crazy other factors, the top rpi teams get in.

ftr, straight rpi is not a criterion in the rules. unless it is.

What does he mean by outliers?

probably teams outside that group that had great other numbers. or within the group that had poor other numbers.

i was paraphrasing. his words also might have been "if it looked right".

Outliers within the 8 or outliers outside the 8 or both? I would have asked the follow up question because it’s not clear what he means.

[ICGrad]

that's pretty elitist of you!

What can I say. We Ithaca College grads tend to be a pretty haughty bunch. Especially those of us who were townies.

[wgdsr]

that's pretty elitist of you!

What can I say. We Ithaca College grads tend to be a pretty haughty bunch. Especially those of us who were townies.

go little red.

[Farfromgeneva]

that's pretty elitist of you!

What can I say. We Ithaca College grads tend to be a pretty haughty bunch. Especially those of us who were townies.

Best spot in town other than shortstop cafe IMO-too bad they tore it down…

https://ithacavoice.com/2021/02/demolit ... is-coming/

[Hoxwurth]

Duke's silly-high RPI was based upon playing (not necessarily beating) a bunch of teams who happened to finish with good records. Nothing more. Not necessarily good teams; just teams from lesser conferences who finished with good records.

The committee changed replaced the criterion of quality wins (based on RPI) for "wins over tournament teams." Reasonable people can disagree how to apply the criteria, but inventing a new variable, especially after the season, is unconscionable.

If the RPI is open to question, then it's fair to note that the Ivy's RPI was likely inflated, too. While we're opening up the RPI, calling Jacksonville a bad loss is also problematic. So it goes when some RPI ratings are more equal than others.

[CU77]

it makes exactly zero sense. which is what you get as the committee ties itself into knots explaining contradictory reasoning. not the 1st time, it's time honored.

Which is why straight-up RPI would be better. No discretion for the committee on selections and seeds (top 8). Hockey has done this for decades and it works just fine. No one complains, because you can't complain about math.

That math is inadequate in a 12-game season. Want no part of it. Sorry.

A 12 game season is a 12 game season. It provides limited information. You can process that limited information in a consistent, well-defined way that's transparent to all, or you can leave it up to the random whims of five people that change from year to year. You make the call.

[joewillie78]

that's pretty elitist of you!

What can I say. We Ithaca College grads tend to be a pretty haughty bunch. Especially those of us who were townies.

Best spot in town other than shortstop cafe IMO-too bad they tore it down…

https://ithacavoice.com/2021/02/demolit ... is-coming/

Much better when it was in the alley a long time ago. We used to go Every Friday afternoon about 4pm and they had those huge paper containers, like 64 ounces that they filled with Beer for like 3 bucks. 2 of those and I was usually passed out by 6pm, wake up about 8 and head to the Chapter house or the nines.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

[ICGrad]

that's pretty elitist of you!

What can I say. We Ithaca College grads tend to be a pretty haughty bunch. Especially those of us who were townies.

Best spot in town other than shortstop cafe IMO-too bad they tore it down…

https://ithacavoice.com/2021/02/demolit ... is-coming/

Much better when it was in the alley a long time ago. We used to go Every Friday afternoon about 4pm and they had those huge paper containers, like 64 ounces that they filled with Beer for like 3 bucks. 2 of those and I was usually passed out by 6pm, wake up about 8 and head to the Chapter house or the nines.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Used to go out dancing there every Thursday night when I was an undergrad. I lived in a big house with a mix of Cornell and IC students (most of us townies) and we'd drink so much and dance so much it's a wonder I ever made Friday classes.

I also worked at Dos Amigos, the Mexican restaurant at the entrance to the alley, for a year during my Jr. year. Best damn gringo Mexican prep cook in the entire Finger Lakes region, if I do say so myself.

[Farfromgeneva]

that's pretty elitist of you!

What can I say. We Ithaca College grads tend to be a pretty haughty bunch. Especially those of us who were townies.

Best spot in town other than shortstop cafe IMO-too bad they tore it down…

https://ithacavoice.com/2021/02/demolit ... is-coming/

Much better when it was in the alley a long time ago. We used to go Every Friday afternoon about 4pm and they had those huge paper containers, like 64 ounces that they filled with Beer for like 3 bucks. 2 of those and I was usually passed out by 6pm, wake up about 8 and head to the Chapter house or the nines.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

DP dough at 2am…

[Farfromgeneva]

that's pretty elitist of you!

What can I say. We Ithaca College grads tend to be a pretty haughty bunch. Especially those of us who were townies.

Best spot in town other than shortstop cafe IMO-too bad they tore it down…

https://ithacavoice.com/2021/02/demolit ... is-coming/

Much better when it was in the alley a long time ago. We used to go Every Friday afternoon about 4pm and they had those huge paper containers, like 64 ounces that they filled with Beer for like 3 bucks. 2 of those and I was usually passed out by 6pm, wake up about 8 and head to the Chapter house or the nines.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Used to go out dancing there every Thursday night when I was an undergrad. I lived in a big house with a mix of Cornell and IC students (most of us townies) and we'd drink so much and dance so much it's a wonder I ever made Friday classes.

I also worked at Dos Amigos, the Mexican restaurant at the entrance to the alley, for a year during my Jr. year. Best damn gringo Mexican prep cook in the entire Finger Lakes region, if I do say so myself.

I recall Dos Amigos. Now that I’ve sold my mothers house, live down south and cut most tied to upstate I think I miss Ithaca more than my hometown (Binghamton) or even Geneva. Even if Hobart > IC. What’s happened in football last two years will be reversed-you guys got lucky Covid gave you back to back home games .

[Gobigred]

it makes exactly zero sense. which is what you get as the committee ties itself into knots explaining contradictory reasoning. not the 1st time, it's time honored.

Which is why straight-up RPI would be better. No discretion for the committee on selections and seeds (top 8). Hockey has done this for decades and it works just fine. No one complains, because you can't complain about math.

That math is inadequate in a 12-game season. Want no part of it. Sorry.

A 12 game season is a 12 game season. It provides limited information. You can process that limited information in a consistent, well-defined way that's transparent to all, or you can leave it up to the random whims of five people that change from year to year. You make the call.

I did. Using an algorithm as flawed as RPI is in general, and then exacerbating the situation by having some teams playing as few as twelve games, is simply a stupid idea. I'm sure you, of all people, understand the issues with RPI. I'm not a fan of Pairwise, either, an absurdly convoluted system in its explanation that in practice turns out to be warmed over RPI year after year.