NCAA Selection Discussion - Containment Thread

[10stone5]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

Here’s what Woodruff said last year,

Loyola athletics director Donna Woodruff, chair of the NCAA Division I men’s lacrosse committee, said it’s not the committee’s job to determine whether teams are “getting hot at the right time.” Notre Dame certainly fits that criteria. But in the eyes of the committee, the Irish did not meet the standard requirements for qualification.

Woodruff said there were six teams — Notre Dame, Duke, Brown, Harvard, Ohio State and Virginia — being considered for the final four tournament spots. Notre Dame and Duke drew the short straws. Woodruff cited “more significant losses” for those teams. In addition to the loss to Virginia, the Irish lost to Georgetown, Maryland and Ohio State in a 1-3 start to the season. All four of the Irish’s losses came to NCAA Tournament teams.

[nms]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

Here’s what Woodruff said last year,

Loyola athletics director Donna Woodruff, chair of the NCAA Division I men’s lacrosse committee, said it’s not the committee’s job to determine whether teams are “getting hot at the right time.” Notre Dame certainly fits that criteria. But in the eyes of the committee, the Irish did not meet the standard requirements for qualification.

Woodruff said there were six teams — Notre Dame, Duke, Brown, Harvard, Ohio State and Virginia — being considered for the final four tournament spots. Notre Dame and Duke drew the short straws. Woodruff cited “more significant losses” for those teams. In addition to the loss to Virginia, the Irish lost to Georgetown, Maryland and Ohio State in a 1-3 start to the season. All four of the Irish’s losses came to NCAA Tournament teams.

not to beat a very dead horse, but the point of the last line was not to discredit 'good losses', but to point out that there were no wins over tournament teams (and please please please lets not rehash the argument about wins over Duke with a high RPI).

[wgdsr]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

Here’s what Woodruff said last year,

Loyola athletics director Donna Woodruff, chair of the NCAA Division I men’s lacrosse committee, said it’s not the committee’s job to determine whether teams are “getting hot at the right time.” Notre Dame certainly fits that criteria. But in the eyes of the committee, the Irish did not meet the standard requirements for qualification.

Woodruff said there were six teams — Notre Dame, Duke, Brown, Harvard, Ohio State and Virginia — being considered for the final four tournament spots. Notre Dame and Duke drew the short straws. Woodruff cited “more significant losses” for those teams. In addition to the loss to Virginia, the Irish lost to Georgetown, Maryland and Ohio State in a 1-3 start to the season. All four of the Irish’s losses came to NCAA Tournament teams.

the more significant losses part i won't hang on woodruff as it's not a full quote. she might have been talking about duke only. tosu's losses were worse.

sounds like she's replying to carc et.al. on the former bold.

[ICGrad]

Wait...the Irish didn't make the tourney last year?

Why isn't this a bigger deal? I don't think I've seen anyone even mention this.

[rolldodge]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you cite as being fundamentally altered (or abandoned for chaos)... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't entirely correct, that means the committee deviated from following them strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. In this case, the deviation occurred for one team, which is not unprecedented. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

[wgdsr]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you are citing as having been fundamentally altered... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't, that means the committee deviated from following the criteria strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

huh? you brought laf into this discussion. there's no evidence they use his formula every year (you didn't say that, but still) or any year, not to mention there's different committees that can not only value different things from 2 or 10 years prior. he can speak for himself, but he's modeling something that he believes past weights may suggest outcomes.

we have zero idea if any committees used any weights in the percentage sense at all. but we can line up the 8/10 criteria and see who beats who at what. some may be disregarded entirely by the committee, or may as well be. they can have their faves. but if there is criteria set out, and one team overwhelmingly wins those... do you have an example of that ever happening before?

[rolldodge]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you are citing as having been fundamentally altered... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't, that means the committee deviated from following the criteria strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

huh? you brought laf into this discussion. there's no evidence they use his formula every year (you didn't say that, but still) or any year, not to mention there's different committees that can not only value different things from 2 or 10 years prior. he can speak for himself, but he's modeling something that he believes past weights may suggest outcomes.

we have zero idea if any committees used any weights in the percentage sense at all. but we can line up the 8/10 criteria and see who beats who at what. some may be disregarded entirely by the committee, or may as well be. they can have their faves. but if there is criteria set out, and one team overwhelmingly wins those... do you have an example of that ever happening before?

.................................RPI...SOS...QWF...TOTAL
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ).............14.....8.....16.....38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ).....10.....20....9......39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 )......... 15.....18....10 ....43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 )........... 9.......17....18.....44

RPI and SOS are self-explanatory. Quality Win Factor (QWF) is just an almagam of the wins over Top 5 / Top 10/ Top 20 / less than top 25 losses critieria.

That doesn't look "overwhelming" to me. As far as it happening before, I'll have to see if I can find an example of it happening similarly to this, but I do know that it is not unprecedented for the expected team based on the criteria to not make the tournament.

[rolldodge]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you are citing as having been fundamentally altered... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't, that means the committee deviated from following the criteria strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

huh? you brought laf into this discussion. there's no evidence they use his formula every year (you didn't say that, but still) or any year, not to mention there's different committees that can not only value different things from 2 or 10 years prior. he can speak for himself, but he's modeling something that he believes past weights may suggest outcomes.

we have zero idea if any committees used any weights in the percentage sense at all. but we can line up the 8/10 criteria and see who beats who at what. some may be disregarded entirely by the committee, or may as well be. they can have their faves. but if there is criteria set out, and one team overwhelmingly wins those... do you have an example of that ever happening before?

These are the numbers from 2010. RPI / SOS / QWF / Total


10 Georgetown ( 9 - 5 ) .....9....11...11.....31
11 Johns Hopkins ( 7 - 8 )...11....7....2......38
12 Army ( 11 - 6 )............ 13...12...17.....42
13 Loyola ( 9 - 5 ).............12...20....12....44
14 Denver ( 12 - 5 )...........14...21....10....45
15 Mount St. Mary's ( 12 - 5 )16...16....16....48
16 Brown ( 8 - 6 )..............19...15....21....55
17 Hofstra ( 9 - 5 )........... 15...25....15....55

Denver, Army, and MSM were AQs. Loyola, and Hofstra were selected over Georgetown. Talk about "overwhelming"! Now I remember why I took such a particular interest in this

[Chousnake]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you are citing as having been fundamentally altered... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't, that means the committee deviated from following the criteria strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

huh? you brought laf into this discussion. there's no evidence they use his formula every year (you didn't say that, but still) or any year, not to mention there's different committees that can not only value different things from 2 or 10 years prior. he can speak for himself, but he's modeling something that he believes past weights may suggest outcomes.

we have zero idea if any committees used any weights in the percentage sense at all. but we can line up the 8/10 criteria and see who beats who at what. some may be disregarded entirely by the committee, or may as well be. they can have their faves. but if there is criteria set out, and one team overwhelmingly wins those... do you have an example of that ever happening before?

These are the numbers from 2010. RPI / SOS / QWF / Total


10 Georgetown ( 9 - 5 ) .....9....11...11.....31
11 Johns Hopkins ( 7 - 8 )...11....7....2......38
12 Army ( 11 - 6 )............ 13...12...17.....42
13 Loyola ( 9 - 5 ).............12...20....12....44
14 Denver ( 12 - 5 )...........14...21....10....45
15 Mount St. Mary's ( 12 - 5 )16...16....16....48
16 Brown ( 8 - 6 )..............19...15....21....55
17 Hofstra ( 9 - 5 )........... 15...25....15....55

Denver, Army, and MSM were AQs. Loyola, and Hofstra were selected over Georgetown. Talk about "overwhelming"! Now I remember why I took such a particular interest in this

You can find situations analogous to last year almost every single year. I've never seen a stink made about it as much and as long as that made by the ND and ACC folks last year (going on 11 months and counting). It just never ever ends. And they make it seem as if the criteria have been ironclad except in 2022.

[MoralTerpitude]

Simple cure: a 9-team tournament of conference champs only, with a conference tournament (of at least 4 teams) mandated for every conference to determine that champ.

Didn't win your conference tournament? Too bad so sad, but then you don't belong in the national tournament.

I'd like to see all sports do the same.

I mean this is just simply the wrong answer. In what world would the same amount of ACC or B10 teams get in as the MAAC or the ASUN.

Your take completely disregards strength of schedule. The purpose of AQs is so that schools who play in weaker divisions get a shot at the big dance where they normally would not qualify based on merit alone. The ACC does not even have an AQ for crying out loud

He’s saying the conference championships would take care of the equity / merit piece, strength against strength - equivalent power teams would eliminate each other from the final actual NCAA tournament.

Doesn’t make sense at all.

On the merits, probably half the conference champs wouldn’t deserve to be in the tournament.

We have seen over the years many teams with weak schedules and pretty records get trounced in the tournament.

The AQs serve their purpose. But let’s not get carried away here.

DocBarrister

This used to be how the basketball tournament teams were selected as well. Didn’t work very well. There was a great Maryland team in 1974 under Driesel, was number 2 in the nation, didn’t make it into the tournament because the ACC only got one bid. N.C. State beat them in the ACC tournament final, in overtime. They then went on to win the NCAA tournament as well, upsetting UCLA. This ultimately forced the field to expand to 32 teams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_ACC_ ... tournament

On the plus side, this construct would provide a perfectly legitimate reason to exclude Notre Dame every year.

The Len Elmore/John Lucas team that lost out to the Nate Burleson, David, Skywalker Thompson and Monte Towe NC STATE team that ended up stopping the Walton UCLA long winning streak In OT, I believe In the final? Not sure really if the MD. Team could have beaten UCLA like NC State did.
Gobigred
Joewillie78

No
they couldn’t have.

Well… NC State beat the Terps in overtime, and needed overtime to beat UCLA. So who knows. But regardless, whether they would have won the championship is irrelevant; there were 25 teams in that tournament, but it didn’t include a top-3 team (or #6 UNC for that matter).

[Essexfenwick]

UCLA beat UMD by 1 point at UCLA that year. Maryland outshot the Bruins, outrebounded them and scored two more baskets.

Definitely could have beat them

[wgdsr]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you are citing as having been fundamentally altered... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't, that means the committee deviated from following the criteria strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

huh? you brought laf into this discussion. there's no evidence they use his formula every year (you didn't say that, but still) or any year, not to mention there's different committees that can not only value different things from 2 or 10 years prior. he can speak for himself, but he's modeling something that he believes past weights may suggest outcomes.

we have zero idea if any committees used any weights in the percentage sense at all. but we can line up the 8/10 criteria and see who beats who at what. some may be disregarded entirely by the committee, or may as well be. they can have their faves. but if there is criteria set out, and one team overwhelmingly wins those... do you have an example of that ever happening before?

These are the numbers from 2010. RPI / SOS / QWF / Total


10 Georgetown ( 9 - 5 ) .....9....11...11.....31
11 Johns Hopkins ( 7 - 8 )...11....7....2......38
12 Army ( 11 - 6 )............ 13...12...17.....42
13 Loyola ( 9 - 5 ).............12...20....12....44
14 Denver ( 12 - 5 )...........14...21....10....45
15 Mount St. Mary's ( 12 - 5 )16...16....16....48
16 Brown ( 8 - 6 )..............19...15....21....55
17 Hofstra ( 9 - 5 )........... 15...25....15....55

Denver, Army, and MSM were AQs. Loyola, and Hofstra were selected over Georgetown. Talk about "overwhelming"! Now I remember why I took such a particular interest in this

You can find situations analogous to last year almost every single year. I've never seen a stink made about it as much and as long as that made by the ND and ACC folks last year (going on 11 months and counting). It just never ever ends. And they make it seem as if the criteria have been ironclad except in 2022.

they were 2 years in a row in that 2009-2011 time frame? where by explanation of the committee, they excluded g'town bc of one criterion, and then flipped it the following year based on the same criterion supposedly when g'town had the advantage. i forget exactly, but i remember notre dame being involved. and nd getting the nod bc they beat a higher ranked team (g'town by rpi) when they had played twice and split 1-1, vs g'town beating nd (lower ranked)!!! that was cray. they got hosed. one of tgose years might've been when seaman pulled the ooc away record tiebreaker.

what i'm interested in knowing is if there has ever been a team excluded that absolutely dominated the criteria (like 6 or 8 to 1 or 2) and was left out.

[wgdsr]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you are citing as having been fundamentally altered... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't, that means the committee deviated from following the criteria strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

huh? you brought laf into this discussion. there's no evidence they use his formula every year (you didn't say that, but still) or any year, not to mention there's different committees that can not only value different things from 2 or 10 years prior. he can speak for himself, but he's modeling something that he believes past weights may suggest outcomes.

we have zero idea if any committees used any weights in the percentage sense at all. but we can line up the 8/10 criteria and see who beats who at what. some may be disregarded entirely by the committee, or may as well be. they can have their faves. but if there is criteria set out, and one team overwhelmingly wins those... do you have an example of that ever happening before?

These are the numbers from 2010. RPI / SOS / QWF / Total


10 Georgetown ( 9 - 5 ) .....9....11...11.....31
11 Johns Hopkins ( 7 - 8 )...11....7....2......38
12 Army ( 11 - 6 )............ 13...12...17.....42
13 Loyola ( 9 - 5 ).............12...20....12....44
14 Denver ( 12 - 5 )...........14...21....10....45
15 Mount St. Mary's ( 12 - 5 )16...16....16....48
16 Brown ( 8 - 6 )..............19...15....21....55
17 Hofstra ( 9 - 5 )........... 15...25....15....55

Denver, Army, and MSM were AQs. Loyola, and Hofstra were selected over Georgetown. Talk about "overwhelming"! Now I remember why I took such a particular interest in this

You can find situations analogous to last year almost every single year. I've never seen a stink made about it as much and as long as that made by the ND and ACC folks last year (going on 11 months and counting). It just never ever ends. And they make it seem as if the criteria have been ironclad except in 2022.

sweet, just what i've been looking for. just give one of them when a team won 1 or 2 of the criteria and lost on all the rest, yet still was put in? and what was the tally?

[suitcase10]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you are citing as having been fundamentally altered... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't, that means the committee deviated from following the criteria strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

huh? you brought laf into this discussion. there's no evidence they use his formula every year (you didn't say that, but still) or any year, not to mention there's different committees that can not only value different things from 2 or 10 years prior. he can speak for himself, but he's modeling something that he believes past weights may suggest outcomes.

we have zero idea if any committees used any weights in the percentage sense at all. but we can line up the 8/10 criteria and see who beats who at what. some may be disregarded entirely by the committee, or may as well be. they can have their faves. but if there is criteria set out, and one team overwhelmingly wins those... do you have an example of that ever happening before?

These are the numbers from 2010. RPI / SOS / QWF / Total


10 Georgetown ( 9 - 5 ) .....9....11...11.....31
11 Johns Hopkins ( 7 - 8 )...11....7....2......38
12 Army ( 11 - 6 )............ 13...12...17.....42
13 Loyola ( 9 - 5 ).............12...20....12....44
14 Denver ( 12 - 5 )...........14...21....10....45
15 Mount St. Mary's ( 12 - 5 )16...16....16....48
16 Brown ( 8 - 6 )..............19...15....21....55
17 Hofstra ( 9 - 5 )........... 15...25....15....55

Denver, Army, and MSM were AQs. Loyola, and Hofstra were selected over Georgetown. Talk about "overwhelming"! Now I remember why I took such a particular interest in this

You can find situations analogous to last year almost every single year. I've never seen a stink made about it as much and as long as that made by the ND and ACC folks last year (going on 11 months and counting). It just never ever ends. And they make it seem as if the criteria have been ironclad except in 2022.

Where is this forum or website where ND folks keep
Talking about 2022? ND lax seems to be one of the least busy threads on fanlax, every year.

[10stone5]

Somebody please kill this thread

[rolldodge]

there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.

laf has done a lot of great work. laf is not on the selection committee. he has his own system to make a prediction on what the committee will do. i haven't commented on anything laf has done.

LAFs calculations are a mathematical representation of the criteria you are citing as having been fundamentally altered... If they follow the criteria strictly, his calculations will be correct. If they aren't, that means the committee deviated from following the criteria strictly. But they aren't beholden to follow the criteria strictly. I guess I'm confused then in what your are suggesting.

huh? you brought laf into this discussion. there's no evidence they use his formula every year (you didn't say that, but still) or any year, not to mention there's different committees that can not only value different things from 2 or 10 years prior. he can speak for himself, but he's modeling something that he believes past weights may suggest outcomes.

we have zero idea if any committees used any weights in the percentage sense at all. but we can line up the 8/10 criteria and see who beats who at what. some may be disregarded entirely by the committee, or may as well be. they can have their faves. but if there is criteria set out, and one team overwhelmingly wins those... do you have an example of that ever happening before?

These are the numbers from 2010. RPI / SOS / QWF / Total


10 Georgetown ( 9 - 5 ) .....9....11...11.....31
11 Johns Hopkins ( 7 - 8 )...11....7....2......38
12 Army ( 11 - 6 )............ 13...12...17.....42
13 Loyola ( 9 - 5 ).............12...20....12....44
14 Denver ( 12 - 5 )...........14...21....10....45
15 Mount St. Mary's ( 12 - 5 )16...16....16....48
16 Brown ( 8 - 6 )..............19...15....21....55
17 Hofstra ( 9 - 5 )........... 15...25....15....55

Denver, Army, and MSM were AQs. Loyola, and Hofstra were selected over Georgetown. Talk about "overwhelming"! Now I remember why I took such a particular interest in this

You can find situations analogous to last year almost every single year. I've never seen a stink made about it as much and as long as that made by the ND and ACC folks last year (going on 11 months and counting). It just never ever ends. And they make it seem as if the criteria have been ironclad except in 2022.

sweet, just what i've been looking for. just give one of them when a team won 1 or 2 of the criteria and lost on all the rest, yet still was put in? and what was the tally?

Are you serious? In the above scenario, not one but TWO teams lost on ALL the criteria but were included over GT. I suppose you can argue that Loyola got in based on their head-to-head win, but Hofstra?

[wgdsr]

sweet, just what i've been looking for. just give one of them when a team won 1 or 2 of the criteria and lost on all the rest, yet still was put in? and what was the tally?

Are you serious? In the above scenario, not one but TWO teams lost on ALL the criteria but were included over GT. I suppose you can argue that Loyola got in based on their head-to-head win, but Hofstra?

rolldodge... laf's formula is not the criteria. at all. the criteria is listed in the nc$$ rulebook. and tourney manual. he could answer better, but his formula is a predictor on what things the committee may value based on past picks and then finding what may be predictive ways of computing. an educated guess. that's all.

[rolldodge]

sweet, just what i've been looking for. just give one of them when a team won 1 or 2 of the criteria and lost on all the rest, yet still was put in? and what was the tally?

Are you serious? In the above scenario, not one but TWO teams lost on ALL the criteria but were included over GT. I suppose you can argue that Loyola got in based on their head-to-head win, but Hofstra?

rolldodge... laf's formula is not the criteria. at all. the criteria is listed in the nc$$ rulebook. and tourney manual. he could answer better, but his formula is a predictor on what things the committee may value based on past picks and then finding what may be predictive ways of computing. an educated guess. that's all.

Its a proxy for the criteria. It is close enough that you can see in this case (2010) that the situation fits and exceeds your search for examples.

[wgdsr]

sweet, just what i've been looking for. just give one of them when a team won 1 or 2 of the criteria and lost on all the rest, yet still was put in? and what was the tally?

Are you serious? In the above scenario, not one but TWO teams lost on ALL the criteria but were included over GT. I suppose you can argue that Loyola got in based on their head-to-head win, but Hofstra?

rolldodge... laf's formula is not the criteria. at all. the criteria is listed in the nc$$ rulebook. and tourney manual. he could answer better, but his formula is a predictor on what things the committee may value based on past picks and then finding what may be predictive ways of computing. an educated guess. that's all.

Its a proxy for the criteria. It is close enough that you can see in this case (2010) that the situation fits and exceeds your search for examples.

respectfully, it's not. the 2022 data is even post nc$$s, dunno about the other.

but it doesn't matter. there are a half dozen or so hard core guys that do their own calculations and share a group chat, etc., don't know if laf is in that crew. i like cu77's input and other ratings. but i'm speaking directly to the "criteria", not a proxy or anyone's formula for guessing/predicting the outcome.

but i do like all the work they put out.

anyway, i love that system that you've thrown up on fanlax. more than once i've thrown up a similar one.... struggled with number assigning but i never liked the breaks at 5, 10, 20 etc. so tried working numbers...

160 pts for a w over #1 then down 6 points for first 5 (to 130 pts), down 5 for each from 6-10 (giving a win to #10 as 105 points)then down 4 for the next 10 (to 65 pts vs #20) down 2 for next 20 to 25 pts for #40. then down 1/2 point for last 35 so win over #75 gives like 7.5 points.

then reverse it for losses, but lost points start @ 10 or 20 and maybe go up a bit slower. a number cruncher would have to map it out/back test to get what looks like a proper fit.

but yeah, the risk/reward on games when done in that type of system is the way it should be, and gives teams an idea of exactly what they have to do as a season rolls along. and weighing the opportunity costs on games... good stuff.

[rolldodge]

sweet, just what i've been looking for. just give one of them when a team won 1 or 2 of the criteria and lost on all the rest, yet still was put in? and what was the tally?

Are you serious? In the above scenario, not one but TWO teams lost on ALL the criteria but were included over GT. I suppose you can argue that Loyola got in based on their head-to-head win, but Hofstra?

rolldodge... laf's formula is not the criteria. at all. the criteria is listed in the nc$$ rulebook. and tourney manual. he could answer better, but his formula is a predictor on what things the committee may value based on past picks and then finding what may be predictive ways of computing. an educated guess. that's all.

Its a proxy for the criteria. It is close enough that you can see in this case (2010) that the situation fits and exceeds your search for examples.

respectfully, it's not. the 2022 data is even post nc$$s, dunno about the other.

but it doesn't matter. there are a half dozen or so hard core guys that do their own calculations and share a group chat, etc., don't know if laf is in that crew. i like cu77's input and other ratings. but i'm speaking directly to the "criteria", not a proxy or anyone's formula for guessing/predicting the outcome.

but i do like all the work they put out.

anyway, i love that system that you've thrown up on fanlax. more than once i've thrown up a similar one.... struggled with number assigning but i never liked the breaks at 5, 10, 20 etc. so tried working numbers...

160 pts for a w over #1 then down 6 points for first 5 (to 130 pts), down 5 for each from 6-10 (giving a win to #10 as 105 points)then down 4 for the next 10 (to 65 pts vs #20) down 2 for next 20 to 25 pts for #40. then down 1/2 point for last 35 so win over #75 gives like 7.5 points.

then reverse it for losses, but lost points start @ 10 or 20 and maybe go up a bit slower. a number cruncher would have to map it out/back test to get what looks like a proper fit.

but yeah, the risk/reward on games when done in that type of system is the way it should be, and gives teams an idea of exactly what they have to do as a season rolls along. and weighing the opportunity costs on games... good stuff.

You are right. The data is post NCAAs. Its hard to find numbers that are pre-NCAAs, but looking at the 2010 example, based on the criteria as enumerated more explicitly, I think you'd see Gtown winning around 5 categories to 3 (against Hofstra) with a draw on record against common opponents and N/A for head to head. Plus they had the higher RPI.

So, teams have not been selected in the past who have beat out the selected team in the criteria by a significant margin. If 2022 represents some kind of "sea change" with regards to the committee, its up to you to define that and explain why. What is the margin of deviation that defines the "sea change"? I'd say that 2010 shows that teams can be selected even if they lose on the criteria and that that has already defined the possible deviation from what is published. And I'd bet its happened more than this instance. 2022 is not unprecedented, even if you can show that the deviation was more severe. If 2023 shows some equal or worse deviation that starts to show a pattern, you might have a case.

Thanks for the kind words about the ranking system. I'm not really that much of a numbers guy, but I do see the value in using data to tease out biases and potentially reveal some unintuitive insights. Plus I like tying it somewhat to the selection criteria, because as flawed as it might be, it does generally pan out and its bad for the sport (IMHO) to have polls that are wildly out of wack with the teams selected for the tournament.