Re: D1 Men NCAA Tournament
Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 5:22 pm
I want to add one more (all but guaranteed) possibility. The committee is five coaches and administrators. (Is this done anonymously? Do we know who? And who picks them?) These five... work for schools. (In theory, they could be NCAA administrators but I don't think this is the case.) And, as they work for schools, whether directly or indirectly, their decisions can benefit or damage them and others they know. Across the board, people insist that they're rational, don't have agendas, etc. and... They're wrong. Humans are irrational. It's what makes us human. So... they're not that smart, they're just winging it and... They're making prejudiced decisions. i.e. They decided what they decide 100% for altruistic, objective reasons and... It's just not true. They pick SU over High Point over Cornell over whomever because... There's a breeze within all our minds that blow the pointer from here to there when we make decisions. The process needs to be taken out hands of humans and put into the hands of a cold, hard equation.
Agreed. I prefer an above average equation over people. But to answer your first question, I'm prejudiced but... I like FanLax's equation. It would need to be adjusted to each of the coach's tastes but... You can count the number of cells that need to be filled in on one hand. Basically, what percentage of your opponents Points should you get for a W? And what percentage of your Points should you lose for an L? It gets a little more detailed than this but... That's the gist. Currently FanLax's Rankings are set to Admin's taste. e.g. He de-emphasizes game scores. Admin likes Ws and Ls. But the coaches can decide differently. Decide this stuff upfront, then SU loses to Colgate who over the course of the season tanks and... SU loses X Points. There's no discussion of "How bad a loss was this?... maybe we should ignore it?... It was a long time ago and... It just happened once." Just minus X Points. Just as long as all the coaches sign-off on the values upfront (and there aren't a lot of values to decide) and we'd have a transparent, rational system. And coaches, players, and fans would understand the system. People understand RPI generally but... No one thinks like that. People do think like "Denver beat Air Force and... This was a meaningless game" or "Denver just beat Duke. How many Points does that get them?"
Not to get into an academic argument here, but it's not accurate to say humans aren't rational. It's more accurate to say that humans are idiosyncratic. Someone's decision-making might not seem "rational" to you, but it probably rational to the person making the decision. After all, who decides what is rational? Other humans?Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 5:26 pmHumans are irrational. It's what makes us human. So... they're not that smart, they're just winging it and... They're making prejudiced decisions. i.e. They decided what they decide 100% for altruistic, objective reasons and... It's just not true. They pick SU over High Point over Cornell over whomever because... There's a breeze within all our minds that blow the pointer from here to there when we make decisions. The process needs to be taken out hands of humans and put into the hands of a cold, hard equation.
As long as the algorithm isn't preferential towards one team over another, it'll work. Humans make calculators, humans make spreadsheets, humans make smartphones, etc. Just because something is made by humans doesn't mean it's irrational.
Thinking the same thing.bearlaxfan wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 4:52 pm Is this overall the weakest group of goalies to play in the FF in years?
I was surprised they never mentioned it, but overall the Penn St defense flat out got exposed.Sativa Specialist wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 4:59 pmThinking the same thing.bearlaxfan wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 4:52 pm Is this overall the weakest group of goalies to play in the FF in years?
I don't know who Penn State's back up goalie is but I have been waiting for the broadcasting team to bring it up.