2022 D1 Selection Committee

[Chousnake]

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.

The difference this year is that those that defended the system the past 10-15 years are now calling to blow it up because their fair haired boys were left outside looking in for the first time.......ever.

[ICGrad]

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 .

When I was in school (HS and college), Hobart was always one of the easy games on the schedule. Of course, this was peak Butterfield years, so most of the games were easy games.

Ithaca was definitely a great city to grow up in; I'm hoping to take my youngest son there for a week this summer and show him all the gorges and both campuses etc. He's never really gotten to go for an extended period.

My (now-ex) wife was a finalist for a position @ Hobart coming out of grad school; I love Geneva and was really hoping to move back to the finger lakes region. Alas, it didn't happen and we ended in the flat, drab midwest.

[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.

The difference this year is that those that defended the system the past 10-15 years are now calling to blow it up because their fair haired boys were left outside looking in for the first time.......ever.

so it's for the anish, quint and carc thread?

[GSP]

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.

The issue is not whether an RPI is inflated or depressed. The issue is whether RPI is efficient in measuring what it is intended to measure. It is definitely NOT.
1st is the elephant in the room issue that RPI is, mathematically, pathetically crude. When you go to all of the trouble of assembling statistics to the point of measuring a team's inputs, its opponents' inputs, and even its opponents' opponents' inputs, why would you not differentiate the value of the inputs between a team ranked #16th and a team ranked #20? Could you not determine 20 outcomes instead of 4? Particularly, in a year where the statistical weight accorded to a team who beat the #5 ranked team as opposed to the current statistical weight accorded to a win against a Maryland would be immense and yet both wins are valued as a win against a "Top 1-5" under RPI.
Second, the statistical universe is far too small, less than 60, with only 20 having ANY EFFECT AT ALL. Should not a win against a RELATIVELY weak Hopkins at (7 and 9) team not be accorded significantly more statistical weight than a win against NJIT at (0 and 13) or Hampden (0 and 10)?
Third, The margin of victory is not included as a factor. For obvious reasons such as the growth of the game and good sportsmanship, the margin of victory should NOT be considered, however, for purposes of measuring the accuracy of its intended purpose, it ABSOLUTELY MUST BE included as a significant factor.
Lastly, RPI sets out to measure a teams' average strength during the season, not the strength of the fully developed team on Selection Sunday. Do you believe Danowski is ever going to risk giving a lot of his players significant playing time which affords the unheralded guys lower on the depth chart an opportunity to WIN a starting spot at the risk of Duke incurring an early season loss that might be avoided if he elected to just put his entrenched players out there? Do you believe any coach will be willing to schedule a newer program, knowing that the probability that a team like a Detroit Mercy, or Hampton, or Cleveland State is extremely likely to go 2 and 12 and tank that coach's team's RPI? How exactly will that grow the game?

Look I get why the Ivy fans (and I am one) believe that this year's outcome is fitting retribution of some past slight (which I do not), but I will never understand the logic of punishing today's student athletes for some supposed grievance that occurred while those players were in grade school. Retribution is pretty thin gruel, indeed. I will not partake of it.

[CU77]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

[HGK]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

So you are good with Duke being in clearly. Despite the fact that the RPI masks all the reasons they should be out. This isn’t a38 game hockey season! They should use all metrics, including eye test but agree they just need to tell us what the inputs are.

[a fan]

Look I get why the Ivy fans (and I am one) believe that this year's outcome is fitting retribution of some past slight (which I do not), but I will never understand the logic of punishing today's student athletes for some supposed grievance that occurred while those players were in grade school. Retribution is pretty thin gruel, indeed. I will not partake of it.

The logic is: if this system is bad, why did everyone wait until the "cool kids" got the short end of the stick before deciding the system is bad? 20 years of posters explaining why RPI is bad math, and a stupid method to use.

That is ALSO thin gruel. Weak sauce. A bit much to stomach.

That said, I agree with you that it needs fixing. Have for 20 years.

[1766]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

Numbers? We need to start using AQC's eyes! They know everything. Anish's 0.0 minutes of actual game experience is especially helpful!

[CU77]

I agree with you that it needs fixing. Have for 20 years.

"needs fixing" is easy, saying what the fix should be is hard.

I've given mine: select and seed strictly by RPI.

As for Duke, they are #6 in Massey and #7 in Lax-Elo, two rating systems that I think are among the best that it is possible to do. So plenty of objective evidence that Duke deserved a bid.

[HGK]

I agree with you that it needs fixing. Have for 20 years.

"needs fixing" is easy, saying what the fix should be is hard.

I've given mine: select and seed strictly by RPI.

As for Duke, they are #6 in Massey and #7 in Lax-Elo, two rating systems that I think are among the best that it is possible to do. So plenty of objective evidence that Duke deserved a bid.

That’s great but then my opinion is those systems are just as flawed as RPI. Their resume is not even close to those levels.

[ICGrad]

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.

The difference this year is that those that defended the system the past 10-15 years are now calling to blow it up because their fair haired boys were left outside looking in for the first time.......ever.

But that's not really the difference, is it?

Had the committee just gone straight RPI, as the often do, then both Duke and ND would be in, and everyone would be happy.

The real issue this year is that the committee had the cahones to do a little digging behind the numbers and they didn't like what they saw.

[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.

The difference this year is that those that defended the system the past 10-15 years are now calling to blow it up because their fair haired boys were left outside looking in for the first time.......ever.

But that's not really the difference, is it?

Had the committee just gone straight RPI, as the often do, then both Duke and ND would be in, and everyone would be happy.

The real issue this year is that the committee had the cahones to do a little digging behind the numbers and they didn't like what they saw.

respectfully, it's not clear what you mean by the real issue. to whom? i've seen a bunch of varied opinions about what they didn't like.
and they don't all square with that real issue.

[nyjay]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

[Hoxwurth]

I agree with you that it needs fixing. Have for 20 years.

"needs fixing" is easy, saying what the fix should be is hard.

I've given mine: select and seed strictly by RPI.

As for Duke, they are #6 in Massey and #7 in Lax-Elo, two rating systems that I think are among the best that it is possible to do. So plenty of objective evidence that Duke deserved a bid.

Repurpose NET for lacrosse, or use some other system like Lax-Elo or Massey. Give extra weight to quality wins outside the conference, so a league like the IL gets rewarded when it has a good season this year, but not overly so where 6 of 7 teams are selected.

The new system should reward teams like Duke that play a lot of games. The message the committee sent this year was don't play the best teams in a non-elite conference because a loss to a good team like Jacksonville will be used against you with extreme prejudice.

[Gobigred]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

[ICGrad]

respectfully, it's not clear what you mean by the real issue. to whom? i've seen a bunch of varied opinions about what they didn't like.
and they don't all square with that real issue.

You're right. I was vague.

The real issue this year for Duke and ND, their fans and their proponents, is that the committee had the cahones to do a little digging behind the numbers and they didn't like what they saw.

And I'll add that not only did they not like what they saw, they actually did something about it.

[Hoxwurth]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

More deserving as in better performance over the course of a season? Massey suggests that 3 ACC teams are better than the #2 IL team. Lax-Elo suggests that 3 ACC teams are better than the #3 IL team. Both metrics suggest that Jacksonville is better than Brown and Harvard.

If you prefer to measure a team against its schedule, Strength of Record would have the following teams for at-large (in order):
1. Rutgers
2. Virginia
3. Yale
4. Princeton
5. Cornell
6. Notre Dame
7. Army
8. Jacksonville

Not in:
Duke, Ohio State, Brown, nor Harvard. Admittedly, it's tight from Army through Brown but not Harvard. At least with Strength of Record, teams like Jacksonville and Army would be in the pool for consideration.

[Farfromgeneva]

I agree with you that it needs fixing. Have for 20 years.

"needs fixing" is easy, saying what the fix should be is hard.

I've given mine: select and seed strictly by RPI.

As for Duke, they are #6 in Massey and #7 in Lax-Elo, two rating systems that I think are among the best that it is possible to do. So plenty of objective evidence that Duke deserved a bid.

Don’t know about you, but I find rock throwing to be far more satisfying than solving problems.

[wgdsr]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

[nyjay]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

You're missing the point. It's not to say that the 6th best team in a conference can't get in, it just makes in harder for them to get in. If you're breaking tie between the 2nd place team in one conference and the 6th place team in another, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look to conference record to do that. I think Army is the most perennially screwed over team in all of the lacrosse when it comes to tournament bids. I think would address that issue. And seriously, cry me a river if you finish 6th in your conference and don't get a bid.