So how do they figure the reseeding

[Horror Child]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

I don't believe Valdosta State has ever hosted a semifinal game, any chance we host, if we win?

2004

[boatcapt]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

How would you even quantify that?

Reputation is an entirely subjective figure

Found this from an interview of Donnie Wagner, NCAA Assistant Director of Championships and Alliances for DII concerning the football playoff selection process:

Wagner said that the criteria helps sort things out, along with the competition, but the committee must delve deeper than that.

"Within all that criteria, they will be looking behind the numbers," he said. "There is subjectivity within the objective data."

If that isn't a definitive statement from the NCAA about the subjectivity of the selection process, I don't know what is. If you are "looking behind the numbers" and "delving deeper" than the selection criteria then the selection process is by definition, subjective and not objective.

[Horror Child]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

No.

Those two are cut from the same cloth.

[Horror Child]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

Found this from an interview of Donnie Wagner, NCAA Assistant Director of Championships and Alliances for DII concerning the football playoff selection process:

Wagner said that the criteria helps sort things out, along with the competition, but the committee must delve deeper than that.

"Within all that criteria, they will be looking behind the numbers," he said. "There is subjectivity within the objective data."

If that isn't a definitive statement from the NCAA about the subjectivity of the selection process, I don't know what is. If you are "looking behind the numbers" and "delving deeper" than the selection criteria then the selection process is by definition, subjective and not objective.

Although you do have a good point on this. They made Notre Dame a #1 seed despite having the worst weighted OWP of the three undefeated teams in SR1.

[boatcapt]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

No.

Why do you think not? If the reseeding process is based on the process used for playoff selections and an NCAA official who is intimately involved in the DII selection process says it is an objective system, what makes you think that reputation of the schools/conferences involved DOESN'T enter the process of the individual selection committee members?

Best you can say is that you don't believe it enters into the seeding.

[boatcapt]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

Although you do have a good point on this. They made Notre Dame a #1 seed despite having the worst weighted OWP of the three undefeated teams in SR1.

Not my point, it's the NCAA's point. A case can certainly be made that NDC's seeding was a result of the subjective feelings of some on regional and national selection committees. That's been my point all along...the selection process is either objective (based on data equally applied to ALL. I.E. A formula) or it isn't. If it isn't then it is a subjective selection process were the individual biases and opinions of each committee member quite possibly "taint" the process and the result is a process were every team is not evaluated equally. In short, some programs can be given "bonus points" in committee members eyes if the objective evaluation doesn't produce the results they feel are "right."

[Horror Child]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

Not my point, it's the NCAA's point. A case can certainly be made that NDC's seeding was a result of the subjective feelings of some on regional and national selection committees. That's been my point all along...the selection process is either objective (based on data equally applied to ALL. I.E. A formula) or it isn't. If it isn't then it is a subjective selection process were the individual biases and opinions of each committee member quite possibly "taint" the process and the result is a process were every team is not evaluated equally. In short, some programs can be given "bonus points" in committee members eyes if the objective evaluation doesn't produce the results they feel are "right."

:confused:

[Matt Witwicki]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

Found this from an interview of Donnie Wagner, NCAA Assistant Director of Championships and Alliances for DII concerning the football playoff selection process:

Wagner said that the criteria helps sort things out, along with the competition, but the committee must delve deeper than that.

"Within all that criteria, they will be looking behind the numbers," he said. "There is subjectivity within the objective data."

If that isn't a definitive statement from the NCAA about the subjectivity of the selection process, I don't know what is. If you are "looking behind the numbers" and "delving deeper" than the selection criteria then the selection process is by definition, subjective and not objective.

In speaking with Donnie, I got the impression they'd look a layer further into the numbers if they saw 2 teams as fairly equal per the data and criteria. If they see 2 unbeaten teams that have a close SOS and similar numbers with wins on the road and over .500, then they go a layer deeper. However, if Mankato is .575 for SOS and Notre Dame is .490....and both are unbeaten....no need to look further. Once again, this is just the impression that I've gotten from Donnie. If West Florida and Harding were real close, I could see them going deeper....and that might've included, "why don't we just bus Harding to Commerce, since the squads are nearly the same on paper.." Not saying it's the right thing to do....just sayin tho.

[boatcapt]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

In speaking with Donnie, I got the impression they'd look a layer further into the numbers if they saw 2 teams as fairly equal per the data and criteria. If they see 2 unbeaten teams that have a close SOS and similar numbers with wins on the road and over .500, then they go a layer deeper. However, if Mankato is .575 for SOS and Notre Dame is .490....and both are unbeaten....no need to look further. Once again, this is just the impression that I've gotten from Donnie. If West Florida and Harding were real close, I could see them going deeper....and that might've included, "why don't we just bus Harding to Commerce, since the squads are nearly the same on paper.." Not saying it's the right thing to do....just sayin tho.

Coaches are good at adjusting to criteria, provided they are consistent and equally applied to all. Problem with the current system is that they are not consistently and equally applied. The result is that coaches (and fans) can't interpret what the NCAA finds important. There are those that say win all your games...Well NDC did that but there are some here who say, "Yea but their SOS is lower than other teams with losses so they should have been seeded behind those teams." But in the past, there have been instances were teams with fewer losses lost out come playoff selection time to teams with more losses but a higher SOS. There have also been times when teams that played fewer games were punished even though they had higher winning % than teams that were ranked higher. So how is a coach supposed to adjust?Seems to be a moving target every year with shifting priority given to different criteria. I know, the trite answer is to play 11 games against strong teams, and win them all...Unfortunately, that's not a realistic scenario for most DII programs so they are left in the mushy middle trying to decipher how the NCAA prioritizes its selection criteria from one year to the next and hoping they guessed correctly when building their schedule.

The Mankato or NDC "who would host" argument is a pretty easy one, but that's not always the case and certainly not the case at the 4 through 7 spots. In that area, there are usually many teams with varying W/L, SOS, total games, etc. that can make a case that they should be in the playoffs. When a team that on paper has what many feel is a "better" case for being selected for the playoffs than ones that actually are selected, people want a concrete answer and not some NCAA official talking about looking at layers.

Would an objective formula that ranked every program against the same criteria be a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. But at least it would be difficult to argue with. You could argue with the formula and question the value the NCAA was placing on one criteria over another, but you couldn't argue with the results the formula produced.

[Horror Child]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

Coaches are good at adjusting to criteria, provided they are consistent and equally applied to all. Problem with the current system is that they are not consistently and equally applied. The result is that coaches (and fans) can't interpret what the NCAA finds important. There are those that say win all your games...Well NDC did that but there are some here who say, "Yea but their SOS is lower than other teams with losses so they should have been seeded behind those teams." But in the past, there have been instances were teams with fewer losses lost out come playoff selection time to teams with more losses but a higher SOS. There have also been times when teams that played fewer games were punished even though they had higher winning % than teams that were ranked higher. So how is a coach supposed to adjust?Seems to be a moving target every year with shifting priority given to different criteria. I know, the trite answer is to play 11 games against strong teams, and win them all...Unfortunately, that's not a realistic scenario for most DII programs so they are left in the mushy middle trying to decipher how the NCAA prioritizes its selection criteria from one year to the next and hoping they guessed correctly when building their schedule.

The Mankato or NDC "who would host" argument is a pretty easy one, but that's not always the case and certainly not the case at the 4 through 7 spots. In that area, there are usually many teams with varying W/L, SOS, total games, etc. that can make a case that they should be in the playoffs. When a team that on paper has what many feel is a "better" case for being selected for the playoffs than ones that actually are selected, people want a concrete answer and not some NCAA official talking about looking at layers.

Would an objective formula that ranked every program against the same criteria be a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. But at least it would be difficult to argue with. You could argue with the formula and question the value the NCAA was placing on one criteria over another, but you couldn't argue with the results the formula produced.

This mean, mythical "NCAA" thing that you keep referring to is nothing but coaches and AD's from its member schools. If I'm not mistaken, the MEC commissioner was the chair of the D2 championship football committee this year. Maybe now we know why NDC was a #1 seed despite their poor SOS compared to other teams that also won all of their games. :wink: Furthermore, whatever system gets instituted was developed and/or voted on by its members as well.

As you have been told numerous times for may years, there used to be a very specific formula in the handbook back around 2005 or 2006, but that has since been discarded in favor of the current criteria.

[S&TMinerfan]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

Again
this!!!

why do you think not? If the reseeding process is based on the process used for playoff selections and an ncaa official who is intimately involved in the dii selection process says it is an objective system, what makes you think that reputation of the schools/conferences involved doesn't enter the process of the individual selection committee members?

Best you can say is that you don't believe it enters into the seeding.

[S&TMinerfan]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

This is more along the lines of playoff entries instead of reseeding but I think it is similar and relevant.
As long as you have conferences that do not play out of conference then there will be a biased subjectivity involved! If you take 2 teams that are in the same region but not in the same conference and the team that has less wins (or more losses)and plays only other teams in there conference gets in to playoffs over a team with more wins (or less losses)plus they play an OOC schedule and go undefeated in that OOS that is absolutely subjectively biased. If you can not compare teams because they only play in conference then you have to make a subjective assumption about that team and conference and that can only come from past criteria.

[boatcapt]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

This mean, mythical "NCAA" thing that you keep referring to is nothing but coaches and AD's from its member schools. If I'm not mistaken, the MEC commissioner was the chair of the D2 championship football committee this year. Maybe now we know why NDC was a #1 seed despite their poor SOS compared to other teams that also won all of their games. :wink: Furthermore, whatever system gets instituted was developed and/or voted on by its members as well.

As you have been told numerous times for may years, there used to be a very specific formula in the handbook back around 2005 or 2006, but that has since been discarded in favor of the current criteria.

And in the current subjective process, you can make that claim. If you want to eliminate the ability of humans from intentionally or unintentionally bring their bias into the process, you need to eliminate them from the process.

[Horror Child]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

This is more along the lines of playoff entries instead of reseeding but I think it is similar and relevant.
As long as you have conferences that do not play out of conference then there will be a biased subjectivity involved! If you take 2 teams that are in the same region but not in the same conference and the team that has less wins (or more losses)and plays only other teams in there conference gets in to playoffs over a team with more wins (or less losses)plus they play an OOC schedule and go undefeated in that OOS that is absolutely subjectively biased. If you can not compare teams because they only play in conference then you have to make a subjective assumption about that team and conference and that can only come from past criteria.

Not necessarily. If the OOC opponents had poor records it would lower the supposedly more deserving team's OWS. Some conferences are large and divided into two divisions, so an entire schedule can be played within conference but play the better teams in the other division thus raising their OOC. Do you happen to have two specific teams in mind?

[boatcapt]

Re: So how do they figure the reseeding

This is more along the lines of playoff entries instead of reseeding but I think it is similar and relevant.
As long as you have conferences that do not play out of conference then there will be a biased subjectivity involved! If you take 2 teams that are in the same region but not in the same conference and the team that has less wins (or more losses)and plays only other teams in there conference gets in to playoffs over a team with more wins (or less losses)plus they play an OOC schedule and go undefeated in that OOS that is absolutely subjectively biased. If you can not compare teams because they only play in conference then you have to make a subjective assumption about that team and conference and that can only come from past criteria.

You don't have to make a subjective decision if you have an objective system that is applied to each team equally and without bias.