Originally posted by Tony Nicolette
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Regional Rankings
Collapse
Support The Site!
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Tony Nicolette View PostI have thought about this from about every angle I could, and tried to work #'s however I could. I think I'm with Brandon...my gut is telling me that GV is going to end up on the 4 almost any way this gets sliced. I tend to agree also that NW has a real good chance of jumping all the way to the 2...
Harding lost on the road to the #8 team in the region, NWMS lost on the road to the #9 team in the region. So if GV not only doesn't move up to #2, but gets LOWERED to #4, it would be an example of outrageous inconsistency by the regional committee. Between having both a better road record *and* a better SOS than the other 1 loss teams no matter how things play out this weekend, there's zero reason for GV to not be #2 in the region.2021 D2Football Fantasy Champion
Comment
-
Originally posted by KleShreen View Post
That would be an absolute joke considering GV would have been undefeated on the road (and in the past, the committee has favored road records over home records), with their only loss coming to the #1 team in the region, and they have the strongest SOS of any of the other teams that would have 1 loss.
Harding lost on the road to the #8 team in the region, NWMS lost on the road to the #9 team in the region. So if GV not only doesn't move up to #2, but gets LOWERED to #4, it would be an example of outrageous inconsistency by the regional committee. Between having both a better road record *and* a better SOS than the other 1 loss teams no matter how things play out this weekend, there's zero reason for GV to not be #2 in the region.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KleShreen View Post
That would be an absolute joke considering GV would have been undefeated on the road (and in the past, the committee has favored road records over home records), with their only loss coming to the #1 team in the region, and they have the strongest SOS of any of the other teams that would have 1 loss.
Harding lost on the road to the #8 team in the region, NWMS lost on the road to the #9 team in the region. So if GV not only doesn't move up to #2, but gets LOWERED to #4, it would be an example of outrageous inconsistency by the regional committee. Between having both a better road record *and* a better SOS than the other 1 loss teams no matter how things play out this weekend, there's zero reason for GV to not be #2 in the region.
The best argument is the argument made by GV Retired Bum despite the fact that it is not part of the criteria. The weakness in the argument would be the failure to recognize that it was a home loss for GV. An argument that GV (or any other team) should have a better rating based upon results against other teams in the very same rating, is circular at best.
Any argument that "my team" is getting raised or lowered fails to recognize that all of the results are not in. The data is not complete. If the season were 10 games long, the Lakers would be the #3 seed. All data will change by 10% this week.
GV is obviously getting penalized for having fewer games. I find that frustrating.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GV Retired Bum View Post
Totally agree Kle. The numbers and actual gameplay doesnt support GV being #4 in the region. I would say playing less games is definitely a negative the committee cant ignore. It sucks, because we all know the level of competition Harding plays, but they do have more games played which should be a positive for them.
Comment
-
To this point, I have found that the Performance Index seems to most closely resemble what I believe to be reality across the country. I used Massey to project the games. This is how it would look in SR3 using PI:
Current 1. Ferris State 29.889 2. Northwest 28.444 3. Grand Valley 28.000 4. Harding 27.900 5. Lindenwood 27.444 6. Henderson 27.100 7. Neb-Kearney 26.400 Projected 1. Ferris Sate 28.900 2. Northwest 27.800 3. Grand Valley 27.111 4. Harding 26.909
Comment
-
Originally posted by GV Retired Bum View Post
Do we know how much they actually sit down and talk about the teams? or do they just have a set of data markers that show them who should be ranked higher? I dont really know how it all works
Back in the day, a group of people would simply select the best four teams in each region. I liked that model better.
Comment
-
The awkward thing is that the W%+SOS formula does not adequately account for number of games played. That is evident when comparing Northwest Missouri State with Harding (or Henderson State, should they win). Harding will have .500 SOS + .909 W% = 1.409. NW will have .533 SOS + .900 W% = 1.433. If they'd played Lincoln, the numbers would be identical. Is NW more deserving than they would be if they had played Lincoln?
Basically, any system that compares overall OWP without considering the number of games played does not make mathematical sense.
Comment
-
A factor that we've not discussed is the Silo thing. With no OOC games for 1/2 the conferences, it's somewhat difficult to judge the quality of the wins/losses. IF the voters would watch the games, they may be able to evaluate the quality of play. But, very few minutes, if any, of the games are watched so the comm. votes with mostly the metrics presented to them.
And even then, none of us know how much each metric is weighed to determine the seeding order. Suffice to say, my suspicions are that each voter has is own way of determining the order and should differences emerge (yes they do, LOL) personal relationships and persuasion come into play.
I'm focused on GV, and frankly I don't get why they aren't a 4 now.. and maybe even a 5. But if I'm looking at SOS, PI and who they lost to, I'd put em at #2. I suspect all of us posting here would love to sit in on that selection meeting on Sunday!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Inkblot View PostThe awkward thing is that the W%+SOS formula does not adequately account for number of games played. That is evident when comparing Northwest Missouri State with Harding (or Henderson State, should they win). Harding will have .500 SOS + .909 W% = 1.409. NW will have .533 SOS + .900 W% = 1.433. If they'd played Lincoln, the numbers would be identical. Is NW more deserving than they would be if they had played Lincoln?
Basically, any system that compares overall OWP without considering the number of games played does not make mathematical sense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Redwing View Post
I get your point. Somewhat related, I believe that using mathematics/numbers alone is flawed. I certainly don't have a formula to decide a seeding. And that's why I'm perfectly fine for using judgement to rank the teams. Without a doubt, the data to make the judgements should be supplied by one source to promote consistency. But after that, IMO, all bets are off. True, inconsistencies from region to region will exist, but that is better than using objective data alone that results in selections that don't meet the eye test. Though, many a time, it's clear cut to use a metric. Other times using the same metric will lead to a questionable or just plain wrong conclusion.2021 D2Football Fantasy Champion
Comment
-
Originally posted by Inkblot View PostThe awkward thing is that the W%+SOS formula does not adequately account for number of games played. That is evident when comparing Northwest Missouri State with Harding (or Henderson State, should they win). Harding will have .500 SOS + .909 W% = 1.409. NW will have .533 SOS + .900 W% = 1.433. If they'd played Lincoln, the numbers would be identical. Is NW more deserving than they would be if they had played Lincoln?
Basically, any system that compares overall OWP without considering the number of games played does not make mathematical sense.
A 1.000 winning percentage is achievable.
A 1.000 SOS is not achievable except by an independent team that plays every otherwise undefeated team in the country.
The winning percentage will always have a greater mathematical value.
Comment
Ad3
Collapse
Comment