|
Post by kevin on Jan 24, 2014 23:06:33 GMT -6
One thing I think is sometimes overlooked in these types of comparisons is that I believe there is a small but real element of "self fulfilling prophecy" under any rating system that make comparisons like this impossible to accept at face value. ie: if the coaches' seeding puts team A as 16 instead of 17 (or 15 instead of 18, etc.) then team A is somewhat more likely to win due to playing at home (particularly where significant travel is necessary for the visiting team) , playing slightly weaker opponents, etc. If the Power rankings put team B a little higher, then Team B would be somewhat more likely to win. So I think that the simple fact that a team is ranked higher in a particular rating system has an effect on the outcome of some games and thus kind of fulfills that rating system putting the team there. I think there may be an element of that, but I have to imagine that the effects of home field advantage are fairly small. From what I understand, much of the research about home field advantage at the professional level in various sports suggests that the referees are unconsciously biased in favor of the home team due to the pressure from the crowd. And unfortunately, lots of high school soccer matches don't involve very big crowds. Other possible factors: pitch surface suiting one team or another (turf vs. grass, muddy conditions, a very narrow or wide field), travel (as you mentioned), playing on-campus (team gets to hang out in their familiar locker rooms). Depending on the match-up, some of those factors may not be present. Anyone know which districts (either boys or girls) play every other team twice a year (home-and-home) and have every team in an on-campus stadium? Might be an interesting research project.
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Jan 25, 2014 6:56:50 GMT -6
Anyone know which districts (either boys or girls) play every other team twice a year (home-and-home) and have every team in an on-campus stadium? Might be an interesting research project. I think while it may be pretty small, the home field advantage does manifest itself at this level. Especially between fairly even teams who have a significant turn out of spectators. I know we went like two years without losing at home until the 1 goal loss to St. MIkes earlier this month. And a quick check on the ratings on teams like Zachary and Denham Springs and Destrehan and Hahnville looks like the home squad won in those home and home series. Even St. Amant and Catholic, while Catholic won both the difference seemed significant - Catholic won by I think 3 at home while it went to PKs at the pit. I'm not a good enough number cruncher to see if a statistical analysis would support a difference outside of admittedly anecdotal evidence like this. Maybe someone would have the talent and inclination to do so. (Of course in high school soccer, tournaments play a big part, the analysis would be somewhat complicated as the venue is technically neutral but there are sometimes teams from a few miles away and teams from a few hours away so I don't know how that would factor in). With regard to crowd intimidation causing unconscious bias in officials - I dunno. But I think 15 or so grandparents, along with students and of course parents, might approach the level of intimidation of several thousand pro fans. Plus, I think there may be other factors that can create unconscious bias in HS officials, especially in the cities - ie: familiarity with the home team from things like club ball, reffing numerous of their matches, etc. And of course ptich size and surface does come into play. Most teams would, I think tailor their game to a style that best benefits their home field.
|
|
|
Post by rlb2024 on Jan 25, 2014 8:05:47 GMT -6
One thing I think is sometimes overlooked in these types of comparisons is that I believe there is a small but real element of "self fulfilling prophecy" under any rating system that make comparisons like this impossible to accept at face value. ie: if the coaches' seeding puts team A as 16 instead of 17 (or 15 instead of 18, etc.) then team A is somewhat more likely to win due to playing at home (particularly where significant travel is necessary for the visiting team) , playing slightly weaker opponents, etc. If the Power rankings put team B a little higher, then Team B would be somewhat more likely to win. So I think that the simple fact that a team is ranked higher in a particular rating system has an effect on the outcome of some games and thus kind of fulfills that rating system putting the team there. I think there may be an element of that, but I have to imagine that the effects of home field advantage are fairly small. From what I understand, much of the research about home field advantage at the professional level in various sports suggests that the referees are unconsciously biased in favor of the home team due to the pressure from the crowd. And unfortunately, lots of high school soccer matches don't involve very big crowds. Other possible factors: pitch surface suiting one team or another (turf vs. grass, muddy conditions, a very narrow or wide field), travel (as you mentioned), playing on-campus (team gets to hang out in their familiar locker rooms). Depending on the match-up, some of those factors may not be present. Anyone know which districts (either boys or girls) play every other team twice a year (home-and-home) and have every team in an on-campus stadium? Might be an interesting research project. D1 District 6 (the Northshore district) plays home-and-home with all games played at on-campus facilities with the exception of SSA on the girls' side; they have their own pitch, but it's a couple of miles from the school campus. The district bounces between 7 and 8 teams (it's 8 during this district cycle), so there's always 12 to 14 league games. For field specifics, St. Paul's has the only turf surface and is about 65 yard wide; all others are grass and football-field narrow.
|
|
|
Post by bhsrams on Jan 27, 2014 13:30:43 GMT -6
(Items 34 & 37) I’m confused by these two items. #34 is how things are done now with the exception of the splitting of Division III once playoffs are reached. #37 is the proposed Power Rankings with the 32 playoff teams in our division (D-II) as opposed to 24 like it is now. I’m okay with the 3 divisions but it should be more even (like 47-48 schools per division) so each division can have 32 teams qualify for the playoffs (which is what I think item 37 is about). Are they maybe suggesting Item 34 for 2014-2015 season and Item 37 for the 2015-2016 season. I’m rather confused on that point.
regardless, I honestly don’t see the need to do away with the 2nd place in district being “auto qualify” if we are now going to have 14 wild card spots in Division I and II if indeed we are going to a 32 team playoff (32 teams - 9 districts x’s 2 = 14 wildcards as opposed to the 23 wildcards they are currently proposing). I’d like to see the 2nd place auto-qualify (it’s the only reason we have a shot at the playoffs this year). It gives some of the weaker programs (like ours) in D-I and D-II a shot at still making the playoffs. I’d prefer it be amended to keep the 1st and 2nd place district finishers as auto-qualifiers with the other 14 spots going to wildcard teams. I mean if everybody is going to be in the playoffs in Division III because of the post season split into three state championships, why can’t we keep 2nd place in district as an auto-qualifier. That’s just my two cents.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 29, 2014 20:34:06 GMT -6
I am willing to change the date to implement from this year to next year. Also of note at the Convention is that apparently the date never got changed. If I'm reading it right (on p. 32 of the 40 page document), the proposal to go to 5 championships would be effective THIS year. Please correct me if I'm mis-reading it.
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 29, 2014 20:37:29 GMT -6
It can not be changed until on floor. It also can not be implemented this year with schedule for championships already released (and City Park already having to move games to weekday nights due to Mardi Gras)... meaning if it doesn't get amended to show next year, it can't pass unless the DiVision III schools play the title games on their own at home of a team in title game. Which is also against another rule in book as it was voted that all title games take place at same site a few years ago. So, unless amended, I don't think this will pass and may have to be tabled or pulled even. I think if amended to show effective next year (2014-2015), it will pass.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 29, 2014 20:39:22 GMT -6
It can not be changed until on floor. It also can not be implemented this year with schedule already released meaning if it doesn't get amended to show next year, it can't pass unless the Dicision III schools okay on their own at home of a team in title game. Which is also against another rule in book. So, unless amended, I don't think this will pass and may have to be tabled or pulled even. I think if amended to show effect next year, it will pass. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 29, 2014 20:43:29 GMT -6
I have had many of you ask me this last week about how to tell your principal to vote?
Easy... Vote YES for all except the $50 fine for crazy white uniform rule that isn't even being enforced anyway! Watch out in playoffs as I would willing to bet officials will enforce there. So vote NO for the $50 fine for white uniform violation and YES to Division III playoff by classification, YES to power ratings and YES to eliminating OT and PK shootouts in regular season.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Jan 29, 2014 21:15:03 GMT -6
I have had many of you ask me this last week about how to tell your principal to vote? Easy... Vote YES for all except the $50 fine for crazy white uniform rule that isn't even being enforced anyway! Watch out in playoffs as I would willing to bet officials will enforce there. So vote NO for the $50 fine for white uniform violation and YES to Division III playoff by classification, YES to power ratings and YES to eliminating OT and PK shootouts in regular season. Thanks! Definitely agree with the power ranking and no on the $50 fine. Don't have have a strong opinion on the D-III playoff thing. (would that more or less mean that for playoffs, the Divisions would mirror the classifications - 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A and 5A?) I'm not sure how I feel about eliminating OT and PKs in the regular season (aren't they just used in district games?). I kind of like the idea of maybe a golden goal OT period or maybe 2 short golden goal ot periods if no one scores in the first. Although I understand that golden goal seems to be frowned upon at the different levels of soccer.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jan 29, 2014 21:32:43 GMT -6
With all due respect, I plan on talking to my principal tomorrow and telling him to vote against the power ratings proposal. I know we're not quite at the end of the season yet, and a number of games haven't been played yet due to the weather, but we are still seeing some bizarre rankings. I am not as knowledgeable about the boys' side (besides having a strong inkling that Jesuit deserves to be higher than 14th), but when I look at the girls' side I see teams like West Monroe and Natchitoches Central ranked way too high. And it's not just a south v. north thing--those two teams are almost certainly not as good as Byrd, but they're both ahead of Byrd. I see Northshore ranked 6-8 spots below where they should be. I see Comeaux sitting fifth in their district standings, but third out of their district in the power ratings.
In all of these situations for the DI girls we are dealing with teams that have played a lot of games--these aren't things that are messed up because some team has only played 6 matches all year.
I understand why people want power ratings. But right now, the math is not working. Maybe it'd be as simple as just going to 10 points for a win and 5 for a tie. Right now I think the system is weighting strength of schedule too heavily and not giving enough credit to results (it's better to lose to an 18-win team than beat a 3-win team).
I get the concerns about bias, horse-trading, and so forth. But whatever backdoor stuff goes on now is just going to be replaced by creative scheduling. The negotiating will be taking place at the beginning of the year: who can you get a game with? Teams are probably going to be trying hard to get 15 games, but who's going to schedule the weaker teams with developing programs? Sure, the system now may give us mismatches like Bonnabel-Lutheran, but why would anyone schedule Lutheran next year? (I realize teams can schedule JV games against some of the weaker schools, but that doesn't help a team that may have a shot of making the playoffs but needs to get to the 15-game cutoff.)
As I've said before, I think power ratings would improve the selection of playoff teams. But I don't think they would improve the seeding. Maybe I'm naive, but I have enough trust in the coaches to do an honest job in seeding. I realize coach seeding isn't perfect. But I still think it's better than the proposed power rating formula.
Besides, I'm sure that many coaches are looking at the power ratings to help with their decisions. They can still use the ratings as a guideline while letting good judgment fix the seeding of a team that's way too high or too low.
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 30, 2014 0:34:34 GMT -6
I'm going to use the following as a statement of what if... Not a matter of fact or anything else...
But what if, LHSSCA, LAPrep, the moderators and volunteers, and its countless hours of volunteer work that often goes criticized and unappreciated more than appreciated and treasured... What if... All of the work at collecting data, schedules, results, and all went away!? What if people refused to do work that should be done by the LHSAA? Would some of those who are complaining about a few spots of seed be more willing to jump and accept something as powerful and helpful as THE GOVERNING BODY putting your sport on the list of sports that it puts paid people in charge of collecting all the date and making it mandatory? Not a system that we have currently where we are lucky to get 3/4, maybe even 95% of teams true results and full data (which especially on girls side may be even lower than complete?). Maybe the reason we haven't gotten the PR yet is because some, especially the more active coaches, are spoiled to the treasure that LAPrep? After last years crazy stuff that happened in division III, something I happen to know about a little more than others along with the possibilities of huge agendas being acted out... Coaches seeding up in its current form has gone the way of other sports that once had it also... It is dead. We need the LHSAA to collect this data, make it mandatory to report schedules and scores, and be in charge of it. 100% accurate data. We need the LHSAA to treat soccer like its other sports and not like a sport that is a third rate sport. We are the ONLY team sport not tracked because we do t give them a reason to because most of the active soccer schools all get their data from laprep and its volunteers and people who work extremely hard to make it happen. I think its time to stop depending on laprep for being the entity to track this data at less than 100% and rely on volunteers to do a ton of work for the mass majority of people in this sport to have an idea of where things stand, vote it power ratings and you will know where things stand. Schedule how you schedule... Win your games and play a difficult schedule that you can handle. Weaker teams will get scheduled still by teams in the bottom fringes like them. District games are still always scheduled. We have TESTED formula after formula for nearly a decade now. They all yield nearly the same results. So its time to stop fiddling with it and rehashing old formulas and just get with it. Take the leap. Once we have LHSAA tracking everything, we can adjust things through the LHSSCA and advisory meetings with the LHSAA and propose these tweaks or changes. But without that first leap being taken, they don't start tracking. This sport is too big for a volunteer website to be the main source of its data. And too big of a deal not to have 100% accurate reporting! Time to take the leap...
All of the fear mongering going on against by a select few at times is just that... Well, the biggest fear I have for this is a what if we no longer have the volunteer workers we have nor the communications of a select few to try to ensure these numbers are legit. Or the hard work of many of us that have helped Scott Crawford and the LHSSCA over the past 2 decades run this site and get more and more accurate each year? I can tell you that most on here are very tired! Looking for easier ways to do things all of the time and honestly, it's not fair. It's not fair to put everything on a select few to track a huge sport... It's just not right. And as much as I love laprep and our volunteers who do this for free... I can't fathom us keeping this up for many more seasons. Its a very. Unappreciated and nearly unnoticed task that takes up way too many of our lives. This is a job for the official governing body to handle, we have gone almost as far as we can as the sport and its coaches have outgrown our volunteer website. Its a great sign! But its a sign that we need to take the next step now. We need to have a lighter load and be able to help track statistics more and not have to worry about pressure of getting results (often consisting of texting and calling coaches all over to find results). We shouldn't have to be begging for any info that hugely important to playoff criteria or make up! LHSAA will fix all of this! It's what is best for the future of the sport. Don't use laprep as your crutch to mean on and say, well we have it good enough right now so we shouldn't risk this! Cause I can tell you this one last time... A LOT of special volunteers are TIRED and BURNED out! Don't rely on this... Rely on LHSAA to take control. Vote in power ratings. Take the leap...
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 30, 2014 0:50:31 GMT -6
One other huge benefit... Scheduled games will not just be cancelled on a whim cause someone doesn't feel like losing or playing! Tournaments will not have teams dropping out at last minute. Another reason our sport will be legitimized and treated like a big dog. Like football, baseball, and basketball... Only weather and principals can cancel games for legit reasons before hand. All things would go through LHSAA system and not be so easy as a phone call from one coach to another on game day saying we aren't coming! Are we willing to stay inferior to other sports over a couple spots in seeding? Are we wiling to have a ridiculous wild card qualifying system that could keep teams out that play hard schedules and are legit top 10-15 teams? Some have even mentioned that the current system allows weaker teams to have a better chance at playoffs? Is that what we have become? We don't want the best teams in the championship tournament anymore? Let just out everyone in playoffs then! Honestly, I'd rather that then what we have now. Playoff qualifying and reporting tracking are most important right now. A team being 3 instead of 2 or 10 instead 5 is not... Especially when we can point to the exact reason why in a formula! What reason can you point to for current anomalies in seeding? Can John Q. Public point to this reason why a team that should be 3 is seeded 10 in current system of seeding? No. So why are some willing to except opinions of others they don't know along with possible huge shenanigans in system but not one based on numbers and data that shows exactly why a team is where they are. What they need to do differently in future seasons to have a different or better result. One that puts the best 24 or 32 teams in the playoffs! And one that is 100% accurate on data and reporting? No brainer guys... And this is from someone that was against any power ratings a couple season ago! I turned my thoughts on this due to everything I have posted in these two long posts. This is my last post on these matter. I am not intending to prove anyone wrong or step on anyone. I really have enjoyed some of your arguments and especially those that have used facts all year like Kevin. It's just that the benefits far outweigh the risks. They also improve too much of the current situation and bring the sport up to a higher level. And it stops relying on unpaid volunteers to do everything. Thats my story... And I'm sticking to it.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jan 30, 2014 7:29:11 GMT -6
I agree 100% about the reporting of scores and the cancellation of games. The reporting should be handled just as it is for every other sport, with schedules and scores on the LHSAA website just like everything else. But you could change that just by amending Rule 6.12.1 in the handbook (the one that requires reporting for other sports, and one that I hope someone mentions at the convention, since I don't see any language about it in the power ratings proposal). And there's no reason principals can't sign contracts under Rule 6.19, is there?
|
|
|
Post by newosoccerfan on Jan 30, 2014 8:46:32 GMT -6
After last years crazy stuff that happened in division III, something I happen to know about a little more than others along with the possibilities of huge agendas being acted out I agree with this part, and the crazy DIII seeding the year before, but won't having DIII playoffs split into A, AA, and AAA solve a lot of these coach seeding problems? My assumption is only A coaches will seed A teams, etc. So some of the "regionalism" that I see distorting the seeding in DIIII will be eliminated because A, AA, and AAA coaches can't 'scratch each others back' as much when they are in different playoff brackets. Also, I am all for the LHSAA taking on scheduling and game reporting in soccer as they do in other sports, and did before computer formula seeding in other sports, but I don't see that being connected to computer playoff seeding I share Kevin's concern that formulaic power ratings aren't ready for playoff seeding in soccer, and believe we should do anything to postpone that while improving the formula (or experimenting with both computer and coach seeding a la' the BCS in college football). I'd even agree to return to helping out on this board to buy more time for a better result! NewO
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 30, 2014 9:07:24 GMT -6
I agree 100% about the reporting of scores and the cancellation of games. The reporting should be handled just as it is for every other sport, with schedules and scores on the LHSAA website just like everything else. But you could change that just by amending Rule 6.12.1 in the handbook (the one that requires reporting for other sports, and one that I hope someone mentions at the convention, since I don't see any language about it in the power ratings proposal). And there's no reason principals can't sign contracts under Rule 6.19, is there? The LHSAA will not add a reporting system for a sport unless its for Power Ratings. Only reason they do it and its understandable why. You ask a school to sign a contract for a soccer game and tell me how that works out for you? Good luck getting 4 non district games. I can see tournaments doing it as part of the registration with some success. Your solution has been tried before and asked... Reporting was asked to be done on a trial basis for a year to practice before power ratings went I to effect and we were told no. And unless it's an issue about private school vs public school that has been festering for decades... Unless the LHSAA is on board with the proposal, you won't get it passed.
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 30, 2014 9:11:20 GMT -6
After last years crazy stuff that happened in division III, something I happen to know about a little more than others along with the possibilities of huge agendas being acted out I agree with this part, and the crazy DIII seeding the year before, but won't having DIII playoffs split into A, AA, and AAA solve a lot of these coach seeding problems? My assumption is only A coaches will seed A teams, etc. So some of the "regionalism" that I see distorting the seeding in DIIII will be eliminated because A, AA, and AAA coaches can't 'scratch each others back' as much when they are in different playoff brackets. Also, I am all for the LHSAA taking on scheduling and game reporting in soccer as they do in other sports, and did before computer formula seeding in other sports, but I don't see that being connected to computer playoff seeding I share Kevin's concern that formulaic power ratings aren't ready for playoff seeding in soccer, and believe we should do anything to postpone that while improving the formula (or experimenting with both computer and coach seeding a la' the BCS in college football). I'd even agree to return to helping out on this board to buy more time for a better result! NewO Newo, how long have you been on this site? We have had power ratings and different and multiple versions of them every year since I can rembember. At least over a decade. Every year was a test with what results we had reported from the public. It's the reason last years PR was pulled... because of the quantity of wins points awarded for just a win had skewed it a bit. This formula is as good as we are gonna get for soccer. Time to get in now and get the benefits. If formula needs tweaking later, do it. No system is perfect... Just this one can't be tampered with by emotion and every anomaly had a reason that can be found and pointed to. Numbers don't show emotion...
|
|
|
Post by newosoccerfan on Jan 30, 2014 9:40:02 GMT -6
I agree with this part, and the crazy DIII seeding the year before, but won't having DIII playoffs split into A, AA, and AAA solve a lot of these coach seeding problems? My assumption is only A coaches will seed A teams, etc. So some of the "regionalism" that I see distorting the seeding in DIIII will be eliminated because A, AA, and AAA coaches can't 'scratch each others back' as much when they are in different playoff brackets. Also, I am all for the LHSAA taking on scheduling and game reporting in soccer as they do in other sports, and did before computer formula seeding in other sports, but I don't see that being connected to computer playoff seeding I share Kevin's concern that formulaic power ratings aren't ready for playoff seeding in soccer, and believe we should do anything to postpone that while improving the formula (or experimenting with both computer and coach seeding a la' the BCS in college football). I'd even agree to return to helping out on this board to buy more time for a better result! NewO Newo, how long have you been on this site? We have had power ratings and different and multiple versions of them every year since I can rembember. At least over a decade. Every year was a test with what results we had reported from the public. It's the reason last years PR was pulled... because of the quantity of wins points awarded for just a win had skewed it a bit. This formula is as good as we are gonna get for soccer. Time to get in now and get the benefits. If formula needs tweaking later, do it. No system is perfect... Just this one can't be tampered with by emotion and every anomaly had a reason that can be found and pointed to. Numbers don't show emotion... I don't agree it's now or never, but at least add coach seeding to have an eye test with computer numbers. NewO
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 30, 2014 9:46:08 GMT -6
Newo, how long have you been on this site? We have had power ratings and different and multiple versions of them every year since I can rembember. At least over a decade. Every year was a test with what results we had reported from the public. It's the reason last years PR was pulled... because of the quantity of wins points awarded for just a win had skewed it a bit. This formula is as good as we are gonna get for soccer. Time to get in now and get the benefits. If formula needs tweaking later, do it. No system is perfect... Just this one can't be tampered with by emotion and every anomaly had a reason that can be found and pointed to. Numbers don't show emotion... I don't agree it's now or never, but at least add coach seeding to have an eye test with computer numbers. NewO My first proposed tweek once it was all implemented would be a coaches vote for seeding with restrictions like a team can not be moved more than 3 spots up or down from its power rating rank on any ballot. Easy to put this exception in formula for ballot and it would allow some movement for objectivity to correct certain few anomolies, but not allow teams to get buried in seeding by shenanigans. But we need to get the formula in and reporting started first.
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Jan 30, 2014 9:49:17 GMT -6
I don't really have a dog in the hunt as far as either system favoring our team. Coach seeding and power ratings have been very close to the same for us the last couple of years. Sometimes one might be slightly higher than the other but not by much. If anything coaches seeding might have had us very slightly higher a bit more often.
Having said that, it seems to me that an objective system which is transparent and can be examined, such as power ratings, is preferable. Even with the best of intentions, human beings with a stake in the outcome are just subject to bias, even if it is unconcious. This is especially true where the ballots are not available to the public.
With power ratings, every team knows going in what the formula is and every team has an opportunity to schedule accordingly. I think there will be teams similary situated at each level - whether newer start ups, middle of the pack teams and top teams that will be looking to play other similar teams and even play teams of different abilities.
I also think that the part of the proposal about only the district champs auto qualifying might be of some benefit in eliminating some of the inequity between very small districts with only a couple of teams and very large districts with a large number of teams.
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 30, 2014 9:52:46 GMT -6
More benefits that I didn't touch on enough, Methuselah. Good post!
|
|