|
Post by dme1214 on Jan 27, 2015 21:50:58 GMT -6
One thing to keep in mind this year when comparing the coaches polls and the PR. The coaches know their poll has no value or impact, thus human nature would lead to not putting the proper research into this years polls. To me that's why Lafayette is still getting votes, even after losing to Acadiana, defenders of them getting votes seemed to imply them winning out. I think with proper research most coaches would have pulled their votes. So the fact is the PR is here and watch next year how the system will be worked, it's very easy to work it and I have no doubt it will be.
|
|
|
Post by cajunsfan on Jan 28, 2015 22:01:54 GMT -6
Actually Northlake will get 5.875 (2.5 for the tie, 75% x 4=3 for CDs wins, and .375 for CDs tie. Total 5.875)points for the tie. Not that it makes a tremendous difference but thats the correct number. We will come back to that Really, I dont see what the real problem is here--except that Northlake tied a 4-9-0 team. You make a compelling arguement about Country days schedule, but all theyhave to show for it is a 4-9 record. CD certainly benefitted from the draw more than Northlake, but all CD is, regardless of schedule, is a 4-9 team who was rated 24th in the last power ranking. Now, I beleive the concern here is Northlakes risk of losing ground and possibly the #1 seed because of this result (a game they certainly could have won, but didnt) due to its potentially adverse effect on the power ratings. It might initially seem that way until you look at the latest power ratings with have Northlake a full .70 points meaning that #2 University would have to make up .70 points per game over the compete season to just catch up with Northlake--and that would be if Northlake and all of its results were frozen in time and gained nothing. University only played 1 game this week, against St Charles and while they won, they only gained 11 points for the win--.59 BELOW their current rating. That makes that .70 per game now a .73. Now, while you were keen to point out Northlakes loss of points this week to Country day, you didnt mention the 21 POINTS they got from beating Hannan last Tuesday. That 21, plus the 5.875 from Country Day will give them a 13.43 average for just the week--over a full point more than theri current 12.29, and that doesnt factor in amy of the residual points they will get from their other opponents. Northlake probably extended their lead. When we say we need to make changes. lets be sure we look at the whole picture. Country day got rewarded for playing a tough schedule and will benefit from this draw. Northlake had an obligation to win this game, but didnt--thats a team performance problem not one with a ratings system. The same way Northlake benefitted from beating a quality opponent in #6 Hannan, they were put at a disadvantage from not getting a result vs Country day (a win would have given them 9.5 points). the power rating system comes with two sides to it and you have to accept both. As Bobby McMahon would say, "you cant suck and blow at the same time" I wanted to wait until tonight's result to respond to your post. In the last about 10 days Country Day has lost to Sacred Heart 1-0 on an 80th minute disputed handball PK, tied Northlake 1-1 without a star player, and tied Newman tonight 1-1. All games were away, and the two ties were on turf against turf teams. There is no way to argue Country Day isn't a top half of the draw playoff team, if not a top 10 team in Division III, based on their current level of play. It's not about Northlake. It's bigger than that. It's about a computer model that doesn't take into account strength of schedule, something that can be added, or the eye test. If we are going to take away the human factor, like the eye test, then let's at least look at the strength of schedule issue realistically and react to that problem to make the computer model better. And that's what I thought myarsenal was getting at.
|
|
|
Post by alto1smom on Jan 28, 2015 22:19:52 GMT -6
I coach a different sport and we use power rankings and several other sports do as well. Scheduling has a little to do with it, but it is scientific and FAIR! The difference for a coach is pay, when the coaches' rank the teams you may be politically helping your buddy get a $250 bonus when they may loose to a team ranked lower. This way it is all fair and when the coaches understand how the system works they will schedule better. I try to play Dominican and Mt. Carmel every year and and take that 15 run rule whoopin' and laugh all the way to the power ratings. We are at Ben Franklin and ranked 3rd and it is fair--wish we were 4th though the other bracket is more appealing;)
|
|
|
Post by cdcajunsoccer on Jan 29, 2015 18:38:02 GMT -6
Having read the threads, the ranking system as it presently works is not fair and equitable because the rankings are not based ONLY on games played between D-III teams. If the results of D-III teams that play D-I or D-II teams are counted, this is not an apples and apples comparison for peer-based ranking purposes. The reason that there are three divisions is because it is fair to assume that a D-III team playing a D-II or D-I team will be at some level of disadvantage in most or nearly all cases. The difference in student size is the most obvious difference, but there are others as well that give advantages to bigger schools (such the schools that are attract or have predominantly club players). The purpose of a ranking system that does NOT factor or take into account inter-divisional play should be to compare the relative performance of D-III teams when playing each other, which means that the ranking system should only be based on games played between D-III teams and that no account should be taken of games played by D-III teams against D-I or D-II teams. As an example, the effect on a team like Country Day (where my daughter plays) would be significant because Country Day has played about the same number of games against D-III teams that it has played against D-I and D-II teams (every one of which I believe is currently ranked in the Top 10 of its respective division). For the D-III rankings to be fair and equitable, the playing field for ranking should be based on a peer to peer comparison, and the same goes for the other divisions as well. By doing so, there won't be an advantage/incentive or disadvantage/disincentive to inter-divisional games being played. Finally, as for the comments by coachray of the AC Lions, I doubt that anyone at Country Day would agree that its girls soccer team should be characterized as "minnows." Words like stalwart, confident or aggressive better characterize small schools that have the resolve and willingness to play larger schools that will very likely involve challenging games against deeper and better teams that are difficult and perhaps even impossible to defeat. Country Day may be small, but our girls aren't minnows playing whales. Under the leadership of Coach Benji and Coach Chris, the Country Day girls may sometimes - just sometimes - remind "whales" that they can be beaten and consumed - by "sharks" who play smart, aggressive and determined soccer. I believe that the Country Day girls earn the respect of the "whales" by being willing to play larger schools. So, I suggest that the willingness by Country Day or any other smaller school to play larger schools in higher divisions should not be penalized, and should instead be encouraged.
|
|
|
Post by Antimatter on Jan 29, 2015 18:50:35 GMT -6
cdcajunsoccer,
As Country Day tied Northlake Christian and Newman in their last two games, I feel they are easily in the top 8 in Div III. The other casualty in the seeding is the higher seeded team who draws Country Day in the 1st or 2nd round.
Someone earlier stated the obvious. We need larger districts. This would create more common opponents among teams vying for playoff positions.
Perhaps piranha rather than minnow? The talent is not a multiple of lower school talent for larger schools. It is moreso that the larger schools have more players going for each position on the field so are more likely to have a stronger overall presence on the field.
|
|
|
Post by cajunsfan on Jan 31, 2015 21:07:13 GMT -6
We now have 4 Divisions effective next year (which is great for soccer). This will only make the strength of schedule problem worse. More teams will play up against a higher Division team. They have to as teams in their region are placed in more Divisions. The lack of a way to fairly take those match up into account in the Power Rankings will only become more glaring. Rather than working itself out, the problem will become more acute. The bright minds here need to figure out a modification to fairly reflect strength of schedule in Power Rankings and put it in place prior to next year.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 31, 2015 21:42:55 GMT -6
We now have 4 Divisions effective next year (which is great for soccer). This will only make the strength of schedule problem worse. More teams will play up against a higher Division team. They have to as teams in their region are placed in more Divisions. The lack of a way to fairly take those match up into account in the Power Rankings will only become more glaring. Rather than working itself out, the problem will become more acute. The bright minds here need to figure out a modification to fairly reflect strength of schedule in Power Rankings and put it in place prior to next year. In PA, games against D1 are worth 1.2 factor, D2 are 1.0 factor, and D3 are 0.8 factor. It doesn't matter what division you are; the factors are always applied. It attempts to do what you're suggesting, but I'm sure the top D2 teams are tougher than the bottom D1 teams and so on. But it recognizes the size of school, bench depth, etc. that exist between divisions.
|
|
|
Post by cajunsfan on Jan 31, 2015 21:48:14 GMT -6
We now have 4 Divisions effective next year (which is great for soccer). This will only make the strength of schedule problem worse. More teams will play up against a higher Division team. They have to as teams in their region are placed in more Divisions. The lack of a way to fairly take those match up into account in the Power Rankings will only become more glaring. Rather than working itself out, the problem will become more acute. The bright minds here need to figure out a modification to fairly reflect strength of schedule in Power Rankings and put it in place prior to next year. In PA, games against D1 are worth 1.2 factor, D2 are 1.0 factor, and D3 are 0.8 factor. It doesn't matter what division you are; the factors are always applied. It attempts to do what you're suggesting, but I'm sure the top D2 teams are tougher than the bottom D1 teams and so on. But it recognizes the size of school, bench depth, etc. that exist between divisions. Thanks! No strength of schedule system is perfect, but I bet many are better than none (especially when we have 4 Divisions).
|
|