I believe polls more accurate tan RPI with small sampling
by NDoggie78 (2022-06-16 12:47:46)

In reply to: On #3  posted by tf86


And definitely more accurate than the selection committee


I got in a Twitter debate with Foy about this
by flanner96  (2022-06-16 23:14:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

He really clung to the notion of RPI and SOS being more important criteria, and I was arguing that the fact that the committee left the No. 4 team in the polls out of the field would have caused months of columns and cable talking head content in any other sport.

The committee needs to leave some wiggle room for accounting for an eye test. Sticking to "criteria" too closely leads to 6 teams from one conference getting in.


A Few Thoughts on Top of That...
by dillon77  (2022-06-17 15:04:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

-- As suggested, I think a team should get away from scheduling the maximum (hello, Duke) or minimum (hello, Irish) on their schedules. Suggesting a mid-point certainly would be a prudent idea.

-- As for "objective" criteria, just what are these: RPI? SOS? Polls? Some weighted combination thereof?

-- And then there probably should be another element to it:
“We may need to recognize that we need a subjective, human-based element to the selection criteria.”
— Lars Tiffany (UVA Coach)

Running off winning streaks at the end of the day could be considered, as could taking the #1 team to the limit, as ND did.

Working on the criteria is something that requires working with other teams and institutions. ND can help its case with scheduling.


Harvard made the field
by tf86  (2022-07-30 18:17:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

And IIRC, they played the same number of games as ND. Under those circumstances, I'm not entirely comfortable saying that playing only 12 games was fatal to ND, but it certainly didn't help. Playing 12 left ND with very little margin for error. ND should have scheduled an additional two games even if those games dropped overall SOS. I think 10-4 would have looked much better to the Committee than 8-4.


Agree on All Points *
by dillon77  (2022-08-19 17:28:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


The human element (which includes the polls)
by NDoggie78  (2022-06-20 14:16:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

are those that actually watch ALL the teams, how they play, how they match up, and how they are currently playing. Consider what your "expert" partners - those broadcasting the games are saying. Also when you play in almost unplayable weather as we did when we lost to OSU, that should be a consideration - all those factors RPI apparently doesn't "see" (although according to RPI, we should have been in anyway).

You'll never convince me that the committee even watched any games.
I am biased, but I saw enough games to know the selection and seedings were biased towards the Ivey league.

One obvious matchup that should have been an indicator - Syracuse lost in overtime to Cornell. ND beat that same Syracuse team 22-6 and 18-11.