Date: Sun Feb 17 19:03:57 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Okay, gang. Here's the current proposal to cure all the whining about the last
two post-season selections and tournament seedings based purely on pairwise
ratings.
This year's selecion will be more similar to what was done prior to utilizing
pairwise ratings. I have volunteered to seed all 64 teams in the 16 regionals
as described below. This will be, more or less, an automated system, as well,
but it will utilize all five major rankings, not just one. A three-man panel
of Eric Opperman (Memphis coach, and CMEL Commish), and long-time DEL
participants Jay Schlegel (Michigan) and Chris Smith (Clemson) will approve
(and/or slightly alter) the seedings if necessary.
So here's the selection/seeding criteria:
As in CBEL, all conference champions (30) are automatically entered into the
tournament.
The remaining at large teams (34) will be chosen as follows:
A) to be eligible, your school must post a better than .500 record (i.e., a
29-29 slate won't get you an at large bid).
B) a conference record WORSE than "minus four" (e.g, five more conference
losses than conference wins), also makes your school ineligible for an at-large
berth. In real-life, Oregon State made the regionals last year (and actually
won the CWS with a conference record of 10-14). Any worse than this, is a
"thumbs down" as far as an at-large spot is concerned.
C) a strictly automated system will be used to select all eligible at-large
tournament teams: the MEDIAN of the five main rankings (standard computer,
predictive, pairwise, RPI, and writers' poll) will be the basis of selection.
If your median rating is in the top 34 of the at-large eligible schools, you
are IN the tourney. If your median rating is 35th best out of this group, your
school is SOL!
The entire field will then be seeded 1-64, using the same criteria that
selected the at-large teams (i.e., the team with the best median ranking will
be seeded #1, the 64th best will be seeded #64).
Some teams may be bumped up or down one spot to ensure that no two schools from
the same conference are placed in the same regional, which should be no
problem, since there are 16 different regionals.
In summation, the five rankings would seed all 64 teams, and the only decision
made by the "selection committee" (me, Eric, Jay, and Chris) would be to move a
school up or down a single spot to ensure that no two teams from the same
conference ended up in the same regional.
Date: Sun Feb 17 19:15:06 2008
Sender: Ryan Perdue
I love this.
Nice job!
Date: Sun Feb 17 19:47:47 2008
Sender: Bill Howard
Thanks Dave.
Not to add further complaints though, can we look at a bump or one or two to
try and keep two from the same conference from playing against each other in
the supers as well. (if possible)
Maybe by looking at whether you have 2 teams that are the top seed in their
region from being on the opposite ends of the bracket. If for instance I'm a 2
spot in my region don't worry about it, I'm not supposed to win anyway, but
don't put Georgia Tech as the host of #2 and Clemson as the host of #15 for
instance, as if both go as expected, you would have GT and Clemson facing each
other in the supers.
Either way, its still a great improvement.
Date: Sun Feb 17 20:09:34 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Bill,
Keeping two #1 seeds from the same conference from meeting in the super
regionals should be very "do-able." We'll do our best to keep it from
happening.
Date: Mon Feb 18 08:50:30 2008
Sender: Bill Howard
Thanks again Dave!!!
Date: Mon Feb 18 10:51:34 2008
Sender: Dan Siegfried
This sounds good. Thanks Dave and the rest of the committee. We appreciate
your time on this!
Date: Wed Feb 20 04:08:44 2008
Sender: Tom DeSanctis
I like this... But a point of clarification. Do you mean median or average?
Date: Wed Feb 20 06:59:05 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
So we will take the middle ranking of the five, as opposed to the average?
I think it sounds like a great idea either way, but might actually prefer the
average instead.
Date: Wed Feb 20 17:57:19 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
The proposal is to take the MEDIAN ranking, (middle number of the five
ratings), not the average. As you probably noticed the last two seasons, the
Pairwise rankings were often way out of line with the other four rankings.
As the current proposal stands, here is a possible example. Let's say
Kentucky's final (post- SEC conference tournament) rankings (standard, RPI,
predictive, pairwise, and writers poll) are 20, 23, 17, 40, and 24. The
Wildcats' CMEL seeding rank would be 23, which is the MEDIAN of the five
numbers. Kentucky would be seeded higher than any other team with a median
ranking of 24 or worse. Note that Kentucky's AVERAGE ranking in this example
would be 25 (124 divided by 5 = 24.8, which for our purposes would be rounded
off to 25.
Using the median ranking helps us avoid a case where one number totally skews
the average. To use another example (similar to what happened to the CMEL Cal
team two seasons ago), let's say Texas Tech ends up with ratings of 14, 15, 15,
49, and 15. If we take the AVERAGE of the five ratings, Tech (instead of
ending up in the top 15, as indicated by four of the five rankings, and getting
to host a regional) ends up with a final of 22, and probably does NOT host a
regional. This is because the "49" number is way out of line with the other
rankings.
Plus, using the median is easier for all you non-math geeks out there: you can
simply look at your five rankings, pick the middle one, and that's it! :)
Date: Wed Feb 20 22:37:37 2008
Sender: Eric Opperman
Natural followup question, Dave, is what you use to break the tie when two
teams have the same median ranking...
Date: Thu Feb 21 07:29:52 2008
Sender: Geoff Strotman
Any way we can shuffle around spots 30 - 40 to include more human players and
less "Bob"s? In other words if spot 34 is a Bob and 35 is a person, is there
any way to take Bob out and put the human squad in?
I don't know how big a problem it is any more but it is always more fun to play
a person rather than the computer and I am sure it is more fun for people to
get in the playoffs than not!
Date: Thu Feb 21 08:12:38 2008
Sender: Bill Howard
i agree with Geoff on this one. I'm not saying leave a top 10 team out that
has no coach, but certainly one that would have been that 60th-64th seed!
Date: Thu Feb 21 10:48:58 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
I disagree that human coached team should receive favoritism. This is the CWS
and the field should not be degraded to include team that don't meet the
criteria. Besides, favoring humans over Bob is just going to open Pandora's
box. I can see the complaints/whining now....
Establish a selection/seeding criteria, publish it, and stick to it, period.
There will be enough complaints about moving teams around to prevent conference
matchups. Believe me, as an x-CBEL commish, it is not a question of if there
will be complaints, it is just a question of how many.
Date: Thu Feb 21 18:13:18 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Eric,
In case of a tie for seeding (two teams have the same median ranking), we'd
break the tie by giving the HIGHER seed to the team with the best INDIVIDUAL
ranking of the five (standard, predictive, pairwise, RPI, writers poll). If
still tied, we'd use the WORST individual ranking and seed that team LOWER.
Geoff and Bill,
As for putting more human-coached teams into the tourney, this is a BAD idea
(per Mr.Schwartz).
Right now, there are only 57 ACTIVE human-coached (i.e., have submitted at
least one set of orders for the current season) schools in all of CMEL. And
there are 64 spots in the tourney, so it certainly makes NO SENSE to me to put
extra "humans" into the BIG BAT DANCE. This is NOT done in CBEL (and there are
lots more humans in CBEL)!
So, unless I get some serious disagreement from Eric, Jay, and Chris (the rest
of the Committee), we keep the extra humans out, unless they actually qualify,
per the stipulations mentioned in my initial post for this thread. Simply put,
if you want a spot in the tourney, either get better talent/coaching, and/or
(particularly if you're a Tier 3 coach), work your way up to a better school.
Hopefully, this makes sense to everyone.
Date: Fri Feb 22 00:09:10 2008
Sender: Bruce Bond
I'm not in the college leagues so I don't have anything at stake, but instead
of the median you could throw out the highest and lowest and then take the
average of the other three. It would get rid of the anamolies but still give
some weight to multiple sources.
Date: Fri Feb 22 07:34:41 2008
Sender: Geoff Strotman
That is fine if people don't want to make adjustments. My proposal was just to
get more of the 57 human coaches involved in the post season. I was
recommending not some arbitrary selection. Simply look at teams #30 - 34 and
then look at teams #35 - 39. If there is a Bob in the first group and a human
in the second group take out the lowest ranking Bob and put in the highest
ranking human. Continue until there are no more Bobs in 30 - 34 or no more
humans in 35 - 39. I think this is one case where you can deviate from "real
life" because almost half the coaches are computers in this league. I can't
see anyone complaining about letting more human coaches into the playoffs
especially if it is systematic.
I agree if you want to make the dance you should earn it but there are so many
factors out of your control that could lead you to be ranked 35 instead of 34.
Otherwise it is a long offseason until the first invite day. Besides, we are
talking about the worst playoff slot anyway.
If we want to get more human coaches to stick around we should make it more
exciting. But, whatever people decide is fine by me.
Date: Fri Feb 22 17:54:12 2008
Sender: Eric Opperman
DEL generally has a policy against that, Geoff, though it's obviously not
something we couldn't change. The only place in DEL where extra favoritism is
given to human coaches is the NIT in CBEL.
I do think that most (though not all, obviously) of our human coaches are
either still early on in the building process or they're tournament teams
anyway.
Date: Sun Mar 9 16:55:18 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Looks like everyone has made their comments, so this is what we have with less
than two weeks left in the regular season (prepare your teams accordingly:
This year's CMEL regional selections, pairings, and seedings will be more
similar to what was done prior to the last two postseasons. I will seed all 64
teams in the 16 regionals as described below. This will be, more or less, an
automated system, but it will utilize all five major rankings, not just the
pairwise rating. A three-man panel of Eric Opperman (Memphis coach, and CMEL
Commish), and long-time DEL participants Jay Schlegel (Michigan) and Chris
Smith (Clemson) will approve (and/or slightly alter) the seedings if necessary.
As in CBEL, all conference champions (30) are automatically entered into the
tournament.
The remaining at large teams (34) will be chosen as follows:
A) to be eligible, your school must post a better than .500 record (i.e., a
29-29 slate won't get you an at large bid).
B) a conference record WORSE than "minus four" (e.g, five more conference
losses than conference wins), also makes your school ineligible for an at-large
berth. In real-life, Oregon State made the regionals last year (and actually
won the CWS with a conference record of 10-14). Any worse than this, is a
"thumbs down" as far as an at-large spot is concerned.
C) a strictly automated system will be used to select all eligible at-large
tournament teams: the MEDIAN (not the average) of the five main rankings
(standard computer, predictive, pairwise, RPI, and writers' poll) will be the
basis of selection. Median ties will be broken by using a team's BEST
individual rating of the five. If teams are still tied, the WORST individual
rating will be used. If your median rating is in the top 34 of the at-large
eligible schools, you are IN the tourney. If your median rating is 35th best
out of this group, your school is SOL!
The entire field will then be seeded 1-64, using the same criteria that
selected the at-large teams. The team with the best median ranking will be
seeded #1, and the 64th best will be seeded #64.
Some teams may be bumped up or down one spot to ensure that no two schools from
the same conference are placed in the same regional, which should be no
problem, since there are 16 different regionals. If we can do so without
moving a team more than one spot up or down, we'll also try to ensure that no
two teams from the same conference will end up playing in the seper-regionals.
For example, we'd try to avoid placing more than one team from the same
conference in the Region #1 and Region #16 tourney, since these two regional
winners would meet in the super-regional.
In summation, the five rankings will seed all 64 teams, and the only decision
made by the "selection committee" (me, Eric, Jay, and Chris) will be to move a
school up or down a single spot to ensure that no two teams from the same
conference end up in the same regional (and super-regional, if possible).
Date: Sat Mar 15 15:02:58 2008
Sender: K Fed
Selection Sunday is only 15 days away I can't wait!
Date: Sun Mar 16 14:50:13 2008
Sender: Christopher E Smith
"I disagree that human coached team should receive favoritism. This is the CWS
and the field should not be degraded to include team that don't meet the
criteria. Besides, favoring humans over Bob is just going to open Pandora's
box. I can see the complaints/whining now....
Establish a selection/seeding criteria, publish it, and stick to it, period.
There will be enough complaints about moving teams around to prevent conference
matchups. Believe me, as an x-CBEL commish, it is not a question of if there
will be complaints, it is just a question of how many."
AMEN, BROTHA ALEC!!!
I'm a little late chiming in on this, but Alec's post I quoted above is worthy
of being shown again, since I would've echoed his words.
Geoff - I realize that with this being a game it might be more fun to get more
or even ALL humans in the postseason. But that would never work. When the
tourney fields are set, no attention whatsoever is paid to the coach of any
team. I'm a week away from doing another CBEL field, and it is absolutely a
no-no to even glance at if a team is human-coached or Bob-coached, with Alec's
quote above answering the reason/s why. So, good thinking, but no, it can't
happen.
Date: Sun Mar 16 16:25:51 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Okay, guys,
Here's what we would have if the season ended today (with two games to go in
the regular season). Again, all conference tourney champs will also receive a
bid to the 64-team regional field:
Top 16 seeds (median rating in parentheses):
Missouri 1
Baylor 2
Oklahoma St 3
Texas 4
California 6*
Washington 6
Georgia Tech 7
Oregon St 8
Tennessee St 10
Arizona St 11*
Southern Cal 11
Mississippi St 12*
NC State 12
Florida St 14
Western Kentucky 15
Arkansas 16
Next 16:
Kentucky 18
Washington St 19*
Alabama 19
Memphis 20
Nebraska 21*
Pacific 21
UC Riverside 23
UC Santa Barbara 25*
Texas Tech 25
Western Carolina 26
South Carolina 27
Northwestern St 28
(Kansas St) 28x (23-24, ineligible at this point)
(Texas AM) 29x (11-16 in Big 12, ineligible)
(Kansas) 31x (25-28, 10-17 in Big 12, ineligible)
San Diego 21
Michigan 33*
Virginia 33*
UC Irvine 34
11 More:
North Carolina 35
Virginia Tech 37
Indiana 38
South Alabama 39
Auburn 41*
Georgia 41
Arizona 42x (5-17 Pac 10, 24-27 overall, ineligible)
Boston College 44*
UCLA 44
Oklahoma 45x (27-29, ineligible)
Maryland 45
Southern Illinois 46
Clemson 48
*win tiebreaker with other team having the same median ranking. (i.e., have
BEST individual ranking of the two teams)
That's 43 teams (remember, the 30 conference tourney champs automatically get
into the 64-team field, so there's still hope for Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas,
Kansas St, and Texas AM). In all likelihood, 10-15 of the conference tourney
champs will be ranked #50 or better, so there's a good possibility that some
at-large teams ranked WORSE than 50 might gain access to the CMEL "Big Dance."
Also, note that there are TEN Tier 2 schools listed above (median ranking
better than 50) that would probably get into the 64-team field, even if they do
NOT win their conference tourneys! Tier 3 schools: none with a top-50 ranking,
so the only way you're going to a CWS regional if you're Tier 3, is by winning
your conference tourney!
Again, the above list is only SPECULATIVE. Even if they don't win their
conference tourneys, one or two of the teams currently ineligible (e.g., Kansas
St) could become "Big Dance" eligible by winning their final two regular season
games and having a decent (more wins than losses) conference tourney.
Date: Sun Mar 16 18:03:13 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
One more thing, for those who feel that "there should be more human-coached
teams in the regionals."
31 of the 43 teams which appear to be headed to the regionals (even without
winning their conference tourneys) are HUMAN-COACHED. That's 72%!
If there are a few upsets in the conference tourneys, even more humans could
make the field. Right now, we'd have at least 55% (31 of the currently-active
57 CMEL human coaches) making the regionals.
So I'd say that (unless you're directing a Tier 3 team), you non-Bobbos out
there should have very little to complain about.
And if you do indeed coach a Tier 3 school, you wouldn't reach a regional in
real life unless you won your conference, anyway!
Date: Sun Mar 16 20:45:59 2008
Sender: Christopher E Smith
Dave,
Make sure to massage those numbers enough to make Clemson a "shoo-in"! lol
Date: Wed Mar 19 16:15:02 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
So when you say the aforementioned Big 12 teams "still have hope" are you
saying we'll waive the minus-4 conference rule if needed...
Tough to leave KSU and A&M out when they have winning overall records and the
top 4 teams in the country are from their conference...
Just my opinion.
Date: Wed Mar 19 19:27:29 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Garrett,
The "Hope" would have been for A&M to have won their last couple of conference
games, to manage better than a "minus four" conference record (they didn't).
Yes, A&M does have a winning record, but you'll notice that the vast majority
of their non-conference games were against Tier 3 opponents. So, unless they
win the Big Twelve Conference Tourney, they are toast!
Same for Kansas State (which, btw, does NOT have an overall winning record)!
Date: Wed Mar 19 21:03:23 2008
Sender: K Fed
See if u could give my Lafayette an at-large bid LOL!!
Date: Sun Mar 23 18:11:14 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Latest update, with three days left in the conference tourneys:
Remember, all conference tourney champs will receive a bid to the 64-team
regional field:
Current top 16 seeds (median rating in parentheses):
Missouri 1
Oklahoma St 3
Baylor 3
Texas 4
Oregon St 5
Georgia Tech 7
Washington 7
Tennessee Tc 7
Mississippi St 10
NC State 10
California 11
Kentucky 12
Nebraska 13
Southern Cal 15
Washington St 15
Arizona St 16*
Next 16:
Arkansas 16
Western Kentucky 16
Pacific 18
Florida St 19
Memphis 21
UC Santa Barbara 22
South Carolina 23
(Kansas St) 23x (25-27, must win Big 12 tourney)
UC Riverside 24
Texas Tech 26
Alabama 27
UC Irvine 28
(Texas AM) 29x (11-16 in Big 12, season over)
(Kansas) 29x (26-28, season over)
Michigan 31
Western Carolina 32
Northwestern St 32
North Carolina 33
Indiana 35
14 More:
San Diego 36
Virginia 36
Georgia 39
UCLA 39
Virginia Tech 40
Maryland 40
South Alabama 42
Boston College 43
Samford 43
Auburn 45
Arizona 46x (24-29, season over)
Southern Illinois 48
Clemson 48
Stetson 49
Vanderbilt 50
Oklahoma 50x (27-31, season over)
That's 46 teams.
Remember, the 30 conference tourney champs automatically get into the 64-team
field. Right now, it appears that at least 20 of the conference tourney champs
will be ranked #50 or worse, which means that only 44 (or less) of the above
listed teams will make the regionals. Kansas State still has a shot, but the
Cats must win the Big 12 Tourney to advance!
I'll get the final seedings to Chris, Jay and Eric by Thursday evening (one day
after the last day of conference tourneys). They'll then give their stamp of
approval, and we'll move teams up or down one spot to avoid any two teams from
the same conference appearing in the same regional. You should receive the
final brackets no later than next Sunday. Any whiners will be blindfolded and
pummeled by an assortment of Roger Clemens' (steroid enhanced or not) fastballs
at 40 paces.
Happy Easter, all you floppy-eared Funny Bunnies!
Date: Sun Mar 23 20:29:15 2008
Sender: K Fed
Keep up the good work guys!!
Date: Wed Mar 26 20:04:42 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
The "tentative" 64 team field will be posted later tonight, subject to review
by the Committee of Jay, Chris, and Eric. After the field is officially
finalized, Eric will manually enter the teams in the 16 regionals, and we'll be
set!
Date: Wed Mar 26 22:54:43 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
OK: Here we go with the final "tentative" selections and regional pairings.
First of all, the top 16 seeds with median ranking
(* designates conference tourney champ, "a" or "b" or "c" indicates median
tiebreaker)
Missouri 1
Texas* 2
Oregon St* 3
Baylor 4
Oklahoma St 5
Tennessee Tch* 6
Mississppi St* 7
Washington 8
Georgia Tech 9a
N Carolina St* 9b
California 11
Nebraska 12
Kentucky 13
Washington St 15a
Arizona St 15b
Southern Cal 15c
Next 16:
W Kentucky 16a
Arkansas 16b
Pacific 18
Florida St 19
UC Santa Barb 21
Memphis 22
S Carolina 24a
UC Riverside 24b
Texas Tech 26a
Alabama 26b
UC Irvine* 28
W Carolina 31a
Northwest St 31b
Michigan 32
N Carolina 33
Indiana* 34
Next 16
Virginia 36
San Diego* 38a
Virginia Tech 38b
Georgia 39
S Alabama* 40
Maryland 42a
UCLA 42b
Boston Col 43
Samford 44
S Illinois* 45a
Auburn 45b
San Francisco* 48
Sacramento St* 58a
San Diego St* 58b
Norfolk St* 60
Villanova* 63
Final 16:
W Michigan* 70
Citadel* 84
Charleston So* 95
S Mississippi* 100
Gardner-Webb* 138
Mcneese St* 142
Centenary* 148
Southern* 160
C Connecticut St* 184
St Louis* 197
James Madison* 204
Princeton* 210
Canisius* 231
Navy* 238
WI Milwaukee* 244
Stony Brook* 245
Then, with Regional #1 having the #1, 32, 33, and 64 seeds;
Regional #16 having the #16, 17, 48, and 49 seeds
and so on (the traditional "snaking" seeding order), this is what we get for
the sixteen regionals:
REGION 1
Missouri (1)
Indiana (32)
Virginia (33)
Stony Brook (64)
REGION 2
Texas (2)
N Carolina (31)
San Diego (34)
WI Milwaukee (63)
REGION 3
Oregon St (3)
Michigan (30)
Virginia Tech (35)
Navy (62)
REGION 4
Baylor (4)
Northwest St (29)
Georgia (36)
Canisius (61)
REGION 5
Oklahoma St (5)
W Carolina (28)
S Alabama (37)
Princeton (60)
REGION 6
Tennessee Tch (6)
UC Irvine (27)
Maryland (38)
James Madison (59)
REGION 7
Mississppi St (7)
Texas Tech (25)x
UCLA (39)
St Louis (58)
REGION 8
Washington (8)
Alabama (26)x
Boston Col (40)
C Connecticut St (57)
REGION 9
Georgia Tech (9)
UC Riverside (24)
Samford (41)
Southern (56)
REGION 10
N Carolina St (10)
S Carolina (23)
S Illinois (42)
Centenary (55)
REGION 11
California (11)
Memphis (22)
Auburn (43)
Mcneese St (54)
REGION 12
Nebraska (12)
UC Santa Barb (21)
San Francisco (44)
Gardner-Webb (53)
REGION 13
Kentucky (13)
Florida St (20)
Sacramento St (45)
S Mississippi (52)
REGION 14
Washington St (14)
Pacific (19)
San Diego St (46)
Charleston So (51)
REGION 15
Arizona St (15)
Arkansas (18)
Norfolk St (47)
Citadel (50)
REGION 16
Southern Cal (16)
W Kentucky (17)
Villanova (48)
W Michigan (49)
The only teams I had to move up or down a spot were Alabama and Texas Tech (to
keep Alabama and Mississippi St from being in the same regional, since both are
from the SEC).
We do have two potential "same conference top-16 matchups" in the Super
Regionals, but making any additional changes would screw up the seeds pretty
badly, so I left them alone.
Eric, Jay, and Chris will review the above and, hopefully, give it the "Good
Breaking-ball Seal of Approval." Then, Eric will program the seeds, and we'll
be ready to go.
Date: Thu Mar 27 09:17:42 2008
Sender: Jay Schlegel
[ahem] After constructing my own spreadsheet of the available information, I
affirm and avow that the above seedings do conform to the process outlined
further-above. The only in-conference regional match-up which needed shuffling
involved Texas Tech/Alabama. Only one team, Texas AM (35-23, 11-16), had to be
passed over due to a too-poor conference record; Auburn (28-26, 9-13) is the
lucky replacement.
Date: Thu Mar 27 13:17:12 2008
Sender: Christopher E Smith
I concur.
Now we need to hold our breath and hope that Flipper will present Eric Opp the
"magic button" so that he will be able to enter the seedings manually. As it
currently stands, Eric does not have that ability, and this could be all for
naught (or not or knot).
Date: Thu Mar 27 13:40:10 2008
Sender: Jay Schlegel
CMEL doesn't even have the capacity to enter the seeds with the command reader
in a remedial way, as was probably done in olden times?
Date: Fri Mar 28 18:59:07 2008
Sender: Eric Opperman
I was able to get to it a different way, thanks in part to a suggestion from
Jay. Thanks Jay!
Date: Fri Mar 28 22:39:06 2008
Sender: K Fed
Before long everyone will be calling me the Skip Bertman of CMEL a living
legend!
Date: Sat Mar 29 06:39:15 2008
Sender: Tom DeSanctis
Nice work, guys... This gives CMEL that "personal stamp" that was missing that
the CCEL and CBEL implemented a long time ago with the selection committees to
avoid the very pitfalls that a totally automatic process can reveal.
Date: Sat Mar 29 11:00:05 2008
Sender: K Fed
This gives CMEL the stamp as the best sports league period!
Date: Sun Mar 30 17:37:30 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
Good job, guys! Thanks for doing all the tough work!
Date: Sat May 31 21:28:10 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Looks like everyone was fairly happy with the way the human "selection
committee" picked and seeded the teams in last year's CMEL tourney. So, I
propose that we use the same selection and seeding criteria (shown below) as
last year, with just one minor exception (regarding tiebreakers), as indicated
in Item D.
As in CBEL, all conference champions (30) are automatically entered into the
tournament. The remaining at large teams (34) will be chosen as follows:
A) To be eligible, your school must post a better than .500 record (i.e., a
29-29 slate won't get you an at large bid).
B) A conference record WORSE than "minus four" (e.g, five more conference
losses than conference wins), also makes your school ineligible for an at-large
berth. In other words, a conference record of 10-14 and you're still eligible;
a conference record of 10-15 and you are SOL, as far as an at-large spot is
concerned.
C) A strictly automated system will be used to select all eligible at-large
tournament teams: the MEDIAN (not the average) of the five main
rankings(standard computer, predictive, pairwise, RPI, and writers' poll) will
be the
basis of selection.
D) (The minor change) Median ties will be broken by using a team's "win-loss"
rating (Andy's sixth rating). We did NOT use this rating last year, because it
was (in 95% of the cases) the same as the STANDARD rating. Using this rating
as the tiebreaker will simplify the process and avoid any additional ties.
(Last year, the tiebreaker was using the BEST individual rating of the five.)
E) If your median rating is in the top 34 of the at-large
eligible schools, you are IN the tourney. If your median rating is 35th best
out of this group, your school is on the outside looking in!
F) The entire field will then be seeded 1-64, using the same criteria that
selected the at-large teams. The team with the best median ranking will be
seeded #1, and the 64th best will be seeded #64.
G) Some teams may be bumped up or down one spot to ensure that no two schools
from the same conference are placed in the same regional, which should be no
problem, since there are 16 different regionals.
H) In summation, the five main rankings will seed all 64 teams (with the sixth
used as a tiebreaker), and the only decision made by the "selection committee"
will be to move a school up or down a single spot to ensure that no two teams
from the same conference end up in the same regional.
Your thoughts?
Date: Mon Jun 2 07:54:16 2008
Sender: Bill Howard
Looks good to me.
I think it went very well this season. I think the record being the tiebreaker
is fine.
Date: Mon Jun 9 15:56:36 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
I propose that we change the minus-4 conference rule to something a little more
liberal. The real-life committee took a minus-8 Oklahoma this year, and there
were other examples of this in the past.
Maybe a minus-6? Tell me if you hate the idea, but I think minus-4 is unfair to
teams that play a brutal conference schedule, especially in CMEL where your
conference might have 6-8 top 20 teams at any one time.
Date: Mon Jun 23 14:44:14 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
Never have heard on my last thought... What do ya'll think?
Date: Mon Jun 23 20:13:05 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Garrett,
I can't say that I like the "minus 6" OR the "minus 8" suggestion.
You make a big deal about Oklahoma during the current 2008 season. However, if
you would have taken Andy's "real life" NCAA baseball computer rankings for
Oklahoma at the time of this year's selections, the Sooners had a median rating
in the mid-forties (i.e., there were approximately 45 teams with better
rankings). Oregon State (defending real-life champs) had a median ranking in
the mid-thirties, and yet was NOT selected. So something was screwed up
regarding the "at large" selections! If we were using the CMEL ranking
criteria, Oklahoma would NOT have been selected for the postseason, due to
their poor median ranking (even if we made them eligible, despite a "minus
eight" conference record!)
At the end of the regular CMEL season, 33 of the current 51 Tier 1 teams (65%)
are eligible for the postseason, using the present "minus four in conference"
criteria. In the Pac Ten, eight of the nine teams qualify with the "minus
four" rule.
Changing to a "minus six" or a "minus eight" basically allows almost the entire
Tier 1 field to potentially qualify, which I don't feel is fair (or realistic).
Date: Tue Jun 24 19:24:39 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
Look at Texas A&M's median ranking in CMEL. I think they are minus-6. Are they
not one one of the top 64 teams in CMEL?
Date: Tue Jun 24 19:25:32 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
Aggies are a minus-5...
Date: Tue Jun 24 20:41:25 2008
Sender: Max Dornan
I agree. The Big 12 is crazy and not fair for us. The -4 rule needs to be
fixed.
Date: Wed Jun 25 05:45:00 2008
Sender: Jason Kidd
I actually like the minus 4 rule and think it brings a little more realism to
the sim. If we just took the 64 "best" teams we might as well just pick the
teams based on team talent (which would result in all but 4 Tier 1 teams
getting into the tourney).
While I have some problem picking the teams based exclusively on the criteria
listed above (without any real subjectivity), I don't necessarily have a
problem with the minus 4 rule. There should be some type of penalty for not
finishing well in your own conference.
Date: Wed Jun 25 08:43:47 2008
Sender: K Fed
Their is always somw whining come tournament time, all I can say is deal with
it or get your team motivated to play better!
Date: Wed Jun 25 09:48:10 2008
Sender: Jay Schlegel
Seems to me the time to discuss this was during the off-season -- and no one
had a problem with it at that time. No one had a problem with minus-4 until it
began to become clear during the season that some teams would not meet that
criterion. Only one team was passed over last season due to this rule --
apparently the conclusion of "oh well, those are the breaks, win more games
next time" is no longer sufficient?
If we're going to change selection methods late in the season, there was a
Certain Rule I would have liked to revisit in CCEL... But that isn't the way
we've been doing things in DEL, so I say leave it as-is for the current season
and then fix it if we think it isn't working prior to next season.
Date: Wed Jun 25 12:19:05 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
As a coach on the outside looking in (unless I win the B12 tourney), I have no
issues with the criteria as it stands.
I do agree with Jay though. If there is a criteria that needs to be changed
(at that is a big if), it should be done in the off season.
Date: Wed Jun 25 19:53:39 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Wow! I don't see what the big fuss is about! Texas A&M is coached by BOB and
they ended up NINTH out of TEN teams in their own conference! (Yes, the "Big
12" only has 10 schools in baseball!) The Aggies didn't even qualify for their
OWN (the Big 12) Conference Tourney and yet they should still get an invite to
a Regional? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
In addition, A&M only won a TOTAL of 16 games against Tier 1 competition, 11 in
conference and 5 in non-conference play (19 of their 30 non-conference games
were against Tier 2 or Tier 3 schools).
As far as changing the minimum conference record criteria to a minus five or
minus six, I am not really in favor of it. (It pretty much guarantees that
almost every Tier 1 school in CMEL will make the tourney (providing that you
don't make your non-conference schedule too tough and end up with a .500 or
worse overall record). Of course, my defending champion Oregon State Beavers
will reside in the latter category if we lose our conference elimination game
tomorrow versus Stanford. (We'll finish at .500 and won't be eligible for any
further postseason action, despite concluding the REGULAR season two games
ABOVE .500!) Should there be a special rule for us, too, since we were above
.500 prior to the conference playoffs? LOL!!!!
So hey, feel sorry for me instead of Coach BOB! If some of you guys feel real
strongly about changing to a "minus five or six," we should vote on it right
after this year's CMEL College World Series, not now!
Date: Thu Jun 26 18:14:43 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
ARGHHH!
Two consecutive 3-2 losses in the Pac-10 Conference tourney, and the Beavs end
up at 27-27 and do NOT qualify for a regional at-large bid, despite playing the
seventh toughest schedule in all of CMEL.
Looks like a long off-season in the hospitality room at the local Hooters!
Date: Thu Jun 26 18:40:29 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
A&M has a median ranking of 24... That's my point really. They have done
everything else.
Yes, they are coached by Bob, but in real life (is this sim not supposed to
mirror that, or is it supposed to rectify all of real life's glitches??-- maybe
I'm confused on its purpose) there is no way that the number of Tier Two teams
that get in would do so, especially with a Texas A&M sitting at a #24 computer
ranking with a winning overall record.
That's just my two cents worth, or should I say, $5.95 worth.
Date: Thu Jun 26 18:43:58 2008
Sender: Garrett Luft
And I wasn't necesaarily intending a change to be made this season. I was just
looking at something as it was happening and wanted to mention it.
That's all. I'm fine with discussing it after the current season.
Date: Fri Jun 27 08:17:40 2008
Sender: K Fed
What are all of you griping about? The system is fine the way it is. Every
league has coaches that whine because they think thier team should have gone to
regionals. All I gotta say is get over it, or get your team to play better!
Date: Fri Jun 27 08:37:54 2008
Sender: Jason Kidd
I think the way it is set up is fine. Last season's CMEL tournament contained
31 "Tier 1" conference teams. This past NCAA tournament contained 29 "Tier 1"
teams, so the numbers mirror each other fairly closely.
Date: Fri Jun 27 09:52:04 2008
Sender: Jay Schlegel
What would be REALLY unrealistic is for a 4-seed 89th-ranked tier-2 team to
actually win the CWS!
Oh, wait, that just happened in the NCAA this week.
Date: Sat Jun 28 16:31:32 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
With three days left in the conference tourneys, this is what we have regarding
the tentative field for the CMEL tourney.
Remember, all conference tourney champs will receive a bid to the 64-team
regional field (5 teams in Tier 1, 15 teams in Tier 2, and 10 teams in Tier 3).
This leaves 34 "at large" bids, the bulk of which (70-80%, based on current
ratings) will go to Tier 1 schools.
Here are the current top 16 seeds, with median rating (the tiebreaker rating,
which is based on Andy's "win-loss rank," is in parentheses). Tier 2 teams are
indicated with an asterisk):
Missouri 1
Washington 2
Georgia Tech 3
Mississippi St 4
Arkansas 5
Clemson 6
North Carolina St 7
Kentucky 8
Kansas St 9
Arizona St 10
Washington St 11
Texas 13
Kansas 14 (12)
Michigan 14 (14)*
Texas Tech 15
Alabama 16
Followed by the next 16:
Baylor 18
Oklahoma 19
Arizona 20 (17)
San Diego 20 (18)*
UC Santa Barbara 20 (20)
Florida St 20 (23)
North Carolina 22
Memphis 24*
Ohio St 25*
Stanford 27 (27)
Virginia Tech 27 (31)
Bowling Green 28 (28)*
California 28 (29)
UC Irvine 32
Duke 33
Long Beach St 34
And 8 more:
Georgia 36
LA Lafayette 38 (38)*
LSU 38 (39)
South Alabama 40 (40)*
SE Louisiana 40 (44)*
Jacksonville 43 (43)*
Western Kentucky 43 (47)*
Georgia Southern 45*
Based on 34 "at large" spots (with at least four of the five Tier 1 conference
champions being in the above list and and at least two Tier 2 conference champs
also being in the above list), the above 40 schools should be fairly certain of
a spot in the CMEL Regionals.
Ineligible Tier 1 teams (the not-so FAB FIVE) ranked in the Top 50 (much
wailing and gnashing of teeth here, since four of the five are human coached):
Texas AM (Bob) 29 (11-16 in conf)
Florida (Konrad Ciborowski) 31 (11-16 in conf)
Oklahoma St (A Schwartz) 35 (27-30 overall)
Oregon State (yours truly) 36 (27-27)
Boston College (Tim Howe) 42 (8-14 in conf)
Finally, here are six additional teams that could make the field, if more "top
45 ranked" Tier 2 teams win their conference tourneys. (More than likely, a
minimum of two or three will also make a regional tourney):
CS Fullerton 46
UCLA 47
TN Martin 48*
Tennessee 49 (48)
St. Johns 49 (49)*
Northwestern St 50*
All other teams are ranked worse than 50 and probably don't have a realistic
shot at gaining an "at large" bid.
So, right now, it appears that AT LEAST 29 (and possibly as many as 32) Tier 1
schools will make the CMEL regional field.
I'll get the final seedings to Chris, Jay and Eric some time late Wednesday
evening (the last day of conference tourneys). They'll then give their stamp
of approval, and we'll move teams up or down one spot to avoid any two teams
from the same conference appearing in the same regional. You should receive
the final brackets no later than next Sunday.
Date: Sun Jun 29 23:02:44 2008
Sender: K Fed
Kfed and Britney do not agree with these seedings as you coaches should know
if you read the press release CMEL the magazine is about to send out!
Date: Tue Jul 1 16:30:26 2008
Sender: Dan Siegfried
As always, great work Dave!! No complaints here. Us CMEL coaches appreciate
all the time you put into this.
Date: Wed Jul 2 11:43:54 2008
Sender: K Fed
I don't think Dave is the only one who does this there are 2 other coaches
that help as well, so if your gonna give credit give credit to everyone
involved.
Date: Wed Jul 2 13:31:03 2008
Sender: Dan Siegfried
and thanks to the other coaches that help. sorry.
Date: Wed Jul 2 21:15:47 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
I get the credit when things go south. Jay, Chris, and Eric get the credit
when things go good! "Final" seedings to follow shortly!
LOL
Date: Wed Jul 2 23:17:02 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
OK: Here we go with the "final" Fourth of July Firecracker selections and
regional pairings (per approval of Jay, Chris, and Eric).
First of all, the top 16 seeds (#1 regiona seeds) with median ranking
(* designates conference tourney champ; second number in parentheses indicates
tiebreaker based on Andy's win-loss ranking criteria)
Missouri* 1
Mississppi St* 2
Washington 3
Georgia Tech 4
Clemson 5
Arkansas 6
N Carolina St 7
Arizona St 9 (8)
Kentucky 9 (9)
Kansas St 9 (10)
Michigan* 12 (11)
Washington St 12 (12)
Kansas 14 (13)
Texas 14 (14)
Texas Tech 15 (15)
Alabama 15 (17)
Next 16 (#2 regional seeds):
Baylor 16
Florida St 17
Arizona 18 (18)
San Diego 18 (19)
Oklahoma 21
N Carolina 22
Memphis* 24 (22)
UC Santa Barb 24 (24)
Stanford 26
Bowling Green* 27 (27)
California* 27 (29)
Virginia Tech 27 (32)
Ohio St 28
UC Irvine 32
Duke* 33
Georgia 36
Next 16 (#3 regional seeds):
Long Beach St 37
Louisiana St 38
Georgia Sthrn* 39 (39)
SE Louisiana 39 (43)
LA Lafayette 40
W Kentucky 43
St Johns* 44
UCLA 46 (41)
CS Fullerton 46 (49)
N Orleans 48
S Illinois* 49
Indiana 50
Fresno St* 58
St Marys* 59
Texas Christn* 64
UC Riverside* 69
Final 16 (#4 regional seeds):
Florida Atlantic* 83
Arkansas St* 86
Nicholls St* 100
Norfolk St* 105
Alcorn St* 114
SE Missri St* 125
NC Asheville* 139
C Connecticut* 147
George Mason* 159
St Louis* 169
Centenary* 182
Cleveland St* 184
Bucknell* 185
Pennsylvania* 228
St Peters* 237
Maine* 241
Note that all "eligible" teams with a median ranking in the top 50 got into the
tourney. Texas AM (29), Florida (31), Oklahoma St (34), Oregon St (35), Boston
College (42) and S Carolina (46) were all ineligible for reasons of a "minus
five or worse" conference record and/or a non-winning overall record (like my
Beavers!) So UCLA, CS Fullerton, N Orleans, and Indiana were obviously the
last "at large" teams in, courtesy of the aforementioned six-pack!
With Regional #1 having the #1, 32, 33, and 64 seeds;
Regional #16 having the #16, 17, 48, and 49 seeds; and so on (the traditional
"snaking" seeding order), this is the field for the sixteen regionals:
REGION 1
Missouri (1)
Georgia (32)
Long Beach St (33)
Maine (64)
REGION 2
Mississppi St (2)
Duke (31)
Georgia Sthrn (34) (35)x
St Peters (63)
REGION 3
Washington (3)
UC Irvine (30)
Louisiana St (35) (34)y
Pennsylvania (62)
REGION 4
Georgia Tech (4)
Ohio St (29)
SE Louisiana (36)
Bucknell (61)
REGION 5
Clemson (5)
California (28) (27)x
LA Lafayette (37)
Cleveland St (60)
REGION 6
Arkansas (6)
Virginia Tech (27) (28)y
W Kentucky (38)
Centenary (59)
REGION 7
N Carolina St (7)
Stanford (26) (25)x
St Johns (39)
St Louis (58)
REGION 8
Arizona St (8)
Bowling Green (25) (26)y
CS Fullerton (40) (41)x
George Mason (57)
REGION 9
Kentucky (9)
UC Santa Barb (24)
UCLA (41) (40)y
C Connecticut (56)
REGION 10
Kansas St (10)
Memphis (23)
N Orleans (42)
NC Asheville (55)
REGION 11
Michigan (11)
N Carolina (22)
S Illinois (43)
SE Missri St (54)
REGION 12
Washington St (12)
Oklahoma(21)
Indiana (44)
Alcorn St (53)
REGION 13
Kansas (13)
San Diego (20)
Fresno St (45)
Norfolk St (52)
REGION 14
Texas (14)
Arizona (19)
St Marys (46)
Nicholls St (51)
REGION 15
Texas Tech (15)
Florida St (18)
Texas Christn (47)
Arkansas St (50)
REGION 16
Alabama (16)
Baylor (17)
UC Riverside (48)
Florida Atlantic (49)
X = moved up one spot
Y = moved down one spot
There were five instances in which I had to move a team up or down a spot to
avoid two teams from the same conference appearing in the same regional:
In Region 2, #3 seed Louisiana St (34 overall) was moved down a spot to Region
3, and #3 seed Georgia Southn (35 overall) was moved up a spot to Region 2 to
keep Louisiana St and Mississippi St from being in the same regional, since
both are from the SEC).
In Region 5, #2 seed Virginia Tech (28 overall) was moved down a spot to Region
6, and #2 seed California (27 overall) was moved up a spot to Region 5 to keep
Virginia Tech and Clemson from being in the same regional, since both are from
the ACC).
In Region 8, we had three teams from the Pac Ten (Murphy's Law!): Arizona St,
Stanford, and UCLA. Therefore, #2 seed Stanford (25 overall) was moved up a
spot to Region 7, and #2 seed Bowling Green (26 overall) was moved down a spot
to Region 8. #3 seed UCLA (40 overall) was moved down a spot to Region 9, and
#3 seed CS Fullerton (41 overall) was moved up a spot to Region 8. This worked
great, because it also solved the problem of two teams (CS Fullerton and UC
Santa Barb) from the Big West Conference both appearing in the Region 9 field!
To avoid any yelling and screaming from the "elite" teams, I did NOT move any
#1 seeds up or down!
And yes, putting this year's field together WAS a pain in both the left AND the
right buttock!
Eric, Jay, and Chris will review the above seedings, and, hopefully, give it
"six thumbs up!" Then, Eric will program the seeds, and we'll be all set.
Date: Thu Jul 3 05:42:40 2008
Sender: Jason Kidd
Good work.
Date: Thu Jul 3 14:49:36 2008
Sender: Jay Schlegel
As L.Corso might say: "NOT SO FAST!"
I found a mis-step in the 64-team field as released above. I have Tennessee
(median=47) slotting in ahead of New Orleans (median=48), bumping Indiana
(median=50) from the at-large field. The remainder of the field is correct in
terms of the teams left out (Texas AM, Florida, Oklahoma St, Oregon St, Boston
Col) and the seed order (except for the three teams just mentioned).
Next I'll do the regions and see how they fall out.
Date: Thu Jul 3 15:08:04 2008
Sender: Jay Schlegel
Regions also look good, though three are affected by the TN/NO/IN snafu
mentioned above. Basically, it only affects the 3-seeds in the following
(corrected) regions:
Region 10:
Kansas_St
Memphis
Tennessee
NC_Asheville
Region 11:
Michigan
N_Carolina
New_Orleans
SE_Missri_St
Region 12:
Washington_St
Oklahoma
S_Illinois
Alcorn_St
Date: Thu Jul 3 19:41:29 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Correctomundo! My bad! Too much Bacardi last night! That's why we have those
Michigan guys around! Vols get in -- Hoosiers get the hose! (Must be my
anti-south bias! Either that, or I've been listening to K Fed too long!)
Regionals now look perfect with Jay's correction. Go, Maine Black bears!
Date: Thu Jul 3 19:44:23 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Correctomundo! Vols get in, and Hoosiers get hosed! Field now looks perfect
with Jay's corrections! (That's why we have those Michigan guys around!)
Must have had too much Bacardi last night (or have been listening to KFed too
long!)
Go, Maine Black Bears!
Date: Thu Jul 3 19:54:08 2008
Sender: K Fed
Nah regionals look ok too me they have my blessing, everyone read the latest
issue of CMEL the magazine.
Date: Thu Jul 3 20:42:20 2008
Sender: Eric Opperman
The field has been entered as it is on this thread, with Jay's corrections for
regions 10-12. If there is a problem, please let me know ASAP so we can fix it
before Sunday.
Date: Sun Jul 6 19:50:54 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Thanks, Eric and Jay, aka the "M&M" (Michigan and Memphis) Boys! Just for
everyone's peace of mind, I thought that it was best to post the entire
regional selection process on this board, so each human coach can see EXACTLY
the step-by-step process, and, by following it through (like Jay), you can
catch any possible inaccuracies. Thus, we can correct any problems BEFORE the
tourney!
BTW, I am SOOOOO happy that we have been blessed with the "K FED SEAL OF
APPROVAL" regarding the tourney seedings!
Good luck to all!
Date: Mon Jul 7 19:11:48 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Jay, are you SURE Tennessee gets into the tourney?
First round regional score:
Tennessee (Bob) 7
Memphis (Eric Opperman) 4
LOL! (Sorry, Eric!) Blame Mr. Wolverine on this one!
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
