Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 140

Thread: System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wasted away again in Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,288
    Karma
    59

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    Dear David,

    How the fuck can a team that goes 7-1 not get a gold bid but one that goes 5-3 does? Why is the system so screwed up?

    Love,

    Z
    "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    1,045
    Karma
    48

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    I know it seems bad Z....but you cant really compare records like that from from region to region without taking a hard look at tab summaries...you just cant. I do agree the system is horribly broken, however.
    It's all about the U.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wasted away again in Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,288
    Karma
    59

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    I apparently lost another karma point for that question. :P

    However, I have a sneaking suspicion when I see the summaries, I'm going to be that much more bitter...
    "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    386
    Karma
    45

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    I'm pretty sure the tab summaries will not help, Z.

    But, let me pose some counter questions.... in a 24-team regional, should the best team not named UCLA really have no shot at a Championship bid?

    Would you prefer a 1 Championship bid per region system? That would keep 5-3 Redlands from going straight to Stetson. Of course, it would also keep home an 8-0 UCLA squad.

    Is youir 7-1 team really one of the best 60 in the country? It certainly might be, but you do have a chance to prove it. I feel much sorrier for the teams that just miss the cut for the Nationals than a do for those that miss the cut for the Championship.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    1,045
    Karma
    48

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    Nelmark,

    The problem can also be traced to the reason why the best team not named UCLA has no chance. It is partially because UCLA has very good teams, but I think it also is largely due to the ability to bust brackets because AMTA says its good policy to prevent SSMs. I disagree with that policy. A program like Weber State which has traditionally carried just one really competitive team doesnt have much of a chance. You might be able to beat or split 1 or 2 of the UCLA teams, but just based on pure odds you are very unlikely to get the opportunity to beat all 4 UCLA teams. Weber cant singlehandedly beat the entire UCLA program...
    It's all about the U.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wasted away again in Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,288
    Karma
    59

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    [quote author=MockMaster link=topic=2820.msg154259#msg154259 date=1172463235]
    I'm pretty sure the tab summaries will not help, Z.

    But, let me pose some counter questions.... in a 24-team regional, should the best team not named UCLA really have no shot at a Championship bid?

    Would you prefer a 1 Championship bid per region system? That would keep 5-3 Redlands from going straight to Stetson. Of course, it would also keep home an 8-0 UCLA squad.

    Is youir 7-1 team really one of the best 60 in the country? It certainly might be, but you do have a chance to prove it. I feel much sorrier for the teams that just miss the cut for the Nationals than a do for those that miss the cut for the Championship.

    [/quote]

    I accept your counterpoint, David. But my underlying problem is, and has always been this:

    The matching system simply does not work. It's supposedly designed to ensure the best teams hit the hardest schedules and in order to get to gold. The classic example of the top two teams in fourth round killing each other and letting a lesser team sneak in is one failing we've gone over a lot. But it's far from the only failing.

    Here, we have a Dallas regional where, essentially, the system did work to a point. Two 7-1 Texas teams hit hard, hard schedules to really proved themselves. Good for them. However, Ole Miss suffered because the bid allocation system is not done based on what regions really are the strongest, but on what regions people THINK are the strongest. Here we have a region where Texas and Ole Miss dominated everyone else and proved themselves against each other, but since there was one bid too few, a 7-1 team goes home.

    Then, we have LA, which demonstrates another crucial failing. While Ole Miss went 7-1 with a CS of 16, LA had TWO teams get gold bids with a CS of 14 and 12, and one with a record of 5-3. Now, this is not meant to take anything from Redlands or 967. For all we know 967 could've gone 8-0 against a CS of 20 and Redlands could've destroyed almost anyone not named UCLA, we just don't know. And that's the other problem. The system again failed by not matching the best teams against the best schedule.

    Which brings me back to the same point I've made time and time again: The power matching system is completely and utterly broken. It does almost nothing it sets out to do and the little good it does accomplish is completely outweighed by the multiple serious flaws that exist at its most fundamental levels.
    "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    386
    Karma
    45

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    One Weber team did not hit UCLA. The other Weber team went 1-3 against UCLA. If it wins its 4 non-UCLA ballots, it's in the postseason and probably has the Championship bid.

    There are cases where the "runs interference effect" is a big advantage. I don't see that playing out in Cucamonga though. When no team ever took both ballots off of ANY UCLA team, it's tough to say that their C and D teams finished 3rd and 4th just because their A and B teams were knocking people off.

    Pairings are certainly less pure when a program has four teams in a bracket and when SSM is prohibited. Thus far, the drawbacks of allowing SSM or of capping a program at less than four teams per region have, in the Board's view, not outweighed the advantages.

    On a somewhat related note, I think the "alternate fourth round pairing system" would have played out nicely in Cucamonga and in Milwaukee.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wasted away again in Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,288
    Karma
    59

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    [quote author=MockMaster link=topic=2820.msg154262#msg154262 date=1172464552]
    Pairings are certainly less pure when a program has four teams in a bracket and when SSM is prohibited. Thus far, the drawbacks of allowing SSM or of capping a program at less than four teams per region have, in the Board's view, not outweighed the advantages.
    [/quote]

    Less pure? Less pure??? A CS of 12, David! TWELVE!

    I mean... I just... That is to say...

    TWELVE!
    "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    1,045
    Karma
    48

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    [quote author=MockMaster link=topic=2820.msg154262#msg154262 date=1172464552]
    One Weber team did not hit UCLA. The other Weber team went 1-3 against UCLA. If it wins its 4 non-UCLA ballots, it's in the postseason and probably has the Championship bid.

    There are cases where the "runs interference effect" is a big advantage. I don't see that playing out in Cucamonga though. When no team ever took both ballots off of ANY UCLA team, it's tough to say that their C and D teams finished 3rd and 4th just because their A and B teams were knocking people off.

    Pairings are certainly less pure when a program has four teams in a bracket and when SSM is prohibited. Thus far, the drawbacks of allowing SSM or of capping a program at less than four teams per region have, in the Board's view, not outweighed the advantages.

    On a somewhat related note, I think the "alternate fourth round pairing system" would have played out nicely in Cucamonga and in Milwaukee.
    [/quote]

    I will wait for the tab summary to post before I can really respond to this. But I should say that I was speaking more in the abstract with my previous post.
    It's all about the U.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    386
    Karma
    45

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    [quote author=JayZ link=topic=2820.msg154261#msg154261 date=1172464482]

    Ole Miss suffered because the bid allocation system is not done based on what regions really are the strongest, but on what regions people THINK are the strongest. Here we have a region where Texas and Ole Miss dominated everyone else and proved themselves against each other, but since there was one bid too few, a 7-1 team goes home.

    [/quote]

    Umm.. how else would you do besides basing it on which regions you THINK are best? Even after the region is over we don't KNOW which regions are best. You must be a great region because you had multiple 7-1 teams? Maybe it's just that no one else besides the top few teams was any good. Really, the only way to get a good handle on which regions are best is to see how its teams perform in the postseason.

    We could award more "wildcard" bids. I think 7-1 teams, regardless of region, probably deserve to go direct to the Championship. That said, the 7-1 teams that earned the wildcard Championship bids last year didn't really like the system. They were stuck waiting around for weeks, not knowing where they'd end up. Perhaps other teams would feel differently, but that opinion was a main reason we pulled the two wildcard bids we did have.

    [quote author=JayZ link=topic=2820.msg154261#msg154261 date=1172464482]

    Which brings me back to the same point I've made time and time again: The power matching system is completely and utterly broken. It does almost nothing it sets out to do and the little good it does accomplish is completely outweighed by the multiple serious flaws that exist at its most fundamental levels.
    [/quote]

    Clearly, I agree that the power matching system has flaws (see the alternative round 4 pairings system thread). Is that really the issue here though? Earlier you seemed to be arguing that the way the Championship bids were distributed was the problem. I don't see any conceivable way Dallas ends up with more than two Championship bids UNLESS we drop some regions down to one. Do you think that is the way to go? (As an aside, based on the results from last year's Dallas teams in the postseason, I think such an allocation system would have been more likely to have Dallas get 1 bid than 3.)

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    386
    Karma
    45

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    [quote author=JayZ link=topic=2820.msg154263#msg154263 date=1172464719]
    Less pure? Less pure??? A CS of 12, David! TWELVE!

    I mean... I just... That is to say...

    TWELVE!
    [/quote]

    The team they hit in Rd. 1 did not do well (nothing they could do about that.) At 2-0, they hit another 2-0 team. At 4-0, they hit a 3-1 squad. At 6-0, they hit a 3-3. That doesn't look good, but the best non UCLA team in the tournament at that point was only 4-2.

    Basically, their CS was low because the other UCLA teams beat people up. It's tough to fault them for that.

    Ultimately, there is no way to show which regions are stronger or weaker. That's why I think we should probabl go to a 1 or 0 Championship bids per regional system. The disparity among regionals would sort itself out at the National tournaments.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    1,045
    Karma
    48

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    David...I have been saying for a long time the board should not be afraid to give only 1 gold bid to some regions...The bid allocation policy is something I would identify as part of the problem.
    It's all about the U.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wasted away again in Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,288
    Karma
    59

    System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    I'm not saying that assigning bids after the fact is any better than assigning them before the fact. What I'm saying is that AMTA needs to get out of the business of assigning bids altogether. Set a static number of regions with as static as possible team assignments. Give each one gold bid and several silver. Then use silvers to determine who the best teams are.

    EDIT: I'm going to split this thread so as to get it pack on the benevolent track David intended it for instead oe being bogged down in my bitter ranting. :P
    "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    956
    Karma
    45

    Re: System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    Different regions create different problems. I'm not convinced that a 5-3 team in Redlands isn't much better than a 7-1 Ole Miss team. But, the simple answer to your question is that the 7-1 team was in a region that didn't get a busted bracket and limited by the 2-team cap.

    Coach, Sun Devil Mock Trial
    Back in the lab, with a pen and a pad....

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    386
    Karma
    45

    Re: System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    [quote author=JayZ link=topic=3407.msg154276#msg154276 date=1172466192]
    I'm not saying that assigning bids after the fact is any better than assigning them before the fact. What I'm saying is that AMTA needs to get out of the business of assigning bids altogether. Set a static number of regions with as static as possible team assignments. Give each one gold bid and several silver. Then use silvers to determine who the best teams are.

    EDIT: I'm going to split this thread so as to get it pack on the benevolent track David intended it for instead oe being bogged down in my bitter ranting. :P
    [/quote]

    Thanks for the split... now if I could just get you to stop swearing...

    If we have static regions with static team assignments, how do we accommodate growth?

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    956
    Karma
    45

    Re: System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    You can't. The system works. It can be refined and improved, but it works. I need to review the D-town tab, though
    Coach, Sun Devil Mock Trial
    Back in the lab, with a pen and a pad....

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    956
    Karma
    45

    Re: System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    I have reviewed. Though I think a valid argument can be made in support of any 7-1 team, I do not think that anyone got robbed here.

    Ole Miss barely beat HBU, a historically sweet but mediocre team (at least in terms of results)

    They beat Rice and Brookhaven, two no-nationals, never heard-of-em teams

    and

    They were the beneficiaries of a less than convincing split against Texas A.

    Admittedly, they beat 7 of the ballots they were faced with, but I find it hard to believe that they were a Gold caliber team and I am unconvinced by the over-reaching statement of "they proved themselves against each other (texas)."

    You're a proud coach, and I respect that, but I can't help but think the system worked fine.
    Coach, Sun Devil Mock Trial
    Back in the lab, with a pen and a pad....

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    411
    Karma
    43

    Re: System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    [quote author=DesertClassic link=topic=3407.msg154310#msg154310 date=1172504751]
    I have reviewed. Though I think a valid argument can be made in support of any 7-1 team, I do not think that anyone got robbed here.

    Ole Miss barely beat HBU, a historically sweet but mediocre team (at least in terms of results)

    They beat Rice and Brookhaven, two no-nationals, never heard-of-em teams

    and

    They were the beneficiaries of a less than convincing split against Texas A.

    Admittedly, they beat 7 of the ballots they were faced with, but I find it hard to believe that they were a Gold caliber team and I am unconvinced by the over-reaching statement of "they proved themselves against each other (texas)."

    You're a proud coach, and I respect that, but I can't help but think the system worked fine.
    [/quote]

    Having seen Rice at the tournament, I can tell you that they are a verysolid team. Notice that they only lost to Texas A by 3 points, and gave solid performances throughout the rest of the tournament. Unfortunately, they drew the bye team first round, which hurt their CS and doesn't reflect how good they were. Houston Baptist was also very solid, and better than their record reflects. Brookhaven I will leave without comment.

    I seriously doubt you have any right to call the Texas split "non-convincing" considering you weren't there. It was a very close round and six points isn't exactly what I'd call a huge swing either. I am not as upset as Z, because I feel that we have a chance to prove that we belong at nationals. However, I would like to thank you for providing us with locker room material. See you at nationals, Jimmy.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wasted away again in Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,288
    Karma
    59

    Re: System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    [quote author=MockMaster link=topic=3407.msg154286#msg154286 date=1172470525]
    Thanks for the split... now if I could just get you to stop swearing...

    If we have static regions with static team assignments, how do we accommodate growth?
    [/quote]

    I'm completely capable of not swearing, I just chose to do so for emphasis.

    And I said static in so much as possible. Growth can be accommodated by assigning new program to regionals based on preference for cost-effective geographic distribution first and competitive balance second. The main problem lies not with growth but with already established programs engaging in regional shopping. Once a school is assigned to a region that assignment shouldn't be changed unless there is real reason to. I know that AMTA has historically tried to accommodate schools and that's great, but there comes a point where they just need to say, "Listen, here's where we're going to assign you, if that doesn't work then we're sorry but we can't change it."

    Of course, this doesn't take into account the fact that regional host themselves tend to change and regionals tend to move. But, again, the board can devise some sort of reseeding system when a region is moved to try to stabilize things.

    Here's the part where I beat a dead horse. When we get down to brass tax, AMTA has two options in the long run to ensure competitive activity as it grows. They can implement new schemes and new regimes to try to keep regions somewhat balanced and bids distributed fairly, or they can expand silvers and allow national tournaments to compensate for unbalanced regionals. In any case, I thin the current system is one that was fundamentally designed to accommodate a much smaller AMTA and that, as it continues to grow, more and more seems will begin to burst. I think to continue to try to patchwork a system that is simply becoming outdated makes no sense.

    Unfortunately, there is no model AMTA can look to. There is no other activity that has had to deal with the types of competition on the scale AMTA has. I've stressed looking to NTC for examples, but they're much smaller and have much different goals. The NCAA always makes for exampli de facto, but, again, there are radical differences. So, it's not an easy question to answer, I understand that. But I just think we can do better.
    "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Aloha State
    Posts
    1,945
    Karma
    61

    Re: System, is it FUBAR? Discuss.

    I have an idea. ;-) I don't think the system is quite as broken as some lament, but I do think there is some room for improvement. Also, I think that my old-tiebreaker revision might be a good and effective way to accurately and wholistically guage a team's strength based on its performance because it simultaneously considers both the strength of opposition and the magnitude of a win (PD). It's tremendously useful looking within a tournament, and can even provide cross tournament comparisons when modified with a regional strength idicator. I only wish teaching weren't such a taxing profession, else I'd attempt to provide a stat analysis of each tournament. One thing you could do is award just one auto bid to the winner of the tournament, then put every team in a pool for direct qualification. That'd be somewhere in the area of 21-24 gold bids through winning regionals, then you could give out another 35 or so to teams on that list, then give the rest to silvers. The only major problem here is that people wouldn't know for sure if they were in the Gold tourny until after EVERY regional, making for a logisitcal nightmare for many trying to book flights and hotels for silvers.
    "Who do these people think they are coming on my perjuries and asking

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •