Cal Preps Ratings/ CIF Playoffs

User avatar
Lionhunter
Posts: 4084
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:06 am

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Lionhunter »

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

:yeahthat:
Goin' on a lion hunt, but I don't see no lion.
Luca
Posts: 6668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Luca »

So if they had gotten their asses handed to them by DLS and Gorman and wound up 5-5, that would have justified a wild card over Crespi?

I don't see how scheduling a harder preseason is something that should be "rewarded." I can see being rewarded if you actually win some of the games and wind up with even record with a team that took the easy route. But, no, there is no "reward" just because you scheduled tougher teams and got your ass kicked. At least the other team has demonstrated that it can win games...........................Luca
Last edited by Luca on Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lionhunter
Posts: 4084
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:06 am

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Lionhunter »

I think Joe is saying that it would still have been a travesty to send Crespi over J Serra.

And the SOS would have favored J Serra despite those two losses. J Serra would get the nod.
Goin' on a lion hunt, but I don't see no lion.
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by MDDad »

FriarJoe wrote:If JSerra scheduled Bishop Gorman and De La Salle last year, don't you think they would have been 5-5 instead of 7-3?
God, these hypotheticals drive me nuts. Yes, if JSerra had scheduled De La Salle and Bishop Gorman last year, they would have been 5-5. And if Crespi had scheduled those two teams instead of 4-6 Taft and 5-7 Clovis West, they would have been 2-8. None of which is relevant.

The real deficiency in cases like this is that the CIF has come up with an amateurish, haphazard and arbitrary way of determining at-large teams, and until that changes, you're going to get these kinds of "mistakes".
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by MDDad »

It took me less than three minutes to determine that:

The four teams Crespi beat in 2013 had a record of 19-23 (.452) and an average power rating of 33.9.
The seven teams JSerra beat in 2013 had a record of 44-35 (.557) and an average power rating of 40.0.

I guess it's too much to expect the CIF to put three minutes into coming up with a better method.
Luca
Posts: 6668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Luca »

Now I get it. Because the 6 teams that beat Crespi had a higher power rating than the 3 teams that beat JSerra, Crespi must have had the better team. It's all mathematical, you see..........

As Inspector Clouseau would have said, "Now we are getting somewhere!"...........Luca
FriarJoe
Posts: 1459
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:32 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by FriarJoe »

Under Luca's logic, teams should schedule the crappiest lower division teams they can find so they can "prove they can win". Thankfully Luca is not on the new College Football playoff committee or SOS would be ignored in favor of gaudy win-loss records and therefore we would see nothing but Alabama-Middle Tennessee State and Ohio State-Citadel match-ups so teams can prove they can win and get into the playoff.

Luca, beating a crappy team is not worth anything and the CIF thankfully acknowledges that. The simple act of choosing to play tough competition is what is being rewarded in the SOS component. Your wins and losses are already rewarded in the CIF's win/loss component of its formula. For some reason you want to see Mater Dei-Ocean View, Santa Margarita-Loara and Servite-Katella matchups every year. I prefer to see teams test themselves.
Luca
Posts: 6668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Luca »

Actually, Joe, what I am saying is that a 4-6 team that got creamed by every good team it played and beat only one winning team should not get the nod over a 7-3 team that beat four winning teams. If two teams had similar records and one played a more difficult schedule then you take SOS into account. But if one team gets its ass handed to it every time it played a strong club I don't think commonsense indicates you give them any points for just showing up.


If from this you assume that the lesson is that Alabama should schedule 12 Middle Tennessee States then your syllogistic reasoning is clearly different from mine..........................Luca
FriarJoe
Posts: 1459
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:32 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by FriarJoe »

Luca, one bad example does not disprove the rule. Now you want to take into account point differential or do you want a more subjective standard that will no doubt cause politics to play a role. Would you feel differently if Crespi lost by 7 points on average to the really good teams? Would you feel differently if jserra barely beat the bad teams they beat? The only way to encourage tough scheduling is to reward the tough scheduling itself without regard to outcome. Outcome is rewarded in the in loss component. I agree that it can't all be about SOS but you cannot overly emphasize wins against the Magnolias of the world. I don't have a problem with SOS being worth two times record. You are trying to use an outlier to disprove a decent rule. Bad facts make bad law as they say.
Mr. Grady
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Mr. Grady »

The reason why Crespi's SOS looked so good last year (i.e. their opponents has such a good cumulative record) was because, well, they were racking up wins against Crespi. Last year after the draw somebody demonstrated that JSerra's opponents actually had a better cumulative record than Crespi if you eliminated the games involving these two and their opponent. The simplified theory is If you're in a two team world and you are 0-10 and your opponent is 10-0 of course you have the stronger SOS. In the 2013 example you'd count SJB as 9-0 and SM 4-5 and not 10-0 and 4-6 respectively and you'd see the point.
ventura
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:16 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by ventura »

Definitely a flawed system. I do think that whatever they come up with for at large will be argued about, though.

JSerra should have gotten in over Crespi in 2013 - look what happened to the Celts against MV - running clock. Celts had a couple good wins but were not a good team last year.

Crespi had a LEGITIMATE chance to win Pac 5 in 2012 and didn't even get in the playoffs, with an 8-2 record. They completely screwed up two league games, but had great wins against four or five quality opponents. And they physically dominated Alemany, the league winner, in the final game of their season.

Flawed system.
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by MDDad »

The system will always be somewhat flawed, but it can be improved. In order, the three things that should determine which team is selected are:

1. Head-to-head result. If they didn't play each other, then
2. Results against common opponents. If no common opponents or results are tied, then
3. The strength of all the teams they BEAT, not all the teams they PLAYED.

Strength of league and strength of schedule shoul be eliminated.
2002tony
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by 2002tony »

We are also talking about how to make it fair system for a team that the majority of the time is traditionally going to lose next week, and usually by a lot. Yes there are some cases that we could be talking about a very good team like Crespi in 2012, and the majority of the time that is not the case.

Also to point out what Joe had said in his argument,
Lets say that Crespi had played and won these games in their preseason as compared to JSerra
JSerra
beat 6-4 Centennial Las Vegas - But Crespi had played -7-3 Calvary Chapel
5-5 Huntington Beach compared to 5-5 Estancia
8-2 Buena Park compared to 8-2 Irvine
5-5 Dana HIlls compared to 5-5 Laguna Beach
6-4 Trabuco Hills compared to 6-4 Western

even though Crespi would have the edge in in SOS over these 5 games, would you say that Crespi should automatically get the nod because they played much easier schedule and had the SOS points?

Does that not make the argument that Joe was pointing out that just playing and beating a lower level team compared to playing but losing to a upper level team is a wash and the fact you lose to a upper level should not be held against them nor should be considered a good thing and something in your favor that you can add up a lot of wins against teams both teams would have won?

now to MDDad point about WHO they beat,
lets focus on where the committee has the easiest time in comparing which team should get in, not the preseason but in league where both leagues are at the same level and in theory all teams in league are at the same level of play. Lets leave the preseason out of it.
JSerra had wins over 4-6 SM and 5-5 Servite, Crespi had wins over 4-6 Loyola, 6-4 BA. I think that is where the distinction went. And with that example that still puts Crespi in with the WHO did they beat.

Pretty much a wash though between Crespi and JSerra, but Crespi would have had a much better record if they had played JSerra's preseason schedule. I dont think JSerra got screwed by CIF as much as they got it from the coin flip because they were placed in 5th and not 3rd.

Crespi played a much tougher schedule and they got rewarded for that.

I think the Strength of League was to break all those ties that could happen when you are comparing wins and loses and one team is in the Trinity and the other , lets say, is in the Moore. All those wins in the Moore just dont add up to wins in the Trinity and there is a tie between two teams (or give some consideration for a team that may be one point shy but plays in a much tougher league) with one being from the Moore and one being from the Trinity but both leagues at least on paper are both D1 leagues.
Can you see the problem here with a 4th place team in the Moore saying they have just as much a right to be in the playoffs as the the 4th place team (OLu last year) in the Trinity with both teams wanting a wild card spot.

Bottom line, there is no great and all is even system when having to judge teams that are wild card teams. No matter what system you want to put in place, there is going to be a problem because these are two teams that did not dominate their league are having their records "judged" and that will always lead to different points of opinion on what factors carries more weight then other factors.

One year the correct factors may look one way and the next it may look differently. They put what they think should be the proper factors in and what weight they should carry before the season starts, that way everyone knows what the rules are and the factors, but some years it may look like it should have been different, and then the next year that way would have been judged as wrong.
Last edited by John Q. Public on Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Pointless quote removed
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by MDDad »

Excellent post, tony. I'll respond point by point.

"Also to point out what Joe had said in his argument,
Lets say that Crespi had played and won these games in their preseason as compared to JSerra
JSerra
beat 6-4 Centennial Las Vegas - But Crespi had played -7-3 Calvary Chapel
5-5 Huntington Beach compared to 5-5 Estancia
8-2 Buena Park compared to 8-2 Irvine
5-5 Dana HIlls compared to 5-5 Laguna Beach
6-4 Trabuco Hills compared to 6-4 Western

even though Crespi would have the edge in in SOS over these 5 games, would you say that Crespi should automatically get the nod because they played much easier schedule and had the SOS points?"
No. When you say "Crespi would have the edge in SOS over these 5 games", that's true only if you use the opponents' won-loss record as the metric for strength-of-schedule. I would never do that. Instead I would use something more accurate, like power ratings. And as I showed in my earlier post, JSerra had the "strength-of-schedule" advantage if you factor in only the power ratings of teams JSerra and Crespi actually beat.


"the fact you lose to a upper level should not be held against them"
I agree. But the fact that you lose to an upper level team also shouldn't help you.

"lets focus on where the committee has the easiest time in comparing which team should get in, not the preseason but in league where both leagues are at the same level and in theory all teams in league are at the same level of play. Lets leave the preseason out of it."
I disagree that league games (for teams from different leagues) should count more than preleague games. It is only the quality of the opponent that matters, assuming you beat them, and whether or not they are in your league or not is irrelevant.

"JSerra had wins over 4-6 SM and 5-5 Servite, Crespi had wins over 4-6 Loyola, 6-4 BA. I think that is where the distinction went. And with that example that still puts Crespi in with the WHO did they beat."
I don't think that's where the distinction went. As Sondheimer pointed out in an article at the time, Crespi was picked because they beat Amat, JSerra beat Margarita, and Amat beat Margarita. I hope you'd agree that's a ridiculous way to choose a playoff team.

"I dont think JSerra got screwed by CIF as much as they got it from the coin flip because they were placed in 5th and not 3rd."
Absolutely finishing 5th instead of 3rd because of the coin flip hurt them. But JSerra didn't get screwed by CIF as much as they got screwed by the selection criteria that were in place....and still are.

"Crespi played a much tougher schedule and they got rewarded for that."
Again, Crespi may have played a tougher schedule, but JSerra beat a tougher schedule. So the CIF rewarded the wrong team.

"I think the Strength of League was to break all those ties that could happen when you are comparing wins and loses and one team is in the Trinity and the other , lets say, is in the Moore. All those wins in the Moore just dont add up to wins in the Trinity and there is a tie between two teams (or give some consideration for a team that may be one point shy but plays in a much tougher league) with one being from the Moore and one being from the Trinity but both leagues at least on paper are both D1 leagues.
Can you see the problem here with a 4th place team in the Moore saying they have just as much a right to be in the playoffs as the the 4th place team (OLu last year) in the Trinity with both teams wanting a wild card spot."
Everything you say is true. And all of it would be resolved if the three criteria I proposed earlier would be used.
Playthegame
Posts: 4541
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Playthegame »

Solid posts MDDad and 2k2Tony,

Bottom line is don't flip out if you did not do well enough in season to get a birth in the play-offs. Wild Card draw is just that, wild.

Trivia question, has there been a wild card winner in a d1 play-off that anyone can remember?
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by MDDad »

By "winner", do you mean "won the championship game"?
Luca
Posts: 6668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Luca »

Santa Margarita may have been a wild card in 2011 when they won a D1 championship. They did lose two league games but I don't remember if they were a wild card or not...........Luca
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by MDDad »

Margarita finished tied with Bosco for second that year. Since they won the head-to-head with the Braves, they went into playoffs as the Trinity's #2 team. Not a wild-card.
Playthegame
Posts: 4541
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by Playthegame »

MDDad wrote:By "winner", do you mean "won the championship game"?
Yes, this will straighten out my wrinkled laundry from mulling the travesty's of seasons past.
bigwish
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: PAC 5 Wildcard

Post by bigwish »

You guys are missing the following info from the football playoff bulletin.

"In any playoff grouping other than basketball, at-large selections will be considered from the next place beyond the guarantee that are .500 or better. After all those schools have been taken and there are still positions available, the next place teams that are .500 or better will then be considered. An example would be in football, some divisions allow two (2) entries per league. All 3rd place teams would be taken before any 4th place teams would be considered. (A tie will count as half a win and half a loss for a .500 record or better.) For specific information on the at‐large selection process, see the respective Playoff Bulletin for each particular sport.”

No 5th place team from any league will be taken before the 4th place team from another league. And yes, it says later in the bulletin that sub .500 teams will be considered in football but that does not change the fact that no team that is two spots from a guaranteed position (as determined by league submission) will get a spot ahead of a team one spot from the guaranteed berth.
Post Reply