Annual plea

The West Region D III blog posted about strength of schedule, and it motivated me to type my annual plea. It’s never too early to plead a case to anyone who ultimately decides the fates of tournament teams.

My hope is that SOS figures get proper drill-downs this year. SOS is a hindrance if it’s treated as a number with a uniform meaning across all regions. Another fun debate — what is considered statistically significant in terms of SOS differences within and across regions? Several other national sport committees say .030 difference is the benchmark within a region, meaning a .550 and a .575 would be a virtual push.

Yes, all criteria are important. No, they are not all equal. My dream is that there will be no so-called “Criteria Scorecard.” I’ve stated it many times before. I’ll state it again. If we merely looked to see which team had a 3-2 criteria advantage, we quite literally would not need a committee. A computer would spit out that info quickly.

Why do we have national and regional committees? To drill down into the criteria and debate the importance of each in terms of direct comparisons among teams. The ultimate goal is to select the best/correct teams within the framework of the criteria. To me a 3-2 criteria advantage means one team, on the surface, has a 60-40 edge before we look deeper. I also think an 80-20 scenario could be overcome in extreme circumstances.

My preference is, when the highly manipulable math formula (SOS) and winning percentage also pass muster in a general sense, that the factual facts of the three criteria that have to do with “results” move to the fore. SOS and winning percentage are very, very important as well, but more in a qualifying or disqualifying way. SOS and winning percentage are pass/fail criteria, with positive outliers given due credit for fine numbers. Personal thresholds for pass/fail in the SOS and winning percentage criteria are probably variable but certainly fall within a certain range.

The Pre-Championship Manual says the criteria are “not listed in priority order.” I adore language. “Not listed in priority order” does not preclude a priority order. Either words have meanings or they don’t. Those five specifically, intentionally vague words necessitate and authorize a committee to consider art with the science. Science is knowledge acquisition. Art is an expression of knowledge. Both are vital to the selection process.

-Ricky Nelson