Let Halli Melnitski Fence at NCAAs

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Wingate85

This is just alot of bull.

blah.
blah.
My feelings are hurt.

Care to share how you really feel?

You've made yourself look silly by hijacking a perfectly civil and constructive conversation with petty finger jabbing. You know better, now be better.

Even someone with limited knowledge of the NCAA formula can look and see immediate fundamental problems with the selection formula. It's natural for some to think conspiracy while others assume incompetence. Pick your poison. In his accompanying letter, Dave mentions that he thinks this is the result of individual's overestimating their mathematical ability.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Wingate85

This is just alot of bull. Dave was there a few years ago when the committee had a meeting with all the coaches because there was a proposal on the table to do just what he has advocated for and that is to eliminate the season record from the selection process. With the exception of the Nothwestern coach NO one else liked the idea. Now that Dave chose to leave Haverford he leads the charge from the outside-----more then he has ever done while he was actually there. Yes, we have had problems with the formula, but saddled with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the coaches nationwide it has been the most objective way to proceed. This year more then any other year things have improved and there have been no complaints except from Haverford.

The most counterproductive part of Dave's argument is that he contends that there is some conspiracy among Div.I coaches to keep things status quo. Nothing can be further from the truth and this assertion only serves to hurt college fencing. Right now the most legitimate concern that can be argued is the limitaion of the number of participants allowed by the NCAA. More specifically limiting the number to 2 in each weapon per school. More top ranked fencers have been hurt by this then anything else including the formula. Several years ago, for example, a female Saber fencer won the regional and her coach had to make a choice among the 3 finalists he had. He chose the other two, and the winner stayed home. This rule is NOT a committee rule it is an NCAA rule put in place strictly for economic reasons.

We can talk about this endlessly, and make ligitimate constructive suggestions, but the one thing that cannot be tolerated is Dave's ad homenim attacks on the integrity of the coaches who serve on the committee. Worse yet is him missleading his former students to think and act in the same manner.

wow, overreaction.
show me the ad hom attacks. after re-reading, i can see only a few where you MIGHT perceive something as ad hom if you're super defensive because your point of view is challenged.

[Wingate85]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Care to share how you really feel?

You've made yourself look silly by hijacking a perfectly civil and constructive conversation with petty finger jabbing. You know better, now be better.

Even someone with limited knowledge of the NCAA formula can look and see immediate fundamental problems with the selection formula. It's natural for some to think conspiracy while others assume incompetence. Pick your poison. In his accompanying letter, Dave mentions that he thinks this is the result of individual's overestimating their mathematical ability.

The point is that there is no constructive conversation here--dope ( now you really do know how I feel).

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Wingate85

The point is that there is no constructive conversation here--dope ( now you really do know how I feel).

See... I hate this.

A direct response to something I've written makes zero sense to me.

Are you implying that there is no constructive conversation on this board, or in this thread?

Now, are you calling me a dope (if so, shame on you for petty name calling), or is it merely odd self deprecating signature?

Clarity is apparently too much to expect from some people.

[LTranter]

Seems to me it just an issue of adapting to change. Not sure how many of you are NASCAR fans, but a few years ago they changed the format of their championship to the current 10 race "Chase" with originally on 10 plus possible wildcard spots (now 12 and no wildcards).

Now, **DISCLAIMER** I am not a Jeff Gordon fan ** but under the OLD system he'd have a few more championships under his belt. BUT this is a new system, new rules, and that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

Sure, it is sad to see someone who would have made it not. But this is the way it is. I am sure the rules were in place well before this became an issue so everyone should have gone into the season knowing what the situation would be. But the rules are the rules and you need to play by them. I reask the question, who should not go?

L

[dekko]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

This sounds like a sad situation with no clear path forward.

I sincerely doubt that any action will result in an NCAA reversal... it may result in some tinkering to next year's formula, but this year is in the books.

Think about all the money, effort and pressure going into things like the BCS system and the upcoming Selection Sunday. There are always the teams that clearly appear to get the shaft, but you won't see a successful appeal... (unless there is a significant human element involved) and the appeal is made prior to selection.... in which case it is called Lobbying (think: Flordia Football a couple years ago).

Sad situation, but I suspect that she's sunk.

Couple of things here, the BCS is outside the NCAA, although indirectly endorsed by the NCAA, while the tournament bracket for basketball is directly endorsed by the NCAA.

I will admit I don't understand the process, nor do I care or need to know, but it seems as though if someone wins or finishes 2nd at the regionals, even though it may be a fluke results, should be in? We just had a fencer get silver in a world cup, or grand prix, who one 1 bout in her pool and likely counted for dead in the event only to rise up and finish 2nd. Her medal was not taken away because of her pool result.

Dumb question here, the basic idea here is Halli finished in the top 4 at regionals and had a good record throughout the season but since she beat up on a bunch of fencers who "weren't very good" she doesn't get to go to the big event even though she proved she could compete directly against those fencers?

I can see both sides here, on one side her result could be seen as a fluke because she didn't fence anyone "good" throughout the season, or beat anyone "good", therefore the regionals result was a fluke and she doesn't deserve to go based on one good day.

The flip side is, maybe her schedule should have been tougher to show instead of 46(?) wins she would have 38 but against stronger opponents and there fore her regionals result would not be a fluke and she would be in.

Mr. Epee mentioned the BCS, top football teams struggle with this every so often, do we schedule games we can lose just to have a stronger schedule, even though we may lose one, or do we schedule random nothing special teams we know we can beat and have a better record only to be left out at the end due to strength of schedule.

My opinion here, maybe the coach will learn from this situation and work to schedule tougher opponents in the future and maybe the records won't be as good but the strength of schedule will be better and the Halli affect will not kick in and prevent another deverving fencer from going to the big event.

I do agree, if she's in who's out? Good luck with this but I suspect Mr. Epee is correct and she will be on the outside looking in.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Wingate85

The point is that there is no constructive conversation here--dope ( now you really do know how I feel).

seems to me like there is, as an objective bystander, and that you're the one adding in the ad hom attacks.

why not make an attempt at generating some constructive conversation instead of perpetuating what you see as the lack of it.

[Craig]

When looking at an issue like this, I think that the head-to-head regular season results (vs other in region candidates) and the regular season results vs. shared opponents is important.

Back in the 90s, I went to the NCAAs based on the fact that I had made top-8 at regionals and had defeated the other at-large candidate in our head-to-head matchups. Had we split our bouts (I posted wins against him in dual meets and regionals), then we would have had to go to some other criteria.

Since we all agree that the USFA rankings are a mess, then there should be some other way to calculate strength of schedule, or at least factor in results against same opponents. (Which may or may not have been done in this case.)

Craig

[JEC]

Every March, most sport websites have arguments about NCAA basketball selection for the 64 teams. Win your conference and you are in. Then, there are 34 or so at-large teams to make the 65 field. The committee uses RPI as one of the main elements. The RPI rewards SOS (Strength of Schedule). Other elements that are considered include quality win, poor losses, etc.

Every year, a mid-major team with a record of over 20 wins and single digit losses (>5) does not make it to the big dance.

Now, I am not proposing a similar committee for fencing. However, I suggest that a mixed system with top 4 in each regional, plus the best (or next) 4 in the RPI equivalent calculation should attend. The only limit is that no more than 3 fencers per team. No at-large berths.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by dekko

I will admit I don't understand the process, nor do I care or need to know, but it seems as though if someone wins or finishes 2nd at the regionals, even though it may be a fluke results, should be in?

I would argue that you DO need to know the process in order to comment intelligently on it...

Regardless, let's clarify a few things. If they win, they are in. that rule is new this year. Ms. Melnitsky did not win or place 2nd, she placed 4th. A very good result, which was factored into the formula, but not enough to put her in nationals.

We just had a fencer get silver in a world cup, or grand prix, who one 1 bout in her pool and likely counted for dead in the event only to rise up and finish 2nd. Her medal was not taken away because of her pool result.

Neither, though, was she bumped up to second in the world based on that result, nor is that one result likely to get her to the individual portion of the Olympics. It factors in, but is not singularly determinative. Just like regionals.

-m

[seven6ty]

Bottom line, NCAA's are driven by ivy league schools and the like, so samller schools get screwed around. Unfortunate, but just something you have to get used to.

[epeelion]

Bottom line, NCAA's are driven by ivy league schools and the like, so samller schools get screwed around. Unfortunate, but just something you have to get used to.

NCAAs are definitely not driven by Ivy Leagues. That said, the organization itself does focus on getting as much money as possible, so smaller or less Athletics-intensive schools do sometimes get shafted.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by dekko

The flip side is, maybe her schedule should have been tougher to show instead of 46(?) wins she would have 38 but against stronger opponents and there fore her regionals result would not be a fluke and she would be in.

My opinion here, maybe the coach will learn from this situation and work to schedule tougher opponents in the future and maybe the records won't be as good but the strength of schedule will be better and the Halli affect will not kick in and prevent another deverving fencer from going to the big event.

I agree -- a tougher schedule would have raised her position. The coach should schedule events appropriately for the future. Also, since the "power factor" comes into play, perhaps the coach should also encourage USFA competitions to obtain a USFA rating, because apparently, from what I have read here, the USFA rating plays into the power factor, and that is the second factor that was lacking in this specific case that would have support her 4th place finish, but then again, there is the example of the fencer that finished 1st in WS a couple of years ago that the coach choose the two other fencers to go to NCAA instead.

So, I think that the coach needs to look at the dynamics of the situation and to give their fencers the information and support to achieve their goals. It is a complex equation, and one needs to understand each component and maximize their opportunity for each component.

[bigdawg2121]

Your own personal USFA rating doesn't help you at all. All it can do is potentially hurt your opponents. As an example, I fenced foil for the second half of this season and for the most part I'm probably under-rated b/c I don't fence foil actively at USFA competitions. A lot of people that lost bouts to me were probably adversely affected by the combination of a crappy formula and the fact that I have a low power rating.

You can blame the coach for the strenght of schedule but frankly even that doesn't say much many times. I didn't bother to look at all the numbers but I know we had a guy that had the 3rd strongest strenght of schedule in the reason and finished 5th or 6th in at regionals but didn't qualify. His season record was fine mostly, mid-high 60s winning percentage, unfortunately he must have fenced too many bouts against fencers with Bs or below...can't get a hight initial seed that way.

[seven6ty]

Originally Posted by epeelion

NCAAs are definitely not driven by Ivy Leagues. That said, the organization itself does focus on getting as much money as possible, so smaller or less Athletics-intensive schools do sometimes get shafted.

Ummm, so you just disagreed with me in one sentence, only to agree with me in the next?

[Wingate85]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

Bottom line, NCAA's are driven by ivy league schools and the like, so samller schools get screwed around. Unfortunate, but just something you have to get used to.

What are you talking about.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Wingate85

What are you talking about.

Why don't you do everyone a favor by explaining why this isn't true.

You are clearly somehow incredibly upset by something in this conversation, so why not take the time to contribute constructively. Your only contributions are wild accusations and name calling. Is that all you can contribute? Really? REALLY?

You have some information on how this works, so why not take the time to enlighten the forum on why this is the correct selection format. I see serious problems in an overly complicated system that is susceptible to misunderstanding by the under-vigilant, and gaming by the highly vigilant. This is simply not a great system that could use some adjustment. Surely you can agree with me on that point. Right?

You have expertise in this area, so share the love man.

[epeelion]

Ummm, so you just disagreed with me in one sentence, only to agree with me in the next?

Sorry, my point was that it's mainly the big state/scholarship schools, not the Ivy leagues. The Ivies can't give scholarships, and while athletics are important to them, they are often not top championship contenders (fencing and a few other sports excluded). Which means it's more schools like Penn State, Notre Dame, OSU, etc. who command a lot of the money and interest in the NCAA.

This is an impression, of course, I don't actually know the inside workings of the organization.

[Wingate85]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Why don't you do everyone a favor by explaining why this isn't true.

You are clearly somehow incredibly upset by something in this conversation, so why not take the time to contribute constructively. Your only contributions are wild accusations and name calling. Is that all you can contribute? Really? REALLY?

You have some information on how this works, so why not take the time to enlighten the forum on why this is the correct selection format. I see serious problems in an overly complicated system that is susceptible to misunderstanding by the under-vigilant, and gaming by the highly vigilant. This is simply not a great system that could use some adjustment. Surely you can agree with me on that point. Right?

You have expertise in this area, so share the love man.

Hey man I cannot share the love when there is so much hate here. Making unfounded accusations against schools and various programs without proof does not make for constructive discussion. It is obvious that you and many of the others here are plain ignorant about college fencing. The only reason I have posted here is because Dave L. who should know better has used this forum to vent his personal anger, manipulating his former athelets, and in so doing hurting college fencing.

I coached in an Ivy league school not that long ago when our operating budget was $17,000. The alumni and I were mandated to raise the rest. While budgets for fencing may have risen since that time I know for a fact that these programs still need to do major fundraising or they may face the same fate as Rutgers did just recently. These are just some of the facts that you and others just do not see because you are too lazy to look for the truth. Moreover, it is quite apparent that you s