Let Halli Melnitski Fence at NCAAs

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Someone like me could not stay out of a ratings thread forever!

First of all, I thought that my response would be: "Wow - bring out the peanuts, and lets have a good time looking at people tearing each other apart!"

On reading further, I note with satisfaction that a thread headed to flame-death has come on track again.

So, if the system is intended to produce a list of 24 fencers eligible to compete in an individual finals event, let me come of with a possible system. Please do point out the flaw and shoot holes in it, if you can!

1. Calculate the win/game quota for each competitor. List all competitors according to this raw score.
2. List all competitors according to the total number of wins in their season. Those who are not in the top half of this list are struck from consideration.
3. Take the list from stage #1 with deletions according to stage #2. From that list, take the top-48. All other are struck from consideration.
4. Recalculate the win/game quota for all in the top-48 list, but with a twist: Their wins against those who have been struck from consideration in stages#2-3 are deleted from their win total, BUT their losses to those fencers are kept in their loss total. This is due to the consideration that winning to a arguably weak fencer does not mean all that much, but losing to one is a strong negative indicator on one´s ability.
5. The fencer which is #48 on the recalculated list is struck from consideration. For the other 47 remaining, wins to this fencer are struck from consideration, while losses are kept. The fencer with the worst win/game quota is listed as #47, and struck from consideration.
6. Repeat stage #5 until only 24 fencers are left. Those are then qualified for the final event. In the case that one school has more than 3 fencer among the top-24, they only get to keep their top-3, and extra berths go to those ranked #25 and lower, until all 24 berths are filled up.

So there! A system which allows exactly no subjectivity. Stage #2 will give an incentive for schools to schedule events against weaker teams, which is great as a training/improvement opportunity for those schools. OTOH, the win-deletion feature precludes schedule-padding as being an effective tool in the later stages of the sorting. Stage #2 also stops fencers who have a perfect record of 1 fenced bout, 1 win from getting to the finals.

Of course, if the total season for all schools has little interconnectivity - that is, only a small proportion of all possible match-ups have been fought - then one might get problems with tie-breakers being necessary before the final 24 have been selected.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by davidl

(see attachment for a more detailed description of what happened)

Directly after downloading this file I tried to save it on my computer, but it froze up when I hit the "save" button. On 2nd try, I could read the file but I did not try to save it. If there is a causal connection, I have posted the text below so that others do not have to go through the same thing.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Originally Posted by davidl

Selection Process for NCAA Fencing Flawed Again
Each year the NCAA National Committee selects 24 fencers to compete in the national collegiate championships in each weapon. Fencers are selected from four different regions of the country. The number of entries varies by region, depending upon a complicated scheme that takes into account the number of fencers and the region’s results in previous years.
Each region has a qualifying tournament--but the coaches are terrified that one of their fencers will have a bad day at the tournament--so the selection process also recognizes how well the fencer performed during the collegiate season. Conceptually this sounds pretty good—the decision is based 60% from the Regional result and 40% from the fencer’s record for the season. For many years the season’s record portion was determined by the coaches on each regional committee sitting in a room for 6 hours screaming at each other about who was the best fencer in the Region, who was the second best and so on.
About six years ago the coaches decided to try a more civilized approach and represent the strength of the fencer’s results mathematically. Unfortunately, this turns out to be quite difficult to do. One of the early attempts only looked at wins and losses—its flaw was that it didn’t factor in the strength of the opponents. Another system benefited those fencers who fenced a lot of bouts.
Apparently each year before the “new and improved” system is launched, someone tests it to figure out what will happen. Unfortunately these tests don’t seem to work too well and every year there are massive surprises—which shockingly are only known once the process has been completed and the fencers have been selected. Since the Committee is committed to a purely mathematical approach (for the honorable reason of avoiding influence pedaling) there is absolutely nothing a coach or fencer can do when the system fails and a deserving fencer is not selected. So every year someone is outraged, promises are made to revise the system next year and the coaches earnestly go about revising the system for the following year.
Well this year’s formula (the 6th iteration) has fared no better than in the past and has possibly created the most unfair result that the system has ever produced. Clearly the objective is to select those fencers who perform well during the season and also perform well at the NCAA regional championships. This year, Halli Melnitsky from Haverford College had an outstanding season. Her varsity record was 46 wins and 8 losses. She had wins against strong fencers from all the schools in the MidAtlantic and South (MAS) Region. She then went to the NCAA MAS Regional tournament and placed 4th. In any other year—no brainer—she qualifies for the NCAAs since 6 fencers are selected from the region.

But somehow this year’s mathematical concoction imposed a tremendous penalty both on fencing a lot of bouts and fencing unrated fencers. As one coach put it, you were better off losing to a B fencer than beating an unrated fencer. Halli had both problems. Since Halli fences on a Div III team she had fenced a lot of unrated fencers. She also fenced a lot of bouts, since Haverford fences both large and small schools (the large schools were added to ensure that the best fencers would have a chance to compete for an NCAA berth.) So in the end, the seeding factor used to represent Halli’s season was 34 while most other strong fencers who fenced fewer bouts at Div I schools had numbers of 50 – 64. This meant she was seeded 17th in the tournament. Given this disadvantage it didn’t help that she placed 4th in the Regional Tournament. The low seeding factor combined with the 4th left her in 8th outside of the 6 spots NCAA spots. At 8th she was still eligible for one of 2 at large positions, but these spots are also chosen based on the seeding factor—so once again this flawed number penalized her.

The Haverford College coach Chris Spencer did protest the result to the regional committee and to the National committee. He received no formal response from either group. He also asked for an independent review of the statistics used to determine the result and also received no reply. According to Coach Spencer, as well as other coaches that I talked to, the whole data base used to make the calculations was suspect. The coaches input the results themselves and it seems that there were many mistakes and inconsistencies.

Clearly the worst part of this result is the pain suffered by Halli and all the other fencers caught up in a Byzantine selection process that they never understand—that often makes no sense at all. Also they can’t do anything about it—even if the results are outrageous. Think of the coach trying to explain to Halli why the NCAA berth that she earned has been taken away from her. This is an injustice that Halli has no way to reconcile and no way to remedy.

It is hard to understand how this could happen. Probably the best answer is that a bunch of silly fencing coaches have much more confidence in their math abilities than they should have. They didn’t fully test this year’s system and hadn’t figured out that this might happen. You could also question whether any of the decision makers were even thinking of Div III athletes. Most of the coaches involved are from Div I schools and they are probably more concerned about their own fencers. And it is clear that any system that takes strength of schedule into account, immediately disadvantages Div III fencers (unless the Div III fencers forgo fencing Div III opponents during the season). Also because the formula is so complicated and changes every year, only a few teams seem to understand the implications. These are more likely to be the teams that participate in coming up with the formula and the Div I teams with multiple coaches who have time to run mathematical analysis to see the effect of the formula. This also disadvantages Div III teams that are often run by a single part-time coach.

And why do the coaches keep trying these flawed systems over and over—because to win the team title at the NCAA championships a team has to qualify all 12 fencers. Leaving qualification to the Regional tournament leaves too much up to chance for those few teams in contention for the title. After 6 failed attempts, its time for the coaches to stop all this nonsense and simply select the NCAA participants based on the Regional Results. The coaches who protect this system seem to forget every year how harrowing and unfair it can be to have a random system that no one really understands. And clearly they forget about Halli Melnitsky and all the other fencers who have been irreparably harmed by their failed attempts. The only way this is going to get fixed is if the NCAA organization once and for all forces fencing to do what almost all other sports do—hold a tournament to see who qualifies.

Written by: David Littell, member of the 1988 U.S. Olympic Team; Haverford fencing coach from 2000-2007 and member of the MAS NCAA Regional Committee 2004-2007.

[KD5MDK]

I'd like to express my amazement at a seeding proposal of Peter's that does not involve mathematics beyond the elementary school level and involves nothing but reasonably clear concepts.

[Inquartata]

Meh, he still lost me right after "1. Calculate...".

[KD5MDK]

You have trouble with pool sheets, don't you...

[Inquartata]

Indubitably.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by HMmmm

Hi!

So... this is Halli Melnitsky.

Hey there Halli - Thanks for posting and contributing to the discussion.

I am not trying to reverse the NCAA's decision. I know I'm not going to fence in the Nationals. Those names have already been announced and I absolutely wish them all the best. However, I think that this is an excellent opportunity to discuss the means that the NCAA uses to determine national bids.

I'm not trying to kick anyone out, or undermine the rules this year. I do think that the rules should be changed next year. A system that seems to be flawed should be improved. I think that is the most useful conversation that could occur on this thread. I see here some of the most intelligent fencing minds in America-- if you could all put your heads together I'm sure that a more accurate solution could be reached. That's my agenda here, I can't speak for anyone else.

I'm going to split off a new thread to focus on this topic with a slightly fresh start.

Craig

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I'd like to express my amazement at a seeding proposal of Peter's that does not involve mathematics beyond the elementary school level and involves nothing but reasonably clear concepts.

Translation: Dumbed-down version, especially for sabre fencers! Especially made for those who missed their parry-quinte one time too many!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I am truly amazed at the number of people on this thread who've said "I don't really know anything about college fencing, but this is a shame."

Might I suggest that if you don't know anything about it, you're not qualified to determine what is or is not "a shame."

-m

What I meant is that Dave Littell is a respected coach with some history behind him. For him to say something about the system that college fencing uses being broken means something to me. That's all. Now if a noob to college fencing stuff like me were to initially advance a theory that college fencing is broken would be silly.. wouldn't it?

I may not know the specifics but it does seem to be a shame that she didnt qualify, IMHO.

FF

[dekko]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

What I meant is that Dave Littell is a respected coach with some history behind him. For him to say something about the system that college fencing uses being broken means something to me. That's all. Now if a noob to college fencing stuff like me were to initially advance a theory that college fencing is broken would be silly.. wouldn't it?

I may not know the specifics but it does seem to be a shame that she didnt qualify, IMHO.

FF

I don't disagree with Mike from the respect that I don't know the process for NCAA fencers getting to nationals, and it appears that I am not alone. I also didn't say it was ashame and without knowing the full process, although many of the parts have been mentioned here, it seems as though this does come down to strength of schedule, and I don't need to be familiar with the whole process to get that.

What is ashame here is that she didn't have a stronger schedule that would allow her the opportunity to fence at nationals had her record been this good against a stronger schedule. Not sure there is blame in this really but a good lesson to be learned by fencers and coaches alike.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

I may not know the specifics but it does seem to be a shame that she didnt qualify, IMHO.

Quoted for irony.

-m

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

I may not know the specifics but it does seem to be a shame that she didnt qualify, IMHO.

It is also a shame that the other 5 of the 8 nominated for the 2 at-large bids weren't selected either.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by nahouw

It is also a shame that the other 5 of the 8 nominated for the 2 at-large bids weren't selected either.

and it would have been a shame if the 2 who were selected weren't.

-m

[dekko]

So the coaches pick from a pool of 'non auto qulified' fencers to decide the rest of the bracket? How many are we delaing with here? Is it 32?(a full bracket)

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by dekko

So the coaches pick from a pool of 'non auto qulified' fencers to decide the rest of the bracket? How many are we delaing with here? Is it 32?(a full bracket)

The coaches don't pick. It's formula driven.

24 fencers in each weapon qualify. NCAA Nationals are run as a complete round robin over 2 days.

There is additionally a DE fence-off for the top 4 spots that doesn't affect the team standings, but does determine color of medal awarded to those 4 fencers, as well as bragging rights, individual National Champion titles, etc.

-B

[dekko]

Usuaully at-large bids suggest an arbitrary selection of some sort not a number and highest X fencers get the nod.

So this is pretty simple, her opponents "were not good enough" to warrent her schedule counting enough therefore, she is out.

Wow, guess this helps the case for an above average fencer going to a quality school and skipping the NCAA fencing thing. There are several who have already chosen that path and if it's this confusing and weird and convoluted there may be more in the near future.

[LTranter]

Originally Posted by NotIndPk

...are you a member of Fans Against Gordon

OH there is such a group???? Even though he is now technically a teammate of Jr's, I still have my issues.

L

[hello?]

As someone who is 'related' to the sabre fencer Wingate85 mentioned (who won Regionals but did not get to go to Championships), I should add that she qualified (not 'at large,' but outright 'qualified') all the way until her Senior Year this year but did not get to go EVER because there were always two stronger sabre fencers ahead of her at her school (all FOUR years). Tough, believe me. But, hopefully, it will in the end make her tougher. She loved her school. She loved her team. That counts...You join a club. You have to go by their rules, or try to change them before the fact. Unfair (you win regionals your freshman year but don't get to go), stupid (you fence as a three-person team until the very end where you end up fencing 'against' each other at Regionals)...whatever. I think Halli has the right attitude. Like the Tufts coach said to me about Championships: "It's only one day." I think that's brilliant perspective.