Let Halli Melnitski Fence at NCAAs

[davidl]

I don't get involved in many political battles, but this one really has me steamed. Last Saturday senior Haverford sabre fencer Halli Melnitsky came in forth at the Mid Atlantic and South (MAS) Regionals. Her varsity record was 46-8. The MAS region sends 6 fencers to the NCAAs--so no brainer--Halli qualifies. Well, not so fast. In comes the NCAAs math formula used to represent her season's results. This year's new (and clearly untested version) so penalized Halli for fencing a lot of Div III fencers (even though she beat many of the good fencers in the region too) that she was seeded 17th in the tournament. Since seeding is also used in the qualifying formula--suddenly no Halli at the NCAAs.

I actually think that the NCAA committee knows that the system failed miserably here, but the whole system is based on the math--and they haven't built in any way to fix it. Haverford appealed, of course, to no avail.

My view is that the committee screwed up the system they have to fix it. I'd like to see what one of the Div I coaches fighting for an NCAA championship would have done if this incredible injustice happened to one of their fencers.

NCAA committee--why don't you explain this to Halli--she's the one that has to live with it. Let her into the tournament! Apology to her for screwing up! Tell her how your going to fix this so it never happens again!

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

[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.

[epeemike81]

okay, so you feel Halli should have made it.

Who shouldn't have?

-m

[Sabresque]

epeemike, give him a break. the ncaa system is a bit twisted, and he's not blaming the person who made it, only the way things are run. I think the whole system for qualification and tournament format needs a rehaul.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Sabresque

epeemike, give him a break. the ncaa system is a bit twisted, and he's not blaming the person who made it, only the way things are run. I think the whole system for qualification and tournament format needs a rehaul.

I don't necessarily disagree, but there are two points I'd make:
1) the qualifiers were determined correctly under the rules. feel free to advocate for rules change, but that doesn't mean that the "wrong" people made it this year.

2) If he's going to say that Halli should make it, he should be willing to answer the tough question of who she should displace. all of the results are publicly available, so he should be able to figure it out.

As for the formula, I've never understood why the fencing community feels the need to re-invent the wheel. there are very simple statistical tools to merge record and strength of schedule. Why don't they use a simple RPI?

-m

[oiuyt]

(disclaimer: I coach the fencer who earned the 6th and final qualifying slot in WS from the MA/S region and who, presumably, Dave thinks should be replaced by Halli)

Originally Posted by Sabresque

epeemike, give him a break. the ncaa system is a bit twisted, and he's not blaming the person who made it, only the way things are run. I think the whole system for qualification and tournament format needs a rehaul.

I think epeemike's question is a valid one. Even if one takes the system being completely screwed up as a stipulation (note: something I'm NOT willing to do), the assertion that Halli should have qualified implies that she should be ranked ahead of at least 1 of the 24 fencers who did in a more perfect world.

Really that comes down to either one of the two at-large selections or the final MA/S selection. Or perhaps the system is more screwed up and another of the MA/S selections should be bumped.

All epeemike is asking is for a candidate to whom Dave thinks Halli has demonstrated superiority. If there isn't one the argument should end. If there is, then we can look at why that fencer (or fencers) were selected in preference to Halli.

-B

[davidl]

The region gets 6 fencers so the 6 fencers with the best results in the regionals should go. Halli came in 4th so she should go. This is what usually happens. The formula tries to factor in results from the season so that a really good fencer that is a bit off will go, or a fencer with a bad season who has a great day at the regionals won't go. The problem here is that Halli did have an excellent season, but the math formula used to calculate that was flawed.

Of course I'm not against any other fencers--and to solve this problem they'd have to bump another fencer--or add a 25th fencer.

But this happens every year. This is the 6th flawed mathematical system in 6 years. They have to be held accountable. They have to know that this nonsense has to stop.

[Mr Epee]

Full disclaimer: I have absolutely no irons in this fire

BUT

I can tell you that this "Power Ranking" thing is absurd.

2007-08 POWER RATING SCALE
Power Rating Qualification
140 FIE Senior 1-32 / FIE Junior 1-8
120 FIE Senior 33-64 / FIE Junior 9-24 / USFA Senior 1-8 / NCAA 1-4
110 USFA Senior 9-16 / USFA Junior 1-4 / FIE Senior 65-96 / FIE Junior 25-48 / NCAA 5-8
100 USFA Senior 17-24 / USFA Junior 5-8 / NCAA 9-12
90 USFA Senior 25-36 / USFA Junior 9-12
80 USFA “A” ranking
60 USFA Senior 25-32 / USFA Junior 9-12 / NCAA 13-16 / USFA “B” Ranking
40 USFA Junior 13-16 / NCAA 17-24 / USFA “C” Ranking
20 USFA “D” Ranking
10 USFA “E” Ranking
0 USFA “U” Ranking / Walk on

Maybe it's profoundly outdated, but does anyone seriously think that those comparisons are close to accurate? Even ignoring the vast variations between USFA ratings earned in different parts of the country AND the variations between weapons, this doesn't hold up.

A "C" rating = a top 13-16 Junior? This dog doesn't hunt

An "A" > Top 25-32 On Senior Point list. Really?

I'm not sure you need to identify who shouldn't participate to look at this portion of the qualification critera and agree that something is out of balance.

The guide rules are in place to cap the margins. I can see how this could create problems.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Full disclaimer: I have absolutely no irons in this fire

BUT

I can tell you that this "Power Ranking" thing is absurd.

2007-08 POWER RATING SCALE
Power Rating Qualification
140 FIE Senior 1-32 / FIE Junior 1-8
120 FIE Senior 33-64 / FIE Junior 9-24 / USFA Senior 1-8 / NCAA 1-4
110 USFA Senior 9-16 / USFA Junior 1-4 / FIE Senior 65-96 / FIE Junior 25-48 / NCAA 5-8
100 USFA Senior 17-24 / USFA Junior 5-8 / NCAA 9-12
90 USFA Senior 25-36 / USFA Junior 9-12
80 USFA “A” ranking
60 USFA Senior 25-32 / USFA Junior 9-12 / NCAA 13-16 / USFA “B” Ranking
40 USFA Junior 13-16 / NCAA 17-24 / USFA “C” Ranking
20 USFA “D” Ranking
10 USFA “E” Ranking
0 USFA “U” Ranking / Walk on

Maybe it's profoundly outdated, but does anyone seriously think that those comparisons are close to accurate? Even ignoring the vast variations between USFA ratings earned in different parts of the country AND the variations between weapons, this doesn't hold up.

A "C" rating = a top 13-16 Junior? This dog doesn't hunt

An "A" > Top 25-32 On Senior Point list. Really?

I'm not sure you need to identify who shouldn't participate to look at this portion of the qualification critera and agree that something is out of balance.

The guide rules are in place to cap the margins. I can see how this could create problems.

yes. this.

[oiuyt]

I would advocate for keeping a system where both the season performance and the Regionals performance matter, and it's NOT because I want good fencers protected against poor Regionals performance. Indeed, it doesn't really accomplish that goal (if, indeed, that's really anyone's goal) except against slightly weaker-than-expected performance.

We already have programs that don't care about the regular season. They build their teams around having 2 fencers/squad that can post top results at Nationals. Crappy C-strip? Who cares? No C-strip and forfeit a third of the bouts each meet? Who cares? Only fence 2 days worth of dual meets and call it a season? Who cares?

Removing the regular season from consideration gives these programs even more carte blanche to ignore it as irrelevant.

Collegiate athletics should focus on competition between collegiate athletes in collegiate competition. We shouldn't focus our programs on NAC or World Cup results or just a single 2-day tournament at the end of the season.

The current system weights performance at Regionals much more heavily than season performance. Not only is there the 60-40 direct weighting, but each place at Regionals is a signficant chunk of points, whereas ordinal ranking based on season performance is frequently a matter of fractional differences after 50-60 bouts over the course of 4 months.

One of my fencers had the #4 season in the region in WS. She badly underperformed at Regionals, going out in the semi-final pool. She didn't come close to qualifying for NCAAs. The system DOESN'T save top fencers from having a bad day. What it does it make the overall season at least slightly relevant.

-B

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Full disclaimer: I have absolutely no irons in this fire

BUT

I can tell you that this "Power Ranking" thing is absurd.

2007-08 POWER RATING SCALE
Power Rating Qualification
140 FIE Senior 1-32 / FIE Junior 1-8
120 FIE Senior 33-64 / FIE Junior 9-24 / USFA Senior 1-8 / NCAA 1-4
110 USFA Senior 9-16 / USFA Junior 1-4 / FIE Senior 65-96 / FIE Junior 25-48 / NCAA 5-8
100 USFA Senior 17-24 / USFA Junior 5-8 / NCAA 9-12
90 USFA Senior 25-36 / USFA Junior 9-12
80 USFA “A” ranking
60 USFA Senior 25-32 / USFA Junior 9-12 / NCAA 13-16 / USFA “B” Ranking
40 USFA Junior 13-16 / NCAA 17-24 / USFA “C” Ranking
20 USFA “D” Ranking
10 USFA “E” Ranking
0 USFA “U” Ranking / Walk on

Maybe it's profoundly outdated, but does anyone seriously think that those comparisons are close to accurate? Even ignoring the vast variations between USFA ratings earned in different parts of the country AND the variations between weapons, this doesn't hold up.

A "C" rating = a top 13-16 Junior? This dog doesn't hunt

An "A" > Top 25-32 On Senior Point list. Really?

I'm not sure you need to identify who shouldn't participate to look at this portion of the qualification critera and agree that something is out of balance.

The guide rules are in place to cap the margins. I can see how this could create problems.

can we all at least agree that the three bottom tiers are correct? that is to say D, E, U correspond to 20,10,0?

If so, let's consider the fact that Ms. Melnitski this season was 29-0 against 0 ranked fencers, 5-0 against 10 rated fencers, and 5-2 against 20 rated fencers.

Drop this 39-2 record against D's E's and U's out and you find that she went 6-7 against everybody else (according to NCAA, she was 45-9).

This leads Dave to the conclusion that the formula is flawed and she was "punished" for fencing lower ranked fencers. It leads me to the conclusion that her season was not as great as raw record would indicate.

-m

[Mr Epee]

Not really, Mike...

And here's why.

Because there are two assumptions involved.

A. That the fencers have participated in USFA competitions.
(not required)

B. That the USFA rankings are accurate somewhat consistent
(we both can agree that they are not - particularly at the lower levels)

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Not really, Mike...

And here's why.

Because there are two assumptions involved.

A. That the fencers have participated in USFA competitions.
(not required)

B. That the USFA rankings are accurate somewhat consistent
(we both can agree that they are not - particularly at the lower levels)

I think I can safely draw a line between div III fencers with no national or international points and Div I fencers, many of whom have points. is it a perfect ranking? no, of course not. but when there's THAT big a disparity between results against lower ranked fencers and results against higher ranked fencers, it has meaning.

-m

[keith]

yet more mathematical nonsense.

Ah well.


As a question, were fencers aware at the beginning of the season what the ranking system was going to be?

[Mr Epee]

Actually,

Under what circumstances do NCAA fencers earn USFA ratings in NCAA competition?

I really don't know.

[KD5MDK]

I would imagine none, since the USFA doesn't sanction their events.

[Redblade]

Originally Posted by keith

As a question, were fencers aware at the beginning of the season what the ranking system was going to be?

Yeah. If you know the rules in advance -- as screwed up as they may be -- there's no wiggle room at the end when things don't shake out in your favor. (Something Florida and Michigan are learning now.)

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I would imagine none, since the USFA doesn't sanction their events.

If this is true, that makes things even more absurd.

So, an NCAA fencer goes to a USFA sanctioned event, earns a rating, and as a result increases the quality of win for all their NCAA opponents without gaining a single personal advantage.

That's crazy.

Who is responsible for maintaining/updating this system?

[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.