tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38259282.post1161266744684121053..comments2024-03-26T02:26:27.609-05:00Comments on Down the Backstretch: Analyzing Our Opinions: State & the DtB Plansjdfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07174269057498736436noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38259282.post-5162572985225630462008-10-31T16:19:00.000-05:002008-10-31T16:19:00.000-05:00Here are the results of applying the purely subjec...Here are the results of applying the purely subjective - only based on the previous year's top 8 - method for the past 8 years. For this first round, the results were not cumulative, i.e. there's only a maximum of three entries from each section each year. I'm working on some method to approximate cumulative effects.<BR/><BR/>For each year listed, there are three groups:<BR/><BR/>Added: ranked teams that weren't in the state meet that would have been under this new system<BR/><BR/>Still Out: Ranked teams that weren't in the state meet, and still wouldn't be under the new system<BR/><BR/>Dropped: Ranked teams that were in the meet under the old system, but would be dropped under the DTB system<BR/><BR/>Here are the results - the dash-number after the school name is the section number, and the number in parentheses after the dropped schools is their actual place in the state meet:<BR/><BR/>2001:<BR/>Added:<BR/>*Eastview-6 Poll-4<BR/><BR/>Still Out:<BR/>Eden Prairie-6 Poll-5<BR/>Holy Angels-6 Poll-7<BR/>Burnsville-6 Poll-12<BR/><BR/>Dropped:<BR/><BR/>2002:<BR/>Added:<BR/>*Wayzata-6 Poll-6<BR/><BR/>Still Out:<BR/><BR/>Dropped:<BR/>Minneapolis Edison-5 Poll-12 (8)<BR/><BR/>2003:<BR/>Added:<BR/>*Edina-6 Poll-6<BR/><BR/>Still Out:<BR/>Wayzata-6 Poll-7<BR/><BR/>Dropped:<BR/>Brainerd-8 Poll-11 (10)<BR/><BR/>2004:<BR/>Added:<BR/>*Edina 6 Poll-6<BR/>*Mankato West-2 Poll-10<BR/><BR/>Still Out:<BR/>Rosemount-6 Poll-9<BR/>Wayzata-6 Poll-11<BR/><BR/>2005:<BR/>Added:<BR/>*Rosemount-6 Poll-6<BR/><BR/>Still Out:<BR/>Eastview-6 Poll-8<BR/>Wayzata-6 Poll-9<BR/>Mounds View-4 Poll-11<BR/><BR/>2006:<BR/>Added:<BR/>*Wayzata-6 Poll-4<BR/>*Roseville-4 Poll-10<BR/><BR/>Still Out:<BR/>Hopkins-6 Poll-5<BR/>Edina-6 Poll-8<BR/>Burnsville-6 Poll-11<BR/><BR/>2007:<BR/>Added:<BR/>*Edina-6 Poll-7<BR/><BR/>Still Out:<BR/>Robbinsdale Armstrong-6 Poll-8<BR/><BR/>Dropped:<BR/>Eastview-6 Poll-11 (5)<BR/><BR/>2008:<BR/>Added:<BR/>*Edina-6 Poll-3<BR/><BR/>Still Out:<BR/>Minneapolis South-6 Poll-12<BR/><BR/>Dropped:<BR/>Lakeville South-1 Poll-11<BR/><BR/>As you can see, the fact that the vast majority of ranked, non-competing teams were 6AA, combined with the one-year-only application of the system means that there were still several ranked section 6 teams that were left out most years.<BR/><BR/>The most glaring dropped team was the Eastview 2007 team, which ended up placing 5th. But, this was the year the sections were re-aligned, and if the Rosemount top-8 finish from the year before would have moved with them, Eastview would have remained in the state meet.<BR/><BR/>More (probably) later. I'm still trying to figure out how to accumulate the effects - probably have to use year-end rankings instead of race placement for non-competing teams who "might have placed in the top eight if they were there". I'm thinking that by 2008 we might just end up with an all 6AA state meet :).greghoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033932352969296104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38259282.post-86481177525811432942008-10-31T14:34:00.000-05:002008-10-31T14:34:00.000-05:00Okay - initial results show that the 6AA section p...Okay - initial results show that the 6AA section probably does have something to complain about. I looked up polls vs. state meet participants, and from 2001-2008, there were 27 poll-ranked teams that did not make the state meet. 24 of these were from 6AA.<BR/><BR/>Taking Eastview, Rosemount, Burnsville, and Holy Angels (all now in 3AA) out of the historical 6AA mix reduces that number to 17, but it still seems to be coming up as a very deep section, at least in the past 8 years.<BR/><BR/>More to come...greghoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033932352969296104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38259282.post-90106336587550467562008-10-31T10:04:00.000-05:002008-10-31T10:04:00.000-05:00I looked through the archive, but soon realized th...I looked through the archive, but soon realized that I probably couldn't get too far without knowing the historical data on section alignment as well as state poll rankings for the previous years.<BR/><BR/>Wait - just found the hutchcrosscountry.com page - looks like I should be able to get some data from there. I'll work on it over the weekend...greghoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033932352969296104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38259282.post-72101512137812389612008-10-30T10:22:00.000-05:002008-10-30T10:22:00.000-05:00Greg,Thanks for the comments ...I certainly didn&#...Greg,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments ...<BR/><BR/>I certainly didn't mean to oversell the single year's worth of "data" I was working with. I tried to say as much in the piece itself. I guess I saw the exercise as an instructive way of looking how the systems would have worked this one time. <BR/><BR/>As for a study with more breadth, State Meet results since 1991 are archived on RaceberryJam at:<BR/><BR/>http://www.raceberryjam.com/archives.html<BR/><BR/>I'd love to see someone mine that for information about how to make the State Meet better. (I'd happily publish the results!)<BR/><BR/>Realignment is indeed a tricky matter -- and it's something I must admit I didn't realize was done as often as it is. Should earned teams move with re-aligned schools or stay with the section they were earned in? Hmmm ...<BR/><BR/>You might think that with re-alignment every few years the MSHSL could have avoided the problems we've seen in boys' Class AA -- #3 & #12 out in 2008, #7, #8, & #9 out last year, 6 of the top-12 teams, including #4, out in 2006 -- but either realignment isn't aggressive enough or isn't the proper tool.<BR/><BR/><BR/>-- CharlieCharliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02379404027007958891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38259282.post-62092392716593271002008-10-29T13:45:00.000-05:002008-10-29T13:45:00.000-05:00Charlie,Speaking purely from a mathematical/statis...Charlie,<BR/><BR/>Speaking purely from a mathematical/statistical standpoint, you seem to be basing how successful your system is solely on a single year's worth of data. I'd like to see this analysis done for, say, the last 5 years, and see what the results are. <BR/><BR/>Now, I know it's not going to _quite_ be a complete analysis, since you won't have the advantage of the system actually being in place, and the cumulative effects of the five years, but I'd like to see the same single-year analysis - I'd be happy with just the purely subjective version - done for the 5 previous years and see how well your system worked. I'd give it a try myself, but I don't have the historical data.<BR/><BR/>I'm not knocking your system - seems, at first glance, like it might be pretty good method - but it won't stand up to scrutiny being based solely on one year's results.<BR/><BR/>One other possible problem - how would you deal with re-sectioning every few years?greghoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18033932352969296104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38259282.post-2092014417229453792008-10-28T15:48:00.000-05:002008-10-28T15:48:00.000-05:00Chad,By their actions in XC, spreading the wealth ...Chad,<BR/><BR/>By their actions in XC, spreading the wealth evenly seems to be the MSHSL goal. In track, though, they do make provision for quality -- letting additional individuals qualify, if they meet a time standard ... so?<BR/><BR/>Good question about the ranking system. Right now, because it's not used for anything official, I don't think the rankings are exactly put together by a team of voters representing all the sections and govened by any special rules. I think they're pretty good for what they are, though ... and worth using for the arguments I made in the post. <BR/><BR/>(As an aside, I will say that I'm surprised Stillwater fell out of the rankings after a 2-point loss to the team now ranked #9, Roseville.)<BR/><BR/>If you're going to use the polls or some other sort of power rating to choose teams, though, you'd really want to make sure you were doing things right, i.e., wieghing teams objectively. I know D1 has all sorts of rules and regs that govern how they choose their at-large selections.<BR/><BR/>As for me bringing plans to the MSHSL ... I don't think that's my role, nor do I think the MSHSL would think I have any standing to do so. I figure -- as a guy with a publication -- I should get some ideas out there and have them batted around. The coaches -- who do have standing through their Coaches' Association, I beleive -- would need to bring any new plans forward.<BR/><BR/><BR/>-- CharlieCharliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02379404027007958891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38259282.post-38094409800359996752008-10-28T13:04:00.000-05:002008-10-28T13:04:00.000-05:00Charlie,I was thinking more about this the other d...Charlie,<BR/><BR/>I was thinking more about this the other day. You said, "If the strength of the State Meet field is an important value..." Has the MSHSL ever said that that's their aim? Maybe they're more conerned with spreading the wealth of teams qualifying for state <I>throughout</I> the state.<BR/><BR/>Also, have you proposed your systems to MSHSL?<BR/><BR/>Finally, how much faith do we have in the ranking system? Thinking of college football, the <I>experts</I> had the Badgers ranked #9 then they proceeded to lose 4 straight. Are we certain that a #12 team is better than all the unranked teams?Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08412073727859282887noreply@blogger.com