"Super" Bids

[CR]

So I've been tossing this idea around for a bit in my head, and with
the completion of the UPA Coordinators Survey today, I finally put it
all down on paper. In sum, it is an idea for college bid allocation.
From what I've read, many people (or at least the ones on RSD) do not
like that strength bids are decided based on the previous year's
results. I propose that the UPA create a subjective poll, as opposed
to the objective computer algorithm. This poll would be of all the
coordinators in the college division, and would eliminate one strength
bid and one size bid. They would rank the top 16 teams in the nation
from week to week, and the week before regionals begin the poll would
be analyzed as follows.

Super Size Bid
Whichever region has the most teams in the UPA top 16 will receive the
Super Size Bid (same current rules about not having >3 bids apply).

Super Strength Bid
Whichever region has the lowest average ranking (minimum two teams)
will receive the Super Strength Bid.

Tiebreakers for both bids will be decided by whichever region has the
best lowest ranked team.

So looking at this year's series, and using the NUMP (since it is
subjective), the bids would be allocated as follows.

Strength Bid 1 - Southwest (Colorado)
Strength Bid 2 - Central (Carelton in Quarters + WIsconsin winning)
Strength BId 3 - Northwest or AC decided by game between Oregon and
Georgia

Size Bid 1 - ME
Size Bid 2 - NE
Size Bid 3 - Great Lakes

Super Size Bid - AC (3 teams + UNC ranked 12 compared to UBC at 15 and
Minnesota at 16)

Super Strength Bid - AC=7, CN=7.67, SW=5, GL=6.5, S=9.5, NW=12, ME, NE
DNQ. So the Southwest gets the Super Strength Bid.

This gives us a nationals of...
AC - Flordia, Georgia
CN - Wisconsin, Carleton
GL - Michigan, Illinois
ME - Delaware, Pitt
NE - Dartmouth, Harvard
S - Texas
SW - Colorado, Arizona, UCSB
NW - UCSC
Either Stanford or UNC gets in based on the wildcard game.

So how does this look as a slightly more current-season based way to
decide bids?

CR

Note: This post does not represent the views of the UPA.

[Dennis]

My only complaint with that system is that it hurts a region to have 3
teams in the top 16.

For example, say teams A and B from the same region are ranked 4 and
8, respectively. They would have an avg. ranking of 6. If team C in
that region is ranked 16, suddenly the region now has an average
ranking of 9.333. This would take this hypothetical region from 2nd
in the current system to 4th.

My suggestion, if you were to do this, is to rank the top 25 or so.
Then, average the ranking of the top two teams from each region,
regardless of top 16 or not. That way, the depth of the region
doesn't end up hurting it.

Also, in the subjective poll of coordinators, would you want a safe-
guard against voting for one's region? You know, trying to improve
your region's ranking by putting teams 1,2, and 3 for a higher
ranking. This could be avoided by have RCs rank all team NOT in their
region. Since each region gets only one vote for the polls,
everything should even out. Thoughts?

[Torre]

> Strength BId 3 - Northwest or AC decided by game between Oregon and
> Georgia

But Oregon and Georgia haven't played this year, have they ?

So what do you do then ?

[Ryan Thompson]

The game would have been played as the wildcard game at Nationals last
year.

[pgw]

On May 8, 3:26 pm, CR <ckrich...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So how does this look as a slightly more current-season based way to
> decide bids?

Confusing, arbitrary in its standards, and subjective (this part, at
least, you acknowledge.)

2008 will go down in history as the first year they ever got it right
- 2 bids per region.

[pizzaslot]

Can the RRI be adjusted to score inter-Region play only prior to the
"series"? Then rank the regions with the best average RRI against
other Regions to determine "strength" wildcards.