You can very easily demonstrate that SOS and Late Season Performance are in favor of Stanford. That leaves W/L and RPI with UOP. Maybe UOP will find a way to play MPSF next year!
We are all playing arm chair QB here. None of us are privy to what happens behind the scenes.
Slightly off topic, but knew there was a big build up to this season for Pacific so did some quick math: 261 of 297 (88%) total goals from Pacific this season were from ten Sr/Graduate students. This could be the most top heavy team in the NCAAs. Will be hard to reproduce this type of season.
1 Like
He underachieves with the talent he has. He has had some legit great teams. Good coaches don’t blow that game to CBU at home
If USC plays anything like they did this weekend, I think they are the clear favorite over those teams… Herzer is playing like the best goalie in NCAA (yes, better than Tempkin right now)
USC did not make UCLA look good yesterday.
Agreed but it is still UCLA’s to loose. They gave it all yesterday, still got beat at home. USC, played a perfect game and now smells blood in the water, they know that they can beat them , just hard to do 2 games in a row, especially 2 finals in a row! It should be an exciting final if there are no surprises by Stanford as playing at home should count for something.
Cannot agree more. With the talent that Graham had this year, good coaches do not lose to a good but not great CBU team at home in a must win game. Sorry.
Also, yes Big4 have natural advantages but UOP has its own as well. Asking for a friend: having significantly lower admission standards- does it help with some academic scholarships for intl water polo players? 
One can argue that Fordham should be #4 seed and Stanford was seeded too low. Still, Fordham does not have a super easy route to the championship- they will need to beat a very good Long Beach team, then SC, than probably the winner of UCLA/ Stanford game. If they are that good, they can show it.
1 Like
Can the NCAA please release or more specifically define what the “specific criteria for selection and seeding are”. I understand per the championships handbook that there are 4 specific criteria used to seed the teams. First, head-to-head competition, which Fordham and Stanford have nothing to compare. Second, results vs. common opponents, Stanford and Fordham only had 3 opponents: UCSB, Air Force, & UCSD. Both teams won all of those games but Stanford outscored that list of opponents by 27 while Fordham out scored that list by 19 goals. Third, is late season performance which could be given to Fordham, but this really shouldn’t be the deciding factor considering Fordham is in a objectively far worse conference than the MPSF. The fourth criteria is RPI and Fordham is nowhere near Stanford on the list. Fordham is nowhere near #3 on the list too. Additionally, the rules say that there is no specific order which means the weight of each criteria is arbitrarily decided by the selection committee.
I guess my question is, does the selection committee itself have its own guidelines for which they seed teams because they clearly don’t follow the guidelines? And if this is true, what point is the selection committee, why not release the guidelines and have them be enacted as bylaws? It makes me think the Selection Committee is a little bit in over their heads. Are they trying to tell Flacks that they have more power than him? What is going on, it just doesn’t make sense. Is Fordham paying them?
In conclusion, I think what bugs me is that everyone knows the common sense move is to put the traditional top-4 as the 1,2, and 3 seed. I want to know why common sense was avoided? Is an undefeated record with a terrible schedule really all it takes now? Or is something more sinister up with the selection committee? I doubt it, but it is hard to ever know without transparency.
And further, I am still excited for the playoffs and the selection committee is by no means making the wrong decision, I just don’t think it is the right one… by any metric… and I somewhat question the transparency of the committee and its decisions. I think the committee needs to release a more justifiable explanation of the decision-making process and this is a call for transparency and accountability. If Fordham gets whooped by LBSU, I think we’ll all have to take a step back and rethink whether the selection committee is making logical decisions, or if the bias of closed doors and power is getting to their heads… However, maybe I am wrong, maybe Fordham deserves it’s spot and maybe this is the year an east coast team can win it… we will see in December.
It is ridiculous that we are having this discussion. Everybody who watched this season knows that Stanford was far and away the better team and this should not have been a discussion. I for one, am very glad that the committee did not just base this off of some mathematical model that does not tell the full story.
Another thing I’d like to add. Let’s go through the criteria.
● Win-loss record; – Pacific takes this criteria
● Strength of schedule – I can assure you the committee did not base the strength of schedule on what is listed online. The average RPI of Stanford’s opponents is 12.92 and this includes Penn State in the MPSF tourney who is ranked 47th. The average RPI for Pacific’s opponents is 14.5, meaning Stanford had the better strength of schedule.
● Eligibility and availability of student-athletes for NCAA championships. – EVEN
Now, we move to the secondary criteria.
- Head-to-head is out.
- Results vs. common opponents is out because both teams defeated all their common opponents.
- Pacific is ahead on RPI.
- When we talk about late-season performance, I don’t think it refers to W/L record in their last 10 games, it refers to performance during the last 10 games. A loss to CBU simply cannot be weighed the same as a loss to UCLA. In basketball, one would be a Quad 1 loss while the other is a Quad 3 loss. During that stretch, their best win was against Princeton, ranked 6th in the RPI. Meanwhile, Stanford has dominant wins over USC and beat Cal twice to show the committee that it was a fluke loss. I think the committee was more impressed with Stanford’s late-season performance, which was not justified by win/loss, but more of the eye test.
So they have gone through all the criteria and both Pacific and Stanford are tied, so now it is up to the committee to make a decision.
Stanford has the better team and the better one wins and passes the eye test, hence why it goes to Stanford.
Because Fordham beat Pacific and had the H2H over Pacific and both Pacific and Stanford were in a virtual tie, it makes sense that Fordham was 3 and Stanford was a 4.
There should not be another discussion about this.
3 Likes
I feel like it might be as simple as not wanting Princeton and Fordham to play each other in the quarterfinal. Having Fordham as the #3 seed gives the east coast schools a chance to really prove themselves without having one of them automatically eliminated in the quarterfinal due to them playing each other. If Stanford is as good as your saying, then they should have no problem getting past Princeton.
The RPI you linked to was last year’s RPI. This is the link to this year’s RPI. Stanford and Fordham are next to each other.
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/40648
I would simply like to say, there will be some terrific water polo games the 6th thru 8th and I cannot wait to watch…
I also really appreciate everyone’s perspective , very entertaining and someone will be correct in identifying the eventual winner…
1 Like