- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
One of the things we have a tough time with is figuring out how to sort/rank teams with drastically different records against distinct levels of competition? For instance, a team with a sub .500 record against all Majors/D1 or even older competition vs. a team with a .750 winning percentage against predominately AAA/AA/D2 competition and perhaps a good win or two against top competition. How would you favor sorting teams in these types of situations?
I suggest a few rankings based on where teams play. Who is the best in their region? Then do a top 5-10 in a state ranking. When considering state ranking look at strength of schedule and teams that play out of their region. You always get the best teams at wood bat tournament, winter World Series, summer World Series and big events like Myrtle Beach nationals. If a team is top in their region and not in state rankings, they will have some incentive to play outside of their region.
Bottom line is a team has to find competition if they want to be the best!!
Last post was cut off. I suggest a few rankings based on where teams play.
Who is the best in their region? Then do a top 5-10 in a state
ranking.
When considering state ranking look at strength of schedule and teams that
play out of their region. You always get the best teams at
wood bat tournament, winter World Series, summer World Series
and big events like Myrtle Beach nationals.
Bottom line is you have to play outside of
your region to move up the ladder.Those are good thoughts. We’ve kicked around similar ideas about regional rankings or even level of competition rankings like having separate D1/D2/D3 or Majors/AAA/AA rankings. In the end, we’ve found that be a bit too time consuming and difficult because of the number of teams that have to be considered for ranking across the age groups. We tend to lean more towards level of competition and W-L record within that level, as guiding us. The whole reason we started putting together rankings was exactly as you point out. So the top teams can go find some of the other top teams inside and outside of their regions.
Also, we fixed the issue with posts/replies getting cut off.
I agree with your approach of Quality wins versus overall record. These ranking should be a tool for teams to be able to use to determine which tournaments they want to play and where they can find the best competition.
I like the idea of D1/D2/D3 rankings. I get the extra work (maybe shorten to top 5-10 only) but here is why it would be worth doing. Looking at your rankings there are several top 10-20 programs that are D2 and based on your ranking should be D1. If you had a top 10 D2 ranking, then the top 5 should consider moving up to D1. And conversely the top 5 D3 should consider moving up to D2. To me there seems to be many strong D2 teams that for whatever are not classified as D1 (even though they play D1 talent in local tournaments). It prevents strong D3 programs from moving up to D2, because they don’t want to get crushed by D1 teams, but could hang/grow by playing D2 teams. At least that is what I see in the younger ages. Your system would hopefully help drive teams to be properly classified. The goal would be to get a Top 3 ranking, move up and try to accomplish a top ranking at the next level.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.