WFTDA Releases 2011 Tournament Seeding
-
East Region Playoff bracket. -
West Region Playoff bracket. -
South Central Region Playoff bracket.
It's that time again -- this September, the fourth WFTDA regional-tournament cycle kicks off in Baltimore, MD, starting four weekends of consecutive tournament action that'll determine the 12 teams that qualify for November's WFTDA championships in Denver, CO. As in 2009 and 2010, ten teams from each region participate in their respective tournaments and the top three from each region advance. Today, the WFTDA announced the 2Q seeding along with confirmation that all qualifying teams had accepted their invitation.
While many of the usual suspects will be making returns to the top 40, there are a few new faces, a few much improved faces, and a variety of compelling storylines that'll be playing out this cycle. Rose City gets a first-round rematch against the team that booted them one game short of the 2010 Championship -- and this time Rose City will be at home. The East region now sports two international entrants with Montreal and London. In the North Central, hosting Naptown hopes to become the shooting star of 2011, but will have to stop the only WFTDA team to never have lost a game in their region. And in the South Central, a wide-open field will likely battle for 3rd while Kansas City and Texas are on track for a grudge match a year in the making.
Detailed breakdowns of the tournament seedings and structures after the jump.
Comments
WHAT??? IT'S AN OUTRAGE I
WHAT??? IT'S AN OUTRAGE I TELL YOU!!!
Wary
WHAT??? IT'S AN OUTRAGE I TELL YOU!!!
Not to toss any disrespect at any leagues, but I am wary of a seeding system that places a team with no wins ahead of a team with wins, especially wins against divisional rivals.
Losing close is not the same as winning, in my opinion.
That was fast
This debate already happened. Does anyone have anything new to contribute to it, or is it going to be the same thing?
Today is a special day!
Happy 2 weeks of still talking about the same points!
Well, it's a circle sport
so it's fitting that we go around and around here, too :)
Speaking of losing and rankings
WHAT??? IT'S AN OUTRAGE I TELL YOU!!!
Not to toss any disrespect at any leagues, but I am wary of a seeding system that places a team with no wins ahead of a team with wins, especially wins against divisional rivals.
Losing close is not the same as winning, in my opinion.
I'm rather curious how a team that has lost to another team in March then finds themselves ranked higher. It's illogical. Why even play if head to head doesn't matter?
North Central Tournament Scheduling
Somebody either didn't look at the calender or doesn't care that the weekend currently scheduled for the North Central Tournament is during the Jewish High Holiday of Yom Kippur.
Seriously bad planning.
Is it to late to reschedule?
I want to go but my Rabbi, let alone my family, wouldn't be happy.
WWOZD?
What would Ozzy Zion do?
Not unprecedented
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time it's happened: NC 2009 was during Rosh Hashanah. I think they tried to prevent the overlap last year.
They have never cared.
There have been tourneys during Jewish high holy days almost every year. We thought about making a fuss once, but it seems most Jewish derby skaters are secular and don't really care. Still, they'd never schedule a tourney on Christmas Eve...
True dat, I'd love to see a
True dat, I'd love to see a X-mas style derby tourney (doubt that would ever happen).
Perhaps the skaters don't care that much (although I bet they do) but some of the fans do.
I'd play on Christmas.
I'd play on Christmas.
But that's Traditional Jewish Christmas!
Movies and Chinese food galore!
Yom Kippur
In the past I know that baseball players like Sandy Koufax way back when, all the way to Shawn Green a few years back have sat out games in the World Series because of Yom Kippur.
This is a shonda!
Like Mercy Less said, pretty much every year there has been overlap of High Holidays and WFTDA tournaments and it is a shonda (a shame/pitty for my goy friends). These holidays are clearly marked on every calendar ever made. Easily avoidable but nonetheless it happens.
Additionally, think back to the interview DNN posted years ago with the chap from ESPN. When asked how we could get derby on TV he said the first thing we had to do was move the championship season to mid-summer. This would make perfect sense since there is no other sports happening in summer besides baseball. In the fall we compete with NFL, NBA, NCAA, MLB, and NHL. There is also the added benefit of so many people in derby working in education and having summers off; for those that have regular jobs summer is the perfect time to take a vacation. Also, since the WFTDA keeps granting tournaments to cold winter cities, Portland, Philly, Chicago, Denver wouldn't it be nicer to spend a weekend in Colorado in the summer rather than winter?
Finally, avoid the fallacy of equating games played on Christmas and Yom Kippur. These are not apples-to-apples holidays. With all due respect to the holiday of miraculous birth, Christmas has few religious requirements for observation. Yom Kippur on the other hand demands that my Hebrew brethren spend the day fasting (no food, water, not even gum). I would love to see the WFTDA not only avoid holding the tournaments on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar but do themselves a favor and take ESPN's advice and move the tournaments to summer. Or at the very least hold them in a city with a decent winter climate. I think it's time the Big Easy Roller Girls step up and host a tournament! Can you imagine roller derby debauchery in NOLA?
The only problem with this proposal...
...is that unless the summer tourneys were all held on the Pacific coast within 4 miles of the ocean, it would be hot, or hot and muggy for every one of them. Stepping outside for your halftime or after-game cigarette after epic athletic competition (I'm talking about the skaters here) would be like stepping into the main ballroom of hell.
I'm pretty sure the leagues from N/S Central and the East Coast might have a hard time justifying holding their playoffs in San Diego, Huntington Beach, Santa Monica, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, the Bay Area, Portland or Seattle.
Though if they could justify it, it would be awesome.
London??
I'm sorry....Seating is not rankings it's seating....I love London, but DC has earned the spot by beating teams in the division..several times.....London has not....I'm not stating that London couldn't, they just haven't.........FAIL.
Rankings = seeding
I'm sorry....Seating is not rankings it's seating....
That's, well, not true. Seeding is rankings and vice versa. From WFTDA:
"WFTDA member leagues vote on rankings within their respective regions each quarter, using WFTDA-sanctioned bout data as the guiding force in determining those rankings. The top 10 teams in each region at the time of the second quarter rankings receive an invitation to their respective region’s Playoffs."
Yeah, but what about their seating?
I'm sorry....Seating is not rankings it's seating....
That's, well, not true. Seeding is rankings and vice versa. From WFTDA:
"WFTDA member leagues vote on rankings within their respective regions each quarter, using WFTDA-sanctioned bout data as the guiding force in determining those rankings. The top 10 teams in each region at the time of the second quarter rankings receive an invitation to their respective region’s Playoffs."
Which bench will they be sitting on? And will the two teams switch benches at half time? I believe the Best Practices document covers this. More importantly, could someone sell them some Roc City Roller Derby bleacher cushions out of the trunk of m- their car without venue security locking them up Dirty Marty's gold chains?
Bay Area will be seated right under the douchey signs, is my bet.
IF only
If there was a DNN "like button" I would have clicked it. LOL Poobah
Stay tuned
It's on our feature wishlist. Some wealthy derby nut, please sponsor Gnosis.
yes but,
I'm sorry....Seating is not rankings it's seating....
That's, well, not true. Seeding is rankings and vice versa. From WFTDA:
"WFTDA member leagues vote on rankings within their respective regions each quarter, using WFTDA-sanctioned bout data as the guiding force in determining those rankings. The top 10 teams in each region at the time of the second quarter rankings receive an invitation to their respective region’s Playoffs."
Justice,
Im aware of the WFTDA seedings, but it should not be the rakings...It does not make sense.Win vs Loss ..I do agree that soon there will be more divisions.....& a different ranking system.
THIS
Seeding and rankings ARE the same thing, however, I agree with the sentiment here.
I can tell the London girls have a ton of heart and love the sport, but they haven't earned it. I feel DC & and Providence (and other East leagues, I'm sure) got cheated here.
Well, this is their moment of truth.
If they win at least one bout, I'd say they'll have proven their worthiness to be there.
Exactly
Exactly
I agree
Definitely a controversial ranking but having seen and played against them this year I think they can do it. It will be a really fun and interesting Eastern Regionals this year, can't wait!!
Yes
If they win a bout, however, they are there. I' love London & feel as though they may do well. What is hapening though, is wrong. DC has proven they deserve the spot by winning games. Youe win games you move forward, you don't, season over...
Let's take this to an extreme.
One side of the argument is that you must win games to qualify for a regional, period.
The other side is that the quality of your opponents and the quality of your performances are more important than your win-loss record.
Let's say that for some incomprehensible reason, DC, Suburbia, Providence, Queen City, Connecticut, Dominion, River City, Harrisburg, Long Island and Central New York were all declared ineligible for tournament play at the end of June. (Widespread doping scandal, perhaps.)
This would leave your possible #10 seeds as London and New Hampshire.
Here's New Hampshire's 2011 record at the end of June:
Montreal 408, New Hampshire 24
Suburbia 254, New Hampshire 21
Long Island 85, New Hampshire 58
New Hampshire 100, Garden State 33
Is it *really* your position that in a world where this widespread Eastern Region doping scandal exists, that New Hampshire should go to the tournament because they won a game against a regional opponent and London did not?
If it's not your position, then you have to agree that strength of schedule can trump wins.
If it is your position ... well ... I don't believe we are going to agree on this.
(Oh, and I really ain't hating on you, New Hampshire, you just happened to be the lowest-ranked East team with a win for the purposes of the scenario.)
This just in!
DNN conspires against New Hampshire!
-
I see your side of the argument, JFM. I really do. I get that it's a great, terrible, controversial issue.
I will agree that strength of schedule can (can! not must) supersede wins.
But I will also say that perhaps the strength of schedule, in the case of London, may have been skewed slightly (note the words "may" and "slightly") by the fact that the three teams they played against this season were playing 5 time zones over, after a long flight, and most likely without their full rosters as not every skater could manage to fly to England.
I do not know that the scores would have been the same had the bouts been played in Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Montreal.
-
In any case, this conversation is moot, as WFTDA has released the seeds. I am pleased, as always, the the DNN messages continue to foster lively debate and passion from the skaters and fans of the sport.
Maybe we only won one Regional Match-up...
But trust me, we won every after-party. That's what matters, right?
London...?
Really? You have to go all the way back to New Hampshire in 24th place to justify London in 10th? I admit their accents and the way they yell "OY!" as a rallying cry are awesome, but...really? ;)
No offense ...
... but I think you may have missed the point. I was disagreeing with the position, expressed previously in the thread, that a team with a win should always be considered better than a team without one. As I said in the comment you are responding to, NH was used in the example because they were the lowest ranked team with a win.
I gotta say I'm relieved this debate will be resolved one way or the other by the end of this weekend...
Suburbia beat DC in a head to
Suburbia beat DC in a head to head game, so if you're arguing that London doesn't deserve the 10 rank then I don't think you can argue that DC does.
Congraulations, London!
Happy fundraising for that enormous plane and hotel bill.
Sheds a tear for Emerald City
You guys had an amazing year. You went from 18 to 11 and came up just shy of your goal of going to regionals. It's too bad the new divisional structure will probably keep that goal at a distance for a while.
Good work. You should all be proud.
New Divisional Structure?
Just what are you talking about Master Brains?
SECURITY BREACH! *klaxon*
I can only surmise that Master Brains may possibly be referring to the WFTDA maybe or maybe not deciding to dramatically or moderately change the organization's structure at some point in the very near future, or the mid-range future, or conceivably even the far future. But, of course, all of this, of course, is a great unknowable until WFTDA officially announces whatever it may be they might be intending to do, of course.
Bwahahaha
I was never sworn to secrecy! And, as a member of the media, it should be assumed that I'm going to repeat whatever I hear to way too many people.
But seriously, I don't really know much about it. There is a lot of buzz including words like "inevitable" and "done deal" being thrown around about this divisional set up. I've even seen break-outs of (maybe not so) hypothetical scenarios.
But yeah, I'm not going to get worked up about anything until they f**k with my precious Emerald City.
A wise man said it best.
A great man said it best.
Why bother
I don't know why they bother with confidentiality agreements. Everybody and their mothers knows what is being talked about, but nobody is allowed to talk about it.
Disagree with the east rankings
DC (11E) beat Providence (10E after Q1 rankings) TWICE during Q2, and they didn't pass them up. Meanwhile, London, who lost to Charm, Montreal, and Steel in their only three games during the rankings period, somehow finds themselves going to regionals.
I don't care if London is in another country. I don't care if they're a new league that everyone loves. If you only play three sanctioned games and go 0-3, regardless of strength of schedule, you should not get the invite over a team that goes 4-3 overall in Q2 alone, 2-1 against rankings and 2-0 over the (former) 10th place team in the region.
IT'S AN OUTRAGE I TELL YOU!!!
Yeah, but...
Our rankings system just doesn't work that way. If we all got paid to do roller derby, we'd probably have full season schedules, all eligible teams within a region would play each other, and then your ranking would be done for you. But we don't, so we have no choice but to use triangulation to determine rankings to fill in the holes. If you watched London play Charm, Steel City, and Montreal, you would know they deserve to be at regionals. And I say this as a huge DC fan! <3 The east region is tough, man.
Agreed
Like it or not, with 117 leagues now and more on the way, voting is here to stay.
oh cool
An accidental double post. Just pretend I'm angry about the rules or something
I think that the problem lies
I think that the problem lies mostly with the WFTDA tournament eligibility requirements. A team that only plays three sanctioned bouts all year should not be eligible to play in the tournament. I don't know what the minimum requirement is, but it needs to be more than just three bouts. That said, since London did meet whatever the WFTDA minimum requirement is, I think they earned the invite based on their strong game play against three tough opponents. Given the same schedule, DC, Suburbia, and Providence would all most likely be 0-3 also, and with higher point spreads.
The minimum
WFTDA's minimum is two sanctioned games against leagues in their region. Like it or not, that is sometimes all a league can afford.
If a league can't afford to
If a league can't afford to play more than two games, then they also can't afford to travel to a Regional and a Championship, so why make them eligible?
Too quick?
I think you may have answered my post too quickly. I'm sure you can figure out how to work it out.
Ask Duke City
When Duke made a surprising showing in regionals a few years back, they did some fundraising and made the money necessary. I think London will be able to find the £.
Makes sense to me..
... and, as John Maddening says, London only need to win one to prove their place. Perhaps next year they should play DC, Providence and Maine rather than higher ranked teams to avoid any controversy?
The more popular the sport gets and the more WFTDA teams there are, the tricker seedings are going to get. London got the nod in the east this year just as Angel City got the nod in the West etc. Maybe next year they won't and someone else will get their chance to shine. It's all good.
I don't really agree
I think win/loss has to count for something. If all you have to beat is one team in the top 10 to prove your place, does that mean Hard Knox (#11 in South Central) and Tallahassee (#14 in South Central) should have gone to Regionals over Gold Coast (#9 in South Central)? They both just beat Gold Coast in the last month.
Unfortunately, rankings are a popularity contest, and if they switch to some computer based system people will just game it, and scheduling will turn into it's own meta-game.
While we're at it, let's just
While we're at it, let's just rank teams based on their W/L record and not on the strength of the teams played. You know, since there's so much bout data out there.
Who needs bout data?
Let's just rank teams based on last year's regionals results. Forget the season entirely!
I like it
Let's take it a step further, and just award the championship by committee, rather than playing to win.
-
In sports, winning matters. It matters a lot. I'm glad that London did okay against the three teams they flew over to play them this season, but if the rankings are being so influenced by opinion, they why is anyone even keeping score.
I'm not saying this to be anti-London, but there are teams that won games against their division that will not be going to the tournament, and I think that this is a valid debate to be having, if for no other reason than because I am a fan of the sport.
"region" does not equal "division"
Choose your words carefully. Regions are not divisions in the traditional sense (I know you know this) - there are teams of varying strengths...which is exactly why score matters so much. What if the #11 team played teams #15-20 during their season and won all the games while the #5 team played #1-4 teams and lost all their games - would it make sense to exclude a top 5 team from the tournament while the #11 team gets in for winning against teams that are a lower playing level? I'm not saying that winning doesn't matter, but as I said earlier: in our current system, there's no way to avoid looking at scores and triangulation. And I am very confident that when it comes to WFTDA rankings, everyone is keeping score.
Yep
Well said.
What it comes down to, is that winning doesn't matter if you're not playing a team that is a significant challenge. Choosing teams that lose by a little against tough challengers, over teams that win by a lot against challengers that aren't close to the same level, is the only honest thing to do.
It's the sacrifice that has to be made when a significant feature of the current sports governing body is (mostly) open competition and inclusiveness. And a significant shortcoming is the low minimum number of games it takes to qualify for regionals, because poorer leagues can't afford to travel, which makes taking in data besides win/loss an essential element of ranking for regionals (or Power Rankings).
Travel and London
And a significant shortcoming is the low minimum number of games it takes to qualify for regionals, because poorer leagues can't afford to travel, which makes taking in data besides win/loss an essential element of ranking for regionals (or Power Rankings).
A fair point here. But then again, a team that fancies a trip to London needs to have some serious money to do it. It's expensive for one person enough as it is, but for 20 or 25 players, coaches and staff? There's no way a smaller league is ever going to be able to afford to do that, so only bigger leagues have that chance.
As such, London got to play their first games against three very good teams. Yes, they lost them but with respectable showings. But I think very few new teams would get that same opportunity to show themselves off so quickly.
So already London has two advantages over lesser teams: Better teams want to play them before they had really proven themselves over smaller competition, and those better teams are willing and able to pay to suffer the jetlag to do it. I'm not going to say that London wasn't deserving to make the playoffs, but I think their game against Rocky Mountain (who is flying in from seven time zones away) will go a long way to determine whether or not they truly earned their spot.
W/L records are BORING
Being pretty familiar with Charm and DC and having seen them play each other in unsanctioned scrimmages - since they're neighbors - I will say that I'm pretty comfortable saying London over DC. Obviously those aren't public bouts, let alone sanctioned ones, but since rankings are by a vote those kinds of games do still count towards rankings - sorta. I don't know which team voted for who, but local teams and players who have seen ALL the games/scrimmages, not just the biggies that get sanctioned, broadcast and boutcasted, have some insider knowledge that fans may not have. Is that something that should be fixed? Maybe, but sometimes those scrimmages are just for fun and shouldn't be made a big deal of, even if they leave impressions on players who later vote on rankings.
There are plenty of "lesser teams" that take the opportunity to play really tough teams in their region due to proximity. Better teams play lesser teams for plenty of reasons beyond 'Whee, a trip to London', usually as a chance to play a deeper bench and help a sister league out. Few of those games are public, and a handful of them are sanctioned, but it's not as if those kinds of games never happen or never count towards the impressions of the leagues that vote. London, being the strongest league in Europe right now, has taken the opportunity to get stomped by amazing teams because they're smart enough to know that's how they'll learn. And they play 'lesser teams' in Europe because that's how they grow the sport, it's not like they've only played 3 games total this year, all losses. Montreal is a stellar example of the 'play better teams until we quit losing' plan and faced some of the same challenges as London, especially a couple years ago.
Yes, voting is not a scientific or specifically rational way to do rankings. We get it. I'm confident that should a magical investor make it possible for regions to have fancy season schedules, leagues would jump at the chance. But for the moment, I think it's important to acknowledge that the voting leagues do have some 'insider' knowledge on local teams that maybe a fan or a non-local skater just can't have. Just like DNN rankings are based on the 'who would beat who on a given day', that's how skaters have to vote. Besides, if it were all based on W/L records, the release of regional rankings and tourney schedules would be BORING. And lord knows, we can't have that.
All that said, I'm glad that I get to see both London AND DC at the tournament. Since DC is co-hosting, you can go give them a big consolatory hug, and I'm sure they'll be there taking notes for next year. Because I think they're going to want to prove all the Eastern Region voters wrong...
Seriously? This again?
Wow... As Bette Noir said once before, it's tough being LRG and it looks like that hasn't changed!
I for one have faith that London will bring it at Eastern Regionals and hope that they do well and make all of you eat your words :)
Less hate, more skate!
Saturday Scheduling
I was surprised to see that the semi-finals (bouts 9 and 10 in each region) aren't both scheduled for the evening. I would have expected the four consolation bouts (7,8,11,12) to run thru the day on saturday and the semi's saved for the evening session; the SC and East in fact run all the semi's in the afteroon, and run consolation bouts in the evening. Anyone know the rationale for this?
this is total speculation
... but one possibility is that this may provide advancing teams with better schedule balance for their rest cycles. Rather than waiting through the whole day Saturday and struggling with focus late in the day, they get to dive in when they're at their peak readiness for the day. Afterward, they've got plenty of time to debrief, watch the other semi, maybe go back and watch some film (if archives are available), get a good meal, and get a full night's rest before the big games with big consequences on Sunday.
I might be totally talking out my ass, though. I'd love to hear from skaters who've been through a three-day tournament experience to see what they think!
Another time question...
The bouts in the West are scheduled to occur at 90-minute intervals. That seems like a pretty quick turnaround.
Overall I'm not too worried about exact times--Derby is not now and should never be noted for its punctuality. But as for the Saturday night bouts, I'm headed to the NC regionals in Indy and will have to drive down on Saturday, so I was hoping to see the more crucial bouts in the evening. I suspect a lot of casual derby fans would feel the same...
Time
Derby is not now and should never be noted for its punctuality.
I disagree. Charm City's Bout Production committee has enacted someone with a strict schedule who is in charge of every minute of warm-ups, start times, half time shows, etc. The first time we tried it we finished exactly* on time and the second time we would have if not for a fan that needed EMT attention and held up the play for several minutes. It can be done!
Also, mad props to the Head Ref and other officials for needing to take a minimum of OTO time.
Granted, we only have two data points, but it actually has made the whole bout work much much smoother. I recommend all leagues attempt something like this.
* I don't recall the actual times, but they were very close (within 2-3 minutes) to the anticipated start and finish times.
It has been done.
Westerns in 2008 ran on 90 minute intervals, and stayed on time, much to the amazement of any of us who'd been to more than a couple previous tournaments. Houston Roller Derby ran an extremely tight ship. On the other hand, I've definitely been to events that attempted 90 minute headways, only to end up 2+ hours behind schedule.
Rose City definitely has the organizational chops to pull it off, and it's possible that they'll also have room for a warmup track, something Houston lacked in in 2008. That'll take a bit of time pressure off the main track.
Advice: remove any doubt
This comment thread reminds me of the annual handwringing that occurs when the NCAA men's basketball tournament bracket is released. It's simple. If you want to be assured to be in the top ten, prove yourself to at least belong in the top 8. Kudos to Montreal, Carolina, Boston, Dutchland, etc. for playing several barometer games and winning their share of them, thus separating themselves from the "bubble". Those four teams (as well as the top 4 seeds) have proven themselves to be worthy by almost any criteria. Teams putting together their 2012 schedules should consider this year's cases and learn from them.
yes, well said
Thanks :) and I agree there will always be disagreements over the 10 spot because it is so close for a lot of teams . If you want to get there next year continue to work hard ! for those who made it congrats !!
^^^
this is correct. the surest ticket to regionals is to win your games.
IN DENVER
EVERY OTHER team needs to stay home except OLY, DENVER, NEW YORK ,ROCKY MOUNTIAN because thats will be the top 4 going into the finals ...every body else is just filler derby matches .teams wasting time and money for nothing .
this is a fantastic idea
why play the games at all? we could have a virtual championship instead! REALTALK you get to pick the winner! this way nobody will needlessly squander precious resources. no time will be wasted either. in fact REALTALK, you should choose the champs tonite! no one will have to have regionals! 2011 will be the best wftda season ever!!!!
dumbest thing ive read on the internet all week.
The Great All-Knowing RealTalk Commands So We Listen...
Seeing as you have been a valued contributor to DNN and probably the whole derby community for all of 2 and a half hours, WFTDA will undoubtedly succumb to your will and drop all other teams from the competition. In fact, I'd be surprised it any Regional tournaments even take place this year. Let's just GET ON WITH IT and have Championships with those 4 teams.
Yes we all know who is most likely to win this year. Does that mean that the games should really not be played?
Because there are absolutely no awesome, nail-biting, high-skilled games played -- no amazing pictures snapped -- no pants off dance offs where everyone wins just by participating-- no team bonding moments or team building moments that are EVER achieved -- no camaraderie, fun, and sisterhood EVER celebrated when the top 4 teams aren't involved.
*Coming from a completely bias player whose team went to Regionals and Champs "without" her last year and who didn't win it all but who came home a much better team, better competitors, better friends, and better equipped to bring it harder this year.
In addition to what Miss Slammylou said...
The REAL talk, realtalk, as opposed to the sweeping-generalization-with-no-empirical-knowledge talk that you are spouting, is that four years ago NONE of the teams you name were in the top four at the WFTDA championships. In 2007, KCRW upset Rat City to take home the Hydra. The consolation bout was between Texas and Carolina. Gotham (the only team you mention that was at 2007 Nationals) was defeated the first day of play.
In 2008, Gotham won the WFTDA Championships against Windy City (another great team that you say are wasting their time and money, probably because you are a jerk), and they did so by not giving up when defeated in 2007. They didn't stop playing because they weren't the best. They worked their asses off and BECAME the best. And then in 2009, Oly came and upped the standard of play AGAIN. And in 2010, Rocky Mountain set the bar even higher. I can guarantee you that a team will come along and do it again.
But you'll probably have moved on to something else by then, won't you, realtalk? Because you don't understand why any of us are doing this.
Looks like London is
Looks like London is compairable to Detroit if you take the score from todays bout and look at Rocky Mountains past few bouts..... I'm pretty sure London does infact deserve to make it to Regionals :)
Home Track Advantage
Looks like London is compairable to Detroit if you take the score from todays bout and look at Rocky Mountains past few bouts..... I'm pretty sure London does infact deserve to make it to Regionals :)
I'm not gonna get into the seeding debate again, but I just want to say that flying over an ocean and, what, 7-8 time zones would put any team at a disadvantage. I think LRG has the best home track advantage in WFTDA right now.
Sorry Scott...
... I love you and all but I think that's a really poor argument!
Firstly, none of these teams that were invited to London had to travel there, they all chose to and therefore knew what they were letting themselves in for. From the East coast to London a flight is approx. 7 -10 hrs. I have travelled longer than this on road trips for a game. Should that mean that any result from that game be skewed just because we had to travel over a certain period of time? As for the time difference, again it's the team who chooses to travel to these places and their choice in how to handle any jet lag issues by arriving a day or two before hand.
Are we seriously going to sit here and essentially make excuses for all performances against LRG like this...? We could be here for months if we do!
You don't have to be sorry
And I love ya too, Hayles.
But I disagree. If *everything* is being taken into consideration when it comes to rankings, be it available skaters, number of skaters, quality of competition, all these little details that form the opinions of who gets ranked where, then there are other factors to consider too.
In all sports, there is a home court/track/ice/field advantage. It's just the way it is.Any team is going to be more comfortable with playing in front of their fans, with their routines, in their locker room after sleeping in their beds and without having spent time traveling in a car/bus/airplane prior.
London is the eastern-most WFTDA team. By 5 time zones. It is on another continent, and skaters that want to play there have to fly there. Those teams did choose to do that, yes, and that's great. But then, those teams would be limited to the skaters on their roster that could afford that trip. I am certain that rosters had to be modified by who was available to fly to London to skate, and as was previously mentioned, skaters are not paid to play, so it is a personal hardship/pleasure to go overseas.
So London has the ability to play at home, in front of their fans, with all of their roster (barring injury), without jetlag. Every advantage is theirs.
And they lost every game they played. By 80, 92, 40 and 179 points.
I am confident in saying that if these bouts had taken place on the road for the LRG, and not at home, and LRG had to deal with a roster limited by travel costs, unfamiliar cities, no/little crowd support, hotel beds and jet lag, that score differential would have been even greater.
Now, WFTDA rankings are done by voting from member leagues. That's the way it goes. That's the way it is. All I'm saying is that if the rankings are done by vote and by opinion, that all of the factors should be taken into consideration. It is disrespectful to the disadvantaged teams, no matter who they are, to disregard these factors, ESPECIALLY since just winning alone is not always enough to decide rankings.
-
I hope London does well at Regionals. Truly. I do like them as a team and I mean no disrespect. What I am calling into question is the practice of WFTDA (or any opinion based) ranking system, and how some factors are (or are not) considered. London is a great example right now for how these opinions are weighted. I don't like that I have to use London for this debate. But I promise, that even if London comes in and wins against Carolina at Regs, I still will question the process that brought them there.
It's what passionate sport fans will always do. Argue. It's great, and the fact that these arguments are happening show me how great a sport roller derby is. If no one cared to debate, then derby would still be spectacle rather than sport.
Minor Correction....
So London has the ability to play at home, in front of their fans, with all of their roster (barring injury), without jetlag. Every advantage is theirs.
And they lost every game they played. By 80, 92, 40 and 179 points.
I am confident in saying that if these bouts had taken place on the road for the LRG, and not at home, and LRG had to deal with a roster limited by travel costs, unfamiliar cities, no/little crowd support, hotel beds and jet lag, that score differential would have been even greater.
Except that three of those games *were* travel games for London. Rocky Mountain is the only team that's played them in a sanctioned bout in London this year.
What am I missing here?
Anarchy in the UK was totally played in London and those bouts were totally sanctioned.
oops
oops. Flat track stats tricked me, it has london listed as the visiting team.
FTS London
Hey Wrecks --
Thanks for the heads up!
FTS' strives to have the most accurate data available. One way we do that is by having people like you tell us when we've got it wrong. Based on your comment, we've contacted London to double-check what was submitted on their ITRF's... and we'll update the site based on what they tell us.
Thanks again! :)
~rzr
http://www.flattrackstats.com/feedback?type=3
London Fans
Thats actually one thing i would disagree with... at Anarchy in the UK their fans were AMAZING and so excited to cheer for everyone(with an obviously slight favoring to their home girls)...its the most welcomed ive ever felt outside of my home rink
London made the opposite decision
They decided not to travel to the USA and they also decided not to schedule teams (or a single team) that would have been better competition. They could have done both of those things just like the teams they played decided to fly across the Atlantic and put up with the jet lag disadvantage.
I'm not saying that London should be punished for those decisions but I also don't think they should be rewarded for better than predicted scoring margins in losses. They had a GIGANTIC home track advantage and they still lost every game they played. That doesn't mean they're not the 10th best team in the East but I do think it means they shouldn't go to playoffs. The requirements for playoffs should include winning at least a game.
WFTDA the new BCS?
I don't know if London can be WFTDA's version of NCAA's TCU, but if London loses to Carolina.....DC has a right to be super PO'd
Truth.
Let's stay tuned for that result.
Why? Carolina beat DC by 200
Why? Carolina beat DC by 200 points in June. (I'm blonde - what am I missing?)
Also, no disrespect to DC but doesn't Suburbia have more stake to that #10 claim since they beat DC head-on in April? (For the record, I do think London deserves the ranking and invite but don't understand the argument for DC over Suburbia.)
-Jasmine Facun
BCS? Really?
You are comparing apples to lug wrenches on this one. The BCS has ZERO tournaments. WFTDA picks 40 teams and gives each of them four tournaments to play their way into a 12 team Championship tournament. DC is a bubble team, but its also a team that has a history of being a non-contender when it comes tournament time. If you want to compare it to the NCAA basketball tournament where bubble teams don't get in every year, I can see that. If you want to make it into regionals play, you need to convince people you belong. That is especially true for a team that has had trouble competing in the past. The BCS argument is bogus. London may have made the regionals, but they have to win more than one bout to prove they are a championship caliber team.
For you Brits who wondering what the hell we are talking about, look up the Bowl Championship Series on wiki for clarification.
I love DC. I really, really
I love DC. I really, really love DC. Let's face it, though, DC had two chances to beat Carolina this year and they didn't do it. And as much as I love DC, if they got the #10, I don't think they would've won the third bout either.
Because they are 10.
The team doesnt matter, whatever team ranked #11 be it DC, Providence, Rink Rash City, it doesnt matter. Congrats to London, I just feel bad for the #11 team because they won games and were shut out by a team who didnt win a thing.
Yeah, Really BCS
We have all seen it where the selection makes no sense and that is what i am comparing this to. Might they beat Carolina? Yeah they may. But to qualify with ZERO wins? That is ludicrous.
Ludicrous?
We have all seen it where the selection makes no sense and that is what i am comparing this to. Might they beat Carolina? Yeah they may. But to qualify with ZERO wins? That is ludicrous.
Ludicrous? They went 0-4 against four Top-15 teams. There are probably at least 20 other teams that made it to regionals who would also have an 0-4 record if those were their only 4 games. In a sport where there's zero structure when it comes to scheduling, I don't see how you can fault a team whose only games were against really strong teams.
As a point of comparison, I just pulled up the results for the #9 team in the East (Maine). Their record against the Top 15? 0-2 (plus losses to #21 and #23).
More records against the Top 15...
#8? 0-1
#7? 0-0
...and here's the really fun one...
#6? 1-7. That's Boston.
The bottom line is that focusing on overall W/L records is silly when the skill level varies as much as it does and there's no requirement to play strong teams. It's like giving an NFL team credit for beating High School teams.
Going back to Maine. They're 7-4. 7-0 against teams not in the Top 25 and 0-4 against teams in the Top 25. I'm not sure that 7-0 is any more meaningful than London's 0-0 record against non-Top-25 teams.
It seems to me that it's simply the nature of the sport right now that voting is the only reasonable way to make tournament selections. I would hope that the voting teams would focus more on games against strong teams than they do on meaningless blowout games. It looks to me like they do just that.
Boston stats are incorrect
...and here's the really fun one...
#6? 1-7. That's Boston.
Not to pick nits here, but currently Boston's 2011 record to date is 5-13. If you are talking about games played up until the Q2 rankings (games eligible through 6/30), which is what their ranking going into regionals is based upon, their record was 3-8 (with win's against Steel, Maine, & Dutchland and losses against Montreal, Philly, Kansas City, Gotham, & Tampa). At no point was thier record 1-7.
1-7 vs. the Top 15
...and here's the really fun one...
#6? 1-7. That's Boston.
Not to pick nits here, but currently Boston's 2011 record to date is 5-13. If you are talking about games played up until the Q2 rankings (games eligible through 6/30), which is what their ranking going into regionals is based upon, their record was 3-8 (with win's against Steel, Maine, & Dutchland and losses against Montreal, Philly, Kansas City, Gotham, & Tampa). At no point was thier record 1-7.
1-7 is (I believe) their record against teams currently in DNN's Top-15. That was the context of my rambling. :-)
I get it now
Ah - missed that point, thanks for clarifying, that makes much more sense. Also, I misstated those stats previously. What I meant was Boston is 5-8 for the season and 3-5 for Q1 & Q2.
Then why play anyone ranked below the top 10?
So if by this logic that wins and losses do not matter, yet simply who you play does why would a team trying to make Regionals schedule anyone but Oly, Rocky, Denver, Windy, Detroit, Kansas City, Gotham, Philly. Rat, Rose or Bay Area??
A leagues doesnt even need to win, just schedule these games and boom, there you go a ticket to regionals. Teams in the lower half of their region rankings will have no prayer then to get games with even middle of the road teams because all of them want to play the Top 10.
You have to see this is seriously screwed up
Really?
So if by this logic that wins and losses do not matter, yet simply who you play does why would a team trying to make Regionals schedule anyone but Oly, Rocky, Denver, Windy, Detroit, Kansas City, Gotham, Philly. Rat, Rose or Bay Area??
A leagues doesnt even need to win, just schedule these games and boom, there you go a ticket to regionals. Teams in the lower half of their region rankings will have no prayer then to get games with even middle of the road teams because all of them want to play the Top 10.
You have to see this is seriously screwed up
Yes, that would be seriously screwed up. I wasn't saying that you should never look at games that aren't against top-15 teams. I was simply saying that if you're going to try to compare a team with London, the most fair way to do that is to see how that team performed against Top-15 teams since that's the only data you have for London (they had no sanctioned games against "lesser" competition).
If London had lost those games to Steel, Charm and Montreal by 200 points each, no one would be arguing to send them to regionals.
I think the point most reasonable people would make is that a respectable loss to a top team tells you a lot more about the quality of a team than a 200-point win against a team that's nowhere close to being considered for regionals.
Until there's some structure and requirements around scheduling, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a team with zero wins to make it to regionals based on the quality of their play in the sanctioned games that they participated in.
Let's take it to the extreme to make the point:
Team X plays Oly, Gotham, Rocky, and Denver. They lose each game by 1 point.
Team Y plays Houston, Dutchland, London and Nashville. They WIN each game by 1 point.
Team X is 0-4. Team Y is 4-0. But anyone who knows anything about the teams they played would have to conclude that Team X is a much stronger team than Team Y. Only when you require X and Y to play equal (or at least similar) competition can you attempt to rank teams based on their records.
plus...
London's recent sanctioned body of work was 0-4, but let's not forget that they have beaten the pants off of a lot of non-fully-wftda teams in regulation (but unsanctioned) bouts, and they performed quite well against American wftda skaters in other non-sanctioned action. Voters aren't supposed to take that data unto account, but it's not like London doesn't have a big body of evidence already out there playing non-top-25 teams, including against local nonsanctioned rosters of top-25 leagues (philly, texas, etc). I betcha when philly was voting they couldn't help but remember how it felt to compete against London Brawling vs the other 11-15 candidates in the east. Skaters' memories extend back beyond the current quarter. (Warning: pure conjecture.)
Non-WFTDA
Are you saying that non-WFTDA games affect WFTDA rankings, Hambone?
Why is that?
I really thought I was done with London but...
So if by this logic that wins and losses do not matter, yet simply who you play does why would a team trying to make Regionals schedule anyone but Oly, Rocky, Denver, Windy, Detroit, Kansas City, Gotham, Philly. Rat, Rose or Bay Area??
A leagues doesnt even need to win, just schedule these games and boom, there you go a ticket to regionals. Teams in the lower half of their region rankings will have no prayer then to get games with even middle of the road teams because all of them want to play the Top 10.
You have to see this is seriously screwed up
Yes, that would be seriously screwed up. I wasn't saying that you should never look at games that aren't against top-15 teams. I was simply saying that if you're going to try to compare a team with London, the most fair way to do that is to see how that team performed against Top-15 teams since that's the only data you have for London (they had no sanctioned games against "lesser" competition).
If London had lost those games to Steel, Charm and Montreal by 200 points each, no one would be arguing to send them to regionals.
I think the point most reasonable people would make is that a respectable loss to a top team tells you a lot more about the quality of a team than a 200-point win against a team that's nowhere close to being considered for regionals.
Until there's some structure and requirements around scheduling, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a team with zero wins to make it to regionals based on the quality of their play in the sanctioned games that they participated in.
Let's take it to the extreme to make the point:
Team X plays Oly, Gotham, Rocky, and Denver. They lose each game by 1 point.
Team Y plays Houston, Dutchland, London and Nashville. They WIN each game by 1 point.
Team X is 0-4. Team Y is 4-0. But anyone who knows anything about the teams they played would have to conclude that Team X is a much stronger team than Team Y. Only when you require X and Y to play equal (or at least similar) competition can you attempt to rank teams based on their records.
But it keeps dragging me back in. London is a nice team. They have great fans. They have fun announcers. They are extremely polite. They think a lot about safety as every other mic call vs Rocky seemed to be sponsored by Durex. However, they have no wins this season vs a WFTDA team. It doesn't matter if the teams were in the top 10, 15, 20, whatever.
Zero. Less than one. Not in the positive. All losses. Not even a "WFTDA tie" in there.
The only sports that don't have a set season that I can even kind of equate this to would be if boxing or MMA had a tournament and invited a winless fighter. Now this person went the distance each time. Sometimes is was repectable & sometime they were outpointed badly. But all their losses were against top fighters. Would you still say this 0-4 record should get them a place in front of others who had actually won a fight or two?
If I was DC, Suburbia, Providence or anyone else in the East who missed out I would just schedule as many games against the top 20 as possible. Not to win, just play to keep it close because actually winning doesn't seem to matter as much as losing well. Next thing you know derby will be like one of those "no losers or winners" kids leagues where everyone wins and the score is meaningless. But hey, that sure would make calling penalties a bit easier wouldn't it? (Yes, I expect to get torched for saying that.)
Honestly though, I am not trying to be a jerk here. I just can't agree that a winless team should make Regionals. I hope WTFDA will at some point agree you need at least 1 win to be considered for it. Like I said before, London has a nice team. They did better against Rocky than I thought they would as I had it closer to a 250-300 loss for them. I know they have no other WFTDA non-apprectice leagues to play over there. I know it is prohibitively expensive for a team to travel to play them or for them to play here in North America. I just don't think you shoud be rewarded for losing by less than people thought. If anyone from LRG is at Championships or Worlds who wants to talk about it I will happily buy you a drink or two and make my argument in person.
Well, yeah...
The only sports that don't have a set season that I can even kind of equate this to would be if boxing or MMA had a tournament and invited a winless fighter. Now this person went the distance each time. Sometimes is was repectable & sometime they were outpointed badly. But all their losses were against top fighters. Would you still say this 0-4 record should get them a place in front of others who had actually won a fight or two?
Well of course I would...that's exactly what I've been saying. :)
If one dude performed well against the very best and another dude did less well against the very best but ALSO beat up on some wimpy dudes and therefore had a better record, I'd still give the nod to the guy who appeared to be better when competing against the best. In the absence of additional results, I'd be left to use my best judgement and common sense and conclude that the guy who did better against the super-studs would probably be equally capable of beating up on the wimpy dudes if given the opportunity.
Oh, and then I'd ask why there weren't better requirements around scheduling and I'd be reminded that it just wasn't financially practical to try to enforce such requirements at this time. :-(
PS: I'm not a London fan at all...I just think, from the scores and games that I've seen, that they appear to be properly placed.
PPS: "I hope WTFDA will at some point agree you need at least 1 win to be considered for it." -- really? I would think that would encourage the scheduling of even more horribly unbalanced games than there already are. Oh, I have to have one win? Hey brand-new WFTDA league with 20 skaters...wanna come play out Top-25 all-star team so we can be sure we have one win this year?!? I promise we'll stop playing our best jammers once we're ahead by 300 points!
Now that is just silly
PPS: "I hope WTFDA will at some point agree you need at least 1 win to be considered for it." -- really? I would think that would encourage the scheduling of even more horribly unbalanced games than there already are. Oh, I have to have one win? Hey brand-new WFTDA league with 20 skaters...wanna come play out Top-25 all-star team so we can be sure we have one win this year?!? I promise we'll stop playing our best jammers once we're ahead by 300 points!
I didn't mean take it to the complete extreme. What I should have said is the WTFDA should make it so a team that hasn't won a game can not be voted for to make Regionals. If a team only had 1 win and it was against a team at the very bottom of the rankings or a brand new WTFDA team then I wouldn't vote for them to make Regionals. Also if a team is in the Top 25, then they are usually playing (and winning) against other teams in or just on the cusp of the Top 25. Yes, looking at the whole body of work for a particular voting period is important. Who you played, how you did, etc matters. But having some success during that time frame should matter too. I honestly can't think of another sport where failure to achieve this is rewarded.
Basically because of the situation London is in makes for very divisive feelings on things. Some people are in the "Look how they did against who they played" camp. Others are in the "You should have to be able to win to be included" camp. A lot of others are in the "Just stop bitching already" camp. I am kind of torn about it. I wouldn't mind seeing London be the feel good story of Regoinals this year & get a few wins to prove they belonged. Of course, having them lose every bout just so I feel justified in all this wouldn't be bad either.
one win, two wins...?
I may have actually missed your point. It sounded like you were literally suggesting that there be a requirement that you have at least one win to get to regionals...were that the case, I could absolutely see my hypothetical response becoming a reality.
I guess the biggest thing that gets me about your "zero wins" argument is that zero seems like a really arbitrary number. Why not exclude teams that only have one win? I mean, that's not very impressive, is it? Hell, why not toss out anyone with a losing record?
My point is that you can't impose arbitrary rules like that -- be it one win, two wins, or whatever -- in a sport that has no strength-of-schedule guidelines whatsoever. I gave examples to (try to) prove this point above, so I won't ramble on anymore. I'll just say that I think you have to fix the scheduling "system" before anything other than a pure voted-by-the-skaters system can possibly make sense.
I must admit, I've argued myself into being a London fan here. Here's hoping they make it to Denver! :-)
Really? I get that a win
Really? I get that a win against a team that's ranked #100 isn't very impressive. However, it proves that the team can put out a winning effort. All we know about London right now is that they can lose pretty well. Losing pretty well should not be a reason to make the playoffs.
I guess the question is this. Do you think that making the playoffs should purely be determined by who the voters think are the best 10 teams in each region? Or, do you think that making the playoffs should be a reward for not only being a top ten team but a reward for performing better than the teams that didn't make the playoffs?
I know how you'd answer but I'd argue that it should be the 2nd one. Sure, London could be the 10th best team in the East, they could be the 7th, they could be 12th. We just don't know because THEY haven't done enough to prove it either way. London didn't win a game this year. London didn't play a road game this year. London played a significantly lower number of games than all the teams ranked near them in the East. London didn't even lose by single digits. What did they do? They lost to Montreal by 80 while they were playing their worst derby all season. They lost to Charm City by 92, definitely respectable but doesn't exactly prove anything. They lost to Rocky Mountain by 179, definitely respectable but doesn't exactly prove anything. The ONLY result that you could say, hey, that's pretty damn good and probably a team that's in the playoffs is losing to Steel City by 40. Is that how we want playoffs to be determined? The team that only gets moderately blown out by the then #6 team in our region gets the nod? (Oh, BTW, they had a HUGE home track advantage in all of those games) Let's ignore the fact that Suburbia has beaten #11, 14, 15 and DC has beaten #13 (twice), 15, 17 and kept it closer than 40 with #7, 8.
No, you don't play sports to win games, you play sports to not get blown out super bad by top teams.
Sorry, but: "You PLAY to WIN the GAME!" - Herm Edwards, NFL Head Coach
it doesn't count?
They lost to Montreal by 80 while they were playing their worst derby all season.
So you're saying just chuck out the results against Montreal because the other teams were playing better derby than Montreal?
Don't chuck it out but an 80
Don't chuck it out but an 80 point loss wouldn't really be that impressive anyway but it's really not impressive when you put it in that context.
well, actually...
Really? I get that a win against a team that's ranked #100 isn't very impressive. However, it proves that the team can put out a winning effort. All we know about London right now is that they can lose pretty well. Losing pretty well should not be a reason to make the playoffs.
I guess the question is this. Do you think that making the playoffs should purely be determined by who the voters think are the best 10 teams in each region? Or, do you think that making the playoffs should be a reward for not only being a top ten team but a reward for performing better than the teams that didn't make the playoffs?
In an ideal world, I definitely think playoff seedings should be based on W/L records. But only if there are some reasonably comparable results...which can only happen if the WFTDA does something around scheduling requirements.
In the absence of that, it's really, really tricky (IMHO).
You can spin London's performances many different ways. For example...
Rocky Mountain 183 - Philly 32
Philly 277 - DC 26
Rocky Mountain 228 - London 49
From those results, you could easily argue that London is WAY better than D.C. -- London and Philly were similarly destroyed by RMRG and Philly is another 200+ points better than D.C.
Or...
Steel City beat Maine by 80
Maine beat Suburbia by 50+
Steel City beat London by 40
Again, best I can tell, it looks like Steel is way better than Suburbia...but only marginally better than London.
Yes, I realize triangulation is way less than ideal. But when all of the results point in the same direction, I do think it can be meaningful.
At the end of the day, it's just unfortunate that London and the other bubble teams in the East don't have any common opponents to compare against.
...and so we're back to the skaters (who no doubt have WAY WAY WAY more of a clue about how good the various teams actually are than I ever could) voting on who the best teams really are.
PS: Regarding this: "Really? I get that a win against a team that's ranked #100 isn't very impressive. However, it proves that the team can put out a winning effort." -- I don't think anyone needs proof that a team can put forth a winning effort. I think it's a fair assumption that against weak enough competition, any WFTDA league can put forth a winning effort. Beating up on bad teams proves exactly nothing IMHO.
Do you really want who goes
Do you really want who goes to the playoffs to be decided by triangulation? Especially since these results are skewed by London's strong home track advantage?
Triangulation is fine for seeding, it's the only way to do it without head-to-head results.
It comes back to this question, though: Do you consider playoffs to be a reward or just something that happens at the end of the season between the 10 best teams in each region?
To me, it's a reward that you have to earn and, in my mind, London didn't do enough to earn that reward. They didn't win a game, they didn't play on the road, they played hardly any games, they didn't play a tight game with anyone. I don't have a problem with voters thinking they're the 10th best team in the East. I might put them there, too. But, does being #10 mean that a team should automatically make the playoffs? I don't think so. Not if that team didn't earn a trip to the playoffs.
Look at the NCAA tournament (one of the only other playoffs systems that's decided by votes). The committee's criteria for the bubble teams are: how did they do on the road? how did they do in neutral games? what was their record against the Top 50? record in last 10 games? Good wins? Bad losses? RPI? Scoring margins are like 25% of the RPI and that's it. So, scoring margin is like 5% of what the committee considers when selecting teams.
Let's answer those questions for London.
Away games: Didn't play any
Neutral games: Didn't play any
Top 50: 0-4
Last 10: 0-4
Good wins: None
Bad losses: None
RPI: 10 (FTS), 10 (Derbytron)
The selection committee would laugh at that.
apples != oranges
The selection committee would laugh at that.
When the top 100 (or 50, or whatever) WFTDA teams have budgets comparable to NCAA Division 1 sports teams, this will become a relevant argument.
The WFTDA membership's structure, makeup, and finances are unique in the world. WFTDA has arrived at a tournament seeding system which, in my opinion, does a remarkably accurate job of advancing the teams that have demonstrated they are most likely to succeed within the tournaments.
Obviously, there are differences of opinion, but this is most definitely the practical result I want to see, regardless of any aesthetically displeasing artifacts it may incorporate.
Exactly
Exactly. WFTDA is so totally not the NCAA...which gets back to "when it's possible to have some structure around who-plays-who, then focusing on W/L records might start to make sense."
"...advancing the teams that have demonstrated they are most likely to succeed within the tournaments."
And that should be the goal, IMHO.
Yes
A sport with a large number of teams, where players don't get paid, that has a wide disparity from top to bottom, that votes on its rankings and postseason and covers a large geographic region is totally not comparable to derby. Complete apples and oranges.
You missed one
It's the travel costs. With adequate travel budget, any sport can develop a balanced regular season.
Derby, as a business, can't possibly be spending 5% of what NCAA members spend covering their participants' travel (lodging, per diem) costs.
NCAA basketball does not have
NCAA basketball does not have a balanced regular season. Not even close. Maybe within a conference but not as a whole. Compare the schedules of Michigan State and Alabama A&M. The only similarity is the number of games played. That's the entire reason behind a selection committee and the entire reason for me to bring up the selection committee. There are things to learn from other sports especially one so similar to the current state of roller derby.
NCAA/WFTDA
While I certainly see your point (and agree that there are some important similarities), there's a lot to be said for the point that you quickly dismissed -- number of games played. Every NCAA basketball team is in a conference (I think) and they are required to play a certain number of common opponents within that conference. So, by the nature of the scheduling rules, the selection committee has a lot to go on when deciding which teams to include. There's zero chance of a zero-win team making the NCAA tournament because there are going to be lots of teams who are clearly better based on their performance against the exact same teams.
Now where it gets difficult is when they have to decide between the 4th best team in Conference X and the 4th best team in Conference Y. These teams probably haven't played each other and they may not even have any common opponents.
I guess this is the sort of situation that you're saying is similar to roller derby?
I'm just not clear on how this supports your argument. In that kind of situation, the selection committee is basically making a judgement call as to which team they think is better. There's no fixed formula and there's no rule that says you have to have a certain number of wins. They just decide who they think is best (and there's no doubt all kinds of BS politics involved).
My point
was that it's almost impossible to compare two teams that have no common opponents and a wide disparity in the quality of their schedules. So, in order to make up for that, over the years the NCAA selection committee has come up with a few objective tests that make it a little easier to compare two teams and decide who is both more deserving and also who will perform the best in the NCAA tournament.
When you take those objective measures that the NCAA selection committee uses and apply them to London, they're either N/A (because they only played home games) or failing in every category except for the computer rankings. If the NCAA selection committee compared a mediocre bubble team to London for the last spot, there's no way in hell they would pick London. That's all I'm saying.
(Also, I just rechecked the RPI formula and I was mistaken, even the RPI doesn't take into account scoring margin. So, scoring margin isn't included AT ALL in the discussions of who makes the NCAA tournament.)
Equivalent
I guess the question is this. Do you think that making the playoffs should purely be determined by who the voters think are the best 10 teams in each region? Or, do you think that making the playoffs should be a reward for not only being a top ten team but a reward for performing better than the teams that didn't make the playoffs?
This is supposed to be the same thing; the 10 teams that perform the best should be the 10 teams that the voters think performed the best, and thus voted to the top of the list.
This year, the voters felt that London's performance in Anarchy in the UK (i.e. their entire season) was stronger than #11-13's season performances. Some of that judgement is likely due to point spreads, some of that judgement is likely due to actually watching all of the leagues in question play (which provides far more data on a team's performance than just the point spread).
Regardless, I can only conclude that you believe (at least) one of two things. 1) That the voters did not actually pick the top 10 teams with the best season performance. 2) That performance means more than simply how well they played the game, but it means how well they played the game AND that they also found a team to play them that they beat.
Many of us think that that last extra stipulation is unnecessary in evaluating a team's performance. Many others think it is critical. It appears to me like an ideological impasse. The only solution I have to determine who is right: force 10-13 to all play together and empirically determine who deserves that 10 spot. I'm pretty broke, but I'll donate $5 to that cause. Anyone else? How much do we need?
Performance means more than
Performance means more than scoring margin and how they look against the best teams in the region. It means road games, neutral games, wins, playing in tight games, playing a lot of games, playing similarly ranked teams, etc. They didn't do any of those things. All they did was lose better against teams that people think DC and Suburbia would lose by more to. That's the whole basis for their inclusion in the playoffs. "The Londoners, they just lose so gosh darn well, how can you keep them out of the playoffs?"
Grand Raggidy only lost to Detroit by 56 and they're not in the playoffs. Shouldn't that be like an automatic invite?
I don't know
Grand Raggidy only lost to Detroit by 56 and they're not in the playoffs. Shouldn't that be like an automatic invite?
I don't know. I've only seen 3 North Central teams this year (will be 4 after Madison visits this weekend). Additionally I haven't even seen Grand Raggidy play. Therefore, I don't feel like I can make any judgement on their performance this year. All I know is that FTS lists them as currently 9th (although in a highly competitive block from 8th-13th being within 25 ratings points of each other) and that the leagues that supposedly did see them and the rest of the division play a lot (and thus have a far better gauge of their performance than I do), chose to put them at 11th.
Performance
Performance means more than scoring margin and how they look against the best teams in the region. It means road games, neutral games, wins, playing in tight games, playing a lot of games, playing similarly ranked teams, etc.
It also means how they execute strategies and how quickly they adapt to their opponents' strategies. It's how much strength they have, how much endurance they have, how much depth they have on the bench. It's how clean their game is and how they properly capitalize on their opponent's mistakes.
It's reasons like the ones above that you can't, given the current state of derby, rely on just the scores to determine which team is better.
Watching a team play
Watching a team play absolutely matters (although, I seriously seriously doubt the WFTDA voters have seen all the playoffs teams in their region play) but how a team looks depends on their opponent as well, in two ways. If the opponent is terrible, the team you're looking at might look amazing because everything they do is working. If the opponent is exceptionally good (like every team on London's schedule), then you might be impressed that the team you're paying attention to is actually sticking with them. What I'm saying is that the performance you're watching is not in a vacuum and that's why watching performances against a wide range of teams in a wide range of situations makes it a lot easier to make judgements about a team. Watching a team only get moderately blown out by teams way better than them at home skews your judgement of them because it isn't balanced.
Besides, it seems to me like London let the Montreal game get out of control with their own penalty problems. It's also always hard to say if the losing team made strong adjustments late in the second half of a blowout to start matching the other team or if the other team just backed off a little. If the losing team has any skill whatsoever and is still competing, there's generally a 10-15 minute period where they'll play pretty even with the winning team. It's a pretty standard rule in all of sports. It's hard to keep the foot on the pedal an entire game. I'm not doubting that London got significantly better after this weekend but learning a lot doesn't mean automatic playoff berth.
Although, this is all sort of beside the point because I've never argued that London isn't the 10th best team in the East, just that they haven't earned the playoffs, which are two totally different things. Just like the 6th best team in the NFC doesn't always go to the playoffs or the 4th best in the AL, etc.
Another interesting thing
to point out is that anyone that knows anything about the possible future of WFTDA rankings would know that it would be impossible for London to make the playoffs after a season like this.
Sounds promising...
So this will all be fixed next year? Huzzah! :)
once more around the horn
I've never argued that London isn't the 10th best team in the East, just that they haven't earned the playoffs, which are two totally different things.
And there is the root of the disagreement, because I think that those are in fact exactly the same thing, in the unique environment of modern roller derby ca. 2011.
Just like the 6th best team in the NFC doesn't always go to the playoffs or the 4th best in the AL, etc.
As discussed previously, apples != oranges. Pro sports leagues have the financial wherewithal to sustain full, balanced schedules. Derby does not (yet). What works for the NFL or MLB is not currently viable for WFTDA.
how about...
why not have as part of the requirement for regionals a stipulation that in order to be considered for the tournament a team must play at least one sanctioned bout against a regional opponent ranked 1-2 slots above or below them? this at least establishes a baseline...
Ranks
The ranks change too often, and the schedule is planned out too far in advance.
Remember, the leagues themselves are responsible for their schedule, not the WFTDA.
Voting
And there is the root of the disagreement, because I think that those are in fact exactly the same thing, in the unique environment of modern roller derby ca. 2011.
Well, this issue as I see it and, correct me if I'm wrong, but WFTDA hasn't publicly stated how they want their rankings to be voted on. Should they be voting as a replacement for standings? As in, "this team is #9 because they beat #10 head-to-head and performed better against common opponents." Or, should they be voting as DNN puts together their rankings, "who would win if they played tomorrow"? I think those are two totally different things and would result in different rankings. Just like in the first way, I don't see how Suburbia wouldn't be #10, DC #11, with London somewhere below that. If they're voting the second way then I can definitely see how London would be #10 with DC above Suburbia. However, should they be voting the second way? They're voting to replace standings, to put teams where they belong based on results. They shouldn't be trying to predict the future. They should be voting purely based on what teams have proven in the regular season and, frankly, London hasn't proven anything except that they can look good in a loss.
As discussed previously, apples != oranges. Pro sports leagues have the financial wherewithal to sustain full, balanced schedules. Derby does not (yet). What works for the NFL or MLB is not currently viable for WFTDA.
This, I don't get. What do finances have to do with what I was talking about?
Here's my $5.
I'm pretty broke, but I'll donate $5 to that cause. Anyone else? How much do we need?
Here's my $5. And if someone can negotiate the space rental, I'll run the floor.
play in games!
hell yeah.
Diagram explaining London's ranking
There is a pretty good diagram explaining London's ranking on FTS.
http://www.flattrackstats.com/teams/3628/rankings
They beat their expected point spreads, which could have influenced the perception that London is a strong team deserving of Regional qualification.
Rosters
FTS doesn't take into account bout rosters. If Team A is expected to beat Team B by a 4:1 ratio, but Team A only shows up with 8 skaters and wins 100-75, then FTS would award Team B for losing by a smaller than expected margin.
True
Are you saying some or all of those teams didn't show up with all of their star players? Which missing players are you thinking of in particular that accounted for the strong performance by London?
This is one of the downsides of FTS, or really any algorithmic method of ranking. This is one of the reasons why the current voting method is so good. It gives teams an opportunity to account for intangibles like rosters to properly rank the teams in skill order.
As a side note, FTS does a great job of correcting for bad rosters once the team gets an opportunity to play with its full roster. Similarly for the team that gained by playing against a mis-rostered team... the next time they play they will get adjusted back.
Hmmm
That sounds more inflammatory than I intended. It really was an attempt to get to what you were saying and if you do think those numbers are misrepresentative of skill level.
Stats!
Don't worry about it, I can understand and appreciate lively debate. No feelings getting hurt.
In terms of *this* point, on what FTS predicts and how it affects their rankings, I'm just saying that the ranking system is not perfect in terms of point spreads affecting rank, be it London or any other team.
Opinions-based ranking systems also have flaws. A recent example I am familiar with is the case of Montreal a few weeks ago who went to Texas and beat TXRG with 11 skaters (down to ten after a 1st period injury), and then played a fresh Houston team 4 hours later with only 10 skaters and won again. Two wins, and DNN's power rankings keep Texas above Montreal, stating that Texas was undermanned and Montreal didn't decimate Houston.
I disagree with that decision, obviously, but someone always does when it comes to opinion rankings. I'm fine with debates and such, and I quite enjoy them, when it comes to roller derby.
But I am firmly in the camp of folks that support the "Win > Point Spread" in terms of value. I am also a little shocked to find that there are not more people in this camp. This is a sport, and winning matters. Teams should play to win, not to win by XXX+ points, and not "play to lose by as few points as possible".
True story
Look at last year's championship. http://www.flattrackstats.com/bouts/3955
Rocky Mountain entered the game ranked higher than Oly, won that game, and then dropped below Oly. I could understand that happening in a Rocky Mountain home game but the game was played in Chicago. Supposedly, because Rocky Mountain was the higher seeded team, they were supposed to win by more. Therefore, Oly's better? I don't know, a win on a neutral floor against a team you beat a month ago on a neutral floor seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Cut and dry
It does seem cut and dry. I thought so too so I emailed FTS and asked them about that, in particular after I saw the result that game had on the ratings. It turns out FTS was also surprised by that, but the data actually backs up that there are three different types of games: regular games on a home track, games at an invitational tournament, and games at a ranked/seeded tournament. At invitational tournaments (i.e. a nuetral track) there is little to no measurable bias for the home team. During a standard home event, there is a measurable average bias towards the home team. And, surprisingly, during a seeded tournament, there is an even BIGGER measurable average bias for the home team.
At first you might think this is because of the practice of giving the better ranked team home team status, but the average that (they told me) they measured was in addition to the difference between the expected skill bias of the home team.
Like I said, it would definitely seem cut and dry, but the data indicate it is not. The best guess I have is that teams in these tournament expect to win/lose based on their rank and that affects their play more than it does in other situations. Or it could be that scheduling favors higher ranked teams, so they're less tired, or have fewer injuries. Either way, it means FTS predicted that Rocky would, on average, win by more than they did, so their value ended up going down and Oly's went up. And, because the difference was less than the home court advantage, that means the result is that Oly's performance would've "been a win on an actual neutral track".
Maybe there is a bias (and
Maybe there is a bias (and I'm sure it has everything to do with rest and rosters, better teams are in better shape and have better players that can come off their benches) but does that mean it should be used in the formula? I don't think so. Or, if it is, the win should have prevented Rocky Mountain from dropping below Oly. Only concerning yourself with scoring margins and completely ignoring the wins and losses is going to get you into trouble.
Two camps
I definitely see what you're saying, and I think it's really the point of the two camps of this debate. FTS's algorithm, and many of us fans, don't see the win/loss line as being very special. Most, if not all, of those arguing that 0 wins is important do see it as very special.
Imagine a hail storm near the border of two countries. A particularly large piece of hail falls on a spot of flat land near the actual dividing line. Now, if this dividing line is on a slight slope, then the piece of hail will have a greater tendency of landing on one side of the line, but then bouncing/rolling to the other side. I see the FTS group being more interested in what latitude-longitude did the hail land on and what lat-long did it roll to (so we can attempt to predict where future pieces will land and end up), whereas the win-lose group is more interested in which country did the hail end up in (I guess so we can tell who is responsible for cleaning it up? I'm not sure where this analogy goes).
Basically, I don't think anyone is going to actually change anyone's mind in this conversation. The two camps value things differently in the determination of who belongs in the playoffs.
I don't think W-L record is
I don't think W-L record is an important indicator when rankings teams or deciding playoff teams. I didn't mean to imply that. That has too much to do with strength of schedule.
I mean that when comparing two teams, I feel like the win or loss is far more important than the point spread and where it was played. Basically, if a team wins at home by 1 point, I'd give the team that won a slight edge despite the fact that they won by less than what most would consider home track advantage. Because of how FTS is structured, they can do this. They use every game as a comparison of two teams. I just think they should have an element that stops a team that won the game from dropping below the team that lost (at least on neutral floors). Now, there may be other information that says the team that lost should still be ranked ahead of the team that won (if they were ranked ahead before), I'm not saying every game should result in the team that won being ranked ahead of the team that lost. But, a team that won shouldn't drop below a team that lost simply because they were seeded higher. That just makes no sense to me.
A good question might be this: Two teams are playing each other, each rated exactly the same. Each having played the same teams in their last 5 games, all on neutral floors. Team A won each of those games by 1 point. Team B won the first of the 5 by 10 points but lost the last 4 by 1 point. Who do you think will win?
I got your back
Scott,
I'm with you. I haven't been very vocal in this debate because while my heart knows it's wrong to reward zero wins, my head realizes that this voting system is the only workable solution for the current state of affairs.
Looking forward to seeing London on the track. As others have said here, their good fortune at making it into Regionals is offset by the burden of having to change some minds. Not really London's job (they just want to play, I'm sure), but the pressure is on nonetheless.
It kills me
(a little) that I cannot attend Easterns this year.
Me too.
When I said I'd "see" Regionals, I meant from my computer desk. Sigh.
True, but not necessarily
True, but not necessarily true.
One of my biggest peeves with FTS is that it assumes that every team that hasn't played any games is rated at 600. So, no matter who the team is, they start at 600. This affects both them and the team they're playing. Montreal dropped dramatically after their game with London, despite the fact that London was clearly underrated entering that game rated at 600 (a team rated at 600 would be ranked #89 right now). Even if you don't think London deserves to go to Easterns, you probably don't think they should be ranked in the low eighties.
So, really, London may not be performing above expectation for FTS. They're just performing above of the expectation of a team that was rated 600 4 games ago. They haven't played enough games to really level out yet it seems like.
Also, considering how strong their home track advantage has to be, it's hard to know what these results really mean.
FTS's reply
Someone actually asked FTS about this, and they replied:
What's the policy on initial rankings?
Make sure to check out the discussion in the comments as well.
FTS does show team roster for
FTS does show team roster for some of the bouts, but not too many teams have submitted bout details so far.
http://www.flattrackstats.com/bouts/3072/jams
Teams can submit their WFTDA stats sheets to FTS, where it will automatically load up the data on to the web page.
http://www.flattrackstats.com/submit/bout/stats
Europe Region
I can't wait until more European leagues graduate from the Apprentice Program so WFTDA can fill out the Europe region. C'mon Auld Reekie, Paris, Bear City, Gent, Royal Windsor, Lincolnshire, Helsinki, Glasgow, Crime City, and Central City, what are you guys waiting for?
http://wftda.com/press/WFTDA-welcomes-eleven-new-members-adds-new-regions
Of course, then we'd all have to find something new to argue about, but I don't see that being a challenge.
Sooner than you think...
I can't wait until more European leagues graduate from the Apprentice Program so WFTDA can fill out the Europe region. C'mon Auld Reekie, Paris, Bear City, Gent, Royal Windsor, Lincolnshire, Helsinki, Glasgow, Crime City, and Central City, what are you guys waiting for?
http://wftda.com/press/WFTDA-welcomes-eleven-new-members-adds-new-regions
Of course, then we'd all have to find something new to argue about, but I don't see that being a challenge.
Auld Reekie is in as of today. While I'm VERY happy for them, it's probably even better news for the other European WFTDA Apprentice leagues.
They can host their two regulation games against WFTDA member leagues without needing to fly anyone in from the U.S.A. London Rollergirls (even their B team or a home team) and Auld Reekie could even drive to France via the "Chunnel" if the petrol didn't cost so bloody much. Cor blimey! anyways, this means significantly reduced expenses for European leagues to become full members of WFTDA.
You all know if London had
You all know if London had played lower ranked teams, you all would be arguing that they only won because the other teams weren't a challenge so they shouldn't be in the East top 10.
Look at Detroit. They play a lot of top 10 teams and their W-L record is hurt by that, but it shows everyone else how they compare to those teams. If Detroit only played teams #1-#8 for their season and had an 0-8 record, but came very close to beating one or more of the teams, would you say they didn't deserve to be in regionals because they do not have a win?
YES, you looks at the W-L record, but you also take into consideration the quality of team they play. Did they win 5 bouts against teams ranked in the bottom 50-70 or did they lose against 5 teams that are consistantly in the top 25?
And I think when teams say "Well we were missing Skater X or we didn't have 3 of our top players" it's just them making excuses. You sanction a bout and know damn well when and where it is going to be played. There are no excuses. If you can't bring a good representation of your team, then don't schedule the bout.
I totally Agree with whoever said that no one is going to budge on this issue. lol So I will step off my soap box and just watch from this point on :)
No one has anything against
No one has anything against London. People have a problem with a team that's never won a WFTDA sanctioned game making the playoffs. If Detroit went 0-8, it's not the same thing, because they've won games before and been there before. London hasn't.
i agree
summer seems so much more logical..or late august/early september...right after events like BrewHaHa, ECE, Golden Bowl, and not to mention a lot of leagues hold their home season in the winter (at least we do up here because nobody wants to take their precious summer weekends away from being outdoors,) so it would be a natural progression into a summer tourney schedule.
Where have we ever played for a regional tournament that didn't have A/C? Is the weather only nice in Cali? Is a muggy walk to the venue the worst thing to happen to us as skaters in the world? It's perfect blue skies and 80 in the D right now...just sayin'
Tourney attendance has historically been local leagues, skaters and family/friends right? I could imagine if a team was knocked out early the free time would be better spent in the summer time.
Make it happen OZ!!
I hate it when a team says we
I hate it when a team says we were missing skater X, which is why we lost. How is your average derby fan supposed to know if skater X is really so good to make that big of a difference?
Everyone knows that Edmonton Oilers went from first to last when they lost Gretsky because you can clearly see in the stats that Gretsky is the greatest player ever. The same is true with Chicago Bulls losing Jordan. Now, when a team says we lost because skater X was missing. My response and probably many other fan's response is "who?".
Many teams today choose not to post player stats because they are afraid that player stats can be used against them when facing rival teams. Windy City shows their players stats, and a few teams on FTS are showing their player stats as well.
So, when a team loses and says its because so and so was missing, my response is "whatever, your team not only sucks, but is chicken too". The same goes for teams that dodge higher ranked teams all year to maintain their current ranking. All I have to say, is "Chicken". At least London sent their best to play against the best. They might have lost, but at least they lost valiantly and deserve to play in Regionals.
It's obvious that Suburbia and DC are totally chicken. DC hasn't played Gotham in 4 years and got destroyed by Philly. Same is true with Suburbia. They play for 10th place, and this time lost because a new team was in the picture with a little more confidence in their abilities.
Whoa, check out that regional worthy schedule...
http://www.flattrackstats.com/teams/3458/rankings
So let me get this straight
So, when a team loses and says its because so and so was missing, my response is "whatever, your team not only sucks, but is chicken too". The same goes for teams that dodge higher ranked teams all year to maintain their current ranking. All I have to say, is "Chicken". At least London sent their best to play against the best. They might have lost, but at least they lost valiantly and deserve to play in Regionals.
It's obvious that Suburbia and DC are totally chicken. DC hasn't played Gotham in 4 years and got destroyed by Philly. Same is true with Suburbia. They play for 10th place, and this time lost because a new team was in the picture with a little more confidence in their abilities.
You're saying that "teams that dodge higher ranked teams" are chicken, but then you're bashing DC for playing a higher-ranked team in Philly only because they got "destroyed" by them? Double standards much?
You seem to have forgotten that teams only play each other if it's mutually beneficial for both to do so. Before you bash DC for not playing Gotham in four years, consider Gotham's game history over the past 12 months: Denver, Philly, Rose City, Montreal, Boston, Charm, Steel City, Philly, Texas, Rocky, Providence, Rose City, Rat City, Bay Area.
Gotham is a big fish, so they're only going to bother going up against other big fish. The only small fry in there is Providence (a team on the same tier as Suburbia and DC) and Gotham beat them by 300 points. That's a waste of time for both teams. Even if DC wanted to play Gotham, I don't think Gotham would want to play DC (or any other team ranked far below Gotham) unless they had to in the course of a tournament.
And another thing. Claiming that "London sent their best to play against the best" is daft. London didn't send anyone anywhere. Other teams came to them. And they were going to be "the best" by default, because as I previously commented, the only teams that would be able to afford the trip across the Atlantic would be established teams with enough extra cash to be able to make it work.
Maine, DC, Suburbia, Providence and other teams in the 9-15 east rankings tier do not have the same kind of resources that the teams in top five or six do. DC or Suburbia would have loved to play London, as I'm sure would anyone else in the WFTDA. But unless London is going to come to their doorstep, there's no realistic way that's ever going to happen.
Instead, London got to play in games against teams that 1) would play in games that were mutually beneficial to all involved, and 2) had the resources to afford the London holiday. For that reason, London is going to the playoffs, and DC/Suburbia are not. It's not because the teams you are calling out are "chicken."
DC did play Gotham
A Gotham home team that is... and lost by almost 120 points in just a 40 minute bout. I watched it and it wasn't pretty considering it was an all-star team vs a home team. Not saying London would do any better just stating how DC did in this case. Right now the East is Gotham and then everyone else. The further down you go in the rankings, the worse it would get for team that would play them. At this point we will just have to wait and see how the East Regional goes. Maybe London will prove they belong, maybe they won't. But they will be one of the most closely watched teams in action due to the situation they find themselves in.
no proof
Maine, DC, Suburbia, Providence and other teams in the 9-15 east rankings tier do not have the same kind of resources that the teams in top five or six do. DC or Suburbia would have loved to play London, as I'm sure would anyone else in the WFTDA. But unless London is going to come to their doorstep, there's no realistic way that's ever going to happen.
What? Not sure how you know how much resources we have compared to these teams. But you're just reaching for straws. In derby you can't make the false assumption that a team that travels more or farther has more resources than a team that plays at home. Sometimes money comes directly from the skaters pockets, sometimes leagues prioritize their financials to invest in the travel of their all star team. I know there's a statistical term for this but I can't think of it at the moment.
Additionally, I've played against a lot of teams and I know that the final score doesn't always reflect the game. Playing and watching games helps a lot in deciding team ranking rather than looking at a list of scores. Not all derby philosophy is: win by as much points as possible. Sometimes there's also momentum shifts and all the stars align in a team's favor or even against their favor.
And I'm sure if Lady Quebeaum
And I'm sure if Lady Quebeaum were reading this she would get a good chuckle or just call you all nerds.
Well, she's reading now,
and I concur.
NERDS!!!
So, uh, how much interleague scheduling do you do, exactly?
There are so many, many factors in getting games on the schedule. I think calling a team chicken is rather ig'nant and misplaced.
Know how often I look at stats? Care to guess?
NEVER.
My opinion for what its worth
London really are in a Lose/Lose, Rock /hard place situation here.
In two to three years there will be enough full WFTDA European teams for a WFTDA European region. On Current form London will initially be the dominant team so will easily qualify for the WFTDA Championships, at which point there will be shouts that London don't deserve to be there as the Euro region isn't as strong as the 4 USA Regions, and they are taking places away from U.S teams that are far better.
London could quite easily have carried on thrashing other U.K/Euro leagues which after a while is just no fun for anyone. By choosing to bring over top ranked U.S leagues they prepare themselves better for playing in Regionals and for Nationals in the future.
If London had brought lower ranked teams over the detractors would simply say they are playing teams they know they can win simply to get ranked for regionals.
Some people have said that London have been more competitive than they would have been if they played their games in the states becuase the teams weren't able to bring over a full Roster and suffered from jet lag.
No easy answer to this one. Its never going to be possible for London to travel to the states several times a year to play, they have jobs and families and don't have unlimited funds. They came over last year and were stranded becuase of the volcanic Ash cloud for longer than intended.
Unless Roller Derby turns fully professional and somebody puts up the money for the players to travel and be paid to spend weeks away from home(And that is all other arguement) situations like this will occur.
So anyway to sum up. Big respect to London for leading the way and being prepared to take on the big teams and take the flack. By showing what a U.K team is capable of the standard of Derby at this side of the pond will improve and that can only be good for our sport in the long term
thanks........ for the luv Skid & Rev!
... for the luv Skid & Rev! Right back at ya!
I truly believe there isn't a completely right answer as to the #10 slot. London got it this time and that's OK with me. As the underdog in the tourney - I'll be cheering for them........if I'm not volunteering during all their bouts ;)
London - come get your photo with me dressed as the Maryland CRAB! It will be all touristy! :)
luv,
~dr. SKabs
#89 DC Rollergirls (retired)
London did beat Providence
London did beat Providence and Connecticut last year when they were a WFTDA apprentice league. And by greater margins than DC beat those same teams. Suburbia lost to Connecticut last year. Sure, you can say those are unofficial bouts that shouldn't count towards rankings, but everyone who votes still knows the score regardless.
London's record unofficially:
http://www.flattrackstats.com/teams/3628/bouts
Connecticut's record unofficially:
http://www.flattrackstats.com/teams/3432
London beat Connecticut by 129 points, where DC beat them by 53. Suburbia lost by 48. London also beat Providence by 97 points , where DC beat them by only 18 points. Now if you're a voting member of WFTDA who's task is to pick the best teams for regionals, would you chose DC or Suburbia over London?
The real question is, did London learn enough losing to top ranked teams to beat Carolina in regionals? According to FTS, that answer is no.
London vs. Carolina Prediction:
http://www.flattrackstats.com/bouts/5028
FTS
This is perhaps true, but looking at every result for London so far on FTS, they have conceded (ignoring Montreal) roughly half the number of points the algorithm suggests, due to their too-low initial ranking.
If *that* trend stays the same against Carolina, adjusting the FTS prediction accordingly would predict a tie game against Carolina. So we shall see. ;-)
last year, really?
Hey “The Cheet” by comparing last year’s scores as validation for London making #10 is just poor. As we all know teams change year to year—depending on training, skaters leaving, gaining transfers, team building/team flow. I just don’t accept that as a reason why you disregard DC, Suburbia and Providence on that basis alone and let London slide. If that was why those three teams were voted out of #10 –than that is even more messed. Plain and simple London lost the three bouts they played. DC, Suburbia and Providence did not lose all of their bouts this season---that is why the system is messed. Maybe DC, Suburbia, Providence and any other team on the cusp should relocate to Iceland to secure a spot in next year’s regionals.
Teams change year to year?
"As we all know teams change year to year—depending on training, skaters leaving, gaining transfers, team building/team flow."
How do we know that? Very few teams post their roster and stats. Who's to say that London hasn't built a stronger team than last year? Same is true for all of the rest. Until teams step up and start posting updated roster and statistics, all we have to work with is the information currently available. For now the best we can do is accept the current voting method. I think the voters do a pretty good job using the available tools like FTS, and bout footage to determine who is deserving of regional qualification.
and that voting method does
and that voting method does not involve looking at unsanctioned games.
London
As of last Friday's game, I'm not announcing for the LRG, and not affiliated with them, so feel I can now comment on this. I have seen LRG grow over the last four years, and every single time they achieve a goal, it seems that there is an overwhelming reaction of suprise from portions of the worldwide derby community and excuses made for their opponents, going all the way back to their game against Team Canada 3-odd years ago. After wins against Glasgow and Birmingham, Canada were soundly beaten by London and it was very much blamed on travel schedules, and lack of practice time for the all-star team. Not by the Canadians themselves I must add, but elsewhere.
Now the same arguments are still being used as ways to diminish London's achievements. I would like to point out that London did not blame travel schedules when they lost their first game in Philidelphia last year, and took it as a learning experience. London's win against Providence came not only after travelling from Connecticut just hours before, on top of their other travels, but also with the news that they could not go home and see their families, friends and back to their jobs the next day as planned due to the volcanic ash fiasco. They could've easily been distracted from the game then made the excuse, but didn't. They went out and put on what is probably my favourite LRG performance of all time.
I hope that London's reception at regionals and their achievement in making it isn't marred by a small few who choose to hold a grudge and are unwelcoming to London. We have always done our utmost to try and ensure visiting teams have felt welcome here, and when we hit Philly last year and I had to ask security to speak to a spectator calling London skaters the C-word it was a bit of a culture shock. I'm sure that extremity won't happen at regionals, but I would like to hope that this community will rise above petty arguments over rankings to make the LRG feel welcome.
I'm not claiming for a second that the LRG are perfect and deserve everything handed to them on a plate, but I know these girls, and win, lose or draw against Carolina or any other team in the tournament, they will not make any excuses about travel schedules or anything else. I guess all I'm trying to say is that if you want to make these excuses now about why London got into regionals, then I hope you're prepared to use them in their defense if they don't perform in the tournament, instead of saying "told you so!", because when London do perform, thats a phrase they sure as hell won't use.
Grudge? What Grudge?
I hope that London's reception at regionals and their achievement in making it isn't marred by a small few who choose to hold a grudge and are unwelcoming to London.
Whoa!
This isn't about being mean to London. There is no grudge.
The debate is largely about a team, ANY team, advancing to tournament play with no sanctioned wins this season of a team that has won bouts, and the issues surrounding the various ranking systems that are used in modern Roller Derby.
Suggesting people who engaged in this debate are "holding a grudge" is not fair.
I also take exception to this debate being called petty. It's not petty. It's interesting. It's fiery. It shows that this is something that fans of this sport care about.
Agreed
Yeah...I'm not really sure why I ever got into this conversation -- hell, I'm a Rocky Mountain fan...I should be looking for discussions about how wrong it is that 3 of the top 10 teams in the country won't get to come to Denver! ;-) -- but as someone who's been arguing in favor of London being selected, I have to say that I don't think anyone arguing against them being included has come across as specifically anti-London. They've stated their reasons for thinking another team should have been included, but I haven't seen anyone knocking the team (and certainly not the skaters themselves).
It's definitely an interesting discussion.
Now c'mon London. Beat up on the rest of the East, take 3rd, and come play in Denver in November!
Petty
I also take exception to this debate being called petty. It's not petty. It's interesting. It's fiery. It shows that this is something that fans of this sport care about.
Yeah, I definitely don't think DC and Suburbia think this discussion is petty.
really?
Have you asked?
Not aimed at anyone here.
This comment wasn't aimed to anyone here. I think there are a lot of valid points, and I don't disagree that the system is flawed.
I don't think anyone here is holding a grudge- but there may be some that will. Not everyone is happy to take part in reasonable debate about how to make things better via the internet then go along to the event with no hard feelings. Some will not take part in making things better, but just go along and boo.
It has, however, been a frustrating part of being involved in the LRG over the last few years to see every major achievement of theirs having a caveat attatched and it would be nice to see some simple well dones at some point, instead of everything the league does leading to discussion.
I have not had a close relationship with anyone within the league for a few years now, so remember I am not speaking on behalf of the LRG or voicing any other opinion than my own here, yet if I was busting a gut skating my arse off to keep the points differential down against Rocky Mountain and the wider community at the end of it didn't say "well done, you did well", but "ahh they were skating without a full roster and were jetlagged etc etc etc" I would be pretty peeved.
P.s. Yes, the word petty was wrong. I like fiery. I guess that's what I'm being too.
do not despair london
Despite the "debate" online, London should take comfort that a majority of the leagues in their region recognized the team's achievement and voted accordingly.
That's the most important point right there.
The WFTDA member leagues of the Eastern Region were impressed enough that they decided London should be at Regionals. Don't be mad at London because enough people voted them high enough to make it.
tl;dr
Just wanted to point out that Rocky has a pretty good home advantage too with the altitude. And that Detroit played them after playing Denver. You could go all day picking teams and home game advantages and saying this and that and why triangulation doesn't work.
What needs to be changed is a popularity contest based ranking system, that we can all agree on I'm sure.
altitude overrated?
People often speculate about the elevation being an advantage, but I never hear this from the skaters themselves. Having watched quite a few out-of-town leagues play both Rocky & Denver for the last 5 years, I don't think the advantage is as much as you'd think it'd be. Skaters at that level tend to be pretty fit and are able to compete very well, at least for the duration of one bout. At the after-parties, though, maybe it's a different story. :)
altitude
maybe
but man I get TIRED walking in the hills... :)
I likes my oxygen.
Popularity? Or is it just people who know voting it in?
What needs to be changed is a popularity contest based ranking system, that we can all agree on I'm sure.
Sorry to be the jerk that can't agree, but as an early advocate for the voting system of ranking, I can tell you the reason why I thought it was a great idea is because at the time there weren't enough games to even really accurately triangulate where people belonged with any accuracy. And there certainly weren't any of the algorhythm-based or even knowledge-based rankings published in the world like there are now - all you really had was the knowledge of reps following each others' games. As the number of leagues grew, and grew more competitive from playing more games against each other, the system proved fairly accurate, mainly (IMO) because the people voting CARE about the accuracy - somehow "care" feels like such an insufficient word here. I mean, popularity might seem like it matters on a fan board where people debate from positions of prejudice in favor of "their" team. But when the voting happens, even if reps by design or team-love or just ignorance inflate their own rank in their vote, they're unlikely to do it with any other teams because they want it to be right. My former team spent hours and hours working out our vote until everyone agreed they could live with it, debating info we knew about players and more (again, before there were such reliable stats to use). I can't imagine any scenario where a rep would rank a sister league higher than the truly believed they deserved because they were friends. Plus if you think of an artificially high rank as being a potential for more blowouts, they wouldn't be doing anyone favors if they did.
And, in the end, the ranks have been remarkably accurate. I love that DNN compares the WFTDA ranks regularly. It shows that the system works more often than it doesn't. Honestly, without a playoff system that schedules games leading up to each other (which seems financially impossible for amateur leagues at present), I still think voting is the best method. And its really how DNN does their ranks, as well, only they have a few very knowledgeable people voting instead of a large number of reps for each league doing it. Which is not to devalue any of the math methods - I find those fascinating and they're often really close, too. But until the seasons are engineered, there seems like almost too many factors to consider. A human - or a bunch of humans who really give a shit, can use facts, opinion and gut-feelings to work that out with remarkable accuracy right now - and they do.
ding ding ding
college football survived on a poll based ranking system for a hundred years.
Bracket Start Times
Anyone know why the SC Region bracket has Game #1 starting at noon and Game# 2 starting at 10:00am. Seems a little wacky to me and I'm needing to make sure travel arrangements meet start times etc.
I don't know why they do it
I don't know why they do it that way, but the SC region played game 2 before game one last year..
It's to maximize attendance.
2010 was the first year that hosting leagues could swap the first day's games to put the host leagues in the prime time slot Friday night. Sometimes that requires the early games to move around too.
They didn't just switch the
They didn't just switch the first days games. Semifinals in 2 regions are being played 6 hours apart. Makes NO sense.
Don't look at the other
Don't look at the other brackets if that bothers you.
Travel arrangements?
Hopefully the teams aren't planning on arriving in town Friday morning.
Traveling as a Team
@John I know that Green Country (league affiliate) is arriving Thursday evening as we travel as a team in our league Bus of which I am the driver. I just found it odd that Game #2 is listed as playing before Game#1 which is our first game. I am just wanting to be 100% sure that our bout is at noon as not to arrive at 10:00 am and be told "Oh your bout starts in 5 minutes it was a misprint". I'm sure there is a valid reason, and I have asked for a clarification or should I say "publication"
.
Wranglers
Sounds like an excellent topic to bring up with your tournament contact, a.k.a. your league wrangler. That person might not be named yet, but once they do they'll probably reach out to a primary contact and then you can clarify the timetable.
In other words, the tournament should make sure you're in the loop before you arrive in Kansas City.
Definitely.
As the contact for a team playing in the NC Regionals (i.e. the last ones this year), I can say that we've had a wrangler available to us for over a month. I certainly hope that Green Country has theirs. Check with your interleague coordinator or team captain.
Also, if at all possible, I would recommend getting to town sooner rather than later. Teams, merch folks, announcers, refs, etc. can register the evening before the tourney starts and not have to worry about rushing in the morning.
NH born and raised.
Justice, I know you aren't hating, but, um, New Hampshire is F***ING fantastic, and it's where the stars of derby are being born.
TEAM 603! <3
PS Can we all just stfu about London and enjoy this sure-to-be-amazeballs tourney?!?!?
I meant to do that as a reply
I meant to do that as a reply and it didn't work.
get it in early
DET
WC
NAPTOWN