DOCSLIB.ORG

SYST 490: Fall 2015 Proposal Final Report December 9, 2015 DESIGN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SYST 490: Fall 2015 Proposal Final Report December 9, 2015 DESIGN SYST 490: Fall 2015 Proposal Final Report December 9, 2015 DESIGN OF AN EXPERT SYSTEM COACH FOR COMPLEX TEAM SPORTS Group Leader: Brice Colcombe Group Members: Lindsay Horton Muhammad Ommer Julia Teng Sponsored By: Dr. Lance Sherry Department of Systems Engineering and Operations Research George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 Contents 1.0 Context Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Soccer’s Netcentricity ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Soccer Analytics History ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Role of the Coach ................................................................................................................................ 5 1.4.1 How Coaching is done .................................................................................................................. 6 1.4.2 Strategies ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Tournament and Coaching Background .............................................................................................. 8 1.5.1 Atlantic 10 Conference ................................................................................................................ 8 1.5.2 NCAA Tournament ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.5.3 Rating Percentage Index (RPI) ...................................................................................................... 8 1.5.4 Historical Atlantic 10 Data ........................................................................................................... 9 1.5.5 What a Win is Worth .................................................................................................................... 9 2.0 Gap Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.0 Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 12 3.1 Stakeholder Analysis Table ............................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Primary Stakeholders ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.2 Secondary Stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Stakeholder Interactions Diagram .................................................................................................... 14 3.3 Stakeholder Interactions Table ......................................................................................................... 15 4.0 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................... 16 5.0 Need Statement .................................................................................................................................... 16 6.0 Concept of Operation ........................................................................................................................... 16 7.0 Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 17 7.1 Mission Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 17 7.2 Functional Requirements .................................................................................................................. 18 7.3 Input Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 18 7.4 Output Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 19 8. 0 Simulation Design................................................................................................................................. 19 8.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................................... 19 1 8. 2 Simulation Requirements ................................................................................................................. 20 8.3 Probability Maps ............................................................................................................................... 20 8.4 Ball Movement .................................................................................................................................. 21 8.5 Output ............................................................................................................................................... 22 8.6 Field Functions .................................................................................................................................. 22 8.7 Coaching Rules .................................................................................................................................. 23 8.7 Interface ............................................................................................................................................ 25 9.0 Design of Experiment ............................................................................................................................ 26 10.0 Validation for Concept of Operations ................................................................................................. 28 11.0 Preliminary Results ............................................................................................................................. 29 12.0 Systems Risks ..................................................................................................................................... 30 13.0 Project Management ........................................................................................................................... 31 13.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) ................................................................................................. 32 13.2 Project Timeline & Critical Path ...................................................................................................... 33 13.3 Risk Mitigation ................................................................................................................................ 37 13.4 Project Budget & Performance Indices ........................................................................................... 37 13.5 Next Step Forward .......................................................................................................................... 40 14.0 Statement of Work.............................................................................................................................. 40 14.1 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................. 40 14.2 Period of Performance .................................................................................................................... 40 14.3 Place of Performance ...................................................................................................................... 41 14.4 Work Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 41 14.5 Schedule/Milestones ...................................................................................................................... 42 14. 6 Acceptance Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 42 15.0 References .......................................................................................................................................... 44 2 1.0 Context Analysis 1.1 Introduction Soccer is widely argued as the world’s most popular sport. This is a game played with two opposing teams. Each team consists of ten field players and one goalie. Figure 1 depicts the standard dimensions of the field used to play soccer matches. Field dimensions have a great deal of variability depending on the level being played (high school, college, professional, etc.). Since we are focusing on the collegiate level, we provided an appropriate diagram, according to NCAA standards [3]. The game relies on a specific set of rules that are regulated by the governing bodies of the sport; the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) at collegiate levels. The objective of the game is to score more goals than the opposing teams. This is the primary offensive tactic is for the team’s players to connect a series of passes in order to penetrate the opposing team's defenses and score on a goal. If the team does not have ball possession, then the strategy is switched to defensive as the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sports Analytics from a to Z
    i Table of Contents About Victor Holman .................................................................................................................................... 1 About This Book ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction to Analytic Methods................................................................................................................. 3 Sports Analytics Maturity Model .................................................................................................................. 4 Sports Analytics Maturity Model Phases .................................................................................................. 4 Sports Analytics Key Success Areas ........................................................................................................... 5 Allocative and Dynamic Efficiency ................................................................................................................ 7 Optimal Strategy in Basketball .................................................................................................................. 7 Backwards Selection Regression ................................................................................................................... 9 Competition between Sports Hurts TV Ratings: How to Shift League Calendars to Optimize Viewership .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 58 No. 7 Florence, Alabama 35632 September 2006
    VOL. 58 NO. 7 FLORENCE, ALABAMA 35632 SEPTEMBER 2006 VOL. 58 NO. 6 FLORENCE, ALABAMA 35632 SEPTEMBER 2006 Behind CoSIDA > In This Issue . • Schaffhauser ................IF Passing the Gavel - Dull Becomes CoSIDA President .............3 • Marriott .......................21 Nashville Workshop Photo Scrapbook ..................................4-9 CoSIDA Hall of Fame Finds Permament Home ................10-11 • ICS................................26 2006 CoSIDA Award Winners .............................................12-15 • Multi-Ad .......................37 Academic All-America Hall of Fame ..................................16-17 CoSIDA to Celebrate 50th Anniversary in San Diego ..........18 • Sports Illustrated ........42 LifeLock Becomes CoSIDA Sponsor .......................................19 • NBA/WNBA ..................55 CoSIDA Adds Three New Board Members ........................20-21 Workshop Sponsors and Exhibitors ..................................22-25 • ESPN ............ Back Cover Crisis Public Relations ............................................................27 Using YouTube ..........................................................................28 NCCSIA Holds Fifth Annual meeting .....................................29 Update from NCAA Statistics Service ...............................30-33 Five Questions With Maureen Nasser ...............................34-35 CoSIDA Board Contact Information ......................................36 SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO: A Wake Up Call ........................................................................38
    [Show full text]
  • Inteligência Computacional Aplicada Ao Futebol Americano
    INTELIGENCIA^ COMPUTACIONAL APLICADA AO FUTEBOL AMERICANO Diego da Silva Rodrigues Tese de Doutorado apresentada ao Programa de P´os-gradua¸c~ao em Engenharia El´etrica, COPPE, da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, como parte dos requisitos necess´arios `aobten¸c~aodo t´ıtulode Doutor em Engenharia El´etrica. Orientador: Jos´eManoel de Seixas Rio de Janeiro Mar¸code 2018 INTELIGENCIA^ COMPUTACIONAL APLICADA AO FUTEBOL AMERICANO Diego da Silva Rodrigues TESE SUBMETIDA AO CORPO DOCENTE DO INSTITUTO ALBERTO LUIZ COIMBRA DE POS-GRADUAC¸´ AO~ E PESQUISA DE ENGENHARIA (COPPE) DA UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO COMO PARTE DOS REQUISITOS NECESSARIOS´ PARA A OBTENC¸ AO~ DO GRAU DE DOUTOR EM CIENCIAS^ EM ENGENHARIA ELETRICA.´ Examinada por: Prof. Jos´eManoel de Seixas, D.Sc. Prof. Alexandre Gon¸calves Evsukoff, D.Sc. Prof. Aline Gesualdi Manh~aes,D.Sc. Prof. Guilherme de Alencar Barreto, Ph.D Prof. Sergio Lima Netto, D.Sc. RIO DE JANEIRO, RJ { BRASIL MARC¸O DE 2018 Rodrigues, Diego da Silva Intelig^encia Computacional Aplicada ao Futebol Americano/Diego da Silva Rodrigues. { Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/COPPE, 2018. XIV, 70 p.: il.; 29; 7cm. Orientador: Jos´eManoel de Seixas Tese (doutorado) { UFRJ/COPPE/Programa de Engenharia El´etrica, 2018. Refer^enciasBibliogr´aficas:p. 56 { 63. 1. Futebol Americano. 2. Modelos de Ranqueamento. 3. Ranqueamento Bayesiano. 4. Sport Science. 5. Redes Neurais. I. Seixas, Jos´e Manoel de. II. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, COPPE, Programa de Engenharia El´etrica.III. T´ıtulo. iii Este trabalho ´ededicado a todos os atletas do pa´ıs. iv Agradecimentos Agrade¸co`aminha familia, por ter oferecido as condi¸c~oesnecess´ariaspara que, ao contr´arioda gigantesca maioria de brasileiros, eu tivesse acesso `aeduca¸c~aoda me- lhor qualidade poss´ıvel neste pa´ıs.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain West Conference Strategic Scheduling
    Proceedings of the Annual General Donald R. Keith Memorial Conference West Point, New York, USA May 2, 2019 A Regional Conference of the Society for Industrial and Systems Engineering Mountain West Conference Strategic Scheduling Daniel Jones, Matthew Hargreaves, Noah White, and Jacob Fresella Operations Research Program United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO Corresponding author: [email protected] Author Note: Daniel Jones, Matthew Hargreaves, Noah White, and Jacob Fresella are first class (senior) cadets at the United States Air Force Academy collectively working on this project as part of a year-long Operations Research Capstone course. The student authors would like to extend thanks to the advisors involved with this project as well as the client organization, the Mountain West Conference. Abstract: The Mountain West Conference is a Division I-A National Collegiate Athletic Association athletic conference. The MWC uses a tier system based on the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) to stratify their teams in the sports of basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, and soccer. They use this system in an attempt to maximize teams’ ability to win and obtain high RPIs to ultimately make post-season tournaments. Our mission is to analyze this strategy’s current performance, provide improvements and recommendations, and use forecasting to help coaches schedule in accordance with MWC strategy. We analyze the impact of individual games on a team’s Ratings Percentage Index ranking, and use this information in conjunction with predicted Ratings Percentage Index rankings in order to provide a tool for coaches to use. 1. Introduction Our client, the Mountain West Conference (MWC), was conceived on May 26, 1998, when the presidents of eight institutions decided to form a new National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division One (D1) intercollegiate athletic conference.
    [Show full text]
  • The Numbers Game
    The Numbers Game A Qualitative Study on Big Data Analytics and Performance Metrics in Sports. 11107766 Kyra Teklu Faculty of Humanities MA New Media and Digital Cultures Thesis Supervisor: Dr. N.A.J.M. van Doorn 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 3 Chapter 2. The Influence of Statistics 7 2.1 The Role of Quantification 7 2.2. The Role of Statistics and Metrics 10 2.3. Data and The Databases 16 Chapter 3. The Commercialisation of Sports 25 3.1. The Early Years 25 3.2. Media Rights and Sponsorship 29 3.3. Big Data shapes the Sport Industry 38 Chapter 4. Methodology 43 Chapter 5. Findings 54 5.1. The Tools 54 5.2. Player Recruitment 61 5.3 Rise in More Interesting Data 67 5.4. Unpredictability of Data 72 5.4. Economic Value 74 Chapter 6. Conclusion 78 References. 81 Chapter 7. Appendices 93 Appendix A-Examples of Metrics 93 Appendix B-Description of Participants 94 Appendix C-Participant Demographic Table 96 Appendix D-Transcripts 97 3 Chapter 1. Introduction A New Science of Winning The image you see on the first page of this thesis is a visualization of passes. This web depicts the England football teams passes during the first half of a game.1 The blue arrows indicate successful passes and their direction. Red indicates the failed attempts. Such examples of statistical visualizations focusing on performance are not uncommon nowadays, due to the advanced nature of data analytics and performance metrics within the professional sports industry. This is perhaps best indicated by the fact, today, 19 of the 20 Premier League2 3 teams use Prozone (Medeiros 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Pagerank Algorithm to Division I NCAA Men's Basketball As Bracket Formation and Outcome Predictive Utility
    Journal of Sports Analytics 7 (2021) 1–9 1 DOI 10.3233/JSA-200425 IOS Press Application of PageRank Algorithm to Division I NCAA men’s basketball as bracket formation and outcome predictive utility Nicole R. Matthewsa, Andrew McClaina, Chase M.L. Smithb and Adam G. Tennantc,∗ aBusiness and Engineering Center, University of Southern Indiana, University Boulevard, Evansville, IN, USA bAssistant Professor of Sport Management, Health Professions Center, University of Southern Indiana, University Boulevard, Evansville, IN, USA cAssistant Professor Engineering, Business and Engineering Center, University of Southern Indiana, University Boulevard, Evansville, IN, USA Abstract. This article examines the use of the PageRank algorithm to rank the teams and predict team performance in the tournament. This method has the potential to be utilized as an alternative method to choose tournament participants, as opposed to the traditional ranking and seeding process currently employed by the NCAA. PageRank allows for the consideration of all games played during the regular season (average of 5832 games per season) and for customizable performance weights in the prediction. The PageRank algorithm is a viable tool in predicting tournament outcomes due to depth and extensiveness of the data. The PageRank analysis helped to predict over half of the tournament game outcomes correctly in 2014-2018 and produced an average bracket score of 81.8 points out of 192 possible over the same 5 years. Keywords: Basketball, pagerank, ranking, NCAA 1. Introduction to watch every game every team plays within the NCAA D1 (National Collegiate Athletic Association, Each year, thousands of people fill out a bracket Division-1) season.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Several Modeling Methods on Ncaa March Madness
    COMPARING SEVERAL MODELING METHODS ON NCAA MARCH MADNESS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By Su Hua In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Department: Statistics July 2015 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title Comparing Several Modeling Methods on NCAA March Madness By Su Hua The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Dr. Rhonda Magel Co-Chair Dr. Gang Shen Co-Chair Dr. Seung Won Hyun Dr. Kenneth Magel Approved: 7/10/2015 Rhonda Magel Date Department Chair ABSTRACT This year (2015), according to the AGA’s (American Gaming Association) research, nearly about 40 million people filled out about 70 million March Madness brackets (Moyer, 2015). Their objective is to correctly predict the winners of each game. This paper used the probability self- consistent (PSC) model (Shen, Hua, Zhang, Mu, Magel, 2015) to make the prediction of all 63 games in the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. PSC model was first introduced by Zhang (2012). The Logit link was used in Zhang’s (2012) paper to connect only five covariates with the conditional probability of a team winning a game given its rival team. In this work, we incorporated fourteen covariates into the model. In addition to this, we used another link function, Cauchit link, in the model to make the predictions. Empirical results show that the PSC model with Cauchit link has better average performance in both simple and doubling scoring than Logit link during the last three years of tournament play.
    [Show full text]
  • NCAA Tournament Games: the Real Nitty-Gritty
    University of North Florida UNF Digital Commons Management Faculty Publications Department of Management 7-2009 NCAA Tournament Games: The Real Nitty-Gritty B. Jay Coleman University of North Florida, [email protected] Allen K. Lynch Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/bmgt_facpub Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, and the Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons Recommended Citation Coleman, B. Jay and Lynch, Allen K., "NCAA Tournament Games: The Real Nitty-Gritty" (2009). Management Faculty Publications. 5. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/bmgt_facpub/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Management at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Management Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Digital Projects. © 7-2009 All Rights Reserved Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports Volume 5, Issue 3 2009 Article 8 NCAA Tournament Games: The Real Nitty- Gritty Jay Coleman, University of North Florida Allen K. Lynch, Mercer University Recommended Citation: Coleman, Jay and Lynch, Allen K. (2009) "NCAA Tournament Games: The Real Nitty-Gritty," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports: Vol. 5: Iss. 3, Article 8. DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1165 ©2009 American Statistical Association. All rights reserved. NCAA Tournament Games: The Real Nitty- Gritty Jay Coleman and Allen K. Lynch Abstract The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee annually selects its national championship tournament's at-large invitees, and assigns seeds to all participants. As part of its deliberations, the Committee is provided a so-called "nitty-gritty report" for each team, containing numerous team performance statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • A Mixture-Of-Modelers Approach to Forecasting NCAA Tournament Outcomes
    J. Quant. Anal. Sports 2015; 11(1): 13–27 Lo-Hua Yuan, Anthony Liu, Alec Yeh, Aaron Kaufman, Andrew Reece, Peter Bull, Alex Franks, Sherrie Wang, Dmitri Illushin and Luke Bornn* A mixture-of-modelers approach to forecasting NCAA tournament outcomes Abstract: Predicting the outcome of a single sporting event billion to anyone who could correctly predict all 63 games. is difficult; predicting all of the outcomes for an entire Modeling wins and losses encompasses a number of sta- tournament is a monumental challenge. Despite the dif- tistical problems: very little detailed historical champion- ficulties, millions of people compete each year to forecast ship data on which to train models, a strong propensity the outcome of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, to overfit models on post-tournament historical data, and which spans 63 games over 3 weeks. Statistical predic- a large systematic error component of predictions arising tion of game outcomes involves a multitude of possible from highly variable team performance based on poten- covariates and information sources, large performance tially unobservable factors. variations from game to game, and a scarcity of detailed In this paper, we present a meta-analysis of statistical historical data. In this paper, we present the results of a models developed by data scientists at Harvard University team of modelers working together to forecast the 2014 for the 2014 tournament. Motivated by a recent Kaggle NCAA men’s basketball tournament. We present not only competition, we developed models to provide forecasts of the methods and data used, but also several novel ideas for the 2014 tournament that minimize log loss between the post-processing statistical forecasts and decontaminating predicted win probabilities and realized outcomes: data sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Ncaa Division I Men's Soccer Annual Report
    NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S SOCCER ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 2020 The NCAA Division I Men’s Soccer Committee is providing this information to outline key actions taken by the committee during the past year. In addition, if you have any questions regarding this information, please contact a member of the committee or Ryan Tressel, NCAA director of championships and alliances (phone: 317-917-6316; email: [email protected]). 1. 2019-20 Committee Members. 3. Championships/Sports Management Cabinet Actions. Jeff Bacon, chair Midwest Region • Approved the following: That the following 24 Senior Associate Commissioner conferences receive automatic qualification for the Mid-American Conference 2019 NCAA Division I Men’s Soccer Championship: Term expires September 2020 America East Conference; American Athletic Conference; Atlantic 10 Conference; Atlantic Coast Simon Gray East Region Conference; Atlantic Sun Conference; Big East Director of Athletics Conference; Big South Conference; Big Ten Niagara University Conference; Big West Conference; Colonial Athletic Term expires September 2023 Association; Conference USA; Horizon League; The Ivy League; Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference; Mid- Kimya Massey West Region American Conference; Missouri Valley Conference; Senior Associate Athletic Director Northeast Conference; Pac-12 Conference; Patriot Oregon State University League; Southern Conference; The Summit League; Term expires September 2022 Sun Belt Conference; West Coast Conference and Western Athletic Conference. Mathes Mennell South/Southeast Region Head Soccer Coach • Approved moving the three secondary selection University of North Carolina-Asheville criteria to join the existing primary selection criteria so Stepped down from Committee January 2020 that all the criteria are primary. Michael Noonan East Region • Head Men’s Soccer Coach Soccer Committee recommended to conduct the Clemson University semifinals and final on separate weekends.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing an RPI Ranking System for Canadian University Baseball George S
    Baseball Research Journal Volume 48, Number 2 Fall 2019 Published by the Society for American Baseball Research BASEBALL RESEARCH JOURNAL, Volume 48, Number 2 Editor: Cecilia M. Tan Design and Production: Lisa Hochstein Cover Design: Lisa Hochstein Copyediting assistance: Keith DeCandido Proofreader: Norman L. Macht Fact Checker: Clifford Blau Front cover photo: Courtesy of Oakland Athletics/Michael Zagaris Published by: Society for American Baseball Research, Inc. Cronkite School at ASU 555 N. Central Ave. #416 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 496–1460 Web: www.sabr.org Twitter: @sabr Facebook: Society for American Baseball Research Copyright © 2019 by The Society for American Baseball Research, Inc. Printed in the United States of America Distributed by the University of Nebraska Press Paper: ISBN 978-1-943816-85-9 E-book: ISBN 978-1-943816-84-2 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited. Contents Note from the Editor Cecilia M. Tan 4 NEIGHBORS Community, Defection, and equipo Cuba Baseball Under Fidel Castro, 1959–93 Katie Krall 5 Baseball Archeology in Cuba A Trip to Güines Mark Rucker 10 Testing an RPI Ranking System for Canadian University Baseball George S. Rigakos & Mitchell Thompson 16 NUMBERS Time Between Pitches Cause of Long Games? David W. Smith 24 WAA vs. WAR: Which is the Better Measure for Overall Performance in MLB, Wins Above Average or Wins Above Replacement? Campbell Gibson, PhD 29 Left Out Handedness and the Hall of Fame Jon C. Nachtigal, PhD & John C. Barnes, PhD 36 Shifting
    [Show full text]
  • An Accurate Linear Model for Predicting the College Football Playoff Committee’S Selections John A
    An Accurate Linear Model for Predicting the College Football Playoff Committee’s Selections John A. Trono Saint Michael's College Colchester, VT Tech report: SMC-2020-CS-001 Abstract. A prediction model is described that utilizes quantities from the power rating system to generate an ordering for all teams hoping to qualify for the College Football Playoff (CFP). This linear model was trained, using the first four years of the CFP committee’s final, top four team selections (2014-2017). Using the weights that were determined when evaluating that training set, this linear model then matched the committee’s top four teams exactly in 2018, and almost did likewise in 2019, only reversing the ranks of the top two teams. When evaluating how well this linear model matched the committee’s selections over the past six years, prior to the release of the committee’s final ranking, this model correctly predicted 104 of the 124 teams that the committee placed into its top four over those 31 weekly rankings. (There were six such weeks in 2014, and five in each year thereafter.) The rankings of many other, computer-based systems are also evaluated here (against the committee’s final, top four teams from 2014-2019). 1. Introduction Before 1998, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) national champion in football was nominally determined by the people who cast votes in the major polls: the sportswriters’ poll (AP/Associated Press), and the coaches’ poll (originally UPI/United Press International, more recently administered by the USA Today). With teams from the major conference champions being committed to certain postseason bowl games prior to 1998, it wasn’t always possible for the best teams to be matched up against each other to provide further evidence for these voters.
    [Show full text]