|
Post by Gorf on Oct 9, 2006 21:33:32 GMT -5
here is a message to all you top 25 poll members. How about taking the time to do your job right or get a replacement? This is more of a poll of punishment than it is for reward. Stop voting by familiarity of school name a past success and more on RPI and recent top 25 upsets! Minnesota takes a game off #2 Penn state and is two points from going 5 games and possibly beating Penn State, then beats #14 Ohio State (Who just beat Wisconsin) at their place and the Gophers move up one spot?!! What will happen when Minnesota beats #9 Purdue this Saturday? Move them up to #22? Minnesota has an RPI of 6 and has taken games off of #1 and #2 in the country. Do your research coaches, this poll is important for recruiting and marketing of our sport! the Gophers gained more points than any other team in the poll this week. The actual 1-25+ rankings are much less indicative of what the various voters think of teams than the points / votes received by each team. Look at New Mexico State for example. They lost ~44 points this week yet they move up to #25 in the poll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2006 22:37:55 GMT -5
While this is true, it is also true that there was no way the Gophers were going to move higher than #23. The fact they were within 8 pts of San Diego is, in itself, a small miracle.
Fact is, every year the AVCA voters paint themselves into a corner and every year they don't do anything about it.
You would think, at some point, they'd throw everything out and recalibrate. But it never happens. It's the nature of the poll that moves are made glacially.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 9, 2006 22:39:33 GMT -5
While this is true, it is also true that there was no way the Gophers were going to move higher than #23. The fact they were within 8 pts of San Diego is, in itself, a small miracle. Fact is, every year the AVCA voters paint themselves into a corner and every year they don't do anything about it. You would think, at some point, they'd throw everything out and recalibrate. But it never happens. It's the nature of the poll that moves are made glacially. Will the moderator please move this post to the "crybaby thread". Every year it's the same BS with you (R)uff.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Wednesday on Oct 10, 2006 2:44:39 GMT -5
Isn't part of the silver lining that (I believe) the selection committee uses RPI as one of the main selection criteria? I have never seen any indication that the volleyball committee uses RPI for anything, despite it being listed as a primary consideration. Basically, if it supports their decision, they will say it is part of the process. When their decisions are inconsistent with RPI, they say it is only one consideration, and not the only one. The significance of RPI is generally overstated in volleyball, as far as we can tell. FWIW, per the championship handbook for women's volleyball... (presuming that the selection criteria are not common knowledge to others) End useful information. Completely uninformed speculation follows... I would not be surprised if they've set up some sort of private ranking system that combines H2H, COP, and RPI, with win/loss bonuses; a formula using similar factors is used for men's ice hockey. If that's the case, RPI would be a strong influence but could be overridden by exceptional head-to-head or common opponent results. I probably shouldn't speculate, though... I would imagine that p-dub has followed this stuff closely enough to have a reasonably good idea of what selection committees do and don't do.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 10, 2006 3:15:12 GMT -5
The committee only ranks the top 16 teams though, with all other teams placed in brackets heavily weighted by travel limitations.
They also "fudge" teams in the top 16 in order to make the seedings fit their brackets and travel restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 10, 2006 8:29:21 GMT -5
[I would not be surprised if they've set up some sort of private ranking system that combines H2H, COP, and RPI, with win/loss bonuses; a formula using similar factors is used for men's ice hockey. If that's the case, RPI would be a strong influence but could be overridden by exceptional head-to-head or common opponent results. Just find ONE example of a decision by the committee where it looks like they based it upon the RPI moreso than other factors. There aren't any. Not in the selections, not in the seeding. Yes, there is a lot of correlation between them, but that is to be expected. However, the committee routinely picks teams with low (>70) RPI that has other things to their records, and omits teams with high RPI (<30) that don't have the other things to their credit. Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples of where the committee has relied on "significant wins." Head-to-head and common opponents are probably implicit in the system, but are more evident in seeding (and there are times when they don't rely on head-to-head results in selections, but there are times where they have). You can't say the same thing for RPI. They've never made a decision where you can say, well, it was based on the RPI. In fact, the only time RPI is ever evident is when they've ignored it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Wednesday on Oct 10, 2006 9:11:07 GMT -5
I did say it was completely uninformed speculation.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 10, 2006 9:30:09 GMT -5
No worries. But this is the thing. I know very well what the NCAA championships manual says. So do the coaches. That's why they worry about RPI.
However, they, like most people, don't ever ask the question, what does the committee ACTUALLY do?
I have to be fair, here, though. There was in fact one instance a couple of years ago in which the seeding seemed to be the result of a good RPI. However, it was when Notre Dame got a top 16 seed, so we don't know if it was actually RPI based, or if it was a convenient location, or just the usual overrating of Notre Dame.
But in all the years I have been watching it, this is the only example I can come up with that MIGHT be an RPI based decision.
As I said, the significance of RPI is generally overstated.
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Oct 10, 2006 12:48:56 GMT -5
OK, OK, Ruffda. But the general MN-finally-getting-more-points trend suggests that AVCA is finally waking up and smelling the underratings so, after MN beats Purdue this weekend, they will, in fact, leapfrog a few teams, even if those teams don't lose. Top 16? No. Top 20? Probably.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2006 13:02:18 GMT -5
No. They won't leapfrog anyone unless someone loses. They certainly won't leapfrog Purdue.
OK. Maybe San Diego, but don't bet on it. Ohio? I dunno. It doesn't usually happen.
Honest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2006 13:04:26 GMT -5
I would like to go on record that I don't care that much about the Gophers ranking. I did. But it's pointless now.
I do care that the AVCA could be a better poll, but not because of the Gophers ranking.
Believe me or don't believe me. Call me a crybaby. I don't care about that either.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Wednesday on Oct 10, 2006 20:43:01 GMT -5
The sport where I follow tournament selection closely is hockey. There, the selection committee doesn't really have any responsibility for selecting the field (there's an objective system in place for handling that, although they've inserted a secret bonus system so they can try to keep us in suspense). All they do is seed the field, and even that seems to have become relatively formulaic.
I don't know who the volleyball committee members are; in hockey, they're ADs who serve rotating terms. If the v-ball coaches don't know what the committee is doing, they should ask their nearest member or ex-member, which is probably an AD in their own conference.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Oct 10, 2006 22:24:07 GMT -5
Inn at St Mary's- what a wonderful place to stay- complete complimentary breakfast and friendly staff. Have you been there, Mr. Wednesday?
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Oct 10, 2006 23:10:50 GMT -5
I didn't say Minnesota would leapfrog Purdue -- I'm using your term for the three teams above Minnesota that you don't think they can leapfrog without losses. I think they can and will leapfrog at least two, maybe three of them after a Purdue win. But I don't suppose Purdue gets penalized with more than a few spots down, even if they lose both matches.
As to not caring about the poll? Please. You posted about it within 45 minutes of the new poll coming out. You dislike, but you care. And I sympathize...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2006 7:38:49 GMT -5
I don't care about the Gophers ranking is what I said. Not anymore. It's pointless.
I do care about the poll. What I _really_ care about is 5 Pac10 teams ranked in the top 7. It's an insult.
|
|