|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 28, 2011 18:40:16 GMT -5
So after reading many posts about the RPI and what is is supposed to do and how it is supposed to or not supposed to be used, I guess in the end the original post should have been "The Selection Committee's use of the RPI is overrated" If the RPI is the RPI and not the best tool to determine teams, then the selection committee should realize that and mix other results into their selections process.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 28, 2011 18:52:28 GMT -5
They do make use of other factors. However, RPI is their main tool and they are specifically prohibited from using "coaches polls and/or other outside polls or rankings". I can't find the 2011 Championship Handbook online, but see pages 10 & 11 in the 2010 version at the following link: fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/volleyball/2010/10_1_w_volleyball.pdf
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Oct 28, 2011 20:25:29 GMT -5
The RPI selects the teams the way the NCAA wants them selected. The NCAA does consider the RPI the best tool to determine the teams. It does NOT select them the way many people in this discussion seem to want them selected, according to some sort of power poll like pablo. It does not happen that way because that is not the apparent criteria or purpose of the NCAA tournament. If you want to know the NCAA's purpose for the tournament selection, you need to interpret the kind of teams that are actually selected to the tournament: - They select automatic qualifiers from weaker conferences, teams that would not make it by any power rating, including RPI.
- RPI is apparently designed to prefer teams that are strong within their geographic region. It doesn't much care that one region is stronger than another.
What is the upshot of those criteria: an NCAA tournament that is more inclusive than a "power poll" tournament. A tournament that doesn't give unnecessary weight to people's preconceptions to the strength of a region. A tournament that actually has less political influence than what many people want to happen. A tournament that rewards teams that have a great season within their region. A tournament that rewards team's complete seasons and not just their last few weeks. I like RPI in general. The main way I would change tournament selection is when the committee gets to the last couple teams. At that point, the tournament is already fairly spread out nationally, so I would prefer that they use more tools to make those selections. Last year, I think they blew it on those.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 21:26:25 GMT -5
So after reading many posts about the RPI and what is is supposed to do and how it is supposed to or not supposed to be used, I guess in the end the original post should have been "The Selection Committee's use of the RPI is overrated" What does that mean, "overrated"? It's not like there is this overwhelming support for the NCAA's use of RPI in the volleyball community. In fact, plenty of high-profile folks are actively working with the NCAA to try to get them to STOP using RPI. Hard to call that "overrated"
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 21:50:15 GMT -5
The RPI selects the teams the way the NCAA wants them selected. The NCAA does consider the RPI the best tool to determine the teams. It does NOT select them the way many people in this discussion seem to want them selected, according to some sort of power poll like pablo. It does not happen that way because that is not the apparent criteria or purpose of the NCAA tournament. Are you suggesting that the NCAA does not aim to select the best 34 teams not among the automatic qualifiers? I would really like to see some justification for that claim, because it is a pretty serious accusation. I will say that volleyball RPI has a couple of built in biases. I think it can be shown to be regionally biased (I provided the first serious evidence for that a couple of years ago, and more has been done since). There is a second, less recognized but more obviously true bias, and that is against bottom half teams of the best conferences. By its design, RPI severely punishes teams in the bottom half of conferences, with poor conference records. So if you look at teams that Pablo thinks should have made the tournament that didn't, you find a lot of teams from the bottom of the Big 12 or Big Ten (not so many from the bottom of the Pac Ten, though, but that's because they generally aren't eligible (2010 Oregon is an exception). In general, Pablo tells us that pretty much any team in the big three conferences that is eligible for the tournament is pretty much assuredly among the 34 best non-autoqualifers. Yet, a lot of people have no problem with that aspect of RPI, because they would prefer to have more teams from smaller conferences (despite the fact that the second place and below teams from the mid-major conferences have had almost no wins in the NCAA tournament, while the 6th and 7th place teams of the big three have proved far more successful). Personally, I find that aspect a little more acceptable than the regional bias. There is just no reason why the NCAA should be using a system that favors the east/southeast. While the power of volleyball is shifting, the west is still strong.
|
|
|
Post by univbfan on Oct 28, 2011 23:50:56 GMT -5
No, I don't. But it has nothing to do with anything you have said. Let's up the ante. You initially brought up the Big Ten and Pac 12. Remind us of that analysis and tell us what you think. Which conference is better? Because RPI says the Big 10 is better. What does your "compare head to head matches of the best teams" indicate? Then ask me which conference I think is better. No, you first, I've already posted comparison of Big-10, Pac-12. But first you have to be very specific about the reasons for saying the WCC is not better than the ACC. Because I know from history if I post my Big-10 vs. Pac-12, it'll immediately degrade into a dissecting of my analysis (which I KNOW is not perfect). Please enlighten the world on why the ACC is better than the WCC, even though the WCC kicked the ACC's arse this year. If we were talking football, and the Big-10 beat the SEC like the WCC beat the ACC, the media would be proclaiming the 'death' of SEC dominance. I don't know if either conference is hands down better than the other based on your analysis. Let's look at it. WCC goes 1-1 at home, 1-0 on neutral site, and one team goes 2-0 as a visitor. I'd say the SD 2-0 goes a long way, but the other results are less than convincing. So I guess I can give you the WCC being better, but by no means is it as cut and dry as you're trying to make it sound.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 29, 2011 0:45:29 GMT -5
Ah, the annual RPI thread. I never quite understand the controversy. The RPI is what it is. Everyone knows that it will be used and how it works. It's a known quantity. If you don't schedule accordingly, who's fault is it? RPI's? You mean semi-annual, don't you? Or maybe quarterly? West coast teams need to travel east, or west to Hawaii, to boost RPI, but many don't - travel costs are certainly a factor. Pac-1(2) teams also have four extra conference games on their schedule. East coast teams can stay home to boost RPI. The whole secret to RPI is simply beating winning opponents that beat winning opponents (of opponents). Winning opponents and winning opponents of opponents are simply in greater supply in the east than in the west. One reason for sticking with RPI is that it helps to limit travel in the opening rounds of the tournament, by keeping more eastern teams east (and providing more cannon fodder for PSU, etc.). Just forget about it measuring comparative team strengths - it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 29, 2011 2:56:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't say a lot of people don't know. I think people are generally pretty smart and do get it, even if their arguments suck (unlike mine). How do you know what someone thinks? that's a great skill. Do you know what I think? While there are some people that do know, but use poor verbiage and confusing interchanges in their arguments, there are just as many people that make arguments that show they do not really understand the mechanics of the mathematical formula (e.g. stating something will raise or lower it when in fact it doesn't), or make arguments with RPI as a basis when it is not a valid supporting argument (e.g. Team A should beat Team B because their RPI is higher). As for knowing what people think. If someone were to say with certainty that 2+3=23, and argue heavily for it; then we could say they think they know addition, but the facts would disagree.
|
|
|
Post by siddhartha on Oct 29, 2011 15:17:34 GMT -5
Ah, the annual RPI thread. I never quite understand the controversy. The RPI is what it is. Everyone knows that it will be used and how it works. It's a known quantity. If you don't schedule accordingly, who's fault is it? RPI's? You mean semi-annual, don't you? Or maybe quarterly? West coast teams need to travel east, or west to Hawaii, to boost RPI, but many don't - travel costs are certainly a factor. Pac-1(2) teams also have four extra conference games on their schedule. East coast teams can stay home to boost RPI. The whole secret to RPI is simply beating winning opponents that beat winning opponents (of opponents). Winning opponents and winning opponents of opponents are simply in greater supply in the east than in the west. One reason for sticking with RPI is that it helps to limit travel in the opening rounds of the tournament, by keeping more eastern teams east (and providing more cannon fodder for PSU, etc.). Just forget about it measuring comparative team strengths - it doesn't. I agree, except for the notion that there's a "secret" to the RPI. It's no secret. Coaches know the deal and it's up to them to schedule accordingly to the best of their ability. No, it's not easy. Yes, some schools have a built in advantage.....and life isn't fair. 31 of the 64 teams in the tourney get automatic bids and that does more to mess up brackets and leave deserving teams at home than RPI. But it's also something that shouldn't change and can generate a lot of excitement. Every year there's controversy and RPI gets trashed. I personally think that would still be the case if another system were used. It's the nature of the beast. Same happens in basketball.
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Oct 29, 2011 15:57:57 GMT -5
The RPI selects the teams the way the NCAA wants them selected. The NCAA does consider the RPI the best tool to determine the teams. It does NOT select them the way many people in this discussion seem to want them selected, according to some sort of power poll like pablo. It does not happen that way because that is not the apparent criteria or purpose of the NCAA tournament. Are you suggesting that the NCAA does not aim to select the best 34 teams not among the automatic qualifiers? I would really like to see some justification for that claim, because it is a pretty serious accusation. -snip- I did not say that, or did not mean to. I think the NCAA's definition of best is likely different than many people's. I really don't want to spend an hour typing up justifications. I applaud that you often do. I think the NCAA defines the best teams as those with the best seasons within their region and does its best to not bias its selection towards one region (or conference) than another. I agree with that process because a) it minimizes the fundamental politcking and overall bias from most other methods b) it is least likely to exclude a team that could be having a tremendous season in a "weak" region -- a team that is much better than its power rating c) it is best for the overall health and popularity of volleyball Think about the semantics of what you say here: RPI "favors" one region by not giving greater representation to another. That is not most people's definition of favoritism. Your opinion is that one region deserves more representation than another. I agree that it is well reasoned and carefully considered, but it is still bias.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 29, 2011 16:28:27 GMT -5
The RPI selects the teams the way the NCAA wants them selected. The NCAA does consider the RPI the best tool to determine the teams. It does NOT select them the way many people in this discussion seem to want them selected, according to some sort of power poll like pablo. It does not happen that way because that is not the apparent criteria or purpose of the NCAA tournament. Are you suggesting that the NCAA does not aim to select the best 34 teams not among the automatic qualifiers? I would really like to see some justification for that claim, because it is a pretty serious accusation. I will say that volleyball RPI has a couple of built in biases. I think it can be shown to be regionally biased (I provided the first serious evidence for that a couple of years ago, and more has been done since). There is a second, less recognized but more obviously true bias, and that is against bottom half teams of the best conferences. By its design, RPI severely punishes teams in the bottom half of conferences, with poor conference records. So if you look at teams that Pablo thinks should have made the tournament that didn't, you find a lot of teams from the bottom of the Big 12 or Big Ten (not so many from the bottom of the Pac Ten, though, but that's because they generally aren't eligible (2010 Oregon is an exception). In general, Pablo tells us that pretty much any team in the big three conferences that is eligible for the tournament is pretty much assuredly among the 34 best non-autoqualifers. Yet, a lot of people have no problem with that aspect of RPI, because they would prefer to have more teams from smaller conferences (despite the fact that the second place and below teams from the mid-major conferences have had almost no wins in the NCAA tournament, while the 6th and 7th place teams of the big three have proved far more successful). Personally, I find that aspect a little more acceptable than the regional bias. There is just no reason why the NCAA should be using a system that favors the east/southeast. While the power of volleyball is shifting, the west is still strong. I've actually spoken to a former member of the selection committee. First of all, she said that she sort of missed it. Second, she said it really wasn't all that difficult. They have a set of criteria mandated by the NCAA and follow it. They use the RPI, head-to-head, and results between common opponents. They're not trying to determine which other team will beat another team or to subjectively figure out what are the best 34 at-large teams in the country. I specifically mentioned Oregon in 2010, and she said that she could understand why they weren't in the field, even though they would likely beat much (maybe even most) of the at-large field that made the tournament. The NCAA basketball tournaments are supposed to be seeded as "fair" tournaments where a 1 faces a 16, a 2 faces a 15, etc without any worries about travel distance. Of course the tournament is the NCAA's big money maker, and they have a lot of money to throw around for travel. They can use any tool they feel accurately rates teams.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 29, 2011 16:28:56 GMT -5
You mean semi-annual, don't you? Or maybe quarterly? West coast teams need to travel east, or west to Hawaii, to boost RPI, but many don't - travel costs are certainly a factor. Pac-1(2) teams also have four extra conference games on their schedule. East coast teams can stay home to boost RPI. The whole secret to RPI is simply beating winning opponents that beat winning opponents (of opponents). Winning opponents and winning opponents of opponents are simply in greater supply in the east than in the west. One reason for sticking with RPI is that it helps to limit travel in the opening rounds of the tournament, by keeping more eastern teams east (and providing more cannon fodder for PSU, etc.). Just forget about it measuring comparative team strengths - it doesn't. I agree, except for the notion that there's a "secret" to the RPI. It's no secret. Coaches know the deal and it's up to them to schedule accordingly to the best of their ability. No, it's not easy. Yes, some schools have a built in advantage.....and life isn't fair. 31 of the 64 teams in the tourney get automatic bids and that does more to mess up brackets and leave deserving teams at home than RPI. But it's also something that shouldn't change and can generate a lot of excitement. Every year there's controversy and RPI gets trashed. I personally think that would still be the case if another system were used. It's the nature of the beast. Same happens in basketball. Yes, coaches know the deal, but don't necessarily have the travel budget to make a cross-continental swing every year. Western teams are more likely to have to travel long distances to schedule opponents that'll help build RPI. Eastern teams are much more likely to have such opponents available in their own region. I don't think that it is a generally a matter of the best teams not getting into the tournament, past the automatic qualifiers (except maybe for Oregon last season). It does distort the seeding, however, elevating weaker eastern teams with stronger RPIs and lowering stronger western teams with weaker RPIs. That's why you get regionals that are hornets nests, on the one hand, and primrose paths, on the other. The tradeoff is that it helps minimize travel in the first two rounds. Men's basketball uses a modified RPI, which seeks to account for HCA, giving 0.6 for a home win and 1.4 for a road win (based on home teams winning on average 7 out of 10 times). A road loss only costs you -0.6, while a home loss costs you -1.4. That at least forces teams to earn their RPI by winning on the road (and not losing at home). This at least stops teams from simply sitting at home fattening on pheasant flown (or bused) in for their delectation. It likely also influences coaches to schedule stronger OOC opponents on the road. This helps separate the wheat from the chaff, with the basic thesis being that the better teams are the ones who can win on the road, while the weaker ones aren't.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 29, 2011 16:30:36 GMT -5
recent trends in NCAA volleyball shows that no matter the bracket or the seeds that the teams competing for a final four spot in the regional finals are almost always comprised of Big 10 teams (Nebraska now included in this group), Pac-12 teams, Texas, Hawaii and some other team not included in this group.
So lets look at the top 8 seeds and give 3 of them to the top 3 finishers in the Big 10, and 3 of them to the top 3 finishers in the Pac-12, One seed reserved for either Texas or Hawaii (whomever has the highest rpi between the two), and the other reserved for a team outside of this group with the highest rpi.
Then we are set...the legit title contenders will almost surely be among this group year after year, the power structures in both the east and the west will be satisfied, and we could all care less about who the rest of the seeds are and probably even the bracket because the programs that fall into those slots have little to no chance of making the final four and their following isn't vocal enough for anyone to really care.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 29, 2011 16:45:38 GMT -5
You mean semi-annual, don't you? Or maybe quarterly? West coast teams need to travel east, or west to Hawaii, to boost RPI, but many don't - travel costs are certainly a factor. Pac-1(2) teams also have four extra conference games on their schedule. East coast teams can stay home to boost RPI. The whole secret to RPI is simply beating winning opponents that beat winning opponents (of opponents). Winning opponents and winning opponents of opponents are simply in greater supply in the east than in the west. One reason for sticking with RPI is that it helps to limit travel in the opening rounds of the tournament, by keeping more eastern teams east (and providing more cannon fodder for PSU, etc.). Just forget about it measuring comparative team strengths - it doesn't. I agree, except for the notion that there's a "secret" to the RPI. It's no secret. Coaches know the deal and it's up to them to schedule accordingly to the best of their ability. No, it's not easy. Yes, some schools have a built in advantage.....and life isn't fair. 31 of the 64 teams in the tourney get automatic bids and that does more to mess up brackets and leave deserving teams at home than RPI. But it's also something that shouldn't change and can generate a lot of excitement. Every year there's controversy and RPI gets trashed. I personally think that would still be the case if another system were used. It's the nature of the beast. Same happens in basketball.actually basketball uses an enhanced rpi system which factors in wins at home and wins on the road which is a better formula and actually impacts strength of schedule (which is 75% of the rpi) so in volleyball a team like UCLA will score big rpi gains with ROAD wins against USC, Hawaii, and Cal whereas a team like Hawaii would be penalized for playing the entire preseason at home. AND the NCAA basketball tournament seeds the entire field whereas volleyball does not. a sub regional made up of Hawaii, Washington, Michigan, and Portland State and one with USC, LBSU, San Diego, and New Mexico while Penn State gets paired with Niagra Delaware and Virgina Tech.... and Nebraska gets paired with Sacred Heart Missouri State and Auburn would NEVER EVER happen in NCAA basketball. So there isn't as "much" controversy with the NCAA bracket selection process And there is far more parity in basketball than there is in volleyball for example two of the top 4 seeds in basketball have played each other for the championship game a total of 6 times (out of 60+ times)....you know how often it happens in volleyball?...like every year. Its far more clear cut (from a subjective standpoint) in volleyball about who is better....thats why when teams like Northern Iowa are given a top 4 seed we all cry fowl because we KNOW they aren't a top 4 team.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 29, 2011 17:39:09 GMT -5
I agree, except for the notion that there's a "secret" to the RPI. It's no secret. Coaches know the deal and it's up to them to schedule accordingly to the best of their ability. No, it's not easy. Yes, some schools have a built in advantage.....and life isn't fair. 31 of the 64 teams in the tourney get automatic bids and that does more to mess up brackets and leave deserving teams at home than RPI. But it's also something that shouldn't change and can generate a lot of excitement. Every year there's controversy and RPI gets trashed. I personally think that would still be the case if another system were used. It's the nature of the beast. Same happens in basketball.actually basketball uses an enhanced rpi system which factors in wins at home and wins on the road which is a better formula and actually impacts strength of schedule (which is 75% of the rpi) so in volleyball a team like UCLA will score big rpi gains with ROAD wins against USC, Hawaii, and Cal whereas a team like Hawaii would be penalized for playing the entire preseason at home. AND the NCAA basketball tournament seeds the entire field whereas volleyball does not. a sub regional made up of Hawaii, Washington, Michigan, and Portland State and one with USC, LBSU, San Diego, and New Mexico while Penn State gets paired with Niagra Delaware and Virgina Tech.... and Nebraska gets paired with Sacred Heart Missouri State and Auburn would NEVER EVER happen in NCAA basketball. So there isn't as "much" controversy with the NCAA bracket selection process And there is far more parity in basketball than there is in volleyball for example two of the top 4 seeds in basketball have played each other for the championship game a total of 6 times (out of 60+ times)....you know how often it happens in volleyball?...like every year. Its far more clear cut (from a subjective standpoint) in volleyball about who is better....thats why when teams like Northern Iowa are given a top 4 seed we all cry fowl because we KNOW they aren't a top 4 team. The NCAA men's BB committee is also allowed to use any tool/ranking/etc they want. They're not limited to the RPI as their only tool for rating teams.
|
|