|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 9, 2012 4:16:12 GMT -5
How does the win over Stanford affect Hawaii's chances at getting a seed. While the RPI remains low and will probably not climb much that win over a potential #1 seed has to work for their favor somehow right? In my opinion, if Hawaii were to win out there is no way they should not receive a seed and have home court for the 1/2 rounds. well the win itself will be looked at with subjective standards by the committee, and history surely is not on Hawaii's side with the committee making truly subjective seeding decisions. If Hawaii were in the top 20 rpi the win over Stanford (assuming Stanford continues it's strong showing, and that is a big assumption) may push them above a few other teams, but an rpi outside the top 20 is very unlikely for a seed. Objectively Hawaii's fate for a seed has little to do with Stanford, as Stanford's impressive win-loss ratio and even more impressive their opponent win-loss ratio is already paying the biggest dividend to Hawaii's rpi as possible. It's teams like Albany, St. Mary's, San Francisco, Baylor, Cal, and Idaho that need to rack up more wins for Hawaii to have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Oct 9, 2012 8:20:22 GMT -5
this response in no way has any relevance to my or anyone elses point regarding what is clearly your all out obsession regarding PSU. Let it go, let it go. ah here we go again...just like old times. It is exactly like old times. PSU voting bias, seeding bias........ committee bias...... We all understand your position, we just havent been given any reasons for it.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 9, 2012 8:46:07 GMT -5
How does the win over Stanford affect Hawaii's chances at getting a seed. While the RPI remains low and will probably not climb much that win over a potential #1 seed has to work for their favor somehow right? In my opinion, if Hawaii were to win out there is no way they should not receive a seed and have home court for the 1/2 rounds. Leaving aside the assumption that "winning out" in the Big West should be worthy of a seed in the tournament (which I don't agree with), the bigger picture is that in practice the question of who gets a seed has been subsumed by the RPI calculations. The committee has not worried about deciding which teams "should" get a seed or whether they are "worthy" of getting a seed. They have simply given a seed to the top 16 RPI teams. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Oct 9, 2012 8:51:11 GMT -5
Looks like Hawaii is hitting the road during tournament time.... They should have joined the WCC and eaten those MBB losses to Gonzaga...
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 9, 2012 13:36:46 GMT -5
What's hurting Hawaii's RPI right now in the BW is the same thing that hurt them in the WAC - eight teams with records from 9-8 to 1-16. Only Pacific (15-3) and Cal State Northridge (13-6) have records more than one win north of .500. Hawaii has yet to play Pacific and have one match left against Northridge. LBSU, at 9-8, isn't really helping Hawaii, unless they can win out against everyone but Hawaii (but that would be at the expense of Pacific and Northridge).
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Oct 9, 2012 13:54:41 GMT -5
The other thing hurting Hawaii is that they didn't do the thing they always needed to do, regardless of conference: Win the out-of-conference matches they were "supposed to win" so they can hang on for dear life during the conference schedule.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 9, 2012 14:34:33 GMT -5
Taking a longer view, I do believe that Hawaii being in the Big West has the potential of lifting the competitiveness of other teams in the conference, as well as helping Hawaii's recruiting. But right now, it is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs all over again.
Contrast the BW with the WCC, where BYU (#11) and San Diego (#22) are getting a much bigger RPI boost from their conference than Hawaii.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 9, 2012 14:35:24 GMT -5
The other thing hurting Hawaii is that they didn't do the thing they always needed to do, regardless of conference: Win the out-of-conference matches they were "supposed to win" so they can hang on for dear life during the conference schedule. The only one I would have said that they lost but perhaps should have won was the Cal match. And Cal is still a good team, though wounded.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 9, 2012 14:36:24 GMT -5
What's hurting Hawaii is LBSU's injury-fest and Cal Poly's implosion. If those two teams had played to historical standards, Hawaii would be within striking distance of a seed.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 9, 2012 15:26:52 GMT -5
What's hurting Hawaii is LBSU's injury-fest and Cal Poly's implosion. If those two teams had played to historical standards, Hawaii would be within striking distance of a seed. I did say "right now". LBSU will regain competitiveness, but will never regain the heights they previously scaled - that was a different era. With Cal Poly, their problems run deeper than simply the historical tide turning against them.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 9, 2012 16:15:43 GMT -5
How does the win over Stanford affect Hawaii's chances at getting a seed. While the RPI remains low and will probably not climb much that win over a potential #1 seed has to work for their favor somehow right? In my opinion, if Hawaii were to win out there is no way they should not receive a seed and have home court for the 1/2 rounds. Leaving aside the assumption that "winning out" in the Big West should be worthy of a seed in the tournament (which I don't agree with), the bigger picture is that in practice the question of who gets a seed has been subsumed by the RPI calculations. The committee has not worried about deciding which teams "should" get a seed or whether they are "worthy" of getting a seed. They have simply given a seed to the top 16 RPI teams. End of story. There was one exception that I'm aware of. In 2009, Hawaii was 18 in the RPI released right before the tournament started. They were 22 the week before. (And it's unclear to me if the committee used one final revised RPI or just the one from the week before on selection weekend.) Hawaii was given a 12 seed that year and earned a trip to the FF. So an exception is possible. But Hawaii at a 26 RPI won't be one of them ...
|
|
|
Post by X-Play on Oct 9, 2012 18:01:36 GMT -5
I've heard from a few sources that the committee will be allowed to consider the AVCA poll this year. I don't know to what extent. The bottom line is RPI is the guiding criteria and Hawaii is not close to getting seeded when looking at RPI and I don't see that changing much over the course of the season.
It's a bummer because they won't get to host but, hey, but for the rule change last year, they weren't hosting for a decade prior to that anyway. My major gripe under that system was even though Hawaii was seeded, it meant nothing because they were always on the road -- usually on a top ten team's home court for the subregionals even though that team was seeded lower.
I'm very happy for the seeded-teams-get-to-host rule. It was long overdue and it makes things fair for Hawaii in that they at least have the opportunity to host. We can't complain if Hawaii doesn't host if they can't get it done this year to get seeded. That's just the way it goes. I just hope they settle the line-up so that they can get the job done wherever they get sent because this is a talented team.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 9, 2012 18:58:02 GMT -5
I've heard from a few sources that the committee will be allowed to consider the AVCA poll this year. I don't know to what extent. What does the championship manual say? Has anyone seen a manual this year? I looked a couple of weeks ago and came up empty.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 9, 2012 19:17:12 GMT -5
I've heard from a few sources that the committee will be allowed to consider the AVCA poll this year. I don't know to what extent. The bottom line is RPI is the guiding criteria and Hawaii is not close to getting seeded when looking at RPI and I don't see that changing much over the course of the season. It's a bummer because they won't get to host but, hey, but for the rule change last year, they weren't hosting for a decade prior to that anyway. My major gripe under that system was even though Hawaii was seeded, it meant nothing because they were always on the road -- usually on a top ten team's home court for the subregionals even though that team was seeded lower. I'm very happy for the seeded-teams-get-to-host rule. It was long overdue and it makes things fair for Hawaii in that they at least have the opportunity to host. We can't complain if Hawaii doesn't host if they can't get it done this year to get seeded. That's just the way it goes. I just hope they settle the line-up so that they can get the job done wherever they get sent because this is a talented team. I would be ok with the AVCA poll ironing out the smaller details of who gets seeded where but for the larger question of who gets a seed I think sticking to objective measures (despite the input flaws) is the best way. Subjective coaches polls like the AVCA are based first and foremost on where you start which is entirely unfair. Take even Hawaii for example. Why are they ranked in the AVCA much higher than a team like BYU, Kansas State, or San Diego (all three of which have great records against quality teams?) the biggest reason is because Hawaii artificially STARTED the season in the top 10. the AVCA poll gives a bigger advantage to the traditional teams than the rpi calculations gives to east coast teams. Like when PSU loses to an unranked team they only drop 2 spots whereas other teams drop more than two spots. seeding should be about minimizing inherent bias, not exacerbating it.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 9, 2012 19:34:52 GMT -5
So ay, how about Pablo instead? If they are going to allow extra-rpi sources like the avca poll, then why not Pablo? Doesn't have the problems you note (and is good for Hawaii, btw)
|
|