|
Post by X-Play on Oct 9, 2012 20:33:54 GMT -5
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. I will start by saying that the point that the AVCA poll does has a problem with the general unwritten rules of how it works of just moving a team up or down based on where a team was the previous week. However, we have seen examples already of teams making huge jumps and huge falls this year ie. Oregon, Iowa St., Purdue. So big adjustments have been made regardless of where a team starts. As for your non-point about Hawaii's ranking. If you actually looked at the schedules of the teams you mentioned, their wins are not, in fact, more impressive or against better quality teams as a whole than the teams Hawaii has beaten. In fact, there is a lot of overlapping and BYU lost to a team that Hawaii beat. Furthermore, only Kansas St. has a win against a top ten team (#10 Minnesota) while Hawaii has a win against the number 4 team. If a person were truly being objective (key word OBJECTIVE), Hawaii rightfully would be ranked ahead of all of the teams you mentioned. I'm not advocating for a higher ranking for Hawaii and wouldn't really care if Hawaii were ranked lower but there would be valid argument against it if any of those teams were ranked ahead of Hawaii. (I would also add that those three teams mentioned are great teams and are deservedly in the top 15 as well.) I would also add that the difference being ranked 8-15 is not as big a travesty as you would like to purport. Anyway, I get that you like to stir the pot but at least use an example that's valid.
|
|
|
Post by austintatious on Oct 9, 2012 20:35:50 GMT -5
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. Don't expect him to change, he's waterlogged in the upper NW
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 9, 2012 22:04:22 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) haha yah! i'm fine with the committee using Pablo ... Hawaii is 13 there ;D
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 10, 2012 0:15:11 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) I would agree with using pablo.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 10, 2012 0:38:05 GMT -5
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. I will start by saying that the point that the AVCA poll does has a problem with the general unwritten rules of how it works of just moving a team up or down based on where a team was the previous week. However, we have seen examples already of teams making huge jumps and huge falls this year ie. Oregon, Iowa St., Purdue. So big adjustments have been made regardless of where a team starts. As for your non-point about Hawaii's ranking. If you actually looked at the schedules of the teams you mentioned, their wins are not, in fact, more impressive or against better quality teams as a whole than the teams Hawaii has beaten. In fact, there is a lot of overlapping and BYU lost to a team that Hawaii beat. Furthermore, only Kansas St. has a win against a top ten team (#10 Minnesota) while Hawaii has a win against the number 4 team. If a person were truly being objective (key word OBJECTIVE), Hawaii rightfully would be ranked ahead of all of the teams you mentioned. I'm not advocating for a higher ranking for Hawaii and wouldn't really care if Hawaii were ranked lower but there would be valid argument against it if any of those teams were ranked ahead of Hawaii. (I would also add that those three teams mentioned are great teams and are deservedly in the top 15 as well.) I would also add that the difference being ranked 8-15 is not as big a travesty as you would like to purport. Anyway, I get that you like to stir the pot but at least use an example that's valid. Care to explain why, objectively, Hawaii would be rightfully ahead of all the teams I mentioned? If my point is that the AVCA poll is subjectively unfair because it's largely based on where you start, then claiming that Hawaii would be ahead of those teams based on a win of #4 AVCA Stanford is a moot point. Now I am not arguing that Hawaii specifically should not be seeded, quite the contrary I think they are one of the top 16 teams in the country, my issue is with the use of the AVCA poll to determine WHO gets a seed. A win over a ranked team per the AVCA poll is unfair comparison. Per the AVCA, among all teams mentioned, Hawaii has the best win, against Stanford, but it's only the best win because of where Stanford started in the poll which was not earned. If Stanford started the season ranked #20, and played and won/loss against the same competition-to-date would they still be #4 right now...ummm no. There isn't a fair starting point in the AVCA poll. and if we are speaking "objectively" the rpi (which looks purely at scheduling and overall quality of wins) has BYU, San Diego and Kansas State ahead of Hawaii and pablo (which looks at set score differences, and HCA advantage) has both BYU and San Diego ahead of Hawaii, and all 4 (BYU, San Diego, Kansas State, Hawaii) are within 100 points of each other. My point is that objective measurements do NOT have Hawaii "rightfully" ahead of the other teams, whereas subjective measurements do. Anyway like I said I think using subjective measurements is perfectly fine in determining where teams are seeded, but I prefer objective measurements to determine which 16 teams actually get seeds.
|
|
|
Post by haw2991 on Oct 10, 2012 0:51:19 GMT -5
I will start by saying that the point that the AVCA poll does has a problem with the general unwritten rules of how it works of just moving a team up or down based on where a team was the previous week. However, we have seen examples already of teams making huge jumps and huge falls this year ie. Oregon, Iowa St., Purdue. So big adjustments have been made regardless of where a team starts. As for your non-point about Hawaii's ranking. If you actually looked at the schedules of the teams you mentioned, their wins are not, in fact, more impressive or against better quality teams as a whole than the teams Hawaii has beaten. In fact, there is a lot of overlapping and BYU lost to a team that Hawaii beat. Furthermore, only Kansas St. has a win against a top ten team (#10 Minnesota) while Hawaii has a win against the number 4 team. If a person were truly being objective (key word OBJECTIVE), Hawaii rightfully would be ranked ahead of all of the teams you mentioned. I'm not advocating for a higher ranking for Hawaii and wouldn't really care if Hawaii were ranked lower but there would be valid argument against it if any of those teams were ranked ahead of Hawaii. (I would also add that those three teams mentioned are great teams and are deservedly in the top 15 as well.) I would also add that the difference being ranked 8-15 is not as big a travesty as you would like to purport. Anyway, I get that you like to stir the pot but at least use an example that's valid. Care to explain why, objectively, Hawaii would be rightfully ahead of all the teams I mentioned? If my point is that the AVCA poll is subjectively unfair because it's largely based on where you start, then claiming that Hawaii would be ahead of those teams based on a win of #4 AVCA Stanford is a moot point. Now I am not arguing that Hawaii specifically should not be seeded, quite the contrary I think they are one of the top 16 teams in the country, my issue is with the use of the AVCA poll to determine WHO gets a seed. A win over a ranked team per the AVCA poll is unfair comparison. Per the AVCA, among all teams mentioned, Hawaii has the best win, against Stanford, but it's only the best win because of where Stanford started in the poll which was not earned. If Stanford started the season ranked #20, and played and won/loss against the same competition-to-date would they still be #4 right now...ummm no. There isn't a fair starting point in the AVCA poll. and if we are speaking "objectively" the rpi (which looks purely at scheduling and overall quality of wins) has BYU, San Diego and Kansas State ahead of Hawaii and pablo (which looks at set score differences, and HCA advantage) has both BYU and San Diego ahead of Hawaii, and all 4 (BYU, San Diego, Kansas State, Hawaii) are within 100 points of each other. My point is that objective measurements do NOT have Hawaii "rightfully" ahead of the other teams, whereas subjective measurements do. Anyway like I said I think using subjective measurements is perfectly fine in determining where teams are seeded, but I prefer objective measurements to determine which 16 teams actually get seeds. So you believe Hawaii is a top 16 team in the country but prefer them not to get a top 16 seed in the tournament?
|
|
|
Post by X-Play on Oct 10, 2012 1:12:04 GMT -5
I will start by saying that the point that the AVCA poll does has a problem with the general unwritten rules of how it works of just moving a team up or down based on where a team was the previous week. However, we have seen examples already of teams making huge jumps and huge falls this year ie. Oregon, Iowa St., Purdue. So big adjustments have been made regardless of where a team starts. As for your non-point about Hawaii's ranking. If you actually looked at the schedules of the teams you mentioned, their wins are not, in fact, more impressive or against better quality teams as a whole than the teams Hawaii has beaten. In fact, there is a lot of overlapping and BYU lost to a team that Hawaii beat. Furthermore, only Kansas St. has a win against a top ten team (#10 Minnesota) while Hawaii has a win against the number 4 team. If a person were truly being objective (key word OBJECTIVE), Hawaii rightfully would be ranked ahead of all of the teams you mentioned. I'm not advocating for a higher ranking for Hawaii and wouldn't really care if Hawaii were ranked lower but there would be valid argument against it if any of those teams were ranked ahead of Hawaii. (I would also add that those three teams mentioned are great teams and are deservedly in the top 15 as well.) I would also add that the difference being ranked 8-15 is not as big a travesty as you would like to purport. Anyway, I get that you like to stir the pot but at least use an example that's valid. Care to explain why, objectively, Hawaii would be rightfully ahead of all the teams I mentioned? I DID explain. I can't help it if you have a comprehension problem or that like to throw stuff out without actually looking at the evidence (ie. the actual schedules that all the teams have played). You're the one that questioned why Hawaii was specifically ahead of three teams that had "great records against quality teams." In fact, their great records are not greater than Hawaii's nor are their wins against quality teams on the whole more impressive than Hawaii's - either subjectively or objectively. Care to elaborate on why those three teams "great records against quality teams" should have them ranked ahead of Hawaii? Eh, actually, don't bother. I know the schedules of the teams and who've they won and lost to. My point is don't throw out some unsubstantiated claim as an example as to why you think THE AVCA POLL IS FLAWED and then complain that it's wrong for me to use strength of schedules and good wins/bad losses as reasons to show why that example doesn't hold water any way you look at it. We both know RPI inflates the rankings of teams that knowledgeable volleyball people know are not better than some of the teams ranked below them and has an east coast bias. It's been debated ad nauseam for years. I don't adhere to the computer-rankings are objective and therefore much better than subjective" rankings argument. Both the RPI and AVCA may have problems but at the end of the year, the AVCA is a much better ranking IMO for which teams are the best in the country. I'm glad the committee can consider the AVCA poll. We've seen over the years that a system that is purely computer driven ends up with the sport having a jacked up tournament with regard to seeding.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 10, 2012 1:40:56 GMT -5
Care to explain why, objectively, Hawaii would be rightfully ahead of all the teams I mentioned? If my point is that the AVCA poll is subjectively unfair because it's largely based on where you start, then claiming that Hawaii would be ahead of those teams based on a win of #4 AVCA Stanford is a moot point. Now I am not arguing that Hawaii specifically should not be seeded, quite the contrary I think they are one of the top 16 teams in the country, my issue is with the use of the AVCA poll to determine WHO gets a seed. A win over a ranked team per the AVCA poll is unfair comparison. Per the AVCA, among all teams mentioned, Hawaii has the best win, against Stanford, but it's only the best win because of where Stanford started in the poll which was not earned. If Stanford started the season ranked #20, and played and won/loss against the same competition-to-date would they still be #4 right now...ummm no. There isn't a fair starting point in the AVCA poll. and if we are speaking "objectively" the rpi (which looks purely at scheduling and overall quality of wins) has BYU, San Diego and Kansas State ahead of Hawaii and pablo (which looks at set score differences, and HCA advantage) has both BYU and San Diego ahead of Hawaii, and all 4 (BYU, San Diego, Kansas State, Hawaii) are within 100 points of each other. My point is that objective measurements do NOT have Hawaii "rightfully" ahead of the other teams, whereas subjective measurements do. Anyway like I said I think using subjective measurements is perfectly fine in determining where teams are seeded, but I prefer objective measurements to determine which 16 teams actually get seeds. So you believe Hawaii is a top 16 team in the country but prefer them not to get a top 16 seed in the tournament? I don't prefer for Hawaii to be seeded or unseeded. What I prefer is that the teams that are seeded are selected to be seeded by objective standards. Two completely different statements. I do believe Hawaii is among the best 16 teams in the country and if I had my tournament I would seed them. But what I want is not the same as what can be fairly distributed. I also would have no more than two automatic qualifiers in any sub regional (*cough* Penn State) , spread out the conference teams as much as possible, and never let 1 conference have more than 1 regional....just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 10, 2012 2:00:46 GMT -5
Care to explain why, objectively, Hawaii would be rightfully ahead of all the teams I mentioned? I DID explain. I can't help it if you have a comprehension problem or that like to throw stuff out without actually looking at the evidence (ie. the actual schedules that all the teams have played). You're the one that questioned why Hawaii was specifically ahead of three teams that had "great records against quality teams." In fact, their great records are not greater than Hawaii's nor are their wins against quality teams on the whole more impressive than Hawaii's - either subjectively or objectively. Care to elaborate on why those three teams "great records against quality teams" should have them ranked ahead of Hawaii? Eh, actually, don't bother. I know the schedules of the teams and who've they won and lost to. My point is don't throw out some unsubstantiated claim as an example and them complain that it's wrong for me to use strength of schedules and good wins/bad losses as reasons to show why that example doesn't hold water any way you look at it. We both know RPI inflates the rankings of teams that knowledgeable volleyball people know are not better than some of the teams ranked below them and has an east coast bias. It's been debated ad nauseam for years. I don't adhere to the computer-rankings are objective and therefore much better than subjective" rankings argument. Both the RPI and AVCA may have problems but at the end of the year, the AVCA is a much better ranking IMO for which teams are the best in the country. I'm glad the committee can consider the AVCA poll. We've seen over the years that a system that is purely computer driven ends up with the sport having a jacked up tournament with regard to seeding. what unsubstantiated claim am I using? As for SOS, you weren't really using SOS as the basis of Hawaii being "rightfully" ahead of teams like BYU, Kansas State, and San Diego you were using in particular the win over Stanford. And while I agree that the rpi does have mistakes in the input, the fact is that the output is purely objective (Based on the inputs). Is it flawless? of course not, but it's less flawed than the AVCA coaches poll. Why? because we know how it works, there is little guess work involved, whereas the AVCA coaches poll is largely based on the OPINIONS of coaches and most importantly where a team starts in the poll. case in point, Oregon State, like Hawaii, has 1 win against a very highly ranked team (#1 PSU, which by AVCA standards is even better than the Stanford win), no other wins against a team currently ranked in the top 25 and a loss to a team ranked outside of the top 25. So why is that the RPI has both Hawaii and Oregon State at the same rating, yet the AVCA has Hawaii in the top 10 and Oregon State is not ranked at all? It's simple...because Hawaii started the season ranked in the top 10 whereas Oregon State wasn't even receiving votes. So even thought both teams have nearly identical in terms of current AVCA records, Hawaii's starting point works in their favor, whereas Oregon State does not...hence the blatant unfairness. and my original question was why Hawaii should be ranked ahead of those three teams NOT why those teams should be ranked ahead of Hawaii. all three of those teams, per objective standards of RPI and Pablo have played on the whole just as quality a schedule as Hawaii. and I do agree with your statement that AVCA does a better job than RPI at determining which teams are the best in the country, but it's not as if the still flawed, yet more objective, rpi doesn't tell us who at least the top 10-12 teams are. this week there are 14 teams that are both in the top 16 AVCA and RPI. The outliers being Hawaii and San Diego. To me it's more fair to decide seeding (which is different that which teams actually are the best) when all teams have an equal chance to get a seed, the AVCA poll is the least fair tool to determine that.
|
|
|
Post by X-Play on Oct 10, 2012 2:38:02 GMT -5
You were referring to the AVCA poll and questioning why Hawaii was ranked ahead of those teams. There are valid reasons why so, yes, they are rightfully ahead of them. My prior posts explain why. As I stated previously, the AVCA poll does in fact make major adjustments for teams depending on how they do. We've seen it happen this year so it's not like they rigidly stick to the initial poll ranking and absolutely only move teams slightly up or down whenever they win or lose. In order to get ahead in the RPI rankings, any team can play the RPI game and strategically play certain teams to inflate their ranking OR the best teams can not play the game and suffer in the rankings. That's a big problem in my eyes.
Suffice it to say, you are happy with the RPI system and I believe the AVCA poll, though flawed, is not as flawed as the RPI system when it comes to ranking. Therefore, I am happy with the committee using AVCA as a tool and apparently you are not. That pretty much sums up the disagreement here. And that's fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 10, 2012 3:23:51 GMT -5
You were referring to the AVCA poll and questioning why Hawaii was ranked ahead of those teams. There are valid reasons why so, yes, they are rightfully ahead of them. My prior posts explain why. As I stated previously, the AVCA poll does in fact make major adjustments for teams depending on how they do. We've seen it happen this year so it's not like they rigidly stick to the initial poll ranking and absolutely only move teams slightly up or down whenever they win or lose. In order to get ahead in the RPI rankings, any team can play the RPI game and strategically play certain teams to inflate their ranking OR the best teams can not play the game and suffer in the rankings. That's a big problem in my eyes. Suffice it to say, you are happy with the RPI system and I believe the AVCA poll, though flawed, is not as flawed as the RPI system when it comes to ranking. Therefore, I am happy with the committee using AVCA as a tool and apparently you are not. That pretty much sums up the disagreement here. And that's fine with me. I never said I was happy with the RPI system, nor do I think that. I think the rpi desperately needs home and away calculation, the team winning percentage needs to be a higher percentage of the overall score and to determine bids, seeds and brackets the rpi needs a revamping at the end the season. As I have said before I think the rpi gives us a clear picture of who the top 100 or so teams are. But once we have that top 100 an additional rpi should be calculated that only counts wins and losses against teams within that 100. The problem with the rpi is that if any given team plays and beats a 25-0 #1 rpi Penn State team and a 0-25 #300 Bowling Green team the affect on that team is pretty harsh. Getting wins over teams that have no chance of making the tournament should not play a factor into whether or not you are seeded (though losing to those teams should)...it should be about your rpi with teams that actually matter. That said, I do think that the RPI is more fair than the AVCA, for reasons I have stated before. While you may think that big jumps can be made in the poll (and this is true) all jumps are NOT even. Had Hawaii started at #20, they would not be #8 right now based on their 1-1 record against current ranked opponents (with a loss to an unranked opponent)....and you are absolutely kidding yourself if you believe that they would be. just like RPI bias has been discussed ad nauseum, so has the inherent bias of the AVCA poll which favors where you start (which a team does not actually earn) and teams from weak conferences rising in the polls while teams from better conferences beat each other up. which is more fair.... a biased system which puts all teams at equal starting points and which all teams know how to gain an advantage, or a system that just props up the handful of teams based purely on name recognition? Again, why is Hawaii ranked #8 and Oregon State not ranked at all? if you can logically explain this to me I will digress....good luck. I'm not happy with the rpi but I would prefer a system that puts all teams at the same starting point rather than an artificial starting point that grossly favors the traditioned programs (my UW huskies included) over objectivity. Anyway I'm not sure why this turned into a referendum on Hawaii...I was just merely pointing out the stark differences in two objective rating systems (RPI and Pablo) and the AVCA poll in determining where each should be ranked, and simply used Hawaii, Kansas State, BYU and San Diego as examples. I am perfectly fine with using subjective tools to make decisions once objective tools narrow down the field.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 10, 2012 3:40:28 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) I would agree with using pablo. how are you reconciling the fact that Pablo and AVCA have Penn St at #1? how can you hold one up as the more reliable "objective standard" and rail against the other as unfair and biased ... when, at least for one team, the rating (for now) is the same. (the RPI too is in basic agreement, currently rating Penn St #2.)
|
|
|
Post by X-Play on Oct 10, 2012 3:47:08 GMT -5
I've already agreed to disagree on this so I don't know you are still going on and on. I have no desire to convince you of anything and you certainly haven't convinced me of anything.
The only thing I will add is that the initial AVCA poll is not made from teams picked out of a hat containing the usual suspects. It is based on where a team finished the year before and who they lost and who they have returning on their team. These are valid and very useful criteria in determining where a team should start and where they will probably fall in the rankings. I don't have a problem with that. It's not foolproof but adjustments are made during the season. You make it sound like the coaches only consider whether a team is a powerhouse to determine the top ten and that is not the case. Even if it does factor in subconsciously with some coaches (the majority of whom do not coach perrennial powerhouse teams), it gets tweaked throughout the season.
And I agree that any discussion about Hawaii should end but you, once again, are the one who brought up Hawaii (erroneously).
Good night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2012 5:41:49 GMT -5
If seeds came out today, this is what I believe they should look like (Mixture of RPI, Pablo, and my opinion)
At Texas: 1. Penn State 8. Texas 9. USC 16. San Diego
At Cal: 2. Stanford 7. Louisville 10. Florida 15. Hawaii
At Purdue: 3. UCLA 6. Oregon 11. Minnesota 14. Kansas
At Nebraska: 4. Nebraska 5. Washington 12. Kansas State 13. BYU
Just a thought!
|
|
|
Post by hardbop on Oct 10, 2012 7:53:27 GMT -5
I would agree with using pablo. how are you reconciling the fact that Pablo and AVCA have Penn St at #1? how can you hold one up as the more reliable "objective standard" and rail against the other as unfair and biased ... when, at least for one team, the rating (for now) is the same. (the RPI too is in basic agreement, currently rating Penn St #2.) Good luck getting a straight answer to this question. AY has a set of immutable conclusions [east coast bias, Pac 12 dominance, aluminum foil headwear protects you from alien mind control waves] and he then "cherry picks" that which supports these conclusions. Anything that doesn't fit the predetermined conclusion is "noise."
|
|