|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 12, 2012 13:31:39 GMT -5
and I still agree that the RPI is not the best indicator of the strengths and weaknesses of a team. but THAT is not what has been argued in the past few pages. What I have said is that objective tools like the rpi (meaning we know exactly how it works and all teams have an equal starting point) are fairer measures to determine seeds than subjective polling which gives preference to certain name brand teams regardless if they have earned it within the year or not. Did you feel like this when you complained about UNI's high seed (which was based solely on RPI) just a couple of years ago? If this is how you feel ay2013, that is fine. I don't really have a problem with what you're saying, you make a fair argument but it's the consistency of your arguments that I take some issue with. similar to my exchanges with XPLAY, you seemingly are lumping "fair" and "agree" into one statement. I did not AGREE with UNI's high seed a couple years ago, but I also understand that it was one of the fairer selections (at least moreso then just going by the AVCA poll). Fast forward to our now recent exchanges, I 100% think Hawaii is a top 16 team and if I was making a tournament bracket (and had no one to answer to) I would have hawaii as a seed....but my point is that it's not about what I want or you want it's about what is most fair. And between the two tools (RPI and AVCA) RPI is more fair. the AVCA will more accurately predict a winner and final four, I have no doubt that that, but the RPI gives all teams an equal starting point....that's all I'm trying to say. As for consistency of argument, frankly I do not remember exactly what was said about various subjects years ago....but regardless having spent more time extrapolating data (schedules/wins/losses/biases etc) over the years this is what I have come to. Nobody should be glued down to an opinion indefinitely
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 12, 2012 14:02:42 GMT -5
Interesting sidebar: if Hawaii gets seeded, you also have 5 PAC teams and 1 from the WCC meaning 7 of the seeds/subregionals (b/c of the seed-hosting prerogative initiated last year) will be on the West Coast.
It's shaping up to be an 8-bid season for the PAC RPI-wise (deserved or not) and I really think we would see the 8th place PAC team getting sent to a seeded conference foe in the first weekend. Apart from the seeds, There would be 3 more PAC bids, 3 more WCC, 1 Big Sky, WAC & MWC--9 Western at-larges certainly won't fill the 21 vacant subregional places, and the Committee will be loathe to fly another one in so they can ship a PAC school out.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 12, 2012 14:06:03 GMT -5
Did you feel like this when you complained about UNI's high seed (which was based solely on RPI) just a couple of years ago? If this is how you feel ay2013, that is fine. I don't really have a problem with what you're saying, you make a fair argument but it's the consistency of your arguments that I take some issue with. similar to my exchanges with XPLAY, you seemingly are lumping "fair" and "agree" into one statement. I did not AGREE with UNI's high seed a couple years ago, but I also understand that it was one of the fairer selections (at least moreso then just going by the AVCA poll). Fast forward to our now recent exchanges, I 100% think Hawaii is a top 16 team and if I was making a tournament bracket (and had no one to answer to) I would have hawaii as a seed....but my point is that it's not about what I want or you want it's about what is most fair. And between the two tools (RPI and AVCA) RPI is more fair. that's all I'm trying to say. I am just pointing out inconsistencies in your advocation of RPI in selecting seeds. You say now that it is "fair" whereas before you claimed that is was "unfair." Is RPI fair? I guess that depends on the person tasked with making that determination. Is it unbiased? probably as there is no personal emotions involved in calculating data. Is RPI a valid measure of a team's strength? I don't believe so. RPI relies completely on the assumption that winning percentage is a valid indicator of how strong a team is. If every school played the same schedule then relying on winning percentage would prove much more valid. But the reality is that schedules are not the same and consist of playing games against teams with wide degrees of talent level. Most importantly, only a subset of the teams a school is being ranked against are actually met on the court. Is RPI useful as a tool for the Championship Committee to seed and setup the NCAA Women's Volleyball Championship? yes but as long as it is the primary tool used there will always be some discussion and disappointment with tourney seeds and pairings.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 12, 2012 14:07:50 GMT -5
Hawaii is being hurt much more by their conference this year than by a couple pre-conference losses. If they end up unseeded, that'll be the reason why. Apart from being biased, the problem with RPI is that it can be, and is being, gamed. Not only is it biased against western schools, it is more easily gamed by eastern schools. Yes, RPI can be gamed. How do teams game the system? -Play teams who have really good records, even if they're going to thrash you. Try to duck teams who have really bad records, especially the weaker teams from the big conferences.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 12, 2012 14:32:07 GMT -5
similar to my exchanges with XPLAY, you seemingly are lumping "fair" and "agree" into one statement. I did not AGREE with UNI's high seed a couple years ago, but I also understand that it was one of the fairer selections (at least moreso then just going by the AVCA poll). Fast forward to our now recent exchanges, I 100% think Hawaii is a top 16 team and if I was making a tournament bracket (and had no one to answer to) I would have hawaii as a seed....but my point is that it's not about what I want or you want it's about what is most fair. And between the two tools (RPI and AVCA) RPI is more fair. that's all I'm trying to say. I am just pointing out inconsistencies in your advocation of RPI in selecting seeds. You say now that it is "fair" whereas before you claimed that is was "unfair." Is RPI fair? I guess that depends on the person tasked with making that determination. Is it unbiased? probably as there is no personal emotions involved in calculating data. Is RPI a valid measure of a team's strength? I don't believe so. RPI relies completely on the assumption that winning percentage is a valid indicator of how strong a team is. If every school played the same schedule then relying on winning percentage would prove much more valid. But the reality is that schedules are not the same and consist of playing games against teams with wide degrees of talent level. Most importantly, only a subset of the teams a school is being ranked against are actually met on the court. Is RPI useful as a tool for the Championship Committee to seed and setup the NCAA Women's Volleyball Championship? yes but as long as it is the primary tool used there will always be some discussion and disappointment with tourney seeds and pairings. well I agree with pretty much all of this. Firstly the RPI is not wholly "fair" it is just MORE fair than the AVCA...and no I don't think the RPI is the best tool we have to measure a teams strength relative to the field.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 12, 2012 15:24:01 GMT -5
Hawaii is being hurt much more by their conference this year than by a couple pre-conference losses. If they end up unseeded, that'll be the reason why. Apart from being biased, the problem with RPI is that it can be, and is being, gamed. Not only is it biased against western schools, it is more easily gamed by eastern schools. Yes, RPI can be gamed. How do teams game the system? -Play teams who have really good records, even if they're going to thrash you. Try to duck teams who have really bad records, especially the weaker teams from the big conferences. Even better, play teams with really good win-loss records who you can beat (no need to thrash them, but the larger the odds of winning the better). Because of many fewer conferences in the west, scheduling becomes incestuous very fast (see the Big West as exhibit A), forcing western teams to travel east to find fresh meat (er, improve RPI); at the same time there is a disincentive for eastern schools to travel west. One conference actually sent out a detailed set of instructions to their member schools on how to game the system.
|
|