|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 21, 2012 14:34:18 GMT -5
But the ranking themselves are an average of what each team have done through out the season. So byu averaging the average, you are smoothing the data but not any worse than what has been done already. No, I disagree. The rankings are not "an average of what each team has done throughout the season." They are three different interpretations as to what the season's results mean. Averaging them would mean you think each of those interpretations is equally valid.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 21, 2012 14:45:45 GMT -5
Well, you could eliminate the high and the low, and just go with the middle, whichever ranking it was from. For instance:
Seeded: 1. PSU 1 (AVCA/Pablo) 2. Stanford 2 (AVCA/Pablo) 3. Texas 3 (AVCA/Pablo/RPI) 4. USC 5 (Pablo) 5. UCLA 7 (AVCA) 6. Oregon 8 (Pablo) 7. Washington 9 (Pablo) (tie) Louisville 9 (AVCA) 9. Nebraska 10 (AVCA) 10. Minnesota 11 (AVCA/Pablo) 11. FSU 12 (AVCA) 12 BYU 13 (RPI) 13. Florida 14 (RPI) 14. Hawaii 16 (Pablo/RPI) 15. Ohio St. 18 (Pablo) (tie) Iowa State 18 (Pablo)
Not seeded: 17. Tennessee 19 (Pablo) 18. Dayton 20 (Pablo) (tie) Kansas 20 (AVCA)
Brackets:
Omaha: 1. PSU, 8. Washington, 9. Nebraska, 16. Iowa State Berkeley: 2. Stanford, 7. Louisville (RPI tiebreaker), 10. Minnesota, 15. Ohio State (RPI tiebreaker) Austin: 3. Texas, 6. Oregon, 11. FSU, 14. Hawaii West Lafayette: 4. USC, 5. UCLA, 12. BYU, 13. Florida
Now that would be a doozy of an Omaha regional. If using a geography tiebreaker, however, then Louisville and Washington would flip:
Omaha: 1. PSU, 8. Louisville, 9. Nebraska, 16. Iowa State Berkeley: 2. Stanford, 7. Washington, 10. Minnesota, 15. Ohio State
A critical question is what's the starting point. If RPI, that's proven to be a biased starting point. While you're not going to find an entirely unbiased starting point, you can establish one that is relatively unbiased.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Nov 21, 2012 14:50:16 GMT -5
But the ranking themselves are an average of what each team have done through out the season. So byu averaging the average, you are smoothing the data but not any worse than what has been done already. No, I disagree. The rankings are not "an average of what each team has done throughout the season." They are three different interpretations as to what the season's results mean. Averaging them would mean you think each of those interpretations is equally valid. Each bad loss or good win is reflected into the ranking, but they aren't distinct facts that can be unraveled from the ranking number itself. Putting it mathematically, the ranking is a norm of a vector, where the individual component of the vector is projected into one number.
|
|
|
Post by stand on Nov 21, 2012 15:31:23 GMT -5
Norm! (Sorry, I just had a Cheers flashback)
|
|
|
Post by karplets on Nov 21, 2012 17:40:28 GMT -5
The other thing is we don't know to what extent the coaches' poll is influenced by, say, Pablo. The coaches aren't submitting their rankings in a vacuum anymore and it's quite possible that Pablo influences their decision. That's probably not a bad thing. But still if you were trying to weight RPI, Pablo, and poll equally, you might (for instance) be getting more "Pablo" in there. Again, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing but it may thwart what the Committee's trying to do.
But the worse thing is, as sirtrojan suggested, since there's no rule as to how to weight the 3 rankings there's now a possibility of the Committee picking and choosing which ranking they "like" or "think" is more "reasonable" or "accurate". It's a hidden way of inviting subjectivity into the Committee's decisions.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 21, 2012 19:00:50 GMT -5
May be repeating myself, but there doesn't appear to be any encouragement for the Committee to actually use Pablo or AVCA. Just removal of restriction against it.
I would imagine Committee members would use Pablo to aid in discussions of tight decisions. AVCA is so Pac 12 centric as to be unreasonable.Hope they depend on it, though.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 21, 2012 19:57:07 GMT -5
May be repeating myself, but there doesn't appear to be any encouragement for the Committee to actually use Pablo or AVCA. Just removal of restriction against it. I would imagine Committee members would use Pablo to aid in discussions of tight decisions. AVCA is so Pac 12 centric as to be unreasonable.Hope they depend on it, though. Agreed. There is no reason to expect Pablo or the AVCA to be used all that much. As baywatcher notes, there is no instruction to use them, and rpi is still indicated as a primary consideration. You are all being way too optimistic if you expect anything more.
|
|
|
Post by karplets on Nov 21, 2012 20:16:26 GMT -5
Not trying to be optimistic or otherwise but this is from the interview: VT: So which is more important? Many have pointed at the RPI as the key criteria for getting in and for seeding. The Guru: This is where the VTers start verging towards fantasyland. In actuality, and this is a part of the rules for the selection committee, not one metric is more important than another, each team is evaluated by the body of work... May be repeating myself, but there doesn't appear to be any encouragement for the Committee to actually use Pablo or AVCA. Just removal of restriction against it. I would imagine Committee members would use Pablo to aid in discussions of tight decisions. AVCA is so Pac 12 centric as to be unreasonable.Hope they depend on it, though. Agreed. There is no reason to expect Pablo or the AVCA to be used all that much. As baywatcher notes, there is no instruction to use them, and rpi is still indicated as a primary consideration. You are all being way too optimistic if you expect anything more.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 21, 2012 21:17:19 GMT -5
Considering that 90% of what the supposed "Guru" said is clearly nonsense, forgive me for not taking it too .
Regardless of what is said, historically the committee has rigorously adhered to the instructions of the championship manual. It explains pretty much everything the committee has done for the last 5 years or more, with no need to invoke anything broader.
|
|
gwc
Junior High
Posts: 1
|
Post by gwc on Nov 21, 2012 22:25:34 GMT -5
Just a short footnote for the Q&A: If anyone is seriously into this discussion: you should know that this is not a representative of the NCAA Div. 1 VB committee. any NCAA committee member would know that all travel (flight and driving), room, food and expenses are paid for "ALL" 64 teams! ALL 64 teams expenses paid by NCAA. This has all ways been the policy since 1981 when the first NCAA Championship was sponsored! There are criteria for seeding the top 16 presently. And previously they seeded only top 4! The rest of the bracket is formed with location (pods) as a key component for bracket placement while still adhering to rules about when you can potentially play a common conference opponent, etc.... Men's basketball and women's basketball NCAA committees seed all 64/68 teams but they also still use this pod system for the bracket in an attempt to keep teams close to there fan base whenever possible to ensure early rounds have decent attendance for the events!
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 21, 2012 22:43:36 GMT -5
The coaches aren't submitting their rankings in a vacuum anymore coaches did that in the past with the notion that a nice Dyson could sway some decisions in favor of their team. But the NCAA frowns on such bribery (at least publically)
|
|
|
Post by uscbriciofan on Nov 25, 2012 13:10:36 GMT -5
any link to see the SHOW???
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Nov 26, 2012 1:46:10 GMT -5
Just now got home and saw the bracket.
I immediately thought of all the wonderfully deep explanations offered in this thread,
and I wanted to come back here just to say....
|
|
|
Post by karplets on Nov 26, 2012 10:48:26 GMT -5
Did we all just get trolled?! I will say this bracket could've been much much worse. And it's clear that Pablo played an important part in improving it. With USC at RPI #15 (as far as we know), it's extremely doubtful that they would've even been considered for a #6 seed except for Pablo and/or the AVCA poll. (on the other hand, what did "The Guru" say about bad losses and nonconference RPI and so how did Kentucky get a seed and Hawaii didn't?)
|
|
|
Post by coloradokidd on Nov 11, 2013 19:59:24 GMT -5
BUMP - For some to get refreshed (like me) and for those who are new!
|
|