bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 21, 2014 6:55:42 GMT -5
Yes, Illinois and Wisconsin both tied for 4th place in the Big 10 last year at 12-8. However, Wisconsin won 51.3% of total points played in conference (4th best in conference), while Illinois won only 49.7% of their points (8th best in conference). Prior to Wisconsin's magical run in the NCAA tournament, their Pablo rating ranked 4th in the conference, while Illinois rating ranked 7th. Post tournament, Wisconsin moved up to 2nd in the Big 10 and Illinois stayed at 7th.
Virtually every indication from last season - Wisconsin was the better team.
Illinois beat Wisconsin 3-1 in Madison. One match, and a match in which Wisconsin outscored Illinois. (22-25, 26-28, 25-10, 22-25). Wisconsin was the better team - and not really that close.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jul 21, 2014 8:42:42 GMT -5
Rutgers had a written release detailing which teams they play in each tourney, though last time I looked Rutgers "Schedule" still said TBA for the tourneys. No Cal, just to be clear. Instead Drake, who went 2-28 last year.
The SC and Washington matches pull Maryland's OOC opponent winning % from last year to .559, which is respectable. Lehigh, E. Tennessee State, and Radford were a combined 67-27, so that should keep Marylan's OOS respectable.
|
|
|
Post by Pasquale on Jul 21, 2014 9:15:46 GMT -5
Illinois beat Wisconsin 3-1 in Madison. One match, and a match in which Wisconsin outscored Illinois. (22-25, 26-28, 25-10, 22-25). Wisconsin was the better team - and not really that close. No.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 21, 2014 9:49:26 GMT -5
One match, and a match in which Wisconsin outscored Illinois. (22-25, 26-28, 25-10, 22-25). Wisconsin was the better team - and not really that close. No. So if one head to head match matters that much, would you say that 2012 Oregon State was better (or at least as good) than 2012 Penn State?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 21, 2014 9:52:23 GMT -5
So if one head to head match matters that much, would you say that 2012 Oregon State was better (or at least as good) than 2012 Penn State? Did PSU and Oregon State finished tied in the B1G standings?
|
|
|
Post by Pasquale on Jul 21, 2014 10:23:37 GMT -5
So if one head to head match matters that much, would you say that 2012 Oregon State was better (or at least as good) than 2012 Penn State? No, I'm saying it's absurd to claim Wisconsin was better than Illinois when they tied in the Big Ten standings and Illinois beat Wisconsin on their home court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 10:32:10 GMT -5
Wisconsin was decent last year during the regular season, got hot in the tournament (aided by a favorable path). I suspect they will be closer to the NCAA team this year than the B1G team, but people are still making too many assumptions based on that NCAA run.
See Michigan 2013.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 21, 2014 10:37:56 GMT -5
So if one head to head match matters that much, would you say that 2012 Oregon State was better (or at least as good) than 2012 Penn State? No, I'm saying it's absurd to claim Wisconsin was better than Illinois when they tied in the Big Ten standings and Illinois beat Wisconsin on their home court. The original question was why are most people projecting Wisconsin better in 2014 than Illinois despite both teams finishing 12-8 last season and losing just one starter (and the same position). The simple answer, most people think that Wisconsin was a better team last year. Virtually every statistical metric points to Wisconsin being the better team. The volleyball gods were very fortunate to Illinois last season. Their point differential was something one would expect from a 10-10 or 9-11 team, not 12-8. Illinois was 8-4 in sets decided by 2 points - something that does not correlate to the quality of the team. For comparison, Michigan was 7-5 and Penn State was 6-6. Wisconsin was 9-11 in sets decided by 2 points. Pablo saw Wisconsin as the better team - and also not really that close. The conference schdules were not the same - Wisconsin played Northwestern once, while Illinois played Minnesota just once (Illinois and Wisconsin also played each other just once). Wisconsin had the harder conference schedule. There is nothing absurd about claiming Wisconsin was the better team than Illinois last season - everything I see points to Wisconsin.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jul 21, 2014 10:52:43 GMT -5
You simply have to love that in a July 14th release Rutgers can announce their non-conference tournaments but not their opponents. Do they not know? Or is the SID just too lasy? For those of us with access to the miracle that is the internet the following teams are at the tournament Rutgers has named, so I hope we can assume that Rutgers non-Big 10 schedule includes many of these teams. @air Force 218 SIUE 253 Winthrop 243 Cal 35 @seton Hall 79 Cornell 227 Siena 209 UNLV 126 @rhode Island 193 NJIT 301 Cincinatti 270 @rutgers American 30 Princeton 248 Akron 254 James Madison 154 Then Maryland actually posted their opponents, so we know they play Elon 215 Liberty 187 San Jose (with nobody returning) Lehigh 133 East Tennessee 76 George Mason 268 Ga State 264 Ap State 153 Washington USC I'd think those number would weigh on every team in the Big 10, just a little. I could see the Big 10 down to 6 teams in the dance. This is concerning. It also exacerbates the inequality caused by the scheduling contortions necessary to avoid breaking the conference into divisions and maintain some semblance of a round-robin format. Some may say that Wisconsin gets it easy by only playing PSU and Nebraska once, and getting Rutgers twice and Maryland once. But with the latter two's bottom-of-the-barrell OOC scheduling, every match we play them is one we have to make up for in our own OOC scheduling. Whereas teams in other conferences get roughly an equal RPI impact from their conference schedule, the impact of the conference schedule is different for each B1G team depending on who they play. I strongly sense that last year, when the B1G got eight teams into the tournament, will be the last year we get so many. We'll definitely get five, maybe six. I find more to be highly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 21, 2014 11:00:06 GMT -5
You simply have to love that in a July 14th release Rutgers can announce their non-conference tournaments but not their opponents. Do they not know? Or is the SID just too lasy? For those of us with access to the miracle that is the internet the following teams are at the tournament Rutgers has named, so I hope we can assume that Rutgers non-Big 10 schedule includes many of these teams. @air Force 218 SIUE 253 Winthrop 243 Cal 35 @seton Hall 79 Cornell 227 Siena 209 UNLV 126 @rhode Island 193 NJIT 301 Cincinatti 270 @rutgers American 30 Princeton 248 Akron 254 James Madison 154 Then Maryland actually posted their opponents, so we know they play Elon 215 Liberty 187 San Jose (with nobody returning) Lehigh 133 East Tennessee 76 George Mason 268 Ga State 264 Ap State 153 Washington USC I'd think those number would weigh on every team in the Big 10, just a little. I could see the Big 10 down to 6 teams in the dance. This is concerning. It also exacerbates the inequality caused by the scheduling contortions necessary to avoid breaking the conference into divisions and maintain some semblance of a round-robin format. Some may say that Wisconsin gets it easy by only playing PSU and Nebraska once, and getting Rutgers twice and Maryland once. But with the latter two's bottom-of-the-barrell OOC scheduling, every match we play them is one we have to make up for in our own OOC scheduling. Whereas teams in other conferences get roughly an equal RPI impact from their conference schedule, the impact of the conference schedule is different for each B1G team depending on who they play. I strongly sense that last year, when the B1G got eight teams into the tournament, will be the last year we get so many. We'll definitely get five, maybe six. I find more to be highly unlikely. The B1G is MUCH MUCH better off with Rutgers/Maryland scheduling like this and winning 7/8 matches than scheduling average and walking into conference six games below .500. OppSOS is a really minor concern compared to whether Rutgers/Maryland finish 9-21 v 2-28.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 21, 2014 11:06:11 GMT -5
You simply have to love that in a July 14th release Rutgers can announce their non-conference tournaments but not their opponents. Do they not know? Or is the SID just too lasy? For those of us with access to the miracle that is the internet the following teams are at the tournament Rutgers has named, so I hope we can assume that Rutgers non-Big 10 schedule includes many of these teams. @air Force 218 SIUE 253 Winthrop 243 Cal 35 @seton Hall 79 Cornell 227 Siena 209 UNLV 126 @rhode Island 193 NJIT 301 Cincinatti 270 @rutgers American 30 Princeton 248 Akron 254 James Madison 154 Then Maryland actually posted their opponents, so we know they play Elon 215 Liberty 187 San Jose (with nobody returning) Lehigh 133 East Tennessee 76 George Mason 268 Ga State 264 Ap State 153 Washington USC I'd think those number would weigh on every team in the Big 10, just a little. I could see the Big 10 down to 6 teams in the dance. This is concerning. It also exacerbates the inequality caused by the scheduling contortions necessary to avoid breaking the conference into divisions and maintain some semblance of a round-robin format. Some may say that Wisconsin gets it easy by only playing PSU and Nebraska once, and getting Rutgers twice and Maryland once. But with the latter two's bottom-of-the-barrell OOC scheduling, every match we play them is one we have to make up for in our own OOC scheduling. Whereas teams in other conferences get roughly an equal RPI impact from their conference schedule, the impact of the conference schedule is different for each B1G team depending on who they play. I strongly sense that last year, when the B1G got eight teams into the tournament, will be the last year we get so many. We'll definitely get five, maybe six. I find more to be highly unlikely. It will be interestiing to see how this plays out, but I suspect the impact of adding Rutgers and Maryland will be much smaller than you think (related to RPI). As to Rutger's schedule, the best thing that could happen for the rest of the Big 10 is that Rutger's play as bad as teams possible and actually win more than half of their non conference games. With Rutgers and Maryland comes more conference wins for the middle of the conference - which will help the RPI and possibly offset the lower opponent record. I expect the Big 10 to continue to get 6-8 teams in the tournament each year. That said - they do water down the conference.
|
|
|
Post by Pasquale on Jul 21, 2014 11:25:05 GMT -5
No, I'm saying it's absurd to claim Wisconsin was better than Illinois when they tied in the Big Ten standings and Illinois beat Wisconsin on their home court. The original question was why are most people projecting Wisconsin better in 2014 than Illinois despite both teams finishing 12-8 last season and losing just one starter (and the same position). The simple answer, most people think that Wisconsin was a better team last year. Virtually every statistical metric points to Wisconsin being the better team. The volleyball gods were very fortunate to Illinois last season. Their point differential was something one would expect from a 10-10 or 9-11 team, not 12-8. Illinois was 8-4 in sets decided by 2 points - something that does not correlate to the quality of the team. For comparison, Michigan was 7-5 and Penn State was 6-6. Wisconsin was 9-11 in sets decided by 2 points. Pablo saw Wisconsin as the better team - and also not really that close. The conference schdules were not the same - Wisconsin played Northwestern once, while Illinois played Minnesota just once (Illinois and Wisconsin also played each other just once). Wisconsin had the harder conference schedule. There is nothing absurd about claiming Wisconsin was the better team than Illinois last season - everything I see points to Wisconsin. It's been a long, hot summer. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jul 21, 2014 11:32:33 GMT -5
So if one head to head match matters that much, would you say that 2012 Oregon State was better (or at least as good) than 2012 Penn State? No, I'm saying it's absurd to claim Wisconsin was better than Illinois when they tied in the Big Ten standings and Illinois beat Wisconsin on their home court. I do not think it is absurd. The results on paper do not necessarily dictate who was and is better. Two very different teams that finished in the same place but for very different reasons. I know, I know...I'll be harangued for saying so, but given all that WI faced early in the season with SIGNIFICANT injuries, they simply lost matches they shouldn't have due to a variety of factors including chemistry, youth, players out of position for the first time in years...they underperformed early on and got much better as the season progressed. It's not a vacuum, folks. WI was out-played and out-talented by PSU and NE, but I believe by the end of the season were better than IL. Even when playing well, IL has struggled to produce at the MH position. McMahon was spotty. Yeah, they're seniors now, but I don't think they've got "it." In fact, I don't even see them even placing 4th. On to the BIG results... NE will be a different team this year losing Robinson. They lose passing, leadership, defense and an amazing terminator. If Mary continues to struggle connecting with solid MHs, they will not win conference. PSU is young. Fact is there are a lot of unknowns with a team that could be comprised of as many as 4 starters. We'll see how they gel, but I suspect they'll do very well. 1. PSU 1. WI 3. NE 4. Purdue 5. IL 6. MN 7. MSU 8. MI 9. OSU 10. IN 11. IA 12. NW 13. MD 14. Rutgers 100...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 12:46:56 GMT -5
Uh-oh. Ohio State has gone missing. ("13" should have been the clue.)
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jul 21, 2014 13:20:51 GMT -5
Uh-oh. Ohio State has gone missing. ("13" should have been the clue.) I wish OSU went missing...
|
|