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 Sept 30, 2014 11:15:31 GMT -5
RPI does not equate to seedlings. If Penn State loses only one more match they will not be seeded behind a 6 loss Oregon team, RPI be damned. The question isn't if a 2 loss PSU team would be seeded above a 6 loss Oregon team, the question is whether a 2 loss PSU team would be seeded above a 2 loss Stanford and Washington team. It's clear to me that unless the sky falls, Texas and FSU will be top seeds. The Big 12 and ACC isn't strong enough to give those teams enough losses to get out of top 4 seed range (though stranger things have happened). So then it comes Down to whether the PAC-12 gets a second seed or it goes to the Big 10. If both Washington and Stanford, or hell even Oregon, finish with 2 losses too (not saying they are, but if they do), I'm not sure PSU will have the case. All those teams would have higher RPI's and more matches (and presumably wins) over RPI top 25. In terms of seeds, however it may not be much of a difference, especially if we are just arguing 4 versus 5, considering they'd be in the same regional anyway. Come seasons end, the real winner is whomever will be the seed opposite FSU. While they played a tough preseason schedule, and escaped some potential losses, I'd have a hard time not seeing them as the weakest of the top seeds. I decided to take this hypothetical out. If Penn State, Washington, and Florida State all ended with just 2 losses - and using the RPI future's, then: Penn State would be 4-2 against the RPI top 25 and 9-2 against the RPI top 50 Washington would be 9-2 against the RPI top 25 and 15-2 against the RPI top 50 Florida State would be 6-2 against the RPI top 25 and 11-2 against the RPI top 50 I could see Penn State being a top 4 seed and Florida State being pushed to a #5 - despite having a better RPI than either Washington or Penn State. Also, the RPI future has Minnesota at #26 and Iowa State at #25. Switch those 2 and you add 2 wins to Penn State's top 25 and subtract 1 win from Florida State's top 25.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Sept 30, 2014 11:21:07 GMT -5
A 1 or 2 loss big champion is not not gonna get top 4 seed. I don't care how that rpi is dissected
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 30, 2014 11:31:07 GMT -5
The question isn't if a 2 loss PSU team would be seeded above a 6 loss Oregon team, the question is whether a 2 loss PSU team would be seeded above a 2 loss Stanford and Washington team. It's clear to me that unless the sky falls, Texas and FSU will be top seeds. The Big 12 and ACC isn't strong enough to give those teams enough losses to get out of top 4 seed range (though stranger things have happened). So then it comes Down to whether the PAC-12 gets a second seed or it goes to the Big 10. If both Washington and Stanford, or hell even Oregon, finish with 2 losses too (not saying they are, but if they do), I'm not sure PSU will have the case. All those teams would have higher RPI's and more matches (and presumably wins) over RPI top 25. In terms of seeds, however it may not be much of a difference, especially if we are just arguing 4 versus 5, considering they'd be in the same regional anyway. Come seasons end, the real winner is whomever will be the seed opposite FSU. While they played a tough preseason schedule, and escaped some potential losses, I'd have a hard time not seeing them as the weakest of the top seeds. I decided to take this hypothetical out. If Penn State, Washington, and Florida State all ended with just 2 losses - and using the RPI future's, then: Penn State would be 4-2 against the RPI top 25 and 9-2 against the RPI top 50 Washington would be 9-2 against the RPI top 25 and 15-2 against the RPI top 50 Florida State would be 6-2 against the RPI top 25 and 11-2 against the RPI top 50 I could see Penn State being a top 4 seed and Florida State being pushed to a #5 - despite having a better RPI than either Washington or Penn State. Also, the RPI future has Minnesota at #26 and Iowa State at #25. Switch those 2 and you add 2 wins to Penn State's top 25 and subtract 1 win from Florida State's top 25. Where is FSU going to get two losses? If they do get two losses, they will probably not be in the discussion as a top 4 seed anyway. The issue is that if Texas and FSU both go undefeated, then how do you not make them top seeds? And boof, what if Washington beats Stanford and neither have more than 2 losses? If FSU and Texas go undefeated, then what? In that scenario you aren't going to put Stanford in over Washington, since Washington will have just beat them. So what would you do, put PSU in over a Stanford team that beat PSU? Anyway it doesn't matter very much whether a team is a 1-4 or a 5-8. It's more significant which teams will be hosting. Washington hosts; the others will be distributed among Iowa State, Minnesota, and Louisville, none of which appear to be headed as a top seed right now (or maybe even as seeds at all).
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 30, 2014 11:44:06 GMT -5
2014 FSU has a better resume than 2009 FSU that got a 3-seed. I don't see the problem with them getting a top line; they scheduled the matches they needed to and won them.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 30, 2014 11:47:12 GMT -5
2014 FSU has a better resume than 2009 FSU that got a 3-seed. I don't see the problem with them getting a top line; they scheduled the matches they needed to and won them. Yeah, but if they do get two losses in their remaining schedule, they will be bad losses. That was my point.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 30, 2014 11:48:31 GMT -5
Anyway, I think top teams are going to be less worried about who they get matched against than they will be worried about ending up in the Seattle Regional and having to play on Washington's home court.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 30, 2014 11:49:07 GMT -5
2014 FSU has a better resume than 2009 FSU that got a 3-seed. I don't see the problem with them getting a top line; they scheduled the matches they needed to and won them. Yeah, but if they do get two losses in their remaining schedule, they will be bad losses. That was my point. At UNC and at Duke back-to-back won't be bad losses at all. Even then, they could trip up vs a Pitt or something (not that I think they will) and even though I would consider it a bad loss, the committee won't. Thanks, RPI!
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Sept 30, 2014 11:52:51 GMT -5
Anyway, I think top teams are going to be less worried about who they get matched against than they will be worried about ending up in the Seattle Regional and having to play on Washington's home court. Whys that? What reason is there for top teams to be scared of Washington on there home court. Psu dismantled them last year in semis there and Wisconsin just about had them there to this year. Think there are other things to worry about far more then getting Washington on their home floor
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 30, 2014 12:01:24 GMT -5
Anyway, I think top teams are going to be less worried about who they get matched against than they will be worried about ending up in the Seattle Regional and having to play on Washington's home court. Whys that? What reason is there for top teams to be scared of Washington on there home court. Psu dismantled them last year in semis there and Wisconsin just about had them there to this year. Think there are other things to worry about far more then getting Washington on their home floor I would guess you are too young to remember it, but ask Russ what happened the last time PSU came to play Washington on their home court, Hec Ed Pavillion (as opposed to Key Arena). This is all idle speculation, but I do think most teams would prefer to avoid having to go through Seattle if they could avoid it.
|
|
|
Post by lionsfan on Sept 30, 2014 12:01:52 GMT -5
Yeah, but if they do get two losses in their remaining schedule, they will be bad losses. That was my point. At UNC and at Duke back-to-back won't be bad losses at all. Even then, they could trip up vs a Pitt or something (not that I think they will) and even though I would consider it a bad loss, the committee won't. Thanks, RPI!
|
|
|
Post by alpacaone on Sept 30, 2014 12:08:18 GMT -5
I know Pablo still doesn't like FSU that much, for fun, please run the statistical probability of the handful of top teams against FSU's schedule to date, then put it up against our one run experimental probability. I know you ran the statistical probablity that they could win out to date again last week. I think what they have done is amazing, no one is here drooling over any of their players, how many can name even one, yet they keep working and taking care of business. I'd put them up against Texas, because I think they and Wisconsin haven't answered enough questions. I'd like to see an FSU-Wisky rematch for the final four!
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 30, 2014 12:11:06 GMT -5
At UNC and at Duke back-to-back won't be bad losses at all. Even then, they could trip up vs a Pitt or something (not that I think they will) and even though I would consider it a bad loss, the committee won't. Thanks, RPI!One time I did a weird shoot in Messico. Two of the girls disappeared, but I'm alive. Thanks, Mowie Shandin!
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Sept 30, 2014 12:11:53 GMT -5
Whys that? What reason is there for top teams to be scared of Washington on there home court. Psu dismantled them last year in semis there and Wisconsin just about had them there to this year. Think there are other things to worry about far more then getting Washington on their home floor I would guess you are too young to remember it, but ask Russ what happened the last time PSU came to play Washington on their home court, Hec Ed Pavillion (as opposed to Key Arena). This is all idle speculation, but I do think most teams would prefer to avoid having to go through Seattle if they could avoid it. If it was close match we could say the venue made difference but they got beat so bad it wouldn't have mattered where that match was played.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 30, 2014 12:41:25 GMT -5
I would guess you are too young to remember it, but ask Russ what happened the last time PSU came to play Washington on their home court, Hec Ed Pavillion (as opposed to Key Arena). This is all idle speculation, but I do think most teams would prefer to avoid having to go through Seattle if they could avoid it. If it was close match we could say the venue made difference but they got beat so bad it wouldn't have mattered where that match was played. I was there, it was a very close match. Russ Rose was quoted afterward saying that home court advantage was the key to the result. Here's text from the UW writeup after the match: PSU did come back and win game 3. Game four was tight too, with Washington eventually winning 30-26.
|
|
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 Sept 30, 2014 12:50:35 GMT -5
Yeah, but if they do get two losses in their remaining schedule, they will be bad losses. That was my point. At UNC and at Duke back-to-back won't be bad losses at all. Even then, they could trip up vs a Pitt or something (not that I think they will) and even though I would consider it a bad loss, the committee won't. Thanks, RPI! Pablo has NC favored at home against FSU. Their chances of winning at Duke is around or under 60%. At Louisville and Pittsburgh is around 65%, and at NC State, Clemson, and Miami is in the 75% range (If I understand Pablo ratings correctly). If they get through that w/o a loss - along with what they already have done, that would be a pretty special year. They get through that with only 2 losses - that would be worthy of a top 4 seed in normal seasons. Losing to Duke, Pittsburgh, or Louisville would be the equivalent to Washington/Stanford losing to Colorado, Oregon State, Cal, or Washington State. Losing to NC would be the equivalent to Washington/Stanford losing to Arizona, ASU, UCLA, or USC. None of these seem like 'bad' losses - and some of them are likely to occur.
|
|