|
Post by alpacaone on Oct 21, 2014 9:51:08 GMT -5
What is the tie break procedure for three or more teams tied in first place? The sleeper team at the top has to be Illinois; unless things really turn a mess, or Purdue makes some noise, Illinois holds the head to head against Penn State, only play Purdue once at home, they have a shot at redeeming their OSU and WIsconsin losses, and all that would be left is getting through the Michigans and another against Nebraska (not an easy task.) That OSU loss could have them coming up a wee bit short, however, imagine a 3 or 4 way tie for first. Maybe Illinois runs the remainder of the schedule and tie with PSU and Wi, this schedule makes things such a mess, would Wisky tie for second but finish third with two head to head losses or would it go to shared opponents? How about if Purdue splits with Wisky, but loses to Ill who pulls off the split with Wi, and PSU finds another loss along the way, now there is a four way log jam with three loss teams( I know it's far fetched but what the hey, it's dumping rain so inside I'm stuck)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 21, 2014 9:56:34 GMT -5
Wisconsin is just playing too well to lose to anybody who won't just overpower them physically. Since they don't play PSU again, there aren't that many teams out there.
Illinois if they're playing well, and maybe Michigan St. on the road (Sunday morning match alert) - but Spartans would need to play soooo much better that I can't really see it happening - are the only potential upsets on the schedule.
I don't see Wisconsin having too much trouble with Purdue, to be honest. I'd put down money on Badgers at least sharing the title this year.
|
|
|
Post by alpacaone on Oct 21, 2014 10:12:49 GMT -5
With the terribly uneven scheduling they should declare co-champions, and let the seeding committee deal with it. Either that or find a way to schedule a 1East vs 2West, 1West vs 2East championship where each team plays 6 teams twice, and the other 7 once in an alternating year home away match.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 21, 2014 10:22:52 GMT -5
With the terribly uneven scheduling they should declare co-champions, and let the seeding committee deal with it. Either that or find a way to schedule a 1East vs 2West, 1West vs 2East championship where each team plays 6 teams twice, and the other 7 once in an alternating year home away match. If two teams finished tied, there will be co-champions.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 21, 2014 10:24:13 GMT -5
Wisconsin is just playing too well to lose to anybody who won't just overpower them physically. Since they don't play PSU again, there aren't that many teams out there. Illinois if they're playing well, and maybe Michigan St. on the road (Sunday morning match alert) - but Spartans would need to play soooo much better that I can't really see it happening - are the only potential upsets on the schedule. I don't see Wisconsin having too much trouble with Purdue, to be honest. I'd put down money on Badgers at least sharing the title this year. I don't know. Purdue looked very powerful from what I saw against PSU. I do think we'll handle them, but their passing is very good and they've got nice defense. Should be interesting. I hope Val Nichols attempts to dump...A LOT.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 21, 2014 10:25:29 GMT -5
I think they just give them co-champion status if they tie. I don't think there is a fair way to assign champions with an unbalanced schedule. I have also wondered about doing an East/West split with a championship match. 14 teams seems untenable unless you reduce the OOC schedules, which are critical to the ranking of the conference.
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Oct 21, 2014 11:37:54 GMT -5
Wisconsin is just playing too well to lose to anybody who won't just overpower them physically. Since they don't play PSU again, there aren't that many teams out there. Illinois if they're playing well, and maybe Michigan St. on the road (Sunday morning match alert) - but Spartans would need to play soooo much better that I can't really see it happening - are the only potential upsets on the schedule. I don't see Wisconsin having too much trouble with Purdue, to be honest. I'd put down money on Badgers at least sharing the title this year. I don't know. Purdue looked very powerful from what I saw against PSU. I do think we'll handle them, but their passing is very good and they've got nice defense. Should be interesting. I hope Val Nichols attempts to dump...A LOT. If Wisconsin loses 2 more (at least) which I think will happen and Purdue loses just once at PSU. PSU would have 2 losses and Purdue at 2 BUT both being to PSU. That should never equate to a Co-Champion. Ever! Head to head should be a determining factor in this case if teams are tied with identical records, especially if you have two losses to that team.
|
|
|
Post by lionsfan on Oct 21, 2014 11:39:53 GMT -5
PSU doesn't play Purdue again
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 21, 2014 12:08:27 GMT -5
I don't know. Purdue looked very powerful from what I saw against PSU. I do think we'll handle them, but their passing is very good and they've got nice defense. Should be interesting. I hope Val Nichols attempts to dump...A LOT. If Wisconsin loses 2 more (at least) which I think will happen and Purdue loses just once at PSU. PSU would have 2 losses and Purdue at 2 BUT both being to PSU. That should never equate to a Co-Champion. Ever! Head to head should be a determining factor in this case if teams are tied with identical records, especially if you have two losses to that team. Well it does.
|
|
|
Post by alpacaone on Oct 21, 2014 12:15:09 GMT -5
Hate to turn this around for the Penn State lovers for whom I am fond, but some have wanted an asterisk; let's say the top four finishers are PSU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Purdue in any order, then PSU only played one against each of the other three! Wisconsin on the other end gets Purdue and Illinois twice. Purdue and Illinois are in the middle play only Wisconsin twice of these four. So let's say PSU and Wisconsin tie, who cares about the head to head, Wisconsin had the far harder path and deserves to be Co-Champion w/o*!
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Oct 21, 2014 12:30:05 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
Thanks for the correction LF.
|
|
|
Post by transformer on Oct 21, 2014 13:14:47 GMT -5
It is sad when the schedule dictates the conference champion more then the record. It will be like this until The BIG can split it and have a championship at the end of the year. When everyone played home and away it was fair - now its not.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 21, 2014 13:46:37 GMT -5
So I thought I would put some stats (team - opp)together to gauge how teams have won or lost so far. These are net stats (team - opp) in-conference only. I calculate net points/set by subtracting net kills from net service aces. Blocking points are obviously included in net kills - net errors. Obviously there are other ways to get points, but that's all I have ready access to. It harder to get so I decided to look up service errors only for the top teams just to get a sense if they changed things.
UW and PSU top the list, with UW edging it barely. Everybody else is a step behind. The Michigans are actually right behind Purdue.
UW has highest net hitting percentage because of two things...it has the lowest opponent hitting percentage (0.147, MSU is close with second lowest at 0.152) and a relatively high hitting percentage. That hitting percentage partly results from very few hitting errors (100 total compared to 139 for PSU in 2nd). UW also has highest net blocking statistics, along with Purdue and Nebraska. PSU has the raw highest hitting percentage, but relatively porous defense (4th at 0.188). PSU also gets a net high service ace rate, which gives it the edge in points/set when service errors are not accounted for. This edge is wiped out when net service errors are added.
Anyway...food for thought...
Net Hitting Percentage
1 Wisconsin 0.125 2 Penn State 0.1 3 Purdue 0.101 4 Michigan 0.077 5 Nebraska 0.042 6 Illinois 0.034 7 Michigan State 0.046 8 Ohio State 0.011 9 Northwestern 0.004 10 Minnesota -0.043 11 Indiana -0.062 12 Iowa -0.131 13 Maryland -0.202 14 Rutgers -0.214
Net (K - E)/S 1 Wisconsin 4.16 2 Penn State 3.86 3 Purdue 3.24 4 Michigan 2.87 5 Illinois 1.68 6 Michigan State 1.62 7 Nebraska 1.34 8 Ohio State 0.64 9 Northwestern 0.24 10 Minnesota -1.81 11 Indiana -2.14 12 Iowa -4.18 13 Maryland -6.36 14 Rutgers -7.04
Net blocks/s 1 Purdue 0.9 1 Nebraska 0.9 1 Wisconsin 0.9 2 Penn State 0.56 3 Michigan State 0.43 4 Minnesota 0.24 5 Maryland -0.12 6 Illinois -0.16 7 Ohio State -0.44 8 Michigan -0.45 9 Rutgers -0.5 10 Northwestern -0.53 11 Iowa -0.7 12 Indiana -1.02
Net Service Aces 1 Penn State 1.34 2 Nebraska 0.51 3 Michigan State 0.34 4 Ohio State 0.30 5 Wisconsin 0.16 6 Illinois 0.13 7 Maryland 0.07 8 Minnesota 0.07 9 Indiana 0.00 10 Purdue -0.09 11 Michigan -0.17 12 Northwestern -0.58 13 Iowa -1.03 14 Rutgers -1.33
Net points (no SE) 1 Penn State 5.20 2 Wis 4.32 3 Purdue 3.15 4 Michigan 2.70 5 Michigan State 1.96 6 Nebraska 1.85 7 Illinois 1.81 8 Ohio State 0.94 9 Northwestern -0.34 10 Minnesota -1.74 11 Indiana -2.14 12 Iowa -5.21 13 Maryland -6.29 14 Rutgers -8.37
Net SE/set Penn State -0.76 Wis 0.20 Purdue 0.06 Michigan 0 Michigan State -0.21
Net points (+SE) Penn State 4.44 Wis 4.52 Purdue 3.21 Michigan 2.70 Michigan State 1.75
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 21, 2014 15:57:34 GMT -5
Ok reformatted so it is readable. I think it's interesting to look at net stats anyway. Gives you a better sense of how teams are balancing the tradeoffs between styles of play.
|
|