|
|
Post by vballfreak808 on Oct 20, 2014 14:34:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jaypak on Oct 20, 2014 14:47:32 GMT -5
Last year, the entire Big East finished better than 175 in the final RPI. This year, the addition of Providence (currently 308) and fall of DePaul (currently 295) serve as an anchor to the rest of a respectable conference. Marquette is still in decent shape at 24 with the win over Florida. Creighton fell 4 slots to 46 after sweeping Providence. If they remain in the 40's at the end of the season, it will be interesting to see if the committee shows them mercy for scheduling 5 preseason Top 25 teams in the non-conference, and playing the non-conference season without an injured starter who is now back.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 20, 2014 15:30:49 GMT -5
Creighton fell 4 slots to 46 after sweeping Providence. If they remain in the 40's at the end of the season, it will be interesting to see if the committee shows them mercy for scheduling 5 preseason Top 25 teams in the non-conference, and playing the non-conference season without an injured starter who is now back. The committee will definitely look favorably on the quality of Creighton's non-conference schedule. While they didn't win any of those Top 25 matches, it is providing a needed boost to both their SOS and their RPI. Currently, Creighton's best wins are over Marquette (RKPI #23), Colorado (#33) and Lipscomb (#40). These are somewhat offset by losses to South Dakota (#67) and Seton Hall (#70), but they don't have any really bad losses. The injured starter issue will have no bearing on the committee's deliberations. |
|
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: 12,381 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 20, 2014 15:51:15 GMT -5
Last year, the entire Big East finished better than 175 in the final RPI. This year, the addition of Providence (currently 308) and fall of DePaul (currently 295) serve as an anchor to the rest of a respectable conference. Marquette is still in decent shape at 24 with the win over Florida. Creighton fell 4 slots to 46 after sweeping Providence. If they remain in the 40's at the end of the season, it will be interesting to see if the committee shows them mercy for scheduling 5 preseason Top 25 teams in the non-conference, and playing the non-conference season without an injured starter who is now back. Providence is a pretty big drain on the Big East's RPI. Creighton drops in the RPI, while they gain in Pablo, both around #45/46. This is an example of one my biggest problems with RPI. Beating a bad (low W/L record) is worse than not playing at all. RPI only looks at who wins the game and doesn't look at the scores of the games. Creighton didn't just beat Providence this week - they destoyed them (25-10, 25-12, 25-7). As for Creighton's prospects if they don't win the conference. If they finish 3rd - I think they are cooked. I am curious what the impact of the conference tournament will have. The Big East gives an RPI favor by only inviting the top 4 teams to the tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 20, 2014 16:01:07 GMT -5
Last year, the entire Big East finished better than 175 in the final RPI. This year, the addition of Providence (currently 308) and fall of DePaul (currently 295) serve as an anchor to the rest of a respectable conference. Marquette is still in decent shape at 24 with the win over Florida. Creighton fell 4 slots to 46 after sweeping Providence. If they remain in the 40's at the end of the season, it will be interesting to see if the committee shows them mercy for scheduling 5 preseason Top 25 teams in the non-conference, and playing the non-conference season without an injured starter who is now back. Providence is a pretty big drain on the Big East's RPI. Creighton drops in the RPI, while they gain in Pablo, both around #45/46. This is an example of one my biggest problems with RPI. Beating a bad (low W/L record) is worse than not playing at all. RPI only looks at who wins the game and doesn't look at the scores of the games. Creighton didn't just beat Providence this week - they destoyed them (25-10, 25-12, 25-7). As for Creighton's prospects if they don't win the conference. If they finish 3rd - I think they are cooked. I am curious what the impact of the conference tournament will have. The Big East gives an RPI favor by only inviting the top 4 teams to the tournament. I agree, on your point regarding the RPI, which is why I think there should be a "Revised" RPI for actual seeding and tournament bids. The current models usually gets us a pretty good idea of which teams are the top 100 or so. So at the end of the season, use just the top 100 teams to build a revised RPI. Essential it would give us a Win/Loss percentage and SOS versus team in the top 100 rather than the top 300+. It would be a net benefit to both power conferences whose top half teams don't have strong preseason schedules and teams in weaker conferences who schedule touch in the preseason but continue to drop in the RPI because of crummy competition in conference. The one caveat I would impose with this is that wins against teams outside of the top 100 aren't counted in the revised RPI, but LOSSES are. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 20, 2014 16:45:32 GMT -5
Tell that to the Marquette crew from last season. They had the same type of preconfrence schedule with no ones and all anyone had to say was "but they didn't beat any of those teams" Since Marquette was in the NCAA tournament last year, I'm guessing your comment relates to the issue of seeding. My comments regarding Creighton relate to whether they can sneak into the tournament field with a projected RPI in the mid-40's. That is a different issue than seeding and the criteria given the most weight by the committee are not the same for these two parts of the bracketing process. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Oct 20, 2014 17:02:47 GMT -5
Outside of the top seeds it will be very interesting to see where Penn State finishes cause outside of the top 4 they seem like they have the potential to be a legit contender.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpacaone on Oct 20, 2014 18:41:05 GMT -5
Outside of the top seeds it will be very interesting to see where Penn State finishes cause outside of the top 4 they seem like they have the potential to be a legit contender. 1 vs 16  |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 20, 2014 21:04:18 GMT -5
Providence is a pretty big drain on the Big East's RPI. Creighton drops in the RPI, while they gain in Pablo, both around #45/46. This is an example of one my biggest problems with RPI. Beating a bad (low W/L record) is worse than not playing at all. RPI only looks at who wins the game and doesn't look at the scores of the games. Creighton didn't just beat Providence this week - they destoyed them (25-10, 25-12, 25-7). As for Creighton's prospects if they don't win the conference. If they finish 3rd - I think they are cooked. I am curious what the impact of the conference tournament will have. The Big East gives an RPI favor by only inviting the top 4 teams to the tournament. I agree, on your point regarding the RPI, which is why I think there should be a "Revised" RPI for actual seeding and tournament bids. The current models usually gets us a pretty good idea of which teams are the top 100 or so. So at the end of the season, use just the top 100 teams to build a revised RPI. Essential it would give us a Win/Loss percentage and SOS versus team in the top 100 rather than the top 300+. It would be a net benefit to both power conferences whose top half teams don't have strong preseason schedules and teams in weaker conferences who schedule touch in the preseason but continue to drop in the RPI because of crummy competition in conference. The one caveat I would impose with this is that wins against teams outside of the top 100 aren't counted in the revised RPI, but LOSSES are. the most insidious flaw of RPI is that it gets used TWICE! first for ranking, and then again for qualifying what is a top 25, top 50, top 100, etc. win or loss - particularly past the first 20 or so teams, there become glaring differences between RPI & better ranking systems, the flaws of RPI are compounded when used in that fashion and the WCC especially penalized by RPI - UOP/USF/Santa Clara/Gonzaga collectively are really downgraded |
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 20, 2014 21:30:36 GMT -5
Creighton fell 4 slots to 46 after sweeping Providence. If they remain in the 40's at the end of the season, it will be interesting to see if the committee shows them mercy for scheduling 5 preseason Top 25 teams in the non-conference, and playing the non-conference season without an injured starter who is now back. The committee will definitely look favorably on the quality of Creighton's non-conference schedule. While they didn't win any of those Top 25 matches, it is providing a needed boost to both their SOS and their RPI. Currently, Creighton's best wins are over Marquette (RKPI #23), Colorado (#33) and Lipscomb (#40). These are somewhat offset by losses to South Dakota (#67) and Seton Hall (#70), but they don't have any really bad losses. The injured starter issue will have no bearing on the committee's deliberations.i remember at one point, there was a power-point file that was circulated that listed the factors the committee looks at, and significant injuries was listed. that was from a few years ago. i do not know if it's still a listed criteria. of course, how closely the committee members look at and weight those things ... i do not know ... |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 20, 2014 21:43:58 GMT -5
My recollection is that significant injuries are a factor only if the injury happens late in the season and the player involved will not return for the tournament. If the committee feels this negatively impacts the chances of the team, they may take this into account in such things as assigning seeds. I'm not sure this has ever occurred with respect to the women's VB tournament, but it has been a factor in the men's basketball tournament a few times within the past 10-15 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 21, 2014 21:25:47 GMT -5
My recollection is that significant injuries are a factor only if the injury happens late in the season and the player involved will not return for the tournament. If the committee feels this negatively impacts the chances of the team, they may take this into account in such things as assigning seeds. I'm not sure this has ever occurred with respect to the women's VB tournament, but it has been a factor in the men's basketball tournament a few times within the past 10-15 years. aah yes, you are correct!  |
|
