|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 22, 2014 13:18:22 GMT -5
SEC RPI boons: 1) 18 game conference schedule: Having extra matches non.conference offers a tangible RPI boost. (See also: Big XII teams' great RPIs this year). It's significant enough to move teams from bubble out to bubble in. 2) Geography: It's really easy for SEC teams to schedule non-conference matches against teams with good W-L records they can also win. This is because there are more, and more crappy, teams out there. Compare the benefit to RPI vs "ease of beating" for a Lipscomb vs a Pacific, for example. PAC-12 have recently gotten better at understanding this, and have travel budgets that allow them to adapt, and this is why we've seen the RPI gap for the PAC-12 close somewhat.
Also, the unbalanced conference schedule can cut both ways, but for certain teams getting a lucky draw it can put them in the tournament when they would otherwise miss. Look at Georgia last year.
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2014 14:10:15 GMT -5
With the SEC RPI love, we may see an undeserving SEC squad squeeze in over a mid-major with a mid-40s or low 50-s team such as Ohio, Lipscomb, etc.... The SEC got too many bids and was embarrassed last year. Is it just me or does the SEC always seem to get too many bids and continually get embarrassed in the tourney? 2010 was another prime example: 6 SEC teams made the tourney with three of those seeded (Florida #1, Tennessee #11, LSU #13). Florida received the no. 1 overall seed and were swept in the Sweet 16 by a Purdue team that finished t-4th in the B1G (who did push Texas in the Elite 8 before their starting setter got injured in the end of the first set). Tennessee was seeded 11th and lost in the second round to Indiana (finished 7th in the B1G). LSU was seeded 13th and was swept in the first round. SEC teams overall finished 4-6 for the tourney with only one team making it out of the sub-regionals. Does anybody know what about the RPI structure seems to favor the SEC so heavily? I decided to look at the past 5 years - which includes the dreaded (for SEC) 2010 season. Statistically, the SEC has been 'embarrassed' more often than any other conference. However - the sample size (5 years) is small, and some of this is probably selective memory for most people. I would sugget that the Pac 12 has had their share of 'embarrssments'. I only looked at seeded teams - and advancing to the Regionals. Below is the % of time each range of seeds advanced to the Regionals: Seed #1 - #4: 85% Seed #5 - #12: 72% Seed #13 - #16: 60% By Conference (I tried to keep track of when Nebraska moved to the Big 10 and A&M and Missouri moved to the SEC): Big 10: 20 of 21 seeds advanced. Average seed was #7. 8 unseeded teams advanced Pac 12: 13 of 19 seeds advanced. Average seed was #7. 1 unseeded team advanced Big 12: 11 of 12 seeds advanced (Includes Nebraska twice). Average seed was #7. 4 unseeded teams advanced (Includes Texas A&M and Missouri once each). SEC: 5 of 12 seeds advanced. Average seed was #12 3 unseeded teams advanced. ACC: 4 of 5 seeds advanced. Average seed was #10. 1 unseeded team advanced. WCC: 3 of 3 seeds advanced. Average seed was #12. 1 unseeded team advanced. The SEC has the lowest % of seeds advancing, but they also have the worst seed #. They seem to be more likely to be bracketed with unseeded Big 10 teams, which has proven to be the riskiest matchup in the early rounds of the tournament. The Pac 12 has made up with some early round troubles with always having some teams advance farther. The SEC has not been all that successful in the later rounds. But outside of the Big 10, Pac 12, and Texas - not many teams have had much success getting to the Final 4.
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2014 14:13:34 GMT -5
SEC RPI boons: 1) 18 game conference schedule: Having extra matches non.conference offers a tangible RPI boost. (See also: Big XII teams' great RPIs this year). It's significant enough to move teams from bubble out to bubble in. 2) Geography: It's really easy for SEC teams to schedule non-conference matches against teams with good W-L records they can also win. This is because there are more, and more crappy, teams out there. Compare the benefit to RPI vs "ease of beating" for a Lipscomb vs a Pacific, for example. PAC-12 have recently gotten better at understanding this, and have travel budgets that allow them to adapt, and this is why we've seen the RPI gap for the PAC-12 close somewhat. Also, the unbalanced conference schedule can cut both ways, but for certain teams getting a lucky draw it can put them in the tournament when they would otherwise miss. Look at Georgia last year. The WCC doesn't seem to be getting much boost from this. Not arguing with the point, just wondering.
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2014 15:50:31 GMT -5
Is it just me or does the SEC always seem to get too many bids and continually get embarrassed in the tourney? 2010 was another prime example: 6 SEC teams made the tourney with three of those seeded (Florida #1, Tennessee #11, LSU #13). Florida received the no. 1 overall seed and were swept in the Sweet 16 by a Purdue team that finished t-4th in the B1G (who did push Texas in the Elite 8 before their starting setter got injured in the end of the first set). Tennessee was seeded 11th and lost in the second round to Indiana (finished 7th in the B1G). LSU was seeded 13th and was swept in the first round. SEC teams overall finished 4-6 for the tourney with only one team making it out of the sub-regionals. Does anybody know what about the RPI structure seems to favor the SEC so heavily? That Purdue team in 2010..... So solid.... They had Texas on the ropes, taking the first set. Then Jaclyn Hart goes down with an injury. So so sad. (And she has just lost her father-- right?) That was still a great great season for the Boilermakers. But in 2010 Oregon was Robbed. They should have been in the NCAAs. I don't know why the RPI seems to favor the SEC so much... Maybe Bluepenguin or Bofa would be able to help out? I believe that in the aggregate - RPI works against teams where there is a higher concentration of good teams. The concentration of teams east (defined as east of the Colorado/Nebraska border) are not as good as in the West. I am not saying that the Pac 12 is better than the Big 10 or that the WCC is better than the Big 12 - but that there are some really bad conferences and they mostly reside in the East. A conference like the Big 10 doesn't really get any advantages from the 'East' bias because the conference is so strong (RPI works against high concentration of good teams), while lessor conferences in the East get the potential for a boom. The Pac 12 is generally so strong, that their loss from the 'East' bias usually doesn't cause them to lose the seeds and bids that impact the next tier of Western schools. Here is a list of the current W/L% greater than 60% of Eastern Schools (not including the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, and ACC) followed by the Western Schools (not including the Pac 12, WCC, and Big West). Almost every one of these teams will see their W/L% increase as they continue through conference play. There are more than 7X as many great RPI teams to choose from in the East. These are the teams that will show up on Kansas's schedule this year. 1. Towson 87.0% 2. Hofstra 86.4% 3. UMKC 85.7% 4. Marist 85.0% 5. Seton Hall 82.6% 6. American 81.0% 7. Appalachian State 81.0% 8. Arkansas-Little Rock 81.0% 9. SMU 80.0% 10. Liberty 80.0% 11. Western Kentucky 80.0% 12. Murray State 80.0% 13. Dayton 79.2% 14. Ohio 78.9% 15. Valparaiso 78.3% 16. Texas-Arlington 78.3% 17. Marquette 76.2% 18. Coastal Carolina 76.2% 19. LIU Brooklyn 76.2% 20. UCF 75.0% 21. Harvard 75.0% 22. Illinois State 75.0% 23. Saint Louis 73.9% 24. Memphis 72.7% 25. Rice 72.7% 26. Dartmouth 72.2% 27. North Dakota 72.0% 28. Florida Atlantic 71.4% 29. Temple 70.0% 30. George Washington 70.0% 31. Lipscomb 70.0% 32. Stephen F. Austin 69.6% 33. Furman 68.4% 34. Creighton 68.2% 35. Radford 68.2% 36. UNC Wilmington 68.2% 37. Northern Illinois 68.2% 38. Central Arkansas 68.2% 39. Butler 66.7% 40. Indiana State 66.7% 41. Missouri State 66.7% 42. Eastern Kentucky 66.7% 43. Samford 66.7% 44. Winthrop 65.2% 45. Western Michigan 65.2% 46. Louisiana-Lafayette 65.2% 47. Cincinnati 65.0% 48. Rhode Island 65.0% 49. Louisville 65.0% 50. Northern Kentucky 65.0% 51. Stetson 65.0% 52. Texas-San Antonio 65.0% 53. Southern Miss 64.0% 54. Youngstown State 63.6% 55. Tulsa 63.2% 56. Colgate 63.2% 57. Yale 62.5% 58. Florida Gulf Coast 61.9% 59. Manhattan College 61.9% 60. Northern Iowa 61.9% 61. South Dakota 61.9% 62. College of Charleston 60.9% 63. Lehigh 60.9% 64. Texas State 60.9% 65. Miami-OH 60.0% 66. Sam Houston State 60.0% 1. Colorado State 95.2% 2. Denver 81.8% 3. Northern Arizona 78.9% 4. UNLV 78.3% 5. Wyoming 76.2% 6. Idaho State 61.9% 7. Northern Colorado 60.0% 8. Southern Utah 60.0% 9. Boise State 60.0%
|
|
|
Post by onfiya on Oct 22, 2014 16:18:22 GMT -5
Is RPI the only factor the committee considers? In the American for instance, your picks SMU and Tulsa are most likely going to end up no better than 4th and 5th in the conference finishing behind Memphis and Cincinnati. Can/should they jump those and get the bids based solely on RPI?
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Oct 22, 2014 18:28:21 GMT -5
The above list of teams East v. West with good winning % is an excellent example of "RPI" bias. Simply more opportunity for higher echelon schools to schedule good RPI opponents. And, taking the WCC as an example, the teams have more scheduling dates, but have to find opponents who are already into conference play, or travel to the East, at great expense, to play teams the WcCC is unacquainted with, that are not guaranteed to be RPI helpful.
Another point that affects all teams, say a good program from a one entrant conference, like American, or used to be, Delaware, becomes a hotshot RPI opponent, and schedules so many RPI hungry teams that they start to lose all those OOC contests. The coach probably wants the great competition to help prepare his/her team, but suddenly not the greatest RPI opponent if you have 10 losses
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Oct 22, 2014 18:36:51 GMT -5
But in 2010 Oregon was Robbed. They should have been in the NCAAs. Are you kidding? They weren't even the "first team out"... nor did they deserve to be. St. Mary's had a clearly better season and also didn't make it. Oregon had one RPI Top 50 win: that is pathetic for a self-styled tournament contender (Stanford already has fourteen RPI Top 50 wins this season). If Coach Moore wants to play the Little Sisters of the Poor during the pre-season, he better make sure he beats a few better Pac-12 teams during the regular season... especially during a season like 2010, when the Pac-12 was way down and its inter-conference record against good teams reflected that.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 22, 2014 20:02:49 GMT -5
But in 2010 Oregon was Robbed. They should have been in the NCAAs. Are you kidding? They weren't even the "first team out"... nor did they deserve to be. St. Mary's had a clearly better season and also didn't make it. Oregon had one RPI Top 50 win: that is pathetic for a self-styled tournament contender (Stanford already has fourteen RPI Top 50 wins this season). If Coach Moore wants to play the Little Sisters of the Poor during the pre-season, he better make sure he beats a few better Pac-12 teams during the regular season... especially during a season like 2010, when the Pac-12 was way down and its inter-conference record against good teams reflected that. Oregon was a good team that year. They took USC to five sets in both of their matches that season. What was their pablo ranking? They were a competitive team. Lmao, the Pac-12 was "WAY" down... Well... Then why were 4 out of the Elite 8 from the Pac-12? Stanford's loaded team also lost to USC in the Region Finals.. Cal had the best setter in the country in Carli Lloyd. Washington was quite good with Becky Perry, Kinda Carlson, Jenna Hagglund... USC had bombing outside hitters Jupiter and Fonoimoana with a stud Hagglund and very consist Bateman.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 22, 2014 21:14:21 GMT -5
SEC RPI boons: 1) 18 game conference schedule: Having extra matches non.conference offers a tangible RPI boost. (See also: Big XII teams' great RPIs this year). It's significant enough to move teams from bubble out to bubble in. 2) Geography: It's really easy for SEC teams to schedule non-conference matches against teams with good W-L records they can also win. This is because there are more, and more crappy, teams out there. Compare the benefit to RPI vs "ease of beating" for a Lipscomb vs a Pacific, for example. PAC-12 have recently gotten better at understanding this, and have travel budgets that allow them to adapt, and this is why we've seen the RPI gap for the PAC-12 close somewhat. Also, the unbalanced conference schedule can cut both ways, but for certain teams getting a lucky draw it can put them in the tournament when they would otherwise miss. Look at Georgia last year. The WCC doesn't seem to be getting much boost from this. Not arguing with the point, just wondering. Who says they aren't? Where would they be with a 20-game conference schedule? But that point was really for comparing SEC v PAC and B1G.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 23, 2014 22:54:26 GMT -5
SEC RPI boons: 1) 18 game conference schedule: Having extra matches non.conference offers a tangible RPI boost. (See also: Big XII teams' great RPIs this year). It's significant enough to move teams from bubble out to bubble in. 2) Geography: It's really easy for SEC teams to schedule non-conference matches against teams with good W-L records they can also win. This is because there are more, and more crappy, teams out there. Compare the benefit to RPI vs "ease of beating" for a Lipscomb vs a Pacific, for example. PAC-12 have recently gotten better at understanding this, and have travel budgets that allow them to adapt, and this is why we've seen the RPI gap for the PAC-12 close somewhat. Also, the unbalanced conference schedule can cut both ways, but for certain teams getting a lucky draw it can put them in the tournament when they would otherwise miss. Look at Georgia last year. The WCC doesn't seem to be getting much boost from this. Not arguing with the point, just wondering. Depends on who you get to skip - if skipping Auburn, Miss St, or Tennessee (collective 22-44), SOS benefits. If skipping Florida or Kentucky (31-6), win-loss record benefits. A tournament allows adding wins without having to play "RPI leeches". Conference RPI benefits if members are able to utilize the opened dates to schedule beatable OOC opponents with positive win-loss records. If mostly just adding fluff, the damage to team SOS can outweigh the added wins. If adding Pac-12 opponents, however, win-loss records stand to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by Upfrontvb on Oct 23, 2014 23:53:28 GMT -5
With the SEC RPI love, we may see an undeserving SEC squad squeeze in over a mid-major with a mid-40s or low 50-s team such as Ohio, Lipscomb, etc.... The SEC got too many bids and was embarrassed last year. Is it just me or does the SEC always seem to get too many bids and continually get embarrassed in the tourney? 2010 was another prime example: 6 SEC teams made the tourney with three of those seeded (Florida #1, Tennessee #11, LSU #13). Florida received the no. 1 overall seed and were swept in the Sweet 16 by a Purdue team that finished t-4th in the B1G (who did push Texas in the Elite 8 before their starting setter got injured in the end of the first set). Tennessee was seeded 11th and lost in the second round to Indiana (finished 7th in the B1G). LSU was seeded 13th and was swept in the first round. SEC teams overall finished 4-6 for the tourney with only one team making it out of the sub-regionals. Does anybody know what about the RPI structure seems to favor the SEC so heavily? Why do you have to say that the SEC teams that made it to the tournament continually get embarrassed?! What an ass. Any team that makes it to the tournament worked hard to get there! And they may have lost in the first round or second but those teams were not embarrassed by it. But proud! Some posters may not have thought that some teams should have been picked while others weren't but unfortunately that is how RPI/Conference selections are done. I'm not a fan of it. But there have been many unexpected teams that have come out of the first round and have gone far.
|
|
|
Post by jaypak on Oct 25, 2014 15:57:23 GMT -5
Creighton's not done yet. Their win last night over Marquette vaulted them into 1st place and gave them a regular season sweep of the Golden Eagles. Creighton will be favored in all of their remaining games. Should they win out to the conference tourney final, they would have an RPI in the high 30's, with no bad losses and a record of around 6-6 vs. the Top 50, and around 13-8 vs. the Top 100.
Marquette's not done yet. I can see Creighton or Marquette earning an at-large. But should Seton Hall, Xavier, or Butler win the conference tournament, I don't forsee Creighton and Marquette BOTH earning an at-large.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 25, 2014 18:34:33 GMT -5
Creighton's not done yet. Their win last night over Marquette vaulted them into 1st place and gave them a regular season sweep of the Golden Eagles. Creighton will be favored in all of their remaining games. Should they win out to the conference tourney final, they would have an RPI in the high 30's, with no bad losses and a record of around 6-6 vs. the Top 50, and around 13-8 vs. the Top 100. Marquette's not done yet. I can see Creighton or Marquette earning an at-large. But should Seton Hall, Xavier, or Butler win the conference tournament, I don't forsee Creighton and Marquette BOTH earning an at-large. Marquette, barring an ABSOLUTE meltdown, will be in the NCAA's. Creighton's victory over Marquette was way more important for the Jays than the Eagles. Marquette will get an at-large regardless, but Creighton I am still not sold on. That victory, should they keep playing well, probably punched Creighton's ticket to the NCAAs. Xavier also had a huge win over Seton Hall. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 25, 2014 21:00:27 GMT -5
Creighton's not done yet. Their win last night over Marquette vaulted them into 1st place and gave them a regular season sweep of the Golden Eagles. Creighton will be favored in all of their remaining games. Should they win out to the conference tourney final, they would have an RPI in the high 30's, with no bad losses and a record of around 6-6 vs. the Top 50, and around 13-8 vs. the Top 100. Marquette's not done yet. I can see Creighton or Marquette earning an at-large. But should Seton Hall, Xavier, or Butler win the conference tournament, I don't forsee Creighton and Marquette BOTH earning an at-large. Marquette, barring an ABSOLUTE meltdown, will be in the NCAA's. Creighton's victory over Marquette was way more important for the Jays than the Eagles. Marquette will get an at-large regardless, but Creighton I am still not sold on. That victory, should they keep playing well, probably punched Creighton's ticket to the NCAAs. Xavier also had a huge win over Seton Hall. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I guess I just jinxed Seton Hall. The key now for Creighton is the road matches vs. Xavier and Butler. Seton Hall didn't survive...
|
|