Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 10:58:27 GMT -5
Has there ever been discussion about any NCAA conferences adopting the international system used in tournaments and leagues to award different points in the conference standings depending on the outcome of the match, i.e., 3-0 or 3-1 = 3 points to winner, 0 to loser; 3-2 = 2 points to winner, 1 point to loser?
It seems to me that over a full conference schedule such a system would reward and differentiate the stronger teams.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 23, 2014 11:15:02 GMT -5
I think it is safe to guess that the answer is "no". NCAA is not going to do this any time before the sun turns into a red giant.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 23, 2014 11:18:00 GMT -5
This is America. Losers don't get hugs, and they certainly don't get a point either.
|
|
|
|
Post by VolleyTX on Oct 23, 2014 13:30:33 GMT -5
C4ndlelight FTW!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 13:35:03 GMT -5
This is America. Losers don't get hugs, and they certainly don't get a point either. I see once again VT hasn't disappointed me with the level of its intelligent discourse. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 23, 2014 13:37:23 GMT -5
There is a precedent for this in the NHL. A team gets two points for winning in overtime and 1 point for tying but losing in overtime. This scoring system is the equivalent of treating the fifth set as overtime. Of course, the overtime in the NHL was invented to reduce the number of ties, so it's a different dynamic at work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 13:52:56 GMT -5
There is a precedent for this in the NHL. A team gets two points for winning in overtime and 1 point for tying but losing in overtime. This scoring system is the equivalent of treating the fifth set as overtime. Of course, the overtime in the NHL was invented to reduce the number of ties, so it's a different dynamic at work. As I understand it, Pablo, which is a predictive tool, considers points/sets won as an indicator of the relative strength of teams. RPI, which is a primary tool used for seeding the NCAA tournament, is a ranking of past performance that adjusts for strength of schedule, i.e., more than just the quantity of wins, but to some extent the quality of those wins. The 3-2-1-0 system for conference standings seems conceptually aligned to both Pablo and RPI in the sense that it is designed to adjust the standings for the quality of the win, where a sweep is worth more than a 5-set victory. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 23, 2014 14:13:07 GMT -5
Each conference is free to determine the winner of the conference as it likes. The NCAA has no say in this.
The NCAA ignores pablo.
The NCAA does not need a points system to determine a champion, because it uses a knockout playoff tournament.
So the only possible place where the NCAA could potentially use something like this would be as a modification or replacement of RPI for the purpose of helping to seed the tournament. And that's not gonna happen, because the NCAA is not going to replace their favorite brainchild with a scoring system that was N.I.H.
The NCAA particularly has a phobia about any system that possibly seems to encourage running up the score, so all the tiebreakers that the FIVB love to use are right out of the picture for the NCAA.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiovol on Oct 23, 2014 14:16:09 GMT -5
I think its a good idea, going 5 usually means teams were practically even and as we know anyone can get hot in the fifth or squeak one out on some fortunate breaks. I like it, makes for more intrigue. Maybe teams will fight harder knowing they can still get an important point with a great effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 23, 2014 14:19:08 GMT -5
You could imagine using this system as a tie breaker for conference rankings, but that really then depends on the conference having a balanced schedule, otherwise it will seem biased. I can't see this in the current B1G for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by deacondive on Oct 23, 2014 14:19:59 GMT -5
This is America. Losers don't get hugs, and they certainly don't get a point either. I see once again VT hasn't disappointed me with the level of its intelligent discourse. The problem is that with the FIVB sometimes teams with worse records are higher in the standing than teams with better records. Wins are more important than sets. If anything the FIVB is the one that needs to change on this issue |
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Oct 23, 2014 14:20:42 GMT -5
The point system was specifically put into place to encourage teams down two sets to keep trying. NCAA a) doesn't care if you lose in three, doesn't care if you keep trying c) doesnt't care.
Dumb system. You could have a better record and be behind. An 8-0 team with 5 5 set wins trails a 6-2 team with two five set losses (and 6 3 or 4 set wins.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 15:28:27 GMT -5
Dumb system. You could have a better record and be behind. An 8-0 team with 5 5 set wins trails a 6-2 team with two five set losses (and 6 3 or 4 set wins.) Isn’t it only “dumb” if you think a 3-2 win should be worth the same in the standings as a 3-0 or 3-1 win? |
|
|
|
Post by deathfromabove on Oct 24, 2014 10:02:13 GMT -5
I thought this was an interesting topic. If you were to apply this to the B1G conference standings this is how it would look (assuming my quick math is correct):
1- Purdue (26 pts)
2- Wisconsin (24 pts)
3- Illinois (18 pts)
3- Nebraska (18 pts)
5- Penn State (17 pts)
5- Michigan (17 pts)
7- Michigan State (15 pts)
8- Ohio State (14 pts)
9- Northwestern (9 pts)
9- Minnesota (9 pts)
11- Indiana (8 pts)
12- Iowa (3 pts)
12- Maryland (3 pts)
14- Rutgers (1 pt)
I think the hardest part of accepting this formula is it's non-traditional. It places value in close contests, which I like. Whether others want to place a value like that in the standings to determine the conference champion is the tough part. We all like close matches and want to be rewarded for such.
Besides, everyone on here uses set scores and game scores to argue who is better anyways. Why not use it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Oct 24, 2014 10:11:21 GMT -5
This is America. Losers don't get hugs, and they certainly don't get a point either. But losers do get orange slices |
|
