|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2014 9:18:52 GMT -5
Only if those fans are either their parents or friends of those players. I know rookie coaches who put in their second stringers in the third set after they destroyed the other team in the first two sets, only to lose that set and eventually the match because they lost the momentum they had in the first two sets. After they do that once, then never again. For the most part, I agree with you. Volleyball is a game of momentum, and you don't want to give it back to the other team. A coach is always taking a risk when substituting in players that have never played, or have rarely played, or who bring the level of play way down. Still, for some it is still important as a way to develop talent and to evaluate. It is safer to wait to second set, with big lead, and just sub in one or two of these type of players, so you still have mostly starters. And you have to recognize when to pull them. Same thing in set 3 after crushing opponent in first 2. Don't put whole team of non-starters; just put 4 starters with 2 who don't play much. And keep making assessments throughout set to determine how many starters you need to keep in. You still risk giving the opponent a chance to get back into the match, but if you are careful the risk is minimal, and the benefits can be great. ...and there is no reason to think a 3-2-1-0 scoring system changes any of that. As I noted, no one in their right mind is substituting to concede a match into set 5.
|
|
|
Post by charlesd on Oct 29, 2014 9:25:16 GMT -5
The FIVB has decided that the object is not only to win the match, and uses that as their approach as a result. Therefore, in FIVB, the object is not only to win the match, but you are rewarded more if you can win in 3 or 4 sets. By definition. I have argued that they do this because they know that it does a better job of identifying the best teams. I could be wrong on that, but that's how I've always interpreted it. This is an interesting point. I, too, had assumed that the underlying premise of the FIVB points system was a recognition that not all wins and losses are equal, and that some other method is needed to identify the best teams, especially in a tournament format with so few games. But as I have read this thread and thought about it more, I wonder if that is indeed the premise. It could equally be true that the system has a different premise, which is that in a tournament or the course of a long professional season teams down 2-0, say, might mail in the third set and head home early or to rest up for the next match. Or perhaps in a 2-0 match fans leave early or do not find it exciting. Making every set worth something addresses both of these scenarios. Does anyone know why the FIVB adopted this system? Was it really to identify the best teams or to ensure the participating teams and fans retained interest throughout a match?
|
|
|
Post by charlesd on Oct 29, 2014 10:09:30 GMT -5
A further thought or two.
With 334 DI teams, a relatively limited number of games, and the statistical reality that few teams play each other, when trying to rank teams on a national basis the NCAA tournament selection and seeding process accepts the underlying premise that wins and losses alone are not determinative of relative team strength. In these circumstances, the NCAA happens to use the RPI formula to determine national rankings based on the relative strength of schedule. One might argue with the suitability of the RPI formula for this purpose, or about the way the formula is applied, but in the circumstances the NCAA must deal with—ranking teams that mostly do not play against each other or even against the same subset of teams—the underlying premise remains—not all wins and losses should be considered equal. A points system, whether based on sets won or points won, is conceptually identical. It is just another process for trying to determine the quality of wins and losses for the purpose of identifying and ranking teams when wins and losses do not necessarily do so. RPI attempts to do so based on past record. Bofa argues that total points won is a better predictor of future results.
However, the original question related to using a points system for determining conference standings. One of the apparent underlying reasons for having to adjust on a national basis is that teams only play a small percentage of all the other teams, something in the order of less than 10%, in any one season. Conference play is often different. In a fully balanced conference schedule, it seems to me that wins and losses are a fair and reasonably accurate method for ranking the teams and rewarding them based on results—although a points system might be a better tie-breaker than say, overall record, which suffers from the same underlying flaw—the teams have played different opponents.
However, for conferences with unbalanced schedules, I think a stronger argument can be made that adjusting for the quality of wins and losses is appropriate. And then the question is what is the best method to do this?
I see no reason conceptually why a points system, based on sets won, total points won, or total points differential should be objectionable, given the premise that some adjustment should be made to reflect that teams play different opponents.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2014 10:39:06 GMT -5
However, for conferences with unbalanced schedules, I think a stronger argument can be made that adjusting for the quality of wins and losses is appropriate. And then the question is what is the best method to do this? I see no reason conceptually why a points system, based on sets won, total points won, or total points differential should be objectionable, given the premise that some adjustment should be made to reflect that teams play different opponents. Agreed, but as you note, the same problem exists in using just wins and losses. Given the massively unbalanced schedules in the Big Ten these days, what does the win/loss record really represent? It is a combination of your wins and losses but also reflects who you played. For sure, that same problem is going arise using a 3-2-1-0 method for the reasons you laid out. IOW, absolutely in order to do things better, you have to account for an unbalanced schedule. However, that's also true for W/L only, and not specific to 3-2-1-0. I've been trying to think if they schedule imbalance would have a larger impact on one approach or the other, but I haven't come up with a coherent thought about it. Thanks for chiming in, and the good thoughts.
|
|