|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 27, 2014 19:56:47 GMT -5
10/27 Pablo Rankings (AVCA Rank): 1. Washington (2) 2. Penn State (6) 3. Texas (5) 4. Wisconsin (4) 5. Stanford (1) 6. Colorado St (7) 7. BYU (11) 8. Oregon (13) 9. North Carolina (10) 10. Florida (8) 11. Illinois (10) 12. Florida St (3) 13. UCLA (16) 14. Arizona (15) 15. Kentucky (18) 16. USC (20) 17. Nebraska (14) 18. Arizona St (19) 19. Purdue (13) 20. Colorado (26) 21. Loyola Marymount 22. Long Beach State (24) 23. Hawaii (28) 24. Pittsburgh (31) 25. Duke (21) www.richkern.com/vb/rankings/FreePageRankings.aspWhich is more accurate? Pablo or AVCA? Pablo likes Penn State (+4), BYU (+4), and Oregon (+5) more than AVCA, but doesn't like Stanford (-4) and Florida State (-9!) as much. |
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Oct 27, 2014 20:07:56 GMT -5
Must be ranking the PSU team that played Michigan, not the team that played Michigan State.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2014 20:15:52 GMT -5
cumulatively the 13 western teams listed (Rockies and West) are 32 points better in Pablo than their AVCA and a whopping 68 points better in their Pablo than their RPI
Stanford is the only main Western outlier in both comparisons, the only Western team with a high (#24) RPI not shown was San Diego, and their are 9 western teams in top 25 RPI and 13 in top 25 Pablo.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachbomb on Oct 27, 2014 20:46:49 GMT -5
this is such crap... really...
|
|
|
|
Post by rampageripster on Oct 27, 2014 20:49:47 GMT -5
This Pablo dude and I have a problem
I hate Penn State more than Donald Duck hates pants
|
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 27, 2014 20:56:58 GMT -5
this is such crap... really... I like the opinions you provide on matches (post game analysis, commentary, etc.). So please say why this is crap? If you said "this is really awesome" I'd be asking you the same thing. Just want to know where you're coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 27, 2014 21:13:23 GMT -5
cumulatively the 13 western teams listed (Rockies and West) are 32 points better in Pablo than their AVCA and a whopping 68 points better in their Pablo than their RPI Stanford is the only main Western outlier in both comparisons, the only Western team with a high (#24) RPI not shown was San Diego, and their are 9 western teams in top 25 RPI and 13 in top 25 Pablo. That cumulative difference of 68 points among 13 teams is an average of about 5 places. That seems really significant when looking at the top 25, but 5 places in the context of 300+ teams is only a roughly 2% margin of difference. It should be noted that one of the largest differential in this sample is Pitt, an eastern team, with 7 points better in Pablo than rpi, as well as a few other non-western teams that fare better in Pablo than RPI--which does provide some examples against the "West gets screwed theme." Not a fan of the use of the methodology behind RPI, but the NCAA is never going to use a methodology it doesn't control (Pablo, Massey, etc). And the main significance of using RPI to complete the field for the tournament is for those teams on the bubble of the RPI threshold for making the tournament (teams with RPI somewhere in the 40 to 50 range). Since no one outside the top 25 rankings in RPI or the AVCA Poll has ever come close to winning a National Championship, I think the outrage over RPI is just a bit over-blown. |
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 27, 2014 21:22:43 GMT -5
cumulatively the 13 western teams listed (Rockies and West) are 32 points better in Pablo than their AVCA and a whopping 68 points better in their Pablo than their RPI Stanford is the only main Western outlier in both comparisons, the only Western team with a high (#24) RPI not shown was San Diego, and their are 9 western teams in top 25 RPI and 13 in top 25 Pablo. That cumulative difference of 68 points among 13 teams is an average of about 5 places. That seems really significant when looking at the top 25, but 5 places in the context of 300+ teams is only a roughly 2% margin of difference. It should be noted that one of the largest differential in this sample is Pitt, an eastern team, with 7 points better in Pablo than rpi, as well as a few other non-western teams that fare better in Pablo than RPI--which does provide some examples against the "West gets screwed theme." Not a fan of the use of the methodology behind RPI, but the NCAA is never going to use a methodology it doesn't control (Pablo, Massey, etc). And the main significance of using RPI to complete the field for the tournament is for those teams on the bubble of the RPI threshold for making the tournament (teams with RPI somewhere in the 40 to 50 range). Since no one outside the top 25 rankings in RPI or the AVCA Poll has ever come close to winning a National Championship, I think the outrage over RPI is just a bit over-blown. If winning the championship were the only concern for each school, then you might be right. But for many programs, making the tournament is a big deal. And for many teams who do make the tourney, seeding and placement play a big roll in how far the team goes. In this respect, the outrage over the major fallacies of the RPI is not overblown. |
|
|
|
Post by gatorbob on Oct 27, 2014 21:30:16 GMT -5
I thought Pablo's claim to fame was to eliminate the east coast bias ( real or imagined). Now , I am confused. Was that the intent?
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 27, 2014 21:33:04 GMT -5
That cumulative difference of 68 points among 13 teams is an average of about 5 places. That seems really significant when looking at the top 25, but 5 places in the context of 300+ teams is only a roughly 2% margin of difference. It should be noted that one of the largest differential in this sample is Pitt, an eastern team, with 7 points better in Pablo than rpi, as well as a few other non-western teams that fare better in Pablo than RPI--which does provide some examples against the "West gets screwed theme." Not a fan of the use of the methodology behind RPI, but the NCAA is never going to use a methodology it doesn't control (Pablo, Massey, etc). And the main significance of using RPI to complete the field for the tournament is for those teams on the bubble of the RPI threshold for making the tournament (teams with RPI somewhere in the 40 to 50 range). Since no one outside the top 25 rankings in RPI or the AVCA Poll has ever come close to winning a National Championship, I think the outrage over RPI is just a bit over-blown. If winning the championship were the only concern for each school, then you might be right. But for many programs, making the tournament is a big deal. And for many teams who do make the tourney, seeding and placement play a big roll in how far the team goes. In this respect, the outrage over the major fallacies of the RPI is not overblown. Yes, of course, but as I said, the effect that we are talking about is limited to a handful of teams on the cusp of the RPI threshold used. Similar arguments would be made regardless of the actual methodology being used--that's the nature of these things. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 27, 2014 21:36:02 GMT -5
I thought Pablo's claim to fame was to eliminate the east coast bias ( real or imagined). Now , I am confused. Was that the intent? Gatorbob, Pablo's sole purpose is to show that, in reality, Florida State is over-rated and is not better than Florida. |
|
nik12
Sophomore
Posts: 163 
|
Post by nik12 on Oct 27, 2014 21:38:06 GMT -5
Which is more accurate? Pablo or AVCA? Pablo likes Penn State (+4), BYU (+4), and Oregon (+5) more than AVCA, but doesn't like Stanford (-4) and Florida State (-9!) as much. The Stanford result surprises me. I like Washington at #1 though. Can't wait for the Washington/Stanford game. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 27, 2014 21:48:16 GMT -5
Which is more accurate? Pablo or AVCA? Pablo likes Penn State (+4), BYU (+4), and Oregon (+5) more than AVCA, but doesn't like Stanford (-4) and Florida State (-9!) as much. The Stanford result surprises me. I like Washington at #1 though. Can't wait for the Washington/Stanford game. In another thread, bluepenquin pointed out that since conference play began, Stanford and Washington have played all the same teams, and Washington's average margin of victory has been higher. And Penn State outscored Stanford in their own gym. Given that data, pablo's relative ranking is not too surprising. Note, the rankings of PSU, Stanford, Texas, Wisconsin, and Washington are all so close that pablo says the home team is favored or about 50/50 in every match between them. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2014 22:10:42 GMT -5
cumulatively the 13 western teams listed (Rockies and West) are 32 points better in Pablo than their AVCA and a whopping 68 points better in their Pablo than their RPI Stanford is the only main Western outlier in both comparisons, the only Western team with a high (#24) RPI not shown was San Diego, and their are 9 western teams in top 25 RPI and 13 in top 25 Pablo. That cumulative difference of 68 points among 13 teams is an average of about 5 places. That seems really significant when looking at the top 25, but 5 places in the context of 300+ teams is only a roughly 2% margin of difference. It should be noted that one of the largest differential in this sample is Pitt, an eastern team, with 7 points better in Pablo than rpi, as well as a few other non-western teams that fare better in Pablo than RPI--which does provide some examples against the "West gets screwed theme." Not a fan of the use of the methodology behind RPI, but the NCAA is never going to use a methodology it doesn't control (Pablo, Massey, etc). And the main significance of using RPI to complete the field for the tournament is for those teams on the bubble of the RPI threshold for making the tournament (teams with RPI somewhere in the 40 to 50 range). Since no one outside the top 25 rankings in RPI or the AVCA Poll has ever come close to winning a National Championship, I think the outrage over RPI is just a bit over-blown. I guess that depends on the definition of over-blown and outrage, those were your terms  , not mine. RPI is faulty, and looking at ASU, Colorado State, BYU, LMU, Oregon State, Pacific, Utah, Santa Clara,Northridge - these are all teams that have significant differences and very possibly might see the difference both in at-large selection and/or seeding depending on the next few weeks Pitt is only one counter example, versus LOTS of examples of major differentials in western teams, specifically WCC teams yes, the west gets 'screwed' (my term) by RPI - the data consistently supports that conclusion even if the effect is maybe only 1 or 2 teams a year and a couple of underseeded teams out of the top 16 I don't know about the NCAA never using a methology it doesn't control, it controls ultimately who gets selected, it uses other ratings for football. but then maybe the NCAA will never be interested in better data regarding VB selection - and unless the Pac-12, Mtn West, Big West, & WCC push back significantly (and why would anyone else?), can't see a change. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 27, 2014 22:47:23 GMT -5
I'm not defending RPI. I'm saying that criticizing RPI's methodology is different from criticizing the use of RPI. You don't seem to make or understand the distinction. RPI is a formula, a methodology, and it measures something specific, and it can be altered to measure something else (e.g. taking home court into consideration). So, when you say RPI is faulty, that depends entirely on what it is that is supposed to be measured. The NCAA chooses to use RPI in particular ways, and it is that choice that creates disadvantages.
|
|
, not mine.