|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 29, 2014 20:15:09 GMT -5
without checking first....how would you rank in the order of selection for an at-large to the NCAA tournament. all these teams are likely to be bubble teams:
Team A: RPI = 29, Massey rating = 53
Record: 18-5 15-7 RPI top 50 = 1-2, Massey top 50 = 1-2
Team B: RPI = 51, Massey rating = 31
Record: 18-5 RPI top 50 = 1-4, Massey top 50 record = 3-5
Team C: RPI = 32, Massey = 33
Record: 14-6 RPI top 50 = 3-4, Massey top 50 = 6-4
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 29, 2014 20:18:17 GMT -5
well without knowing the remaining schedules, it would be pretty hard. Team C, IMO would be in.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 29, 2014 20:27:28 GMT -5
well, these are terribly incomplete resumes.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 29, 2014 20:34:45 GMT -5
C is definitely the best resume. A and B are a wash. Would need to know more specifics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 29, 2014 22:02:04 GMT -5
are teams with an RPI of 29 and 32 considered 'on the bubble'? i think those teams are for sure getting at-large bids. if those RPIs hold.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 29, 2014 22:43:10 GMT -5
are teams with an RPI of 29 and 32 considered 'on the bubble'? i think those teams are for sure getting at-large bids. if those RPIs hold. I see the point, RPI of 30 , with 4 weeks away from selection isn't exactly secure since even a RPI in the 40s isn't secure. point is compare the RPI 29 team with the RPI 51 team - are they really significantly different?, especially considering the RPI 29 team has only played 3 top 50 matches (and will only play 5 total) before the season ends - the RPI 51 team has played more quality teams (by far) |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 30, 2014 0:15:54 GMT -5
are teams with an RPI of 29 and 32 considered 'on the bubble'? i think those teams are for sure getting at-large bids. if those RPIs hold. I see the point, RPI of 30 , with 4 weeks away from selection isn't exactly secure since even a RPI in the 40s isn't secure. point is compare the RPI 29 team with the RPI 51 team - are they really significantly different?, especially considering the RPI 29 team has only played 3 top 50 matches (and will only play 5 total) before the season ends - the RPI 51 team has played more quality teams (by far) This post is a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 30, 2014 0:23:31 GMT -5
I see the point, RPI of 30 , with 4 weeks away from selection isn't exactly secure since even a RPI in the 40s isn't secure. point is compare the RPI 29 team with the RPI 51 team - are they really significantly different?, especially considering the RPI 29 team has only played 3 top 50 matches (and will only play 5 total) before the season ends - the RPI 51 team has played more quality teams (by far) This post is a mess. well, that is real informative ! |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 30, 2014 0:37:28 GMT -5
The basic steps are:
1. Obtain list of automatic qualifiers
2. Subtract A from 64 to determine remaining spots
3. Obtain official RPI list
4. Obtain Massey list, laugh out loud, crumple it up and toss it in the wastebasket
5. Cross reference number obtained in step #2 with RPI list. Review bubble teams, significant wins and losses, haggle with fellow committee members and arrive at 64 team field
6. Pretend to go through an evaluation exercise, then arrange seedings in brackets to achieve geographic efficiency and help your buddies if possible.
7. Deposit any checks in the bank
|
|
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: 28,104 
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 30, 2014 0:59:53 GMT -5
well, these are terribly incomplete resumes. Here ya go. (I have most of these already done.. but with most teams with 10 games still, alot of the resumes are going to change, so I haven't included Last 10 Matches on the resume since they are going to change.. Team A Overall Record: (18-5) Conference Record: (6-3) Non-Conference Record: (12-2) RPI: 29 Best Win (by RPI): 24 LSU Worst Loss (by RPI): 60 LIU Brooklyn Significant Wins (1-70 RPI): 24 LSU, 67 South Carolina Significant Losses (100+ RPI): NONE Record vs. Top 50 RPI: 1-2 Record vs. Top 100 RPI: 7-5 Last 10 matches: N/A Team B Overall Record: (18-5) Conference Record: (7-3) Non-Conference Record: (11-2) RPI: 51 Best Win (by RPI): 37 Loyola Marymount Worst Loss (by RPI): 49 Santa Clara Significant Wins (1-70 RPI): 37 Loyola Marymount, 42 UALR, 49 Santa Clara, 59 Gonzaga Significant Losses (100+ RPI): NONE Record vs. Top 50 RPI: 3-5 Record vs. Top 100 RPI: 5-5 Last 10 matches: N/A Team C Overall Record: (14-6) Conference Record: (5-3) Non-Conference Record: (9-3) RPI: 32 Best Win (by RPI): 24 San Diego Worst Loss (by RPI): 147 UC Davis Significant Wins (1-70 RPI): 24 San Diego, 30 Hawaii, 38 Western Kentucky, 63 UNLV(x2) Significant Losses (100+ RPI): 114 UC Santa Barbara, 147 UC Davis Record vs. Top 50 RPI: 4-4 Record vs. Top 100 RPI: 6-4 Last 10 matches: N/A I think, unfortunately, team A is headed to the NCAA tournament. I am not so sure on Team B, I highly think they are NCAA-quality, even better than team C. But Team C has a great chance, despite two UGLY losses that many other bubble teams don't have, they do have 3 top-50 wins along with a good RPI. That may be enough, it wouldn't hurt to win the conference (not in a good position) or pick up another top-50 win and finish the season strong. Team B has opportunities to prove itself as well. Team A just needs to not completely throw its season away and they should be okay. That high RPI is going to save them. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 30, 2014 1:17:01 GMT -5
well, these are terribly incomplete resumes. Here ya go. (I have most of these already done.. but with most teams with 10 games still, alot of the resumes are going to change, so I haven't included Last 10 Matches on the resume since they are going to change.. Team A Overall Record: (18-5) Conference Record: (6-3) Non-Conference Record: (12-2) RPI: 29 Best Win (by RPI): 24 LSU Worst Loss (by RPI): 60 LIU Brooklyn Significant Wins (1-70 RPI): 24 LSU, 67 South Carolina Significant Losses (100+ RPI): NONE Record vs. Top 50 RPI: 1-2 Record vs. Top 100 RPI: 7-5 Last 10 matches: N/A Team B Overall Record: (18-5) Conference Record: (7-3) Non-Conference Record: (11-2) RPI: 51 Best Win (by RPI): 37 Loyola Marymount Worst Loss (by RPI): 49 Santa Clara Significant Wins (1-70 RPI): 37 Loyola Marymount, 42 UALR, 49 Santa Clara, 59 Gonzaga Significant Losses (100+ RPI): NONE Record vs. Top 50 RPI: 3-5 Record vs. Top 100 RPI: 5-5 Last 10 matches: N/A Team C Overall Record: (14-6) Conference Record: (5-3) Non-Conference Record: (9-3) RPI: 32 Best Win (by RPI): 24 San Diego Worst Loss (by RPI): 147 UC Davis Significant Wins (1-70 RPI): 24 San Diego, 30 Hawaii, 38 Western Kentucky, 63 UNLV(x2) Significant Losses (100+ RPI): 114 UC Santa Barbara, 147 UC Davis Record vs. Top 50 RPI: 4-4 Record vs. Top 100 RPI: 6-4 Last 10 matches: N/A I think, unfortunately, team A is headed to the NCAA tournament. I am not so sure on Team B, I highly think they are NCAA-quality, even better than team C. But Team C has a great chance, despite two UGLY losses that many other bubble teams don't have, they do have 3 top-50 wins along with a good RPI. That may be enough, it wouldn't hurt to win the conference (not in a good position) or pick up another top-50 win and finish the season strong. Team B has opportunities to prove itself as well. Team A just needs to not completely throw its season away and they should be okay. That high RPI is going to save them. and Team A's 'perception' is inflated by RPI and then by having it's top 50/100 record further inflated by inflated RPI of it's opponents |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 30, 2014 1:20:42 GMT -5
The basic steps are: 1. Obtain list of automatic qualifiers 2. Subtract A from 64 to determine remaining spots 3. Obtain official RPI list 4. Obtain Massey list, laugh out loud, crumple it up and toss it in the wastebasket 5. Cross reference number obtained in step #2 with RPI list. Review bubble teams, significant wins and losses, haggle with fellow committee members and arrive at 64 team field 6. Pretend to go through an evaluation exercise, then arrange seedings in brackets to achieve geographic efficiency and help your buddies if possible. 7. Deposit any checks in the bank so I guess your point is that the flaws of RPI should not be pointed out??? that the committee shouldn't and won't consider anything other than RPI plus inflated top 50/100 RPI records? and that discussing any other rating system other than RPI should not be done and RPI should be never be questioned? and that the NCAA encourages throwing better data away than what it uses??? got it!!! |
|
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: 28,104
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 30, 2014 1:20:55 GMT -5
and Team A's 'perception' is inflated by RPI and then by having it's top 50/100 record further inflated by inflated RPI of it's opponents .. BINGO! But count on it - That team's conference is going to have 5 bids with an outside chance for a 6th.. and there's a possibility Team B's conference might only have 2 bids (they will probably have 3, maybe 4) But that's why this whole process sucks. I wish Pablo could have influence on at-large bids. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 30, 2014 1:29:29 GMT -5
The basic steps are: 1. Obtain list of automatic qualifiers 2. Subtract A from 64 to determine remaining spots 3. Obtain official RPI list 4. Obtain Massey list, laugh out loud, crumple it up and toss it in the wastebasket 5. Cross reference number obtained in step #2 with RPI list. Review bubble teams, significant wins and losses, haggle with fellow committee members and arrive at 64 team field 6. Pretend to go through an evaluation exercise, then arrange seedings in brackets to achieve geographic efficiency and help your buddies if possible. 7. Deposit any checks in the bank so I guess your point is that the flaws of RPI should not be pointed out??? that the committee shouldn't and won't consider anything other than RPI plus inflated top 50/100 RPI records? and that discussing any other rating system other than RPI should not be done and RPI should be never be questioned? and that the NCAA encourages throwing better data away than what it uses??? got it!!! RPI is the reality for the moment--that doesn't mean it's good or right. But, of course, you are free to discuss anything you wish, regardless of its relevancy. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 30, 2014 8:33:43 GMT -5
so I guess your point is that the flaws of RPI should not be pointed out??? that the committee shouldn't and won't consider anything other than RPI plus inflated top 50/100 RPI records? and that discussing any other rating system other than RPI should not be done and RPI should be never be questioned? and that the NCAA encourages throwing better data away than what it uses??? got it!!! RPI is the reality for the moment--that doesn't mean it's good or right. But, of course, you are free to discuss anything you wish, regardless of its relevancy. I get your logic! if the criminal penalty for stealing a candy bar was death, then a discussion reflecting on whether the death penalty is fair/correct is not relevant because there is a law in place, and the only relevant discussion should be the method of execution! granted, making the NCAA tournament is not a matter of life and death - but close! |
|
