|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 3, 2014 16:50:38 GMT -5
Ugh, those Big 12 spots are giving me gas. They get such an inflated RPI boost by having OOC records playing a larger role in the overall RPI and thus fewer incestuous play. It's just not fair.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 3, 2014 17:00:00 GMT -5
So according to this, Stanford only lost will be to Washington, but yet they are rated above Washington? this isn't a ranking, it's a rating. The inputs are 25% record, 50% opponent record, 25% opponent of opponent record. Head to Head plays no factor. Not directly, but note that it does mean a win for Washington and a loss for Stanford, so winning head to head is better than losing.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 3, 2014 17:05:51 GMT -5
Ugh, those Big 12 spots are giving me gas. They get such an inflated RPI boost by having OOC records playing a larger role in the overall RPI and thus fewer incestuous play. It's just not fair. SEC is worse. At least Big XII plays a true round robin. SEC teams can dodge losses by only playing the good teams once. Look at the 2 teams with the WTF Really? RPIs from the SEC: Alabama: Only has 5 total matches against the other 4 top SEC teams (Fla., KY, LSU once; split with A&M). They lost to LIU Brooklyn and Virginia; didn't play a Top 50 team out of conference. LSU: Only has 5 total matches against the other 4 top SEC teams (Fla. Alabama, A&M once; split with Kentucky). Went 5-4 out of conference. Their 2nd best win on the season is Baylor; sub-100 loss to Central Arkansas. Still projected with a Top 30-ish RPI. In a true-round robin, they'd each have 3 more matches (and probably 2+ losses each) and would be much worse in the RPI. Kentucky's RPI is also suspiciously high compared to what they've done, but that's due to some good ole fashioned RPI-manipulative non-conference scheduling by Skinner rather than the conference schedule.
|
|
|
Post by nakedcrayon on Nov 3, 2014 17:23:55 GMT -5
I don't think it is a dodge of good teams in the SEC. Unbalanced schedule just like the Pac and BIG. Some teams avoid the top teams in the SEC (Alabama and Florida only play the top 6 6 times and some play 8 or 9 matches (Arkansas and TAMU against the same 6. We can argue about the SEC on a nationwide scale but don't argue unbalanced schedule and dodging teams when the top two conferences have the same situation in place.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 3, 2014 17:27:51 GMT -5
I don't think it is a dodge of good teams in the SEC. Unbalanced schedule just like the Pac and BIG. Some teams avoid the top teams in the SEC (Alabama and Florida only play the top 6 6 times and some play 8 or 9 matches (Arkansas and TAMU against the same 6. We can argue about the SEC on a nationwide scale but don't argue unbalanced schedule and dodging teams when the top two conferences have the same situation in place. PAC-12 teams play 2 out of 12 teams only once. SEC teams play 7 out of 13 teams only once. There's a huge difference in magnitude here. B1G, this year, has a similar amount of teams skipped, but at least they play a 20-game schedule.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Kern on Nov 3, 2014 17:29:10 GMT -5
I see that this calculation considers Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word as non-Division 1 teams, but Northern Kentucky, UMass-Lowell, Grand Canyon and Nebraska-Omaha are included as D1s. What's the NCAA rule on those teams in regards to RPI (I'm fairly certain none of them are eligible for the NCAA tournament)? I THINK you are partially correct. In my database I do have all as DI and eligible for the NCAA tournament. I base this on the fact that they do calculate the RPI ranking for all of them so I think they should be eligible. Last year most of them were computed as well but Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word were not. I had to put a special condition in my program to eliminate those two and I had not taken it out for computing the Projected RKPI yet this year. I have removed it now so hopefully next week it will be correct. If anyone does know if any of those teams are not eligible, please do let me know.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 3, 2014 17:30:44 GMT -5
Conferences get to make their schedule however they want. The Big Ten and Pac 12 choose to play 20 matches. They're free to do differently if they'd like. They choose not to, so I don't understand the complaining.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 3, 2014 17:34:52 GMT -5
I see that this calculation considers Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word as non-Division 1 teams, but Northern Kentucky, UMass-Lowell, Grand Canyon and Nebraska-Omaha are included as D1s. What's the NCAA rule on those teams in regards to RPI (I'm fairly certain none of them are eligible for the NCAA tournament)? I THINK you are partially correct. In my database I do have all as DI and eligible for the NCAA tournament. I base this on the fact that they do calculate the RPI ranking for all of them so I think they should be eligible. Last year most of them were computed as well but Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word were not. I had to put a special condition in my program to eliminate those two and I had not taken it out for computing the Projected RKPI yet this year. I have removed it now so hopefully next week it will be correct. If anyone does know if any of those teams are not eligible, please do let me know. They are without a doubt ineligible for the tournament ( link), I'm just not sure how NCAA handles them for RPI. Looking at the current NCAA-listed RPI rankings, it includes all 6 reclassifying institutions so I'd assume they count as full Division I members for the RPI.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Kern on Nov 3, 2014 17:49:31 GMT -5
I THINK you are partially correct. In my database I do have all as DI and eligible for the NCAA tournament. I base this on the fact that they do calculate the RPI ranking for all of them so I think they should be eligible. Last year most of them were computed as well but Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word were not. I had to put a special condition in my program to eliminate those two and I had not taken it out for computing the Projected RKPI yet this year. I have removed it now so hopefully next week it will be correct. If anyone does know if any of those teams are not eligible, please do let me know. They are without a doubt ineligible for the tournament ( link), I'm just not sure how NCAA handles them for RPI. Looking at the current NCAA-listed RPI rankings, it includes all 6 reclassifying institutions so I'd assume they count as full Division I members for the RPI. Yes, that is correct. I said eligible above but I should have said eligible for computation of the RPI. I don't actually have anything in my database showing which teams are eligible for the tournament. only the ones I can compute the RKPI for.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 3, 2014 18:22:39 GMT -5
For those curious, if At Large selection went strictly based on RPI...
Last 4 In #47 Michigan State #46 Santa Clara #45 Pittsburgh #44 San Diego
First Four Out #48 UNLV #49 Wyoming #50 Virginia Tech #52 Virginia
Bid Stealers These teams are projected to win their conference, but if they lose, they'd allow a second team from their conference to get the automatic berth but still be an at-large candidate, shrinking the bubble.
#31 Ohio (8-team MAC tournament at Ohio) #33 Western Kentucky (8-team Conference USA tournament at Southern Miss) #37 Arkansas-Little Rock (8-team Sun Belt tournament at Texas State) #38 Illinois State (6-team Missouri Valley tournament at UNI) #40 Lipscomb (6-team Atlantic Sun tournament at Fla.-Gulf Coast)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 3, 2014 18:36:49 GMT -5
Conferences get to make their schedule however they want. The Big Ten and Pac 12 choose to play 20 matches. They're free to do differently if they'd like. They choose not to, so I don't understand the complaining. Do you really want the PAC and B1G to play fewer matches for the sole purpose of manipulating the RPI like the SEC does? Is that better for volleyball?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 3, 2014 18:50:24 GMT -5
For those curious, if At Large selection went strictly based on RPI... Last 4 In#47 Michigan State #46 Santa Clara #45 Pittsburgh #44 San Diego First Four Out#48 UNLV #49 Wyoming #50 Virginia Tech #52 Virginia Bid StealersThese teams are projected to win their conference, but if they lose, they'd allow a second team from their conference to get the automatic berth but still be an at-large candidate, shrinking the bubble.#31 Ohio (8-team MAC tournament at Ohio) #33 Western Kentucky (8-team Conference USA tournament at Southern Miss) #37 Arkansas-Little Rock (8-team Sun Belt tournament at Texas State) #38 Illinois State (6-team Missouri Valley tournament at UNI) #40 Lipscomb (6-team Atlantic Sun tournament at Fla.-Gulf Coast) well at larges, like seeds, never go strictly by RPI. I look at the nitty gritty of a team like Oregon State, and say no way do they get left out while team like Pittsburgh or Miami (FL) gets in.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 3, 2014 18:52:22 GMT -5
Conferences get to make their schedule however they want. The Big Ten and Pac 12 choose to play 20 matches. They're free to do differently if they'd like. They choose not to, so I don't understand the complaining. Do you really want the PAC and B1G to play fewer matches for the sole purpose of manipulating the RPI like the SEC does? Is that better for volleyball? I'm more concerned whether it is better for me. My experience is that I get to see better volleyball matches when the PAC teams come to town than I do when UW brings OoC foes in to play. Wisconsin was a welcome exception this year, but I would prefer a full conference season over the 20-match schedule we have now.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 3, 2014 19:02:41 GMT -5
Conferences get to make their schedule however they want. The Big Ten and Pac 12 choose to play 20 matches. They're free to do differently if they'd like. They choose not to, so I don't understand the complaining. Do you really want the PAC and B1G to play fewer matches for the sole purpose of manipulating the RPI like the SEC does? Is that better for volleyball? I don't care what they do. They should do whatever is best for their members. Playing 18 conference matches instead of 20 is a very small adjustment, and has zero effect on "what is good for volleyball". There are pros and cons to either side of that decision. More conference matches means more home dates and thus more ticket sales and more programming for Pac 12 Network so they get more money for facilities and recruiting exposure. Fewer matches would be slightly helpful in the RPI, but may mean less $$$. Personally, I don't understand why the power conferences are still anti-conference tournament.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Nov 4, 2014 10:04:28 GMT -5
Do you really want the PAC and B1G to play fewer matches for the sole purpose of manipulating the RPI like the SEC does? Is that better for volleyball? I don't care what they do. They should do whatever is best for their members. Playing 18 conference matches instead of 20 is a very small adjustment, and has zero effect on "what is good for volleyball". There are pros and cons to either side of that decision. More conference matches means more home dates and thus more ticket sales and more programming for Pac 12 Network so they get more money for facilities and recruiting exposure. Fewer matches would be slightly helpful in the RPI, but may mean less $$$. Personally, I don't understand why the power conferences are still anti-conference tournament. I think they are advocating for a balanced, full round robin schedule, rather than fewer conference matches. I think the power conferences, and some 'non-power' conferences do not like conference tournaments for a few reasons: 1) If you have an 8 team tournament, 4 teams go 0-1, 2 go 1-1, 1 is 2-1, and 1 is 3-0. That is not beneficial to the teams on the bubble. And you have a chance for a 'bad loss' rather than a good win. 2) If you get to the championship of the conf tourney, you are having to play 3 matches in 2 days, or 3 days. That is not how the NCAA tournament is played, and at this point in the season, you would like to simulate things that are similar to the tournament. 3) You don't want to risk an injury or fatigue from playing that schedule. If you are in a power conference, you probably have a chance to win the national title. 2 matches in 1 day, or 3 matches in 2 or 3 days could jeopardize that. Once/If college women's vb starts making money like NCAA basketball does, the conference commissioners will not care what the coaches or athletes want and will push harder for a conference tournament.
|
|