|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 4, 2014 14:53:36 GMT -5
Taking a clue from Pablo, maybe the NCAA could apply a capped point-differential factor to adjust RPI-results. That would at least get beyond the trap of using RPI to correct RPI.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 4, 2014 15:14:24 GMT -5
Taking a clue from Pablo, maybe the NCAA could apply a capped point-differential factor to adjust RPI-results. That would at least get beyond the trap of using RPI to correct RPI. Yeah, it would be nice if RPI could see that, for a top team, there really is no difference between beating the 200th best team or the 300th. Pablo views both of these as being basically the same event, whereas RPI has a big difference between them.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 4, 2014 15:16:08 GMT -5
Taking a clue from Pablo, maybe the NCAA could apply a capped point-differential factor to adjust RPI-results. That would at least get beyond the trap of using RPI to correct RPI. Yeah, it would be nice if RPI could see that, for a top team, there really is no difference between beating the 200th best team or the 300th. Pablo views both of these as being basically the same event, whereas RPI has a big difference between them. Isn't that a basic tenet of the Elo Rating system? Games between mismatched opponents are weighted much less heavily.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 4, 2014 15:17:17 GMT -5
scheduling non-conference aside from the beginning is just not practical It could be done, as long as everyone agreed to do it. Designate the last week of October as "Conference Challenge Week" or something. All (or at least enough) conferences start one week earlier and leave a gap of a week at the same time. Then the teams are free to make OoC plans for that week. I like that idea. Do it twice, in fact. First weekend in October and first weekend in November. That means the conference season starts two weeks earlier. The drawback is that teams might not want to be scheduling a three-match weekend in November, and are more likely to do that in the first weeks of the season
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 4, 2014 15:22:36 GMT -5
Yeah, it would be nice if RPI could see that, for a top team, there really is no difference between beating the 200th best team or the 300th. Pablo views both of these as being basically the same event, whereas RPI has a big difference between them. Isn't that a basic tenet of the Elo Rating system? Games between mismatched opponents are weighted much less heavily. Since the concept of Elo is pretty much the same as Pablo, albeit without the points, yeah. However, I can tell you that in Pablo, it's only the wins over inferior opponents in mis-matched games that are weighted less heavily, not all games. Sufficiently close matches and especially upsets are weighted in full. There is a little subjectivity in terms of what constitutes "sufficiently close" matches, but it's not a large effect, so I figure as long as the concept is there, close enough. Basically, if a much weaker opponent take you to 5 sets, I'm treating it in full. ELO can't do that.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 4, 2014 16:11:06 GMT -5
Official OOC matches should be capped at 10. why? 20 conference vs 10 non-conf? more non-conf mateches make things more interesting, and give a better comparison of conferences the problem is conference heavy schedules don't mesh well with a RPI rating system Massey or Pablo provides a better analysis as conference sizes expand - don't get penalized as much for scheduling quircks Sometimes we act like there are Huge mistakes on who gets a seed and who gets a bid? The vast majority is done right - we could probably argue about the last 4 to get a seed, but probably agree on the 1st 12. Same with the final teams that get in or just miss. This happens in every sport and is the nature of putting together a bracket. I actually think the Tournament is enhanced by having virually all non-conference matches occur at the beginning of the season. If becomes fun to see teams from the Big Ten and Pac 12 compete in the tournament - not having any common opponent games in over 2 months. What is Florida State or UNC going to do? These things are made more interesting because there is more unknown. I also think the conference sesaon is better by having this schedule. You are correct - RPI would be more accurate if there were less conference matches and if there were more non-conference matches later in the season. But the marginal gains from slightly improved RPI is not worth some of the advantages the current scheduling has. And I am not in favor of 'marginalizing' small conferences. It is often times the upsets - like American last year - that provides more interest and fun to the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 4, 2014 17:13:45 GMT -5
why? 20 conference vs 10 non-conf? more non-conf mateches make things more interesting, and give a better comparison of conferences the problem is conference heavy schedules don't mesh well with a RPI rating system Massey or Pablo provides a better analysis as conference sizes expand - don't get penalized as much for scheduling quircks Sometimes we act like there are Huge mistakes on who gets a seed and who gets a bid? The vast majority is done right - we could probably argue about the last 4 to get a seed, but probably agree on the 1st 12. Same with the final teams that get in or just miss. This happens in every sport and is the nature of putting together a bracket. I actually think the Tournament is enhanced by having virually all non-conference matches occur at the beginning of the season. If becomes fun to see teams from the Big Ten and Pac 12 compete in the tournament - not having any common opponent games in over 2 months. What is Florida State or UNC going to do? These things are made more interesting because there is more unknown. I also think the conference sesaon is better by having this schedule. You are correct - RPI would be more accurate if there were less conference matches and if there were more non-conference matches later in the season. But the marginal gains from slightly improved RPI is not worth some of the advantages the current scheduling has. And I am not in favor of 'marginalizing' small conferences. It is often times the upsets - like American last year - that provides more interest and fun to the tournament. i dont' think people act like there are huge mistakes, most people realize this affects 4-8 teams in selection and seeding - the issue is when there is a constant bias against one region of the country in sport (in VB and baseball it is the most magnified,and it is the west), hence you have a 'huge' (or at least vocal, and it includes coaches) disagreement with the selection process (or criteria) - and there will be no end to the 'outcry' until the criteria is modifed and if it isn't the 'griping' will continue
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 4, 2014 17:21:47 GMT -5
In assessing RPI vs Pablo in terms of selections, the usual difference was maybe 4 - 6 teams per year in selections and 2 - 4 in seeding. It's not a lot of teams, however, what I found, as ccmanlb notes, is that the teams that were included tended to be from the same region/conferences, and teams left out tended to be from the same region/conferences. So while there is always going to be debate about who gets included and who doesn't, we'd hope that the variation will even out. But when every year, it's about which SEC teams selected didn't deserve it and which WCC teams were left out, that's pretty tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 4, 2014 17:30:38 GMT -5
why? 20 conference vs 10 non-conf? more non-conf mateches make things more interesting, and give a better comparison of conferences the problem is conference heavy schedules don't mesh well with a RPI rating system Massey or Pablo provides a better analysis as conference sizes expand - don't get penalized as much for scheduling quircks Sometimes we act like there are Huge mistakes on who gets a seed and who gets a bid? The vast majority is done right - we could probably argue about the last 4 to get a seed, but probably agree on the 1st 12. Same with the final teams that get in or just miss. This happens in every sport and is the nature of putting together a bracket. I actually think the Tournament is enhanced by having virually all non-conference matches occur at the beginning of the season. If becomes fun to see teams from the Big Ten and Pac 12 compete in the tournament - not having any common opponent games in over 2 months. What is Florida State or UNC going to do? These things are made more interesting because there is more unknown. I also think the conference sesaon is better by having this schedule. You are correct - RPI would be more accurate if there were less conference matches and if there were more non-conference matches later in the season. But the marginal gains from slightly improved RPI is not worth some of the advantages the current scheduling has. And I am not in favor of 'marginalizing' small conferences. It is often times the upsets - like American last year - that provides more interest and fun to the tournament. you are completely correct in your comment of most people would agree with the vast majority of who gets a seed/bid. But, the problem is the consistent bias against a particular region of the country (western teams) in favor of another region (eastern teams) because of the committee's reliance on the RPI and that tools inherent bias. Also, American over Duke was only an upset because Duke was very overrated. Looking at that entire subregional gives me gas- Duke, American, Georgia, Charleston. Put any of these teams in pretty much any other subregional and, IMO, none of them are advancing, with the exception of maybe Kentucky's subregional.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 4, 2014 17:31:33 GMT -5
Sometimes we act like there are Huge mistakes on who gets a seed and who gets a bid? The vast majority is done right - we could probably argue about the last 4 to get a seed, but probably agree on the 1st 12. Same with the final teams that get in or just miss. This happens in every sport and is the nature of putting together a bracket. I actually think the Tournament is enhanced by having virually all non-conference matches occur at the beginning of the season. If becomes fun to see teams from the Big Ten and Pac 12 compete in the tournament - not having any common opponent games in over 2 months. What is Florida State or UNC going to do? These things are made more interesting because there is more unknown. I also think the conference sesaon is better by having this schedule. You are correct - RPI would be more accurate if there were less conference matches and if there were more non-conference matches later in the season. But the marginal gains from slightly improved RPI is not worth some of the advantages the current scheduling has. And I am not in favor of 'marginalizing' small conferences. It is often times the upsets - like American last year - that provides more interest and fun to the tournament. i dont' think people act like there are huge mistakes, most people realize this affects 4-8 teams in selection and seeding - the issue is when there is a constant bias against one region of the country in sport (in VB and baseball it is the most magnified,and it is the west), hence you have a 'huge' (or at least vocal, and it includes coaches) disagreement with the selection process (or criteria) - and there will be no end to the 'outcry' until the criteria is modifed and if it isn't the 'griping' will continue whoa, I literally thought and typed the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 4, 2014 23:41:05 GMT -5
I do think it makes a difference when undeserving teams, other than on the basis of their RPI, almost always eastern, grab a high seed, only to ingloriously go out in the first or second round. Seeded teams that lost in the first two rounds in the last four tournaments:
2013: #4 Missouri, #5 Florida, #11 Hawaii, #16 Duke 2012: #7 UCLA, #9 Florida St, #10 Louisville, #11 Kansas 2011: #2 Nebraska, #6 UNI, #11 Stanford, #16 Texas A&M 2010: #5 UNI (1st), #11 Tennessee, #13 LSU (1st), #14 Dayton, #15 Hawaii
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Nov 5, 2014 1:02:50 GMT -5
I do think it makes a difference when undeserving teams, other than on the basis of their RPI, almost always eastern, grab a high seed, only to ingloriously go out in the first or second round. Seeded teams that lost in the first two rounds in the last four tournaments: 2013: #4 Missouri, #5 Florida, #11 Hawaii, #16 Duke 2012: #7 UCLA, #9 Florida St, #10 Louisville, #11 Kansas 2011: #2 Nebraska, #6 UNI, #11 Stanford, #16 Texas A&M 2010: #5 UNI (1st), #11 Tennessee, #13 LSU (1st), #14 Dayton, #15 Hawaii Very well played sir. But i fear the sarcasm will be lost on the haters.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 5, 2014 1:08:06 GMT -5
I sense a pattern; 4 out each of the last three years.Winder which four this year. Guess Kentucky, Colorado State,Oklahoma, and the last Pac team UCLA or Arizona), or a third SEC team (A&M).
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 5, 2014 1:24:20 GMT -5
I sense a pattern; 4 out each of the last three years.Winder which four this year. Guess Kentucky, Colorado State,Oklahoma, and the last Pac team UCLA or Arizona), or a third SEC team (A&M). Would have to see the bracket first.
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Nov 5, 2014 2:17:14 GMT -5
With 14 (or more) teams in a conference, there is no way they are going to play a full round robin schedule. That would require each team to play 26 conference matches, which would not leave many dates open to play a non-conference schedule. I'm not an advocate of the Big 10 having a conference tournament, but something like the following might work if you want to more fairly determine the conference champion: 1. Split the conference into two divisions of seven teams each. 2. Each team plays a round robin within their own division and plays each team in the other division once. That's a total of 19 conference matches for each team. 3. Have a four team tournament with the top two teams from each division. #1's would play #2's one day and the winners would play for the championship the next day. The Big Ten used this format (5 teams in 2 divisions) when they started playing official conference matches. They dropped the format after a few years for the double round robin format. Teams were playing 13 matches (2x4+5) with the 2 division format. Current coaches did not want the division format because of the strength inbalance of the schools in each division.
|
|