|
Post by dunninla on Nov 19, 2014 12:22:15 GMT -5
I don't think anyone would disagree that the Big 10 ...their middle conference teams have been superior to any other conference's middle teams, Huh? Perhaps a few years ago, but the last couple of years the middle PAC12 teams, let's just call Middle teams #5-#8, have lately been the equal of, or stronger than B1G teams #5-#8. And the bottom 3-4 of the PAC are also stronger than the bottom 3-4 from the B1G. I guess that doesn't really impact the original discussion, but I would like to know, for last year and this year, whether you would make the same statement.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 19, 2014 12:27:40 GMT -5
That's one reason why I focused on comparing seeded teams, because they all (in recent years) get home matches. i don't understand this - why is it hard to get definitive numbers? take your ranking system, compare the result based on the ranking, and see which predicts better. not complicated, certainly takes time. and when it has been done, the results show RPI to be biased - it's been proven, end of story. unless people want to be believe the statistician is some deviant twisted manipulator! I'm not smart enough to be a manipulator.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 19, 2014 12:29:24 GMT -5
I don't think anyone would disagree that the Big 10 ...their middle conference teams have been superior to any other conference's middle teams, Huh? Perhaps a few years ago, but the last couple of years the middle PAC12 teams, let's just call Middle teams #5-#8, have lately been stronger than B1G teams #5-#8. And the bottom 3-4 of the PAC are also stronger than the bottom 3-4 from the B1G. I guess that doesn't really impact the original discussion, but I would like to know, for last year and this year, whether you would make the same statement. Well, tournament results suggest that for the period of the last three tournaments (what we are talking about), the middle of the Big 10 is better than the middle of the Pac-12. I think probably THIS year the Pac-12 middle teams are better, but 2011, 2012, 2013 as a collective? Nah
|
|
|
Post by dunninla on Nov 19, 2014 12:35:29 GMT -5
Your post made me take a quick look at the Conference home of the current Top 25, focusing only on teams #5-#8
#5 Purdue is #16 in the poll. #6 tOSU is #20. No B1G from 7-8 is ranked.
PAC #5 UCLA is #17 in the poll. PAC #6 Colorado is #19 PAC #7 Arizona St. is #22 PAC #8 Utah #23
Even PAC #9 USC is ranked #25
Strangely Cal Berkeley, traditionally strong up until three years ago, isn't a factor in the PAC this year, with only 1 PAC victory.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 19, 2014 12:55:45 GMT -5
Your post made me take a quick look at the Conference home of the current Top 25, focusing only on teams #5-#8 #5 Purdue is #16 in the poll. #6 tOSU is #20. No B1G from 7-8 is ranked. PAC #5 UCLA is #17 in the poll. PAC #6 Colorado is #19 PAC #7 Arizona St. is #22 PAC #8 Utah #23 Even PAC #9 USC is ranked #25 Strangely Cal Berkeley, traditionally strong up until three years ago, isn't a factor in the PAC this year, with only 1 PAC victory. This year. Look at the end of the season rankings from the last 3 years. Also, look at Pablo rankings to get beyond the top 25.
|
|
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: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 19, 2014 13:44:04 GMT -5
When I look at the sub-regionals for the last three years, I see another story. The Big 10 Kicks A. And it doesn't matter if it is the SEC or Pac 12.
The Pac has had 11 unseeded teams -and all 11 have not advanced. 5 of them lost to a Big 10 team (only 4 of them were seeded). 2 lost to an ACC team (neither was seeded). 1 team lost to Oklahoma (not seeded), and the final 3 lost to either the WCC or Mountain West (also not seeded).
The Big 10 has had 10 unseeded teams - 7 of the 10 advanced. 3 were against the SEC, 2 against the PAC, and the other 2 against the ACC and Big East. Their 3 losses were to the SEC twice (only one was seeded) and the Big 12 (Texas).
These differences are more than just the Big 10 feasting on the SEC/ACC. Now all of this is subject to a small sample sizes and may not mean all that much. The common denominator here is the Big 10 - not teams feasting on the SEC.
But now you are over simplifying it. I don't think anyone would disagree that the Big 10 has been the best conference over the last 3 years...their middle conference teams have been superior to any other conference's middle teams, and superior to most conferences top teams. Saying that the Big 10 only advances because they get easier subregionals is patently false (and I don't think anyone was making THAT argument), however, IGORING favorable subregionals on the whole is equally unfair when looking at the overall number of non seeded teams from each conference that advance. Like I said earlier, these are some of the subregionals that unseeded Pac-12 teams have had to play at in the last few tournaments: @ Penn State, @ Texas, @ Hawaii, @ Wisconsin, @ Nebraska, @minnesota... I don't think many, if ANY unseeded teams would have been likely to advance from those subregionals. The Big 10 teams are good, surely, nobody is disputing that, what we are arguing is that most of the other conferences are NOT good. And What I am arguing is that the Pac-12 unseeded teams almost never get to play in sub regionals hosted by the SEC/ACC/Big East etc., thus limiting the conferences probability to advance more teams to regionals. You are correct - Pac12 unseeded teams have not been sent to SEC/ACC seeds like the Big 10. However, those unseeded teams have often times lost to an ACC team or someone else in the 1st match - so it wouldn't have mattered. And the Big 10 has had some success winning against a Pac12 seed and a Pac12 has not beaten a Big10 seed (only the past 3 years and only in terms of the Sub-Regionals). Just suggesting the Chicken or the Egg - it is possible that the SEC seeds have lost more than expected because they often times have a Big 10 team in their subregional than the Big 10 is winning because it is an SEC seed? But this is mostly meaningless given the small sample size. In addition - the Missouri and Florida loss in the subregional last year has less meaning than people want to attach (IMO). Just like Michigan beating Stanford, or Kansas State beating Nebraska - these things happen when it seems to make no sense other than upsets are guaranteed to happen. Or LSU beating Michigan on a neutral floor in the 1st round last year while other unseeded Big 10 teams are beating better (than LSU) SEC teams.
|
|
|
Post by stand on Nov 19, 2014 15:47:37 GMT -5
OK, I would probably pick Siméon Denis Poisson, but I regress...
|
|
|
Post by bownlovingfreak on Nov 20, 2014 0:32:44 GMT -5
Grats to Kritza and Launier for getting their teams to find a ranking this week. When they both joined the PAC 12 it seemed that would be the end of ever being ranked!
Love it!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 20, 2014 2:30:58 GMT -5
But now you are over simplifying it. I don't think anyone would disagree that the Big 10 has been the best conference over the last 3 years...their middle conference teams have been superior to any other conference's middle teams, and superior to most conferences top teams. Saying that the Big 10 only advances because they get easier subregionals is patently false (and I don't think anyone was making THAT argument), however, IGORING favorable subregionals on the whole is equally unfair when looking at the overall number of non seeded teams from each conference that advance. Like I said earlier, these are some of the subregionals that unseeded Pac-12 teams have had to play at in the last few tournaments: @ Penn State, @ Texas, @ Hawaii, @ Wisconsin, @ Nebraska, @minnesota... I don't think many, if ANY unseeded teams would have been likely to advance from those subregionals. The Big 10 teams are good, surely, nobody is disputing that, what we are arguing is that most of the other conferences are NOT good. And What I am arguing is that the Pac-12 unseeded teams almost never get to play in sub regionals hosted by the SEC/ACC/Big East etc., thus limiting the conferences probability to advance more teams to regionals. You are correct - Pac12 unseeded teams have not been sent to SEC/ACC seeds like the Big 10. However, those unseeded teams have often times lost to an ACC team or someone else in the 1st match - so it wouldn't have mattered. And the Big 10 has had some success winning against a Pac12 seed and a Pac12 has not beaten a Big10 seed (only the past 3 years and only in terms of the Sub-Regionals). Just suggesting the Chicken or the Egg - it is possible that the SEC seeds have lost more than expected because they often times have a Big 10 team in their subregional than the Big 10 is winning because it is an SEC seed? But this is mostly meaningless given the small sample size. In addition - the Missouri and Florida loss in the subregional last year has less meaning than people want to attach (IMO). Just like Michigan beating Stanford, or Kansas State beating Nebraska - these things happen when it seems to make no sense other than upsets are guaranteed to happen. Or LSU beating Michigan on a neutral floor in the 1st round last year while other unseeded Big 10 teams are beating better (than LSU) SEC teams. The way I look at a single-elimination knockout tournament is like this: There are always going to be 63 of the best teams in the country that lose. A single bad night, or a single good night by the other team, and you are out. We talk about first round losses as a terrible performance, but HALF THE TOURNAMENT loses in the first round. Half. IMO, losses in the NCAA tournament do not show that you had a bad team or that you were overrated or that your conference was sucky. The flip side, though, is that advancing several rounds in the tournament does prove the opposite. While it only takes one bad match (or sometimes one unlucky play) to knock a team out, it takes four good matches to get to the Final Four. Usually at least three excellent matches. (And that's why people complain about soft draws and home court advantage -- because it is so hard to advance that any advantage you can get might be major.) So in my opinion, if a conference gets a lot of teams into the regional finals or the final four it does show they had a strong conference that year. But if they have a lot of teams that lose in the first few rounds, all it shows is that they were strong enough to get a lot of teams into the tournament. It does not prove that they were overrated.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 20, 2014 9:28:53 GMT -5
So in my opinion, if a conference gets a lot of teams into the regional finals or the final four it does show they had a strong conference that year. But if they have a lot of teams that lose in the first few rounds, all it shows is that they were strong enough to get a lot of teams into the tournament. It does not prove that they were overrated. Unless they had a lot of teams seeded that didn't get as far as the regional round. That happens regularly, it shows that they are being overrated. Pretty much by definition. You know that I am one that constantly talks about how tournament results have to be placed in the context of expectations, and how advancement in the tournament is highly dependent on matchups. I am the one who started the whole "final four probability" idea for the volleyball tournament (before Pablo even existed), so I understand the issue of expectations. I'd argue that I've done as much as anyone here to try to get a better handle on interpreting results of the NCAA tournament and the idea of conference assessment, so that's not an issue with me.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 25, 2014 22:41:34 GMT -5
You are correct - Pac12 unseeded teams have not been sent to SEC/ACC seeds like the Big 10. However, those unseeded teams have often times lost to an ACC team or someone else in the 1st match - so it wouldn't have mattered. And the Big 10 has had some success winning against a Pac12 seed and a Pac12 has not beaten a Big10 seed (only the past 3 years and only in terms of the Sub-Regionals). Just suggesting the Chicken or the Egg - it is possible that the SEC seeds have lost more than expected because they often times have a Big 10 team in their subregional than the Big 10 is winning because it is an SEC seed? But this is mostly meaningless given the small sample size. In addition - the Missouri and Florida loss in the subregional last year has less meaning than people want to attach (IMO). Just like Michigan beating Stanford, or Kansas State beating Nebraska - these things happen when it seems to make no sense other than upsets are guaranteed to happen. Or LSU beating Michigan on a neutral floor in the 1st round last year while other unseeded Big 10 teams are beating better (than LSU) SEC teams. The way I look at a single-elimination knockout tournament is like this: There are always going to be 63 of the best teams in the country that lose. A single bad night, or a single good night by the other team, and you are out. We talk about first round losses as a terrible performance, but HALF THE TOURNAMENT loses in the first round. Half. IMO, losses in the NCAA tournament do not show that you had a bad team or that you were overrated or that your conference was sucky. The flip side, though, is that advancing several rounds in the tournament does prove the opposite. While it only takes one bad match (or sometimes one unlucky play) to knock a team out, it takes four good matches to get to the Final Four. Usually at least three excellent matches. (And that's why people complain about soft draws and home court advantage -- because it is so hard to advance that any advantage you can get might be major.) So in my opinion, if a conference gets a lot of teams into the regional finals or the final four it does show they had a strong conference that year. But if they have a lot of teams that lose in the first few rounds, all it shows is that they were strong enough to get a lot of teams into the tournament. It does not prove that they were overrated. Agreed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 23:30:11 GMT -5
Did the PAC 12 instantly get better than the Big 10 or did the PAC 12 do a better job of playing the RPI game? How much did matches vs. new B1G teams Rutgers and Maryland impact the middle of pack teams. I'm just not convinced that Oregon State, Utah, and Colorado are better than Purdue, Ohio State, and Minnesota or Michigan State.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 25, 2014 23:35:14 GMT -5
Did the PAC 12 instantly get better than the Big 10 or did the PAC 12 do a better job of playing the RPI game? How much did matches vs. new B1G teams Rutgers and Maryland impact the middle of pack teams. I'm just not convinced that Oregon State, Utah, and Colorado are better than Purdue, Ohio State, and Minnesota or Michigan State. It's more like the B1G got worse (via graduation). Minnesota barely squeaked by Colorado in the tourney last year at home, in 5, and that was with Dixon, Wittman and Palmer..... so why can't you be convinced that the stripped down Gophers of this year aren't as good as a full-strength Colorado? Look at all the players the conference lost.
|
|
|
Post by lionsfan on Nov 25, 2014 23:36:45 GMT -5
Did the PAC 12 instantly get better than the Big 10 or did the PAC 12 do a better job of playing the RPI game? How much did matches vs. new B1G teams Rutgers and Maryland impact the middle of pack teams. I'm just not convinced that Oregon State, Utah, and Colorado are better than Purdue, Ohio State, and Minnesota or Michigan State. It's more like the B1G got worse (via graduation). Minnesota barely squeaked by Colorado in the tourney last year at home, in 5, and that was with Dixon, Wittman and Palmer..... so why can't you be convinced that the stripped down Gophers of this year aren't as good as a full-strength Colorado? Look at all the players the conference lost. *cough*Northwestern*cough*
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 25, 2014 23:39:56 GMT -5
It's more like the B1G got worse (via graduation). Minnesota barely squeaked by Colorado in the tourney last year at home, in 5, and that was with Dixon, Wittman and Palmer..... so why can't you be convinced that the stripped down Gophers of this year aren't as good as a full-strength Colorado? Look at all the players the conference lost. *cough*Northwestern*cough* Yeah, and Colorado was not full strength for that match. The B1G lost 8 of its Top 10 scorers from 2013.... the PAC lost 1. Do the math.
|
|