Annual "why should these teams be in the tournament" post

[mikegarrison]

OK, maybe it's not an annual FAQ yet, but probably it should be.

1) Why let those automatic qualifiers pollute the tournament?

The NCAA Championship is just that -- the way the NCAA determines a national champion. The AQs offer a route for every team to win its way to the national championship. If you win your conference (or conference tournament, if that's what your conference prefers) then you are in. Every team in any conference has a path to the title. "Just win, baby."

Besides that, there are about 200 schools out there that would pretty much never have a shot at the tournament otherwise. They out-vote the rest when the NCAA is voting on such things. So they are going to be in.

2) Why should one or two conferences get so many teams in?

The opposite of the first question! The inclusion of at-large teams is to prevent excellent teams from being excluded just because another team won the conference. Really, conferences should have NO BEARING on at-large team selection. That's what at-large means. If there are 15 teams from one conference all in the top-30 of the country, then why shouldn't they all go? Anybody else who wasn't as good should have won their conference if they wanted to be sure they got in.

3) Why is RPI so important?

Short answer: because the NCAA says it is.

Longer answer: Because committees love easy answers to tough questions. How do you rate a bunch of teams with very different opponents? You can watch them all and make informed expert opinions about them, which will get you tons of complaints. Or you can let an algorithm pretty much do your work for you. Ah, but which algorithm? Maybe the one that is proven to work the best for volleyball? No, you use the one that the NCAA itself developed, because "not invented here" and maybe even more importantly "not owned here." The NCAA wants to be in total control of the selection process, so they use their own algorithm.

4) Why is RPI sometimes so messed up?

Mike's answer: Because it's idiotic at heart. The idea is that wins and losses by themselves don't necessary have the same value depending on whether you played strong or weak opponents. So you measure the strength of the opponents. (That's not the part that is messed up.) But how do you measure the strength of the opponents? (This is the part that is messed up.) By using the very measure that you already know is suspect -- wins and losses!

OK, off the soapbox. RPI is better than just straight wins and losses. But still, it is easy to see from historical results that there are better algorithms than RPI for determining relative team strength. But nobody cares enough about volleyball to force the NCAA out of the easy answer. Also, RPI does have one intentional side effect that the NCAA likes. It tends to force the contending teams to schedule out-of-conference matches with the strongest teams from the weak conferences. Otherwise, left on their own, they would be more likely to just schedule matches between other elite teams (to boost their credentials) and/or the worst teams they could find (to boost their W/L record). Scheduling strong teams from weak conferences is a great boost for RPI, but it tends to be risky in terms of embarrassing upset potential.

5) Why is it not really a travesty when the wrong "last team on the bubble" gets in?

This should be obvious, but really, were either the team that got in or the team that didn't going to go far in the tournament? Probably not. As with most things, if you don't want to be the team that just barely didn't make it in, get a better RPI and be sure to make it in next time.

6) Why do some people say RPI penalizes teams from the West?

Basically, it has to do with out of conference scheduling opportunities. The best teams to schedule from the standpoint of improving your RPI are teams that you can beat (so you improve your own record), but who also have good records themselves (so you can improve your strength of schedule). That means you want to schedule the strongest teams from the weakest conferences. It turns out that there are many more such RPI-boosting teams in the East than there are in the West.

[vbprisoner]

Boy, you are fired up about this......

[baywatcher]

vbprisoner, you seem to be fairly new to this board. We are just getting warmed up..............

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Hawai'i better get in; I don't want to have to create another "HAWAII IS OUTRAGED" thread. The Wahine have struggled a little this season but they still have the talent to make some noise in the tourney if they get their act together.

[BeachbytheBay]

Nov 18, 2014 2:23:33 GMT -5 Barefoot In Kailua said:

Hawai'i better get in; I don't want to have to create another "HAWAII IS OUTRAGED" thread. The Wahine have struggled a little this season but they still have the talent to make some noise in the tourney if they get their act together.

Hawaii is interesting this year. Their resume is very suspect. Basically best wins are Ohio & Northridge (at home), and a bad road resume. Heavy home schedule, that could get them degraded a lot in selection. No bad losses.

What is interesting is that despite a suspect resume, their RPI is good and their Massey power rating is relatively very good (22 power vs. 31 Massey ranking) which indicates they score points. With their very good block, they could be a tough out in the tournament, if they have a good passing game. Seems like Washington would be the likely destination for the first round, possibly Stanford.

[bluepenquin]

Nice write up.

#1 is pretty important to me. I am not a fan of a system where certain teams are essentially eliminated before the season begins. I think letting the 'little' guys in has a positive impact.

#2 I have no problem with the Pac 12 getting 10 teams this year. I also don't have a problem with saying that given the Big 10's recent past, we might want to make sure there are at least 6 teams going in this year (assuming the 6th team is real close to the cut line).

#5 is spot on.


As for RPI - I think I understand the problems with RPI as well as anyone. I don't think it makes many significant errors and not nearly to the degree most people seem to think. I would contend that it is much better than the AVAC poll. It is still pretty well correlated with Pablo. The one easy solution is to use Pablo as a counterbalance. The prime example from last year is St.Mary's. Pablo has them as a seed, RPI has them out of the tournament. I wish they would look at this and say - we need to find a spot for St. Mary's in the tournament, because this may be a case where RPI made a huge error. Don't give them a seed, but at least get them in the tournament.

Or this year - BYU finishes #18 in RPI, but #8 in Pablo. I would look at this and say - BYU should probably get a seed. Not sure if that 'mistake' is as big as the St.Mary's decsion last year, but this is an easy small improvement w/o tearing down the NCAA sacred cow. However, others on the board want to tear down BYU's lack of top 25 wins - so even reasonable (smart) people on this board cannot agree on what is/should be important.

[baywatcher]

My question is what to do with teams that play a lot of top 25 or top 50 teams, either through scheduling or conference obligations, and lose almost all of them. The opposing teams record lifts your RPI, but anybody could do the losing. A side issue are teams like Stanford and Washington this year. Until the last weekend nobody was beating either, but if you were another Pac 12 team, and Washington had not faltered, that's a 59-1 addition to 50% of your score at the end of the year. I submit an LMU or Santa Clara could do as well as Oregon State or Arizona State. That's a digression, but USC comes to mind. At 14-12, they are not winning matches v. the really good Pac 12 teams, unless you include Colorado, and lost to A&M, Florida, and Wisconsin, but still have a very healthy RPI, in seeding country. Fine, give them credit for scheduling, but where is the cut-off? With all these opportunities SC's big win is Kentucky.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Nov 18, 2014 9:21:39 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Nice write up.

#1 is pretty important to me. I am not a fan of a system where certain teams are essentially eliminated before the season begins. I think letting the 'little' guys in has a positive impact.

#2 I have no problem with the Pac 12 getting 10 teams this year. I also don't have a problem with saying that given the Big 10's recent past, we might want to make sure there are at least 6 teams going in this year (assuming the 6th team is real close to the cut line).

#5 is spot on.


As for RPI - I think I understand the problems with RPI as well as anyone. I don't think it makes many significant errors and not nearly to the degree most people seem to think. I would contend that it is much better than the AVAC poll. It is still pretty well correlated with Pablo. The one easy solution is to use Pablo as a counterbalance. The prime example from last year is St.Mary's. Pablo has them as a seed, RPI has them out of the tournament. I wish they would look at this and say - we need to find a spot for St. Mary's in the tournament, because this may be a case where RPI made a huge error. Don't give them a seed, but at least get them in the tournament.

Or this year - BYU finishes #18 in RPI, but #8 in Pablo. I would look at this and say - BYU should probably get a seed. Not sure if that 'mistake' is as big as the St.Mary's decsion last year, but this is an easy small improvement w/o tearing down the NCAA sacred cow. However, others on the board want to tear down BYU's lack of top 25 wins - so even reasonable (smart) people on this board cannot agree on what is/should be important.

I agree. I would just like to see a concession from the committee that RPI overrates teams from the east coast and underrates teams from the west and take that into account.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Nov 18, 2014 2:48:35 GMT -5 BeachbytheBay said:

Nov 18, 2014 2:23:33 GMT -5 Barefoot In Kailua said:

Hawai'i better get in; I don't want to have to create another "HAWAII IS OUTRAGED" thread. The Wahine have struggled a little this season but they still have the talent to make some noise in the tourney if they get their act together.

Hawaii is interesting this year. Their resume is very suspect. Basically best wins are Ohio & Northridge (at home), and a bad road resume. Heavy home schedule, that could get them degraded a lot in selection. No bad losses.

What is interesting is that despite a suspect resume, their RPI is good and their Massey power rating is relatively very good (22 power vs. 31 Massey ranking) which indicates they score points. With their very good block, they could be a tough out in the tournament, if they have a good passing game. Seems like Washington would be the likely destination for the first round, possibly Stanford.

Hawai'i's home schedule has been like this for years. Playing extra matches at home will not hurt them come selection time. Losing matches, well that hurts.

[BeachbytheBay]

Nov 18, 2014 9:38:14 GMT -5 baywatcher said:

My question is what to do with teams that play a lot of top 25 or top 50 teams, either through scheduling or conference obligations, and lose almost all of them. The opposing teams record lifts your RPI, but anybody could do the losing. A side issue are teams like Stanford and Washington this year. Until the last weekend nobody was beating either, but if you were another Pac 12 team, and Washington had not faltered, that's a 59-1 addition to 50% of your score at the end of the year. I submit an LMU or Santa Clara could do as well as Oregon State or Arizona State. That's a digression, but USC comes to mind. At 14-12, they are not winning matches v. the really good Pac 12 teams, unless you include Colorado, and lost to A&M, Florida, and Wisconsin, but still have a very healthy RPI, in seeding country. Fine, give them credit for scheduling, but where is the cut-off? With all these opportunities SC's big win is Kentucky.

the counter-argument to "anybody could to the losing" is that anybody could also get top 25 top 50 wins against them. well not literally anybody but given the grinds of conference road schedule it's understandable that given 10-14 attempts against top 50ish teams that a bubble team in those conferences is bound to win a few. the biggest tool the committee could augment IMO is to have a rap sheet that not only gives a RPI breakdown of top 25, top 50, top 100 but a Pablo/Massey top 25, top 50, top 100 - teams in the WCC & Big West are 'missing' or not getting credit for 4-6 top 100 matches from their RPI 'rap sheet' unless one uses this type of augmentation - in fact the Pac-12 is not even getting top 100 credit for the Wazzou/Cal matches - that's 3-4 additional 'quality' wins that don't show up on their evaluation

simply augmenting the 'rap sheet' would make for some examinations of teams that have disparities that jump out

[bluepenquin]

Nov 18, 2014 9:38:14 GMT -5 baywatcher said:

My question is what to do with teams that play a lot of top 25 or top 50 teams, either through scheduling or conference obligations, and lose almost all of them. The opposing teams record lifts your RPI, but anybody could do the losing. A side issue are teams like Stanford and Washington this year. Until the last weekend nobody was beating either, but if you were another Pac 12 team, and Washington had not faltered, that's a 59-1 addition to 50% of your score at the end of the year. I submit an LMU or Santa Clara could do as well as Oregon State or Arizona State. That's a digression, but USC comes to mind. At 14-12, they are not winning matches v. the really good Pac 12 teams, unless you include Colorado, and lost to A&M, Florida, and Wisconsin, but still have a very healthy RPI, in seeding country. Fine, give them credit for scheduling, but where is the cut-off? With all these opportunities SC's big win is Kentucky.

USC is sort of on the extreme - they have the #1 RPI SOS (they still need to qualify).  But generally to your question - RPI takes care of this.  Washington State and Cal have great RPI SOS - and their RPI stinks because they don't win any of these games.  Utah was in the same boat until just recently.  Ohio State last year missed out because they couldn't win enough games in a very tough Big 10.  RPI gives a pretty big penalty for losing.

And then there is the RPI bias against the WCC, Mt West, and Big West.  I do think that LMU and Santa Clara had about the same kind of path/opportunity to having an RPI bid as Oregon State and Utah.  They had to win more games - but then their conference isn't nearly as good. 

[volleytology]

Nov 18, 2014 9:40:07 GMT -5 The Bofa on the Sofa said:

Nov 18, 2014 9:21:39 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Nice write up.

#1 is pretty important to me. I am not a fan of a system where certain teams are essentially eliminated before the season begins. I think letting the 'little' guys in has a positive impact.

#2 I have no problem with the Pac 12 getting 10 teams this year. I also don't have a problem with saying that given the Big 10's recent past, we might want to make sure there are at least 6 teams going in this year (assuming the 6th team is real close to the cut line).

#5 is spot on.


As for RPI - I think I understand the problems with RPI as well as anyone. I don't think it makes many significant errors and not nearly to the degree most people seem to think. I would contend that it is much better than the AVAC poll. It is still pretty well correlated with Pablo. The one easy solution is to use Pablo as a counterbalance. The prime example from last year is St.Mary's. Pablo has them as a seed, RPI has them out of the tournament. I wish they would look at this and say - we need to find a spot for St. Mary's in the tournament, because this may be a case where RPI made a huge error. Don't give them a seed, but at least get them in the tournament.

Or this year - BYU finishes #18 in RPI, but #8 in Pablo. I would look at this and say - BYU should probably get a seed. Not sure if that 'mistake' is as big as the St.Mary's decsion last year, but this is an easy small improvement w/o tearing down the NCAA sacred cow. However, others on the board want to tear down BYU's lack of top 25 wins - so even reasonable (smart) people on this board cannot agree on what is/should be important.

I agree. I would just like to see a concession from the committee that RPI overrates teams from the east coast and underrates teams from the west and take that into account.

Is Hawaii a west coast team ? because I would contend they are way over rated in RPI this year. How does that relate to the east coast bias claim ?

[volleytology]

Nov 18, 2014 10:46:48 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Nov 18, 2014 9:38:14 GMT -5 baywatcher said:

My question is what to do with teams that play a lot of top 25 or top 50 teams, either through scheduling or conference obligations, and lose almost all of them. The opposing teams record lifts your RPI, but anybody could do the losing. A side issue are teams like Stanford and Washington this year. Until the last weekend nobody was beating either, but if you were another Pac 12 team, and Washington had not faltered, that's a 59-1 addition to 50% of your score at the end of the year. I submit an LMU or Santa Clara could do as well as Oregon State or Arizona State. That's a digression, but USC comes to mind. At 14-12, they are not winning matches v. the really good Pac 12 teams, unless you include Colorado, and lost to A&M, Florida, and Wisconsin, but still have a very healthy RPI, in seeding country. Fine, give them credit for scheduling, but where is the cut-off? With all these opportunities SC's big win is Kentucky.

USC is sort of on the extreme - they have the #1 RPI SOS (they still need to qualify).  But generally to your question - RPI takes care of this.  Washington State and Cal have great RPI SOS - and their RPI stinks because they don't win any of these games.  Utah was in the same boat until just recently.  Ohio State last year missed out because they couldn't win enough games in a very tough Big 10.  RPI gives a pretty big penalty for losing.

And then there is the RPI bias against the WCC, Mt West, and Big West.  I do think that LMU and Santa Clara had about the same kind of path/opportunity to having an RPI bid as Oregon State and Utah.  They had to win more games - but then their conference isn't nearly as good. 

Is it possible instead of a bias, that the WCC, Mt West and Big West teams just aren't that good and RPI is actually accurate ? Are there any head to head matches of the bubble teams from these West Coast conferences with bubble teams from the East Coast that actually show they are getting screwed somehow ?

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 18, 2014 10:50:33 GMT -5 volleytology said:

Nov 18, 2014 9:40:07 GMT -5 The Bofa on the Sofa said:

I agree. I would just like to see a concession from the committee that RPI overrates teams from the east coast and underrates teams from the west and take that into account.

Is Hawaii a west coast team ? because I would contend they are way over rated in RPI this year. How does that relate to the east coast bias claim ?

How is Hawaii way overrated? They're 30 in RPI, 20 in Pablo, meaning they might be getting underrated. Easily swept Ohio (RPI: 40). Split with Northridge, who has a slightly lower RPI than them. Otherwise, losses have been to the Beach and 3 good PAC-12 teams.

[Wolfgang]

I hate internal inconsistencies. I hate it when the national champions didn't even win their own conference. It's like those bizarre All-Conference and All-American selections where a player who is a 2nd or 3rd team All-Conference makes 1st All-American. Or when a freshman who is named Conference Freshman of the Year makes the 2nd team All-Conference while another freshman makes the 1st team All-Conference. I understand that it's better for the sport to allow all competitive teams to participate but a big part of me hate this. It doesn't seem fair. Some may argue that it's not fair for a small school like Podunk Tech who won their conference with an overall record of 13-17 has a chance to compete for the national title but a big-time school like Armaggedon U with a record of 33-1 who came in second in their conference is left out in the cold. I understand. I still don't like it. Either you win your conference to be eligible or you're out. I like the Beauty Pageant model, like Miss America or Miss USA or Miss Universe -- only one representative per organizing body (e.g., one per state for Miss USA, one per country for Miss Universe).

(Similarly, I hate it when a player who is a 2nd team All-Conference makes All-American over all the other players above her in the conference. Only 1st team All-Conference should be eligible for All-American status.)

But that's just me.