|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 18, 2014 13:49:08 GMT -5
I think the very telling thing about the RPI discussion is that one never sees fans of the ACC/SEC/East/South come on this board and engage in any meaningful discussion about change or advocacy for change in the selection/seeding bottom line in the discussion is that it always takes a 'champion' within an organization to make a change/modification - and it's hard to see 1 to 2 people in an organization of 15 determining that they want to 'buck the system' for the sake of getting one or two teams or one additional seed each year distributed differently - i.e., it's just not worth the effort and perceived 'fall-out' but that won't stop me from pointing it out
|
|
|
Post by owlsem on Nov 18, 2014 14:03:47 GMT -5
Bofa, Is there a home court bias in the matches you refer too? I could be wrong but feel east goes west and south goes west far more than west goes east and south.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 18, 2014 14:10:58 GMT -5
Bofa, Is there a home court bias in the matches you refer too? I could be wrong but feel east goes west and south goes west far more than west goes east and south. they travel that way because the weather is better plus they are getting their best players from California and they promised them a trip home
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 14:14:36 GMT -5
Bofa, Is there a home court bias in the matches you refer too? I could be wrong but feel east goes west and south goes west far more than west goes east and south. When I've done this in the past, I've looked for it and never seen any significant differences. I also have looked at things like average ranking difference and not seen large differences.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Nov 18, 2014 15:09:49 GMT -5
Hawai'i's home schedule has been like this for years. Playing extra matches at home will not hurt them come selection time. Interesting dichotomy. Since it appears that Hawaii's excessive home matches have hurt them in the past (recall that year when they weren't seeded? The fact they played so many home matches certainly was an argument against them), it seems weird that you would insist it won't hurt them this year, while referring to the past. it was just the one time. so it can also be said that hawaii has nearly always been seeded, even with all those early season home matches. hawaii's relatively strong RPI most years likely earned them a seed. hawaii's RPI this year (hovering around 30) just won't cut it. they've just lost more than they usually do this year, and don't quite have as strong an RPI schedule as in other years. they won't be seeded b/c their RPI is just not in "seed" territory, not because they played all their non-conference matches. the ncaa manual that someone circulated recently lists "location of contest" as a "secondary" criteria for at-large selection. so it could be used against hawaii for that purpose. but hopefully their RPI holds, and hawaii gets in without the need to look at secondary criteria. hopefully! (although, at least one projection on VT shows hawaii could end up with an RPI of 39 ... inching toward "bubble" territory for an at-large spot.)
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 15:33:05 GMT -5
Interesting dichotomy. Since it appears that Hawaii's excessive home matches have hurt them in the past (recall that year when they weren't seeded? The fact they played so many home matches certainly was an argument against them), it seems weird that you would insist it won't hurt them this year, while referring to the past. it was just the one time. so it can also be said that hawaii has nearly always been seeded, even with all those early season home matches. hawaii's relatively strong RPI most years likely earned them a seed. hawaii's RPI this year (hovering around 30) just won't cut it. they've just lost more than they usually do this year, and don't quite have as strong an RPI schedule as in other years. they won't be seeded b/c their RPI is just not in "seed" territory, not because they played all their non-conference matches. the ncaa manual that someone circulated recently lists "location of contest" as a "secondary" criteria for at-large selection. so it could be used against hawaii for that purpose. but hopefully their RPI holds, and hawaii gets in without the need to look at secondary criteria. hopefully! (although, at least one projection on VT shows hawaii could end up with an RPI of 39 ... inching toward "bubble" territory for an at-large spot.) Yeah, but that doesn't mean that playing so many matches at home doesn't hurt them come selection time. With an RPI of 30 they will make the field, but they need to do things like have an RPI of 30.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Nov 18, 2014 18:00:23 GMT -5
The "bias" in RPI comes from it's roots. It was developed for men's basketball and then forced on volleyball. The distribution of good/mediocre/bad teams is very different between the two sports with more "RPI appropriate" teams available across the country in basketball, so the model works well there. Because of the different distribution of teams in volleyball you have an , I will be nice and assume, unintentional bias in volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 18, 2014 18:26:58 GMT -5
The "bias" in RPI comes from it's roots. It was developed for men's basketball and then forced on volleyball. The distribution of good/mediocre/bad teams is very different between the two sports with more "RPI appropriate" teams available across the country in basketball, so the model works well there. Because of the different distribution of teams in volleyball you have an , I will be nice and assume, unintentional bias in volleyball. I'd agree with you 15 years ago, not today. National distribution of strong volleyball teams is more like basketball than ever before.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 19:22:38 GMT -5
The "bias" in RPI comes from it's roots. It was developed for men's basketball and then forced on volleyball. The distribution of good/mediocre/bad teams is very different between the two sports with more "RPI appropriate" teams available across the country in basketball, so the model works well there. Because of the different distribution of teams in volleyball you have an , I will be nice and assume, unintentional bias in volleyball. I'd agree with you 15 years ago, not today. National distribution of strong volleyball teams is more like basketball than ever before. Not at all. Just look at the east and northeast, where there a TON of D1 schools, a bunch of really good basketball teams, and very little for volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 18, 2014 19:38:58 GMT -5
And I would counter that volleyball was a very heavily dominated, primarily Weat Coast sport and now has very strong teams in the Midwest, Plains, South, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Northwest; much more nationally diverse. Strange example to use the Northeast, which traditionally is ONLY strong in the sport of basketball and remains that way.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 19:41:30 GMT -5
And I would counter that volleyball was a very heavily dominated, primarily Weat Coast sport and now has very strong teams in the Midwest, Plains, South, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Northwest; much more nationally diverse. Strange example to use the Northeast, which traditionally is ONLY strong in the sport of basketball and remains that way. Well, that's a different claim. Volleyball is certainly MORE spread nationally than it used to be, but that's still a long way to looking like basketball.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 19:42:10 GMT -5
And I would counter that volleyball was a very heavily dominated, primarily Weat Coast sport and now has very strong teams in the Midwest, Plains, South, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Northwest; much more nationally diverse. Strange example to use the Northeast, which traditionally is ONLY strong in the sport of basketball and remains that way. Yeah, but basketball was YOUR comparison, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 18, 2014 20:00:18 GMT -5
And I would counter that volleyball was a very heavily dominated, primarily Weat Coast sport and now has very strong teams in the Midwest, Plains, South, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Northwest; much more nationally diverse. Strange example to use the Northeast, which traditionally is ONLY strong in the sport of basketball and remains that way. Yeah, but basketball was YOUR comparison, not mine. So you're saying (as Husky originally stated) that west coast basketball teams have more RPI opportunities in their sport than volleyball does in theirs ? i would almost argue the opposite; west coast basketball is traditionally much weaker than east coast basketball; even using your own northeast example. Not sure I follow your point or Huskys
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 20:22:54 GMT -5
Yeah, but basketball was YOUR comparison, not mine. So you're saying (as Husky originally stated) that west coast basketball teams have more RPI opportunities in their sport than volleyball does in theirs ? i would almost argue the opposite; west coast basketball is traditionally much weaker than east coast basketball; even using your own northeast example. Not sure I follow your point or Huskys There aren't as many good teams in the west in basketball because there aren't as many teams in the west. However, there is no indication that proportionately there is a skewed distribution. Meanwhile, in volleyball 1/4 of the teams are in the west but they are almost all in the top half of D1 and the bulk of the bottom half of D1 are east/northeast and south regions.
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Nov 18, 2014 22:49:29 GMT -5
Another big difference between basketball and volleyball--player demographics. The best basketball players generally come from inner cities whereas volleyball players come from club programs which are suburban-based. Big economic divide in terms of where the players originate.
|
|