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: 12,423
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 20, 2014 16:04:05 GMT -5
Nice questions and answers. So Northridge is 'Easily' in and Miami is probably in, but not deserving. As mentioned in another thread, these two teams have very similar resumes. Miami has the better RPI (and Pablo rating), while Northridge has more wins against the top 50. Miami has the better record (18-7 vs. 16-8), and their bad losses are not quite as bad (Missouri State & TCU vs. UC Davis & UCSB). Both teams will have a hard time winning their last 4 matches. Northridge has the win against the only common opponent (UALR) and Miami the loss. yet another problem with compounding flaws of RPI by using it for W/L. Northridge's losses really aren't bad losses compared to TCU or Mizzou State ? only because RPI says so? bad losses is one of the worse things they can look at - or they should up the RPI for what they consider a bad loss Cal & Washington State would be a bad loss - but those aren't bad teams Except I wasn't refering to RPI when I wrote 'bad losses'. Missouri State is 67 in Pablo and TCU is 95, while UC Davis is 83 and UCSB is 118. Didn't look at Massey, but when comparing to Pablo, Miami's worst 2 losses are not as bad as Northridge. And I have always agreed that looking at RPI top 25 and top 50 wins is compounding the problem - and then to give an RPI bonus for RPI top 25 wins... - so on this we completely agree. I tend to go a step further - we need to be careful when talking about top 25 and top 50 wins even if we are using Pablo or Massey. For one thing 25 and 50 are round numbers, but also arbitrary numbers. Why not the top 17 and top 42? Is beating the 25th best team at home worth so much more than losing to the #1 team on the road? Is beating the #26 team on the road worth nothing compared to beating the #25 team at home?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 20, 2014 16:17:24 GMT -5
You think Cal State Northridge should be a lock for a bid and there is no way in the world that Miami deserves a bid. I think both teams are clearly worthy of a bid and that there really isn't all that much different between the teams. The illusion of CSNU having more (any) quality wins is mostly a product of opportunity. Duke and Hawaii are essentially the same team - CSNU beat Hawaii at home (and lost to them on the road), while Miami didn't get an opportunity to play Duke at home and lost to them on the road. The only top team that Miami had on their schedule at Home was Florida State - and they lost to Florida State. A lot of very good teams have lost to Florida State this year. Cal State Northridge got LBSU at home and also lost. Pittsburgh and San Deigo are essentially the same team - and Miami and CSNU both beat them on the road. I do agree that UALR is a difference in CSNU's favor, but then Miami also has a better record. Washington St. would kill to have the "fewer opportunities" that Miami does. And they might actually convert more of them. And that's the fundamental issue - if you have fewer opportunities, you have to take the ones that you have. If you don't get Duke at home and get blown out against them on the road, you have to beat UALR on a neutral court. CSUN (not CSNU) did not have vastly more opportunities than Miami - they had a couple more - but they were also successful at converting them at a higher rate. You can't put Miami in the tourney based on what they might have done in a home match against Duke. And frankly, both have a couple unsightly losses, but Northridge has the good in the profile to even it out. There isn't anything in Miami's profile to even out Missouri St. and TCU. (And it's really irrelevant to this discussion as a whole - Pitt isn't as good of a win as Northridge has even at full strength - but Miami did not get the same Pitt team that everybody else did this year - losing your leading scorer and 6-rotation OH is kind of a big deal). I see nothing wrong with BYU's resume that doesn't warrent a seed. I am not saying it has to be a top 12, but I will stack their work relative to who they played with anyone else outside the top 12-13 teams. BYU's problem is they just haven't beaten anybody, and if you haven't done that, then you can't be losing to Santa Clara and San Diego (who is "basically the same team as Pitt" according to you). Their season highlights are home wins against Santa Clara and an LMU team without its L1. Doing that doesn't earn you the privilege of hosting two postseason matches just because you avoided a horrific loss. BYU may be better than UCLA, Arizona, Nebraska, or Colorado St., but you can't stack their work up against them (but who knows? And I have doubts about whether they are on a neutral court). And BYU's lack of opportunities was entirely under their control. They have no excuse for scheduling like that. They put themselves in the position of having to come up with a win v UW or Colorado St. to earn it.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 20, 2014 16:31:32 GMT -5
yet another problem with compounding flaws of RPI by using it for W/L. Northridge's losses really aren't bad losses compared to TCU or Mizzou State ? only because RPI says so? bad losses is one of the worse things they can look at - or they should up the RPI for what they consider a bad loss Cal & Washington State would be a bad loss - but those aren't bad teams Except I wasn't refering to RPI when I wrote 'bad losses'. Missouri State is 67 in Pablo and TCU is 95, while UC Davis is 83 and UCSB is 118. Didn't look at Massey, but when comparing to Pablo, Miami's worst 2 losses are not as bad as Northridge. And I have always agreed that looking at RPI top 25 and top 50 wins is compounding the problem - and then to give an RPI bonus for RPI top 25 wins... - so on this we completely agree. I tend to go a step further - we need to be careful when talking about top 25 and top 50 wins even if we are using Pablo or Massey. For one thing 25 and 50 are round numbers, but also arbitrary numbers. Why not the top 17 and top 42? Is beating the 25th best team at home worth so much more than losing to the #1 team on the road? Is beating the #26 team on the road worth nothing compared to beating the #25 team at home? plus I've always never been a fan of the whole 'bad loss' evaluation. I thought teams should have at least one 'throw-away' game, seriously out of 30 matches, who cares if you lose to a 200th ranked team one time, maybe the team had food poisoning? now if you have 3 200 losses & 3 25 wins - that does indicate some real issues
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 20, 2014 16:35:04 GMT -5
as to BYU, well, they've beat a LOT of good teams (i.e., almost the whole WCC). but have yet to beat a 'great' team.
so when you've piled up good wins - that is worth something
|
|
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: 12,423
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 20, 2014 16:53:54 GMT -5
(And it's really irrelevant to this discussion as a whole - Pitt isn't as good of a win as Northridge has even at full strength - but Miami did not get the same Pitt team that everybody else did this year - losing your leading scorer and 6-rotation OH is kind of a big deal). I wonder how you account for injuries/sickness/suspensions? I know that they do look at this for Men's Basketball selection. This can be a slippery slope. So and so played, but she was really sick that night and if she wasn't sick that would have made a difference... Or Micha sprained her ankle in the 2nd set and they just were not the same team after that happened... Lexi had mono for 1/2 the season, and if she hadn't had mono they would have won 2 more games and would qualify for the tournament... I am not so sure you can play what-ifs like this. Who is to say that someone for Hawaii was not 100% or played as well as typical against CSUN (I saw this, but thought it was a typo - so it is Cal State University of Northridge). I do agree that Pitt's loss was pretty signficant, but where/when do you start drawing those lines?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 20, 2014 16:55:48 GMT -5
I wonder how you account for injuries/sickness/suspensions? I know that they do look at this for Men's Basketball selection. This can be a slippery slope. So and so played, but she was really sick that night and if she wasn't sick that would have made a difference... Or Micha sprained her ankle in the 2nd set and they just were not the same team after that happened... Lexi had mono for 1/2 the season, and if she hadn't had mono they would have won 2 more games and would qualify for the tournament... I am not so sure you can play what-ifs like this. Who is to say that someone for Hawaii was not 100% or played as well as typical against CSUN (I saw this, but thought it was a typo - so it is Cal State University of Northridge). I do agree that Pitt's loss was pretty signficant, but where/when do you start drawing those lines? Well, I think we'll draw that line 2 weeks from now when Pitt is ranked a whole lot lower. If they do keep the wins up, you can disregard it. And like I said, it's irrelevant. Even if Pitt were full strength there still wouldn't be enough meat on the profile for Miami to be safely in.
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Nov 20, 2014 17:08:27 GMT -5
After watching both Duke and Hawaii play, IMHO, Hawai'i would beat Duke head to head - the way they are playing right now.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 20, 2014 18:04:07 GMT -5
Nikki Taylor did not play in the early season matches that Hawai'i lost (ASU and Oregon). She did play a little in the loss to UCLA. It seems (to me anyway) that she is only now starting to recover from her elbow injury. Hawai'i had every opportunity to beat the Beach, twice but didn't. The only match they were blown out in was that first match against Northridge. They were in every other match (including the matches they lost against the Pac 12 schools.) The Wahine have the talent to play against anyone but their serve receive and setting has been off for a good portion of the season, thereby negating the impact that Olivia Magill can have in the middle (from an offensive perspective anyway.) This Hawai'i team is an enigma to me. I'd like to see what they can do against teams from the Midwest or East Coast, I'm tired of seeing them play PAC 12 teams in the tourney.
That said, Hawai'i should be very good next year with the addition of Granato, Mitchem and Castillo as they only lose Adolpho and Mendoza. Hawai'i will be a top 10 team next season.
|
|
|
Post by fetchin on Nov 20, 2014 18:20:37 GMT -5
I think Pitt should be in.
|
|
|
Post by fetchin on Nov 20, 2014 18:21:41 GMT -5
Nikki Taylor did not play in the early season matches that Hawai'i lost (ASU and Oregon). She did play a little in the loss to UCLA. It seems (to me anyway) that she is only now starting to recover from her elbow injury. Hawai'i had every opportunity to beat the Beach, twice but didn't. The only match they were blown out in was that first match against Northridge. They were in every other match (including the matches they lost against the Pac 12 schools.) The Wahine have the talent to play against anyone but their serve receive and setting has been off for a good portion of the season, thereby negating the impact that Olivia Magill can have in the middle (from an offensive perspective anyway.) This Hawai'i team is an enigma to me. I'd like to see what they can do against teams from the Midwest or East Coast, I'm tired of seeing them play PAC 12 teams in the tourney. That said, Hawai'i should be very good next year with the addition of Granato, Mitchem and Castillo as they only lose Adolpho and Mendoza. Hawai'i will be a top 10 team next season. Not with their current setters IMO , They make Long Beach's setter look good Shoji should seek a transfer setter. Too bad they can't have Iosia till 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 20, 2014 18:23:16 GMT -5
Nikki Taylor did not play in the early season matches that Hawai'i lost (ASU and Oregon). She did play a little in the loss to UCLA. It seems (to me anyway) that she is only now starting to recover from her elbow injury. Hawai'i had every opportunity to beat the Beach, twice but didn't. The only match they were blown out in was that first match against Northridge. They were in every other match (including the matches they lost against the Pac 12 schools.) The Wahine have the talent to play against anyone but their serve receive and setting has been off for a good portion of the season, thereby negating the impact that Olivia Magill can have in the middle (from an offensive perspective anyway.) This Hawai'i team is an enigma to me. I'd like to see what they can do against teams from the Midwest or East Coast, I'm tired of seeing them play PAC 12 teams in the tourney. That said, Hawai'i should be very good next year with the addition of Granato, Mitchem and Castillo as they only lose Adolpho and Mendoza. Hawai'i will be a top 10 team next season. Not with their current setters IMO , They make Long Beach's setter look good Shoji should seek a transfer setter. Too bad they can't have Iosia till 2016. There's no need for a transfer, I trust that Higgins will be better next season.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 20, 2014 18:47:36 GMT -5
I wonder how you account for injuries/sickness/suspensions? I know that they do look at this for Men's Basketball selection. This can be a slippery slope. My recollection, as it relates to Men's Basketball, is that injuries only enter into the process if they happen late in the season (and probably to a key player) so that the overall strength of the team is negatively impacted. I believe the fact that a player missed significant time earlier in the season is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 20, 2014 19:39:09 GMT -5
Does anyone, and I mean anyone, really know the specifics and priorities of information that this NCAA selection committee will utilize? Yes, its in a link to what the NCAA publishes as criteria.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 20, 2014 19:48:47 GMT -5
Does anyone, and I mean anyone, really know the specifics and priorities of information that this NCAA selection committee will utilize? We know what they publicly state the priorities are.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 20, 2014 20:16:45 GMT -5
After watching both Duke and Hawaii play, IMHO, Hawai'i would beat Duke head to head - the way they are playing right now. Against who? You can't judge based off one game and if you're judging based off te FSU team I'd take Duke hands down.
|
|