|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 24, 2014 11:41:27 GMT -5
My seeds would be @ Lousiville 1 Stanford 16 Kentucky 8 Florida 9 Colorado State @ Seattle 5 North Carolina 12 Oregon 13 Kansas 4 Washington @ Minneapolis 3 Florida State 14 Arizona 11 Nebraska 6 Wisconsin @ Ames 7 Penn State 10 Illinois 15 Iowa State 2 Texas As someone who will be attending the Minneapolis regional and, if the Gophers are not in the regionals, I like the Mpls regional although I think WI and FSU should switched. FSU may have a slightly higher RPI but WI will have won their conference. Which should count for something. Why? Winning your conference means you are in the tournament, it has no bearing on seeding. Obviously I think Wisconsin is better than FSU but that's not a criteria. If the season ended today and Wisconsin was given a seed above FSU, the committee is NOT doing their job, period. The primary criteria is set and there is pretty much nothing in the primary criteria that justifies Wisconsin getting a higher seed than FSU. 3 years ago when the Pac 12 was in rpi hell there were 3 big 10 teams, 2 big 12 teams and UNI seeded ABOVE the PAC-12 champion. You think these rules and criteria should now not be applied to Wisconsin and the big 10? [/quote] It's going to be really interesting about 6 days from now. I suspect B1G fans may be howling worse than Hawaii fans usually do at this time of year. I hope BiK has the pluck to go through poster histories and respond to them with their own "Stop whining" and "teams were aware of selection criteria prior to the season and made their own poor scheduling choices" posts from previous seasons.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 24, 2014 11:47:31 GMT -5
As someone who will be attending the Minneapolis regional and, if the Gophers are not in the regionals, I like the Mpls regional although I think WI and FSU should switched. FSU may have a slightly higher RPI but WI will have won their conference. Which should count for something. Why? Winning your conference means you are in the tournament, it has no bearing on seeding. Obviously I think Wisconsin is better than FSU but that's not a criteria. If the season ended today and Wisconsin was given a seed above FSU, the committee is NOT doing their job, period. The primary criteria is set and there is pretty much nothing in the primary criteria that justifies Wisconsin getting a higher seed than FSU. 3 years ago when the Pac 12 was in rpi hell there were 3 big 10 teams, 2 big 12 teams and UNI seeded ABOVE the PAC-12 champion. You think these rules and criteria should now not be applied to Wisconsin and the big 10? I don't feel they should change now but it should be a factor. Not saying that all conference champions should be seeded but it should be a factor when RPIs are close.[/quote] ---------------------------------------- But their RPI's really aren't that close. Perhaps in the numerical ranking, but the raw RPI between them is not that close. BTW, why is the quote function being weird?
|
|
|
Post by kubricks on Nov 24, 2014 12:01:06 GMT -5
Q&A with Diane Turnham
Check out some insight from the tournament selection committee
How is the No. 1 seed determined and then the top 16?
A: The committee uses the selection criteria to determine all 16 teams that are seeded in the tournament. The committee evaluates all the teams throughout selection weekend, and takes into account the results of competition that is still occurring. The selection criteria includes head to head competition, win/loss record, results against common opponents, results of the RPI, and input from regional advisory committees.
FROM THIS IT LOOKS LIKE THE RPI is just one of several factors.......
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster71 on Nov 24, 2014 12:02:00 GMT -5
No way can Florida State be ahead of North Carolina. North Carolina is the ACC CHAMPION, Florida State is not. Eh, they split the season and FSU did a bit more in the non-conference. Conference title not that meaningful. And Head-to-Head is sometimes overlooked. 2010, Stanford & Cal tied for the PAC-10 title but Cal beat Stanford both meetings. Cal was seeded #7 in the tourney and Stanford seeded #3.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 24, 2014 12:10:38 GMT -5
I don't mean to beat a deadhorse but here is a repost of what the Committee uses to make their decision:
●● Regional advisory committee rankings ●● Division I record ●● Overall RPI ●● Non-conference record ●● Non-conference RPI ●● Conference record ●● Conference RPI ●● Road record ●● Record in last 10 games ●● Record against teams ranked 1-50 by RPI ●● Record against teams ranked 51-100 by RPI ●● Record against teams ranked 101-200 by RPI ●● Record against teams ranked below 200 by RPI ●● Record against other teams under consideration ●● Head-to-head ●● Significant wins and losses ●● Results against common opponents ●● Results against teams already receiving at-large bids ●● Site of match ●● Other circumstances that could affect results (e.g. injuries)
Of these Factors, these are the Primary Criteria used to determine selection and seeding
●● Won-lost record; ●● Strength of schedule; and ●● Eligibility and availability of student-athletes for NCAA championships ●● Rating Percentage Index. ●● Head-to-head competition. ●● Results versus common opponents. ●● Significant wins and losses.
*if* and only *if* a decision cannot be made by the primary factor, the following secondary factors may be considered:
Late-season performance (last 10 games). ●● Eligibility and availability of student-athletes (at the time matches were played) ●● Location of contest. Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Women’s Volleyball Committee.
Given all this, in the debate between FSU and Wisconsin lets pretend we are on the committee. Ok, primary criteria
Won-Loss Record- Moot, both FSU and Wisconsin have an equal Won-Loss record Strength of Schedule- Favors FSU Eligibility of Athletes for Tournament- Moot RPI- Favors FSU Head-to-Head- Moot Results versus Common Opponents- Moot both have wins over common opponents Significant wins and losses- Favors FSU
WISCONSIN WINS NO PRIMARY SELECTION CATEGORY OVER FSU. Secondary criteria is immaterial. Of course the bigger issue is that many of these categories are cyclical. If you have a better SOS you are more than likely going to have a better RPI (and vice versa). If you have a better SOS you are more than likely going to be playing other teams with high RPI's, and thus more chances to get significant wins and losses.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 24, 2014 12:10:53 GMT -5
Eh, they split the season and FSU did a bit more in the non-conference. Conference title not that meaningful. And Head-to-Head is sometimes overlooked. 2010, Stanford & Cal tied for the PAC-10 title but Cal beat Stanford both meetings. Cal was seeded #7 in the tourney and Stanford seeded #3. But they weren't even close? Stanford was #2 in pre-tournament RPI, Cal 10. And you also have to remember that Cal-Stanford-USC all played to a draw H2H. Those were also Cal's only two Top 25 RPI wins... Stanford had beaten USC x2, and also beaten Texas and Penn St. in the pre-season. I don't see any flaws in the logic there. H2H wasn't overlooked, the two just weren't close enough for it to come into play. (Kinda like how in 2012 they didn't put Oregon St. above Penn St. -- there was a H2H, but it just wasn't relevant)
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 24, 2014 12:12:01 GMT -5
I forget all the specifics of Mizzou and Florida last season, but I thought Florida had the higher RPI, but Mizzou beat them twice and was the SEC Champ. Mizzou was awarded the #4 national seed, and Florida the #5 seed. So, conference champions were "rewarded". Or, am I misremembering? It wasn't rewarding the conference title; it was rewarding the H2H. I think in this case it was one and the same. Florida's RPI was higher because better non-conference scheduling. No doubt UF would have been the higher seed if they had split the season series.
|
|
|
Post by kubricks on Nov 24, 2014 12:20:16 GMT -5
You have strength of schedule and RPI listed as primary criteria. I though strength of schedule was determined by RPI or is it not? Wisconsin has a stronger strength of schedule than FSU. Also significant wins and losses favors Wisconsin. The only thing favoring FSU is RPI and since they did not win their conference, NC has the edge on them. It will be
STANFORD TEXAS WASHINGTON WISC UNC FLORIDA STATE
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 24, 2014 12:25:14 GMT -5
You have strength of schedule and RPI listed as primary criteria. I though strength of schedule was determined by RPI or is it not? Wisconsin has a stronger strength of schedule than FSU. Also significant wins and losses favors Wisconsin. The only thing favoring FSU is RPI and since they did not win their conference, NC has the edge on them. It will be STANFORD TEXAS WASHINGTON WISC UNC FLORIDA STATE But SOS and significant wins and losses do NOT favor Wisconsin. FSU has a tougher SOS (#4 v #20), and they have more Top 25 wins (7 v 4). Yes, Wisconsin plays in the B1G, but their SOS is hurt by not having return dates with PSU and Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 24, 2014 12:25:48 GMT -5
Eh, they split the season and FSU did a bit more in the non-conference. Conference title not that meaningful. And Head-to-Head is sometimes overlooked. 2010, Stanford & Cal tied for the PAC-10 title but Cal beat Stanford both meetings. Cal was seeded #7 in the tourney and Stanford seeded #3. Well Cal just had one of the primary criteria over Stanford. Stanford had a better SOS, a better RPI, and more significant wins.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 24, 2014 12:28:18 GMT -5
Split scheduling makes conference championship less relevant. Committee has got to look at who was specifically played. Wisconsin and Pittsburgh at one end, Michigan State at the other.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 24, 2014 12:30:35 GMT -5
Of course the bigger issue is that many of these categories are cyclical. If you have a better SOS you are more than likely going to have a better RPI (and vice versa). If you have a better SOS you are more than likely going to be playing other teams with high RPI's, and thus more chances to get significant wins and losses. Um, I think I know what you are trying to say, but "cyclical" is clearly the wrong word. "Non-independent" would be better, or perhaps "correlated". The point is that many of these criteria just reinforce each other because SOS and W/L are what make up RPI, and significant wins and losses probably also include H2H and common opponents.
|
|
|
Post by volleyvolleyfan on Nov 24, 2014 12:54:09 GMT -5
No way can Florida State be ahead of North Carolina. North Carolina is the ACC CHAMPION, Florida State is not. The ACC Conference schedule is not done yet.. UNC still has to play Duke this Wed. If Duke beats them.. UNC and FSU will be co-champs. FSU plays Miami at home this Friday. If they select ACC Champ based on HtH sets.. FSU wins over UNC .. FSU swept UNC at FSU in SEP. (3-0) and then FSU lost in 4 to UNC in Nov.. FSU won 4 sets to UNC's 3 sets in the head to head set race.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 24, 2014 13:17:08 GMT -5
You have strength of schedule and RPI listed as primary criteria. I though strength of schedule was determined by RPI or is it not? Wisconsin has a stronger strength of schedule than FSU. Also significant wins and losses favors Wisconsin. The only thing favoring FSU is RPI and since they did not win their conference, NC has the edge on them. It will be STANFORD TEXAS WASHINGTON WISC UNC FLORIDA STATE you are misinformed, or, at the very least, factoring multiple ranking systems (some of which are irrelevant in the selection process) to prove your point. Where are you getting that Wisconsin has a stronger SOS than FSU? This is FALSE. You don't even have to go research the various lists that are put out, just look at the RPI itself. FSU, Washington, North Carolina, and Wisconsin all have 2 losses, yet in the RPI Wisconsin is last among them all. the ONLY WAY THIS CAN HAPPEN IS THAT WISCONSIN'S OPP RECORD/OPP-OPP RECORD (SOS) IS LOWER THAN THE OTHER TEAMS. Also, by which standard are you applying "significant wins-losses"? if it's by RPI standards, which is what actually matters, FSU has more, period. And "winning the conference" is NOT a selection criteria. In 2010 Cal was a co-Champ of the Pac-12 with Stanford and yet USC, who finished 3rd, was seeded above Cal.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 24, 2014 13:23:38 GMT -5
BTW, none of us are saying that the committee WON'T seed Wisconsin over FSU, we won't know until they the seeds are drawn. What we are saying is that using the selection criteria given the committee there isn't a legit justification to put Wisconsin over FSU.
|
|