|
Post by Boof1224 on Dec 22, 2014 15:38:28 GMT -5
Who knows. We gotta see how schedule sets up. I think psu will be vulnerable early with a new setter and libero which depending on schedules could allow someone else to jump in a claim Big. If you don't get them early might be a problem. Psu has consistently shown they are always ready to go towards end of season. Like I said earlier, in my opinion I think Nebraska is best shot but it very we'll could be badgers. I wouldn't sleep on ohio state either. Most are prob gonna go " what no Illinois or Minnesota?" Until they can show me they can play more consistently on year to year basis I'm not putting them up there. Every year it seems to be the same with both schools. A lot of talent but consistently inconsistent. Shows how little you actually follow volleyball outside of Penn State. Minnesota had made the Sweet 16 for 5 years in a row prior to this year. Plus 16 straight NCAA tournaments. If that's not consistent I don't know what is. Obviously Minnesota wont be at the top of the conference, but don't say they haven't been consistent in recent history, because they were as consistent as it comes. EDUCATE yourself before you speak, because you sound really stupid. There's different ways to look at consistency and not just final result. This is my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 22, 2014 15:43:49 GMT -5
Big Ten conference had lengthy discussion about schedule on a conference call today. While they would like to find a schedule that best crowns a conference champion, overall rpi is a huge concern, as getting in the tournament is a benchmark for what a good season is which impacts job security, bonuses etc..........
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Dec 22, 2014 16:38:16 GMT -5
This is important stuff. Adding two weak sisters may have cost the B1G at least one tournament berth. Also may have cost PSU a higher seed that would have put PSU and Wisconsin in different regionals and allowed them both to get to the Final Four. They need to make Rutgers and Maryland play each other 8 or 10 times a season while they build up their programs so they don't drag down everybody else's RPI. Maybe they could be their own division. Big Ten conference had lengthy discussion about schedule on a conference call today. While they would like to find a schedule that best crowns a conference champion, overall rpi is a huge concern, as getting in the tournament is a benchmark for what a good season is which impacts job security, bonuses etc..........
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Dec 22, 2014 16:46:46 GMT -5
Big Ten conference had lengthy discussion about schedule on a conference call today. While they would like to find a schedule that best crowns a conference champion, overall rpi is a huge concern, as getting in the tournament is a benchmark for what a good season is which impacts job security, bonuses etc.......... So if they do wind up sacrificing "a schedule that best crowns a conference champion" in favor of a schedule that optimizes overall RPI, can we get a tacit agreement amongst the coaches to please not run their mouths about the conference not having a true champion because they didn't play so-and-so however many times?
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 22, 2014 16:49:59 GMT -5
Big Ten conference had lengthy discussion about schedule on a conference call today. While they would like to find a schedule that best crowns a conference champion, overall rpi is a huge concern, as getting in the tournament is a benchmark for what a good season is which impacts job security, bonuses etc.......... So if they do wind up sacrificing "a schedule that best crowns a conference champion" in favor of a schedule that optimizes overall RPI, can we get a tacit agreement the coaches to please not run their mouths about the conference not having a true champion because they didn't play so-and-so however many times? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 22, 2014 17:06:47 GMT -5
Big Ten conference had lengthy discussion about schedule on a conference call today. While they would like to find a schedule that best crowns a conference champion, overall rpi is a huge concern, as getting in the tournament is a benchmark for what a good season is which impacts job security, bonuses etc.......... So, I don't know what this means. What kind of schedule preserves RPI and for whom? Is this an argument for the status quo? I'm guessing this must be a reference to the regional division idea, which would be an RPI disaster for teams stuck in the region with Maryland and Rutgers into the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Dec 22, 2014 17:27:34 GMT -5
This is not hypothetical. It was an RPI disaster this year for anybody who had to play more than two matches against Rutgers/Maryland. PSU had four matches against them, and only single matches against Illinois/MSU/UW -- which helps explain why the Lions only had a final RPI of 6 in a championship year. Imagine how costly it could be for a team on the tournament bubble. Big Ten conference had lengthy discussion about schedule on a conference call today. While they would like to find a schedule that best crowns a conference champion, overall rpi is a huge concern, as getting in the tournament is a benchmark for what a good season is which impacts job security, bonuses etc.......... So, I don't know what this means. What kind of schedule preserves RPI and for whom? Is this an argument for the status quo? I'm guessing this must be a reference to the regional division idea, which would be an RPI disaster for teams stuck in the region with Maryland and Rutgers into the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 22, 2014 17:38:49 GMT -5
This is not hypothetical. It was an RPI disaster this year for anybody who had to play more than two matches against Rutgers/Maryland. PSU had four matches against them, and only single matches against Illinois/MSU/UW -- which helps explain why the Lions only had a final RPI of 6 in a championship year. Imagine how costly it could be for a team on the tournament bubble. I understand all that, I'm just not sure what specific kind of schedule optimizes RPI. The conference RPI is set by OOC. How do you change the in-conference schedule to optimize RPI? Who is it optimized for? The top teams? Or are they trying to get as equitable an RPI as possible across all teams? If so, how would you do that?
|
|
|
Post by hardbop on Dec 22, 2014 17:38:58 GMT -5
This is not hypothetical. It was an RPI disaster this year for anybody who had to play more than two matches against Rutgers/Maryland. PSU had four matches against them, and only single matches against Illinois/MSU/UW -- which helps explain why the Lions only had a final RPI of 6 in a championship year. Imagine how costly it could be for a team on the tournament bubble. So, I don't know what this means. What kind of schedule preserves RPI and for whom? Is this an argument for the status quo? I'm guessing this must be a reference to the regional division idea, which would be an RPI disaster for teams stuck in the region with Maryland and Rutgers into the foreseeable future. Don't forget the "Alumni Classic" that PSU hosted where they played teams coached by former players. Wonderful in its intentions to honor the 50th year of women's sports at PSU but an RPI disaster. E. Ill [223], DePaul[297], UIC [190] and E. Carolina [174].
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 22, 2014 17:43:12 GMT -5
Don't forget the "Alumni Classic" that PSU hosted where they played teams coached by former players. Wonderful in its intentions to honor the 50th year of women's sports at PSU but an RPI disaster. E. Ill [223], DePaul[297], UIC [190] and E. Carolina [174]. Yes...as I understand it, a bigger problem is that the OOC RPI killed the B1G this year. The other side of that is that Purdue, MSU and an injury hobbled Michigan lost a few matches they shouldn't have and UW and IL and PSU did not win on the Pac-12 home courts, though they were competitive. But competitive doesn't count in the RPI.
|
|
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 Dec 22, 2014 23:26:32 GMT -5
This is important stuff. Adding two weak sisters may have cost the B1G at least one tournament berth. Also may have cost PSU a higher seed that would have put PSU and Wisconsin in different regionals and allowed them both to get to the Final Four. They need to make Rutgers and Maryland play each other 8 or 10 times a season while they build up their programs so they don't drag down everybody else's RPI. Maybe they could be their own division. Big Ten conference had lengthy discussion about schedule on a conference call today. While they would like to find a schedule that best crowns a conference champion, overall rpi is a huge concern, as getting in the tournament is a benchmark for what a good season is which impacts job security, bonuses etc.......... This is factually incorrect. Penn State played 3 matches against Maryland and Rutgers. Take away those matches (and wins) and Penn State's RPI doesn't change. Maryland and Rutgers did not cost the Big 10 any bids this year via RPI. The additional 19 conference wins spread out over the existing 12 teams more than offsets the lower opponent W/L%.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 22, 2014 23:37:04 GMT -5
This is important stuff. Adding two weak sisters may have cost the B1G at least one tournament berth. Also may have cost PSU a higher seed that would have put PSU and Wisconsin in different regionals and allowed them both to get to the Final Four. They need to make Rutgers and Maryland play each other 8 or 10 times a season while they build up their programs so they don't drag down everybody else's RPI. Maybe they could be their own division. This is factually incorrect. Penn State played 3 matches against Maryland and Rutgers. Take away those matches (and wins) and Penn State's RPI doesn't change. Maryland and Rutgers did not cost the Big 10 any bids this year via RPI. The additional 19 conference wins spread out over the existing 12 teams more than offsets the lower opponent W/L%. Replace those matches with 2nd wins versus Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue and that certainly does raise their RPI (ESP with the T25 adjustment from the first two). There's a variable impact for midlevel teams and a positive one for bottom teams (free wins!) but it's definitely not good for the upper level teams who would almost certainly win the replacement matches anyways.
|
|
|
Post by mplssetter on Dec 23, 2014 5:54:01 GMT -5
That said, I am also not sure what to expect of PSU. A setter like Hancock is hard to replace. Especially since it is not certain who will be the setter. Presumably Rivera will be able to compete for the job with Weiskircher. I think given new setter and new backcourt and still a relatively young front line, PSU might not look like a typical PSU team the first part of the season. They will develop toughness and confidence over time. I wonder if next year Nebraska is set up for a special year. The only player they lose to graduation is Pohlmiller and they're bringing in the nation's No. 1 recruit at MB. I don't think you can call Penn State's front line in experienced. Of the 5 hitters, 4 return plus Lee on the bench who got significant playing time this year.
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Dec 23, 2014 9:12:26 GMT -5
This is factually incorrect. Penn State played 3 matches against Maryland and Rutgers. Take away those matches (and wins) and Penn State's RPI doesn't change. Maryland and Rutgers did not cost the Big 10 any bids this year via RPI. The additional 19 conference wins spread out over the existing 12 teams more than offsets the lower opponent W/L%. Replace those matches with 2nd wins versus Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue and that certainly does raise their RPI (ESP with the T25 adjustment from the first two). There's a variable impact for midlevel teams and a positive one for bottom teams (free wins!) but it's definitely not good for the upper level teams who would almost certainly win the replacement matches anyways. Are we supposed to feel bad for PSU? Ok.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 23, 2014 9:43:19 GMT -5
Replace those matches with 2nd wins versus Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue and that certainly does raise their RPI (ESP with the T25 adjustment from the first two). There's a variable impact for midlevel teams and a positive one for bottom teams (free wins!) but it's definitely not good for the upper level teams who would almost certainly win the replacement matches anyways. Are we supposed to feel bad for PSU? Ok. No. PSU doesn't give two %*$#s how they're seeded, and it really doesn't matter when they play as well as they were. We are supposed to feel bad for the teams that ran into PSU too early.
|
|