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 23, 2014 11:05:30 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. You are correct that in theory the very top teams are not aided by adding the extra wins from Rutgers and Maryland - since they are likely to win the games against better opponents. PSU played twice against Maryland and a home match against Rutgers. Eliminate those matches and replace with home matches against Wisconsin and Purdue and a road match vs. Illinois - and assume they win all 3 matches (which is not a guarantee). Penn State would go from #9 in RPI (pre tournament) to either #7 or #8 depending on how the adjustments played out. The win against Illinois has them passing them and they become very close to Florida for #7. I don't think this changes their seed?
Penn State had more losses (worse w/l%) than Stanford, Washington, Texas, Florida State, Wisconsin, and North Carolina - why would we expect them to have a better 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 23, 2014 11:20:41 GMT -5
Looking at Purdue (the poster child for being screwed by RPI). Purdue played 2 matches against Rutgers and 2 against Maryland. These could have been replaced with 2 home matches vs. Illinois, Nebraska, or Iowa and 2 road matches from Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State.
If we go with the best from this group (Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio State, and Penn State) and Purdue wins all 4 matches - Then Purdue's RPI would have been #28 instead of 56. Of course those would have been some pretty impressive wins. If they had split those 4 matches then they would have had an RPI of 44 and probably made the tournament. Pablo would have projected them to lose all 4 matches and given them a win probability of going 1-3. Win 1 of the 4 and their RPI would have been #49 and lose all 4 and it would have been 58. Replace Nebraska with Iowa or Ohio State with Michigan and the RPI starts to fall apart again.
It is possible that Maryland and Rutgers 'cost' Purdue with the RPI. But Purdue would have had to beat some of those top teams in the Conference to get there.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Dec 23, 2014 12:35:55 GMT -5
Looking at Purdue (the poster child for being screwed by RPI). Purdue played 2 matches against Rutgers and 2 against Maryland. These could have been replaced with 2 home matches vs. Illinois, Nebraska, or Iowa and 2 road matches from Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State. If we go with the best from this group (Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio State, and Penn State) and Purdue wins all 4 matches - Then Purdue's RPI would have been #28 instead of 56. Of course those would have been some pretty impressive wins. If they had split those 4 matches then they would have had an RPI of 44 and probably made the tournament. Pablo would have projected them to lose all 4 matches and given them a win probability of going 1-3. Win 1 of the 4 and their RPI would have been #49 and lose all 4 and it would have been 58. Replace Nebraska with Iowa or Ohio State with Michigan and the RPI starts to fall apart again. It is possible that Maryland and Rutgers 'cost' Purdue with the RPI. But Purdue would have had to beat some of those top teams in the Conference to get there. Couldn't Purdue also have put itself in a position to get into the tournament by winning more pre-conference matches?
|
|
|
Post by MTC on Dec 23, 2014 13:32:34 GMT -5
With Poulter and a couple good young hitters, Illinois could be significantly improved this year, even though have lost some firepower in MacMahon and Criswell. That's the team NE has to overcome before even thinking about being second best. I really have no idea what to expect of UW this year. This will be the second real test of Sheff's coaching skills. They will certainly have growing pains. However, I'm not worried much about defense, Bates and Nelson are proven and I'm told a healthy Kriskova is the real deal and may be an improvement over other hitting options this year. There will be plenty of competition for the other two spots at middle and L2/RS, so we'll see if somebody can step in and make an impact. With Lauren setting, that may not be as hard as some presume. That said, I am also not sure what to expect of PSU. A setter like Hancock is hard to replace. The team will have to change to adapt, but how and will they be as effective in their new configuration. Who knows. I'm no rocket scientist but I have a strong hunch Penn State will be as effective as this year but who knows which teams the schedule will favor.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Dec 23, 2014 13:50:58 GMT -5
Looking at Purdue (the poster child for being screwed by RPI). Purdue played 2 matches against Rutgers and 2 against Maryland. These could have been replaced with 2 home matches vs. Illinois, Nebraska, or Iowa and 2 road matches from Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State. If we go with the best from this group (Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio State, and Penn State) and Purdue wins all 4 matches - Then Purdue's RPI would have been #28 instead of 56. Of course those would have been some pretty impressive wins. If they had split those 4 matches then they would have had an RPI of 44 and probably made the tournament. Pablo would have projected them to lose all 4 matches and given them a win probability of going 1-3. Win 1 of the 4 and their RPI would have been #49 and lose all 4 and it would have been 58. Replace Nebraska with Iowa or Ohio State with Michigan and the RPI starts to fall apart again. It is possible that Maryland and Rutgers 'cost' Purdue with the RPI. But Purdue would have had to beat some of those top teams in the Conference to get there. Couldn't Purdue also have put itself in a position to get into the tournament by winning more pre-conference matches? I think this is the point. Where previously teams wanted a few guaranteed wins to avoid the Illinois scenario where they are good enough to make the tournament but are not eligible due to a lack of wins, the new format of the Big 10 swings the pendulum the other way, and they also need to be more precise about who those guaranteed wins are and what impact they'll have on their numbers. Hopefully the Big 10 teams collectively now better understand their scheduling objectives to help the conference get the 8 bids they probably deserve most years. That said, I do like the idea of Maryland and Rutgers playing everyone just once and then playing each other a bunch of times, and then maybe some MEAC teams as well.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 23, 2014 14:04:47 GMT -5
With Poulter and a couple good young hitters, Illinois could be significantly improved this year, even though have lost some firepower in MacMahon and Criswell. That's the team NE has to overcome before even thinking about being second best. I really have no idea what to expect of UW this year. This will be the second real test of Sheff's coaching skills. They will certainly have growing pains. However, I'm not worried much about defense, Bates and Nelson are proven and I'm told a healthy Kriskova is the real deal and may be an improvement over other hitting options this year. There will be plenty of competition for the other two spots at middle and L2/RS, so we'll see if somebody can step in and make an impact. With Lauren setting, that may not be as hard as some presume. That said, I am also not sure what to expect of PSU. A setter like Hancock is hard to replace. The team will have to change to adapt, but how and will they be as effective in their new configuration. Who knows. I'm no rocket scientist but I have a strong hunch Penn State will be as effective as this year but who knows which teams the schedule will favor. I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 23, 2014 14:17:14 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. You are correct that in theory the very top teams are not aided by adding the extra wins from Rutgers and Maryland - since they are likely to win the games against better opponents. PSU played twice against Maryland and a home match against Rutgers. Eliminate those matches and replace with home matches against Wisconsin and Purdue and a road match vs. Illinois - and assume they win all 3 matches (which is not a guarantee). Penn State would go from #9 in RPI (pre tournament) to either #7 or #8 depending on how the adjustments played out. The win against Illinois has them passing them and they become very close to Florida for #7. I don't think this changes their seed?
Penn State had more losses (worse w/l%) than Stanford, Washington, Texas, Florida State, Wisconsin, and North Carolina - why would we expect them to have a better RPI?
2 RPI spaces within the Top 10 IS a significant change to RPI - that's the type of value that would be a 5-10 rank jump at the bubble margins. I could also argue that it probably would change their seed. Because their W/L% would no longer be worse than Wisconsin's, they'd be close enough in RPI that the H2H would matter (they were too far apart before). I could also see that extra Wisky loss and not having the conference title meaning the Badgers no longer jump FSU in the RPI-to-seed order - a move that would pretty substantially change the bracket. But back to my main point: There's also two issues here we need to unpack: adding RPI doormats Rutgers/Maryland, but also adding the x-factor of the unbalanced schedule. Adding the doormats helps low & mid-level by adding wins and hurts top teams-if only marginally--via SOS. The unbalanced schedule, on the other hand, has fewer effects on the top and bottom (because they would win/lose most matches regardless of how schedule roulette plays out - adding some minor variability to win/loss that is mitigated by the less impactful SOS feature). However, the mid-level teams experience tangible, potentially severe, changes to the W-L (the most important RPI factor). Because for them, more important than dodging the doormats is dodging the top teams (and those Ls). Michigan went 1-7 against Top 4 and 2-0 against bottom two. Disregarding the .500 issue, they were still RPI'd out, but would be a 30s/low 40s NCAA team with any other team's conference schedule. It cost Michigan a bid, but probably also got Michigan St. in. Sparty went 0-5 against the Top 4 teams (just like Purdue - who I agree with you is a poor example this season). As the last team in by RPI, they couldn't have survived another loss, which would have been likely in any of the missing return matches. "The unbalanced schedule cost the B1G bids" is not nuanced enough to be a suitable explanation, in fact, in the bird's-eye view for the conference, not much changed regarding # of bids or seeds. That the Wolverines and Spartan's imbalance issues "cancelled" each other out doesn't mean they didn't have an impact, however.
|
|
|
2015 B1G
Dec 23, 2014 14:22:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Boof1224 on Dec 23, 2014 14:22:38 GMT -5
With Poulter and a couple good young hitters, Illinois could be significantly improved this year, even though have lost some firepower in MacMahon and Criswell. That's the team NE has to overcome before even thinking about being second best. I really have no idea what to expect of UW this year. This will be the second real test of Sheff's coaching skills. They will certainly have growing pains. However, I'm not worried much about defense, Bates and Nelson are proven and I'm told a healthy Kriskova is the real deal and may be an improvement over other hitting options this year. There will be plenty of competition for the other two spots at middle and L2/RS, so we'll see if somebody can step in and make an impact. With Lauren setting, that may not be as hard as some presume. That said, I am also not sure what to expect of PSU. A setter like Hancock is hard to replace. The team will have to change to adapt, but how and will they be as effective in their new configuration. Who knows. I'm no rocket scientist but I have a strong hunch Penn State will be as effective as this year but who knows which teams the schedule will favor. The rumor is Holman is transfering to psu and it will be announced next week. If this happens to rest of big I'd say ouch
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 23, 2014 14:49:23 GMT -5
So Holman replaces Grant. Seems like like-for-like, like.
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Dec 23, 2014 14:52:51 GMT -5
Wisconsin loses a ton this year. Carlini will keep them relevant, but conference championship might be a bit much next year. They gain a lot, too. Keep in mind that Sheff’s incoming class is replacing a pack of players that were recruited by someone who’s now a real estate agent. I’m not saying that Wisconsin isn’t losing quality players, because they are; I’m suggesting that they’re gaining athletes that will likely put them in a similar place by the end of next season and make them contenders for a B1G, if not, a national championship. I've learned the past two seasons to never take Wisconsin out of those types of conversations as long as they have Carlini. Here are the ranked, incoming recruits and their PrepVolleyball.com rankings: #91 – Amber MacDonald – 5-4 Libero #71 – Julia Saunders – 6-3 OH/RS #21 – Hannah Juley – 5-10 Setter #12 – Brooke Morgan – 6-5 MB #9 – Madison Duello – 6-2 OH #6 – Tionna Williams – 6-3 MB Carlini will have a steady arsenal of top attackers, and in turn, they’ll have perfectly placed sets from one of the nation’s top setters, which I feel will make them a top team. The appeal of playing with Carlini and for a program that has come into the national spotlight within the past two years is really special for some of these incoming recruits, so expect to see a steady pipeline of quality players wanting to become Badgers as they continue to grow their program.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 23, 2014 15:35:35 GMT -5
On paper, Wisconsin's problem is not that terrible. As long as Kriskova recovers and plays RS, they really only need to fill two open positions. There is enough competition at one each of the other open positions that somebody should be able to step in and contribute substantially.
1. For the open middle blocker spot they will will have three players competing for a spot: Williams, Morgan, Blake. 2. For L2 you could have Duello, Fricano, Saunders and possibly Williams. Fricano and Saunders back up Kriskova on the RS.
There is a shortage of DS's with Morales gone, but MacDonald will fill that void to some extent and can set second ball pretty well, and Bates did really well in backrow last year. I expect that Lauren will still be important defensively. Alternatively, maybe Erin Juley comes in and helps as a DS, which would also be good if Lauren gets first ball.
There will be growing pains as the positions shake out, and one can never account for lost leadership and chemistry, but it's still a pretty feisty group of players. I am pretty optimistic that they will be clicking by seasons end. Whether they will be clicking by the time the B1G season starts, I don't know. The ability to compete for the conference depends on how fast the team comes together as a unit. Also on Kriskova.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 23, 2014 15:43:09 GMT -5
Wisconsin is in pretty good shape for a young team next year - young teams are IMO more likely to fall apart in the ball control and setting aspects than in net play, and the Badgers can ease the growing pains by returning an AA libero and a solid L2, along with the best returning setter in the country. There will be youth, but it's talented youth that will be asked to contribute in very defined ways. I don't see why they couldn't be a Top 3 team again next year. Don't think they'll top PSU to repeat for the B1G title, but that'd be a tough hill to climb even if everyone came back.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Dec 23, 2014 17:43:22 GMT -5
So Holman replaces Grant. Seems like like-for-like, like. I thought she was headed for Huskerville? What happened?
|
|
|
2015 B1G
Dec 23, 2014 19:02:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Boof1224 on Dec 23, 2014 19:02:06 GMT -5
Wisconsin is in pretty good shape for a young team next year - young teams are IMO more likely to fall apart in the ball control and setting aspects than in net play, and the Badgers can ease the growing pains by returning an AA libero and a solid L2, along with the best returning setter in the country. There will be youth, but it's talented youth that will be asked to contribute in very defined ways. I don't see why they couldn't be a Top 3 team again next year. Don't think they'll top PSU to repeat for the B1G title, but that'd be a tough hill to climb even if everyone came back. For one they get psu twice next year and not once. You can say same for psu it's just psu has kinda owned them. Things could change but that's where it's at right now anyway
|
|
|
2015 B1G
Dec 23, 2014 19:03:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Boof1224 on Dec 23, 2014 19:03:36 GMT -5
So Holman replaces Grant. Seems like like-for-like, like. I thought she was headed for Huskerville? What happened? It's still rumour. It's been said she's visiting 4 schools. Penn state, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Washington, supposedly.
|
|