|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 7, 2015 15:02:25 GMT -5
It's also a FACT that RPI doesn't purport to show quality of a team relative to others it shows SOS relative to others. It's been PROVEN that I can be manipulated. Using RPI to determine whether someone is overrated is, to put it mildly, stupid. Florida is RPI #5 but just lost 3 straight to Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas, soooo...yeah Yes, the point is everyone has an opinion, doesn't make it any more true than the other. And anyone can use Pablo or RPI, one is not better than the other. But I also think it's wrong to misuse them. RPI is about SOS. For ASU assume they never even played Northeastern or Texas Southern (teams that are easily beatable) they'd have a much higher RPI.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 7, 2015 15:03:01 GMT -5
Comparing schedules, according to RPI: Texas Wins over: 4, 24, 43, 44, 47, 52, 63, 80, 98 Lost to #5 ASU Wins over: 7, 21, 47, 52, 54, 56, 80 I don't see a major difference in quality of schedule there. Yes, Texas has an additional match against a top 5 team, but then again, they lost that match so it's hard to see how it is a point in their favor. And why do you dismiss Stanford as a win? By YOUR measure of RPI they are top 10. Are you suggesting that RPI is not right? And if you are, why are you using it? You can't have it both ways. If you want to point to RPI, you can't dismiss the Stanford win. If you ignore RPI for Stanford, you can ignore it for everyone else. I think with a healthy Stanford, they would have beaten ASU easily. My purpose for originally responding to the OP was to point out that their opinion that ASU should be over Texas is just that an opinion based on references to other opinions. But I still stand with my opinion that Pac-12 is having a down year. So now you are reduced to arguing that if they had actually lost the match they won, they wouldn't be ranked as highly, so therefore they shouldn't be ranked that highly because they did win it. It's also become clear to me that for a lot of people, "the PAC having a down year" means nothing more than "Stanford isn't winning the conference".
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 7, 2015 15:05:08 GMT -5
It's also a FACT that RPI doesn't purport to show quality of a team relative to others it shows SOS relative to others. It's been PROVEN that I can be manipulated. Using RPI to determine whether someone is overrated is, to put it mildly, stupid. Florida is RPI #5 but just lost 3 straight to Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas, soooo...yeah Yes, the point is everyone has an opinion, doesn't make it any more true than the other. And anyone can use Pablo or RPI, one is not better than the other.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 7, 2015 15:05:11 GMT -5
Comparing schedules, according to RPI: Texas Wins over: 4, 24, 43, 44, 47, 52, 63, 80, 98 Lost to #5 ASU Wins over: 7, 21, 47, 52, 54, 56, 80 I don't see a major difference in quality of schedule there. Yes, Texas has an additional match against a top 5 team, but then again, they lost that match so it's hard to see how it is a point in their favor. And why do you dismiss Stanford as a win? By YOUR measure of RPI they are top 10. Are you suggesting that RPI is not right? And if you are, why are you using it? You can't have it both ways. If you want to point to RPI, you can't dismiss the Stanford win. If you ignore RPI for Stanford, you can ignore it for everyone else. I think with a healthy Stanford, they would have beaten ASU easily. My purpose for originally responding to the OP was to point out that their opinion that ASU should be over Texas is just that an opinion based on references to other opinions. But I still stand with my opinion that Pac-12 is having a down year. But those are exclusively separate statements. Saying that the Pac 12 as a conference is having a down year (which you will get little argument from other posters) is completely different than saying ASU is overrated, especially when compared to X team. That presupposes a lot about team X that may not be true.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 7, 2015 15:09:52 GMT -5
I think with a healthy Stanford, they would have beaten ASU easily. My purpose for originally responding to the OP was to point out that their opinion that ASU should be over Texas is just that an opinion based on references to other opinions. But I still stand with my opinion that Pac-12 is having a down year. But those are exclusively separate statements. Saying that the Pac 12 as a conference is having a down year (which you will get little argument from other posters) is completely different than saying ASU is overrated, especially when compared to X team. That presupposes a lot about team X that may not be true. Neither Texas nor Arizona St have played much in terms of conference matches, and so how strong their respective conferences are means very little.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 7, 2015 15:16:52 GMT -5
But those are exclusively separate statements. Saying that the Pac 12 as a conference is having a down year (which you will get little argument from other posters) is completely different than saying ASU is overrated, especially when compared to X team. That presupposes a lot about team X that may not be true. Neither Texas nor Arizona St have played much in terms of conference matches, and so how strong their respective conferences are means very little. True, But just for the record, even in a down Pac 12 year, which I do believe it is relative to years past, the pac 12 is much better than the big 12.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 7, 2015 15:33:40 GMT -5
It's also a FACT that RPI doesn't purport to show quality of a team relative to others it shows SOS relative to others. It's been PROVEN that I can be manipulated. Using RPI to determine whether someone is overrated is, to put it mildly, stupid. Florida is RPI #5 but just lost 3 straight to Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas, soooo...yeah Yes, the point is everyone has an opinion, doesn't make it any more true than the other. And anyone can use Pablo or RPI, one is not better than the other. I'm kind of shocked how rigidly you are applying rpi. No rating system is perfect, but rpi is not a measurement of quality of team. I know people from Texas and the south get a bad rep for not being very bright, but I generally find that volleytalk fans defy the stereotype. Not in this situation. Question, imagine you were betting money on the following match ups all on neutral courts. UCLA v PSU Louisville v Illinois Creighton v Hawaii Villanova v Arizona Marquette v Purdue Would you honestly pick any teams in the first column? RPI would suggest all of them are better than their opponents. (Rolls eyes)
|
|
|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Oct 7, 2015 15:49:26 GMT -5
Everyone needs to calm down, I don't disagree with anything you're saying (to be fair, I knew the %*$# storm I was going to create when I mentioned that the Pac-12 is having a down year). I'm just trying to make a point about how useless some of the opinions on here are, especially on a thread dedicated to an aggregate of the opinions of coaches. You can point to whatever evidence you need to validate your opinion, but to say that ASU should be above Texas (as the OP stated in a comment that I responded to) despite never going head to head is about as useful as me saying otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 7, 2015 16:01:49 GMT -5
I'm just trying to make a point about how useless some of the opinions on here are, By being the poster child for the useless, baseless opinion? And this is objectively false. There are absolutely differing degrees of utility of tools to predict the outcomes of matches that have not occurred. For example, Pablo demonstrably does better than RPI does in doing that. That's not an opinion, that is a fact. Publius does better than Pablo. So it is absolutely wrong to claim that all opinions are equal. Just to illustrate that you really don't get it, this comment: That hasn't created a %*$#storm at all. In fact, for the most part, no one is talking about it, because IT DOESN'T MATTER! It has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of Texas vs ASU or whatever. That you think it is an issue just shows that you don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by hawaiifan808 on Oct 7, 2015 16:04:26 GMT -5
Like Kanoa mentioned last night on Oc16 about the committee on the RPI and the UH women's volleyball team, the NCAA stands for "No Clue At All". Totally XD on that.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 7, 2015 16:12:10 GMT -5
Everyone needs to calm down, I don't disagree with anything you're saying (to be fair, I knew the %*$# storm I was going to create when I mentioned that the Pac-12 is having a down year). I'm just trying to make a point about how useless some of the opinions on here are, especially on a thread dedicated to an aggregate of the opinions of coaches. You can point to whatever evidence you need to validate your opinion, but to say that ASU should be above Texas (as the OP stated in a comment that I responded to) despite never going head to head is about as useful as me saying otherwise. Like bofa said, our responses have nothing to do with your comment about the pac 12 being down, none at all. Most agree that the Pac-12 isn't as strong this year. We won't get as many into the tournament as years' past, and Stanford, Washington, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State, Colorado, and Utah all fielded teams that I think were indisputably better last year than this year. It IS a down Pac-12 year, but that has NOTHING to do with ASU being "overrated" in relation to Texas.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Oct 7, 2015 17:23:04 GMT -5
Yes, the point is everyone has an opinion, doesn't make it any more true than the other. And anyone can use Pablo or RPI, one is not better than the other. I'm kind of shocked how rigidly you are applying rpi. No rating system is perfect, but rpi is not a measurement of quality of team. I know people from Texas and the south get a bad rep for not being very bright, but I generally find that volleytalk fans defy the stereotype. Not in this situation. Question, imagine you were betting money on the following match ups all on neutral courts. UCLA v PSU Louisville v Illinois Creighton v Hawaii Villanova v Arizona Marquette v Purdue Would you honestly pick any teams in the first column? RPI would suggest all of them are better than their opponents. (Rolls eyes) Good call on the rpi match-ups, first column wins MAYBE one match, I would bet none.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 7, 2015 18:07:06 GMT -5
As a metric for team strength, RPI is highly flawed, if not also biased. As a bar to get over to get into the tournament, it has some value. Its use in making seeding decisions, combined with travel limitations for subregionals, tends to create wide discrepancies between paths to the Regional Finals, if not to the Final Four, from Primrose Paths on the one hand, to Valleys of Death on the other.
|
|
|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Oct 7, 2015 19:05:53 GMT -5
I'm just trying to make a point about how useless some of the opinions on here are, By being the poster child for the useless, baseless opinion? And this is objectively false. There are absolutely differing degrees of utility of tools to predict the outcomes of matches that have not occurred. For example, Pablo demonstrably does better than RPI does in doing that. That's not an opinion, that is a fact. Publius does better than Pablo. So it is absolutely wrong to claim that all opinions are equal. Just to illustrate that you really don't get it, this comment: That hasn't created a %*$#storm at all. In fact, for the most part, no one is talking about it, because IT DOESN'T MATTER! It has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of Texas vs ASU or whatever. That you think it is an issue just shows that you don't get it. Don't waste your time, I think you're missing my point. I don't disagree with a majority of what you're saying. I think this is a case of people with too much time and inflated sense of importance that need to beat their chest to prove how much they know. Don't take this too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 8, 2015 2:59:26 GMT -5
Well they have a common ranked opponent, Texas needed 5 to take them out, ASU did it in 4. I'm not sure why an "overrated" stanford, factors in here. Didn't Texas lost at home to a Florida team who have since lost 4 matches? Pablo has ASU #3 and Texas #4. Other than your opinion, there is little to suggest that ASU is "overrated". Nope just an opinion, like the ones that the poll is composed of and the original comment I quoted. In my opinion, ASU's schedule up to this point is relatively weak (with the only notable win against Illinois in five sets, because Stanford is a shell of the team they were last year) and the Pac-12 is in a down year. For what it is worth, based on RPI, Texas is #2 and ASU is #13. That's a fact and not an opinion. Although it might be true that the PAC-12 is in a down year, they still have the current #1 team, four teams in top 7, and six in top 15. Rest assured that ASU does not have an easy schedule.
|
|