|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 12:31:54 GMT -5
Doesn't add up. The big 12 actually has the second best rpi so if anything Texas and Kansas should have gotten the boost over USC and Stanford. The fact of the matter is that based on the rules of the NCAA, I do not see any equal justification for Texas A&M being seeded 10. Mind you, I do love the outcome, I just don't know how they got to it. I find this year consistent with the past 3 years (since I have been following). We can argue over the cause - but the committee consistently bumps up Big 10 and Pac 12 teams from their RPI. Yes, 2 years ago Missouri and Florida were #4/5 - but both of those teams had outstanding years with great records. Texas A&M lost 6 matches while playing in the SEC. USC, Washington, Stanford, Minnesota , Nebraska, Penn State, and Texas all had fewer losses while playing in much tougher conferences. Wisconsin had the same number of losses (Kansas had 4 fewer losses). The committee has shown discretion from RPI in where they seed teams - 2012 Louisville, 2014 Florida State.
I think they honestly thought 9 other teams were more deserving of a higher seed (despite RPI) - and I think this is the same process they have used in the past 4 years.
And I would tend to agree with this, but arbitrarily raising the pac 12 and big 10 is NOT a criteria set by the NCAA. Despite losses, A&M had more top 25 wins than all but 1 of the teams seeded ahead of them. I actually think Wisconsin is a perfect case study because both have the same number of losses, both have an objectively equal SOS, so what makes Wisconsin 6 and A&M 10?
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 30, 2015 13:54:31 GMT -5
I find this year consistent with the past 3 years (since I have been following). We can argue over the cause - but the committee consistently bumps up Big 10 and Pac 12 teams from their RPI. Yes, 2 years ago Missouri and Florida were #4/5 - but both of those teams had outstanding years with great records. Texas A&M lost 6 matches while playing in the SEC. USC, Washington, Stanford, Minnesota , Nebraska, Penn State, and Texas all had fewer losses while playing in much tougher conferences. Wisconsin had the same number of losses (Kansas had 4 fewer losses). The committee has shown discretion from RPI in where they seed teams - 2012 Louisville, 2014 Florida State.
I think they honestly thought 9 other teams were more deserving of a higher seed (despite RPI) - and I think this is the same process they have used in the past 4 years.
And I would tend to agree with this, but arbitrarily raising the pac 12 and big 10 is NOT a criteria set by the NCAA. Despite losses, A&M had more top 25 wins than all but 1 of the teams seeded ahead of them. I actually think Wisconsin is a perfect case study because both have the same number of losses, both have an objectively equal SOS, so what makes Wisconsin 6 and A&M 10? Whether specifically in their criteria or not - the committee consistently rates Big 10 and Pac 12 wins above other conference wins.
This is speculation on my part, but I think the committee does something like this:
Minnesota > Nebraska > Wisconsin > Penn State
USC > Washington > Stanford > UCLA
Texas A&M > Florida
Texas > Kansas
So they compare Texas A&M vs. Wisconsin: Wisconsin has the better RPI (5 vs. 6), Wisconsin has the better overall record (24-6 vs. 23-6), Wisconsin has the better Top 100 Wins (20-6 vs. 18-6), Wisconsin has the better Top 50 Wins (11-5 vs. 8-4), Wisconsin has the better road record (9-3 vs. 9-4), and Texas A&M has the better Top 25 Wins (7-4 vs. 5-5). Based on this, they think Wisconsin is more deserving of a higher seed.
Texas A&M vs. Penn State: TAM has the better RPI (6 vs. 10), PSU has the better record, PSU has the better record against the Top 100, PSU has the better record against the Top 50, TAM has the better record vs. the Top 25. PSU has the better road record. Closer, but advantage goes to PSU.
Texas A&M vs. Kansas: TAM has the better RPI, KU has the better overall record, KU has the better record vs. the Top 100, KU has the better record vs. the Top 50, TAM has the better record vs. the Top 25, Kansas has the better road record. KU has the advantage on this one.
TAM vs. Stanford: This one is pretty close...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 16:20:04 GMT -5
The conference factor played a big role in who gets the better seeding. That's why Stanford, Washington, and Penn State got pushed up while Texas A&M got pushed down. Actually, that's why USC and Minnesota were higher than Texas as top seeds. The Selection Committee recognizes the Big10 and Pac12 as power conferences in women's volleyball. Can't blame them, most of the NC winners and final four teams have come from those two conferences over the past 15 years. Doesn't add up. The big 12 actually has the second best rpi so if anything Texas and Kansas should have gotten the boost over USC and Stanford. The fact of the matter is that based on the rules of the NCAA, I do not see any equal justification for Texas A&M being seeded 10. Mind you, I do love the outcome, I just don't know how they got to it. Actually, the reason the Big12s' RPI's were so high is because they are a smaller conference (only 9 teams) and the math works out in such a way as to make their RPI's consistently higher than most conferences with more teams. Not sure how the math works exactly, but that's how it was explained to me (from someone who knows) as the primary reason for the RPI discrepancy. I think the Selection Committee realizes that as well and adjusts accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 30, 2015 16:26:48 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think North Carolina was the original 16 seed, and after they lost to Duke, they gave the seed to Creighton instead of rearranging the bracket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 16:27:09 GMT -5
And I would tend to agree with this, but arbitrarily raising the pac 12 and big 10 is NOT a criteria set by the NCAA. Despite losses, A&M had more top 25 wins than all but 1 of the teams seeded ahead of them. I actually think Wisconsin is a perfect case study because both have the same number of losses, both have an objectively equal SOS, so what makes Wisconsin 6 and A&M 10? Whether specifically in their criteria or not - the committee consistently rates Big 10 and Pac 12 wins above other conference wins.
This is speculation on my part, but I think the committee does something like this:
Minnesota > Nebraska > Wisconsin > Penn State
USC > Washington > Stanford > UCLA
Texas A&M > Florida
Texas > Kansas
So they compare Texas A&M vs. Wisconsin: Wisconsin has the better RPI (5 vs. 6), Wisconsin has the better overall record (24-6 vs. 23-6), Wisconsin has the better Top 100 Wins (20-6 vs. 18-6), Wisconsin has the better Top 50 Wins (11-5 vs. 8-4), Wisconsin has the better road record (9-3 vs. 9-4), and Texas A&M has the better Top 25 Wins (7-4 vs. 5-5). Based on this, they think Wisconsin is more deserving of a higher seed.
Texas A&M vs. Penn State: TAM has the better RPI (6 vs. 10), PSU has the better record, PSU has the better record against the Top 100, PSU has the better record against the Top 50, TAM has the better record vs. the Top 25. PSU has the better road record. Closer, but advantage goes to PSU.
Texas A&M vs. Kansas: TAM has the better RPI, KU has the better overall record, KU has the better record vs. the Top 100, KU has the better record vs. the Top 50, TAM has the better record vs. the Top 25, Kansas has the better road record. KU has the advantage on this one.
TAM vs. Stanford: This one is pretty close...
Always glad when you can step in and explain. Sounds so much better.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 30, 2015 16:37:08 GMT -5
I think the RPI is what justifies it. I'm not saying it's right, or that there couldn't be better things to consider, etc., but the seeding IS tied to something tangible That doesn't make any sense. Texas A&M is rpi #6, seeded 10.... meanwhile Stanford and Washington jumped 4 spots up. Looks to me that when it came to conference strength, they disbelieved RPI and voted their instinct, which was that the Big Ten and Pac-12 were clearly the strongest conferences, and thus were voted up, while the Big 12, SEC, and ACC were voted down.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 16:55:07 GMT -5
Doesn't add up. The big 12 actually has the second best rpi so if anything Texas and Kansas should have gotten the boost over USC and Stanford. The fact of the matter is that based on the rules of the NCAA, I do not see any equal justification for Texas A&M being seeded 10. Mind you, I do love the outcome, I just don't know how they got to it. Actually, the reason the Big12s' RPI's were so high is because they are a smaller conference (only 9 teams) and the math works out in such a way as to make their RPI's consistently higher than most conferences with more teams. Not sure how the math works exactly, but that's how it was explained to me (from someone who knows) as the primary reason for the RPI discrepancy. I think the Selection Committee realizes that as well and adjusts accordingly. I'm well aware of the inherent rpi advantage of the big 12, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the second rated conference, ahead of the Pac 12
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 16:57:48 GMT -5
That doesn't make any sense. Texas A&M is rpi #6, seeded 10.... meanwhile Stanford and Washington jumped 4 spots up. Looks to me that when it came to conference strength, they disbelieved RPI and voted their instinct, which was that the Big Ten and Pac-12 were clearly the strongest conferences, and thus were voted up, while the Big 12, SEC, and ACC were voted down. Yes, which is a good outcome, but not a good precedent, given the committee rules. I'm perfectly fine and highly recommend subjective criteria, but they should put that in the rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 17:08:35 GMT -5
Actually, the reason the Big12s' RPI's were so high is because they are a smaller conference (only 9 teams) and the math works out in such a way as to make their RPI's consistently higher than most conferences with more teams. Not sure how the math works exactly, but that's how it was explained to me (from someone who knows) as the primary reason for the RPI discrepancy. I think the Selection Committee realizes that as well and adjusts accordingly. I'm well aware of the inherent rpi advantage of the big 12, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the second rated conference, ahead of the Pac 12 Bluepenguin gave a really good response, I'll leave it with him. The Selection Committee has always used certain subjective criteria in the past, so this precedent, it seems, will always play into the seedings. Regardless, trying to figure out the Selection Committee's decisions or lack of explaining them clearly is an exercise in futility.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 30, 2015 17:14:35 GMT -5
Looks to me that when it came to conference strength, they disbelieved RPI and voted their instinct, which was that the Big Ten and Pac-12 were clearly the strongest conferences, and thus were voted up, while the Big 12, SEC, and ACC were voted down. Yes, which is a good outcome, but not a good precedent, given the committee rules. I'm perfectly fine and highly recommend subjective criteria, but they should put that in the rules. Berger, the committee chairman said in her video interview (other thread) that the members were free to vote what they thought - nobody was holding their feet to the RPI fire. She did say there were a good number of "volleyball" people on the Committee this year.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 17:19:41 GMT -5
I'm well aware of the inherent rpi advantage of the big 12, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the second rated conference, ahead of the Pac 12 Bluepenguin gave a really good response, I'll leave it with him. The Selection Committee has always used certain subjective criteria in the past, so this precedent, it seems, will always play into the seedings. Regardless, trying to figure out the Selection Committee's decisions or lack of explaining them clearly is an exercise in futility. Yes, it is.
|
|
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: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 30, 2015 17:59:38 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think North Carolina was the original 16 seed, and after they lost to Duke, they gave the seed to Creighton instead of rearranging the bracket. Another interesting and plausible theory - but I am not buying it.
I will say that the BE tournament really helped Creighton's RPI the final 2 days. Not only adding two more wins against 2 teams with very good records - but also the bonus points for 2 top 50 wins and added record against the top 50. They probably didn't have Creighton on the board of seeded teams Friday afternoon - heck it appears that the University didn't bother to submit a bid to host. But I don't think UNC was under #20 in RPI prior to their final loss.
The decision to go to UNC does seem curious. Plausible other places:
Missouri - I believe this wouldn't have added fly-ins - Creighton would have been a drive-in and could actually more easily have fans attend. The negative with Missouri - is they don't have any small AQ's that are drive-ins, but then sending Oregon to a Creighton, Missouri, Arkansas State subregional might have been better for Oregon. One thing the Committee avoided this year - they pretty much stuck to just 2 teams in the RPI top 32 in each subregional. The only exception is Minnesota's sub. The committee appears to have put a high priority on this kind of balance so probably decided against Missouri. To select MU, would have either increased the # of fly-ins (which I believe they cannot do) or would have caused a subregional to have RPI #15, 16, and 18 - which they didn't want to do.
Colorado State - Could have added Denver - but this decision would have netted one additional fly-in.
Western Kentucky - Not sure what could have precluded WKU, would take some research.
BTW, the decision to exclude Boise State and/or Pittsburgh could have resulted in one extra fly-in - although I don't agree with who the committee selected for their final teams - it appears that extra fly-in costs was a factor in determining who was selected for the tournament.
|
|
adambgsu
High School
I am from Minnesota and have spent many hours in the Pavillion! Now faculty at BGSU- poor Falcons!
Posts: 7
|
Post by adambgsu on Nov 30, 2015 18:44:59 GMT -5
As a seeding consideration, what about record against the other teams for sure in the field of 64? Why record against the top 100, when 36 of those teams are not in the tourney. 100 is simply a nice-sounding round number.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Nov 30, 2015 18:49:29 GMT -5
As a seeding consideration, what about record against the other teams for sure in the field of 64? Why record against the top 100, when 36 of those teams are not in the tourney. 100 is simply a nice-sounding round number. They also have in front of them: record against top 25, top 10, and their record for the last 10 matches to go by. This is a multi dimensional optimization.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 30, 2015 20:38:00 GMT -5
I have bracket hangover
|
|