|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 30, 2015 20:54:04 GMT -5
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. Top 10? You only get bonuses for Top 25, not Top 10, wins. That would even more weight it in favor of the major conferences. Not that some voters wouldn't let that sway them. She did say they watched the Penn St @ Nebraska match, so that could have been a factor in lifting Nebraska (B1G #2) over Washington (Pac-12 Co-Champion).
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 1, 2015 16:08:13 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.
I still think this was set up as a UNC-hosted regional and the Committee had to scramble on seeds when UNC lost to Duke - please note I'm not suggesting any malfeasance here, but look at it this way: the Committee isn't projecting from Final RPI.. they are working off of last week's RPI in the room and reacting to what happens as they are setting up the bracket on Friday/Saturday: In 11/23 RPI, you have for the final seeding spot (Top 15 were pretty well established, IMO): 16 WKU 17 Mizzou 18 Ark St. 19 Kentucky 20 UNC 21 Creighton WKU and Ark St. were likely not even considered because of their Nitty Gritty. So for the 16th seed, they are looking at Mizzou, KY and UNC. They see Mizzou has the highest RPI, most Top 25 wins and H2H over KY - they are probably leaning this way - but are a bit skeptical of one of their big wins (Ark. St.) and they note a fairly weak SOS and only 4 Top 50 wins. When Mizzou loses to TAMU Friday night, they are watching the match but aren't running the updated numbers after every match finishes. They assume Mizzou's RPI drops significantly because of the loss - or more than it does in realtiy. (And we do have evidence of the Committee over-reacting to last week wins and losses on projected RPI - the biggest example was Notre Dame for a seed a few years back, I have a post on this in my history. Also maybe CSUN and Ohio at-larges last year, Pitt this year (but not KState/Baylor, oddly - maybe that match was too late). So it's up to UNC and KY - UNC has 2 good T25 and the most Top 50 wins of the group, and they want to reward UNC for scheduling the #1 non-conference SOS, as well as finishing 10-0 (or so they think) and KY is held back by the H2H loss to Mizzou and seeding them would cause overall bracket drama. Congratulations on your seed UNC! Committee moves on to other things - like actually filling in the regionals and tourney field - assuming UNC is going to beat Duke. UNC's regional is filled in with two locals and a Midwestern fly-in who was a bubble seed (Creighton? Mizzou?) for bracket balance. So they set up the regionals and all of a sudden they see that UNC lost, and it doesn't really make sense to give them a seed. But at that point in the process, they've already filled out the bracket and finding fly-in homes for UNC, Coastal and UNC-W, as well as rearrange for whatever new seed gets to host would be problematic. At that point, all the matches are done and they get handed the final RPI and Creighton is up to 15. A 15 RPI with only one Top 25 win - and over a non-seed at that - probably wouldn't get it done for a seed wit a bracket de novo, but given the circumstances it's certainly enough to justify it (esp. with the #3 non-conference SOS). They may have already been in that pod and the lack of hosting bid makes the number change a formality.
|
|
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 Dec 1, 2015 16:38:27 GMT -5
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.
I still think this was set up as a UNC-hosted regional and the Committee had to scramble on seeds when UNC lost to Duke - please note I'm not suggesting any malfeasance here, but look at it this way: the Committee isn't projecting from Final RPI.. they are working off of last week's RPI in the room and reacting to what happens as they are setting up the bracket on Friday/Saturday: In 11/23 RPI, you have for the final seeding spot (Top 15 were pretty well established, IMO): 16 WKU 17 Mizzou 18 Ark St. 19 Kentucky 20 UNC 21 Creighton WKU and Ark St. were likely not even considered because of their Nitty Gritty. So for the 16th seed, they are looking at Mizzou, KY and UNC. They see Mizzou has the highest RPI, most Top 25 wins and H2H over KY - they are probably leaning this way - but are a bit skeptical of one of their big wins (Ark. St.) and they note a fairly weak SOS and only 4 Top 50 wins. When Mizzou loses to TAMU Friday night, they are watching the match but aren't running the updated numbers after every match finishes. They assume Mizzou's RPI drops significantly because of the loss - or more than it does in realtiy. (And we do have evidence of the Committee over-reacting to last week wins and losses on projected RPI - the biggest example was Notre Dame for a seed a few years back, I have a post on this in my history. Also maybe CSUN and Ohio at-larges last year, Pitt this year (but not KState/Baylor, oddly - maybe that match was too late). So it's up to UNC and KY - UNC has 2 good T25 and the most Top 50 wins of the group, and they want to reward UNC for scheduling the #1 non-conference SOS, as well as finishing 10-0 (or so they think) and KY is held back by the H2H loss to Mizzou and seeding them would cause overall bracket drama. Congratulations on your seed UNC! Committee moves on to other things - like actually filling in the regionals and tourney field - assuming UNC is going to beat Duke. UNC's regional is filled in with two locals and a Midwestern fly-in who was a bubble seed (Creighton? Mizzou?) for bracket balance. So they set up the regionals and all of a sudden they see that UNC lost, and it doesn't really make sense to give them a seed. But at that point in the process, they've already filled out the bracket and finding fly-in homes for UNC, Coastal and UNC-W, as well as rearrange for whatever new seed gets to host would be problematic. At that point, all the matches are done and they get handed the final RPI and Creighton is up to 15. A 15 RPI with only one Top 25 win - and over a non-seed at that - probably wouldn't get it done for a seed wit a bracket de novo, but given the circumstances it's certainly enough to justify it (esp. with the #3 non-conference SOS). They may have already been in that pod and the lack of hosting bid makes the number change a formality. Under this theory - they would have virtually had to rearranged a lot of stuff. The original bracket with UNC as a seed (before they no longer could justify giving them a seed) could not have had Creighton w/o increasing the number of fly-ins. The Kansas/Nebraska/Wisconsin/Minnesota area is already pretty much stuffed with drive-ins.
Back tracking - the brackets could have ended up being:
Minnesota: Creighton/UNI Wisconsin: Iowa State/Marquette/Oregon UNC: Miami/UNCW
That would have been a very light UNC regional and not sure how to get Oregon out of a #4.
Or maybe we involve another region (still cannot get Oregon out of a #4):
Minnesota: Creighton/UNI Wisconsin: Iowa State/Marquette/Oregon
Texas: SMU/Miami UNC: Purdue/UNCW
I can see this possible (having already decided on UNC as a host). However, I have a hard time believing they finalized anything before Saturday evening. I don't think there is any way Nebraska gets the #4 seed w/o knowing they beat PSU on Saturday night. I find the whole idea of making conclusions or plans before the last matches as being a bad idea...
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Dec 1, 2015 16:49:16 GMT -5
Something similar happened a few years with a Kentucky/TAMU pod, where the other two schools were driving distance to Kentucky but they ended up flying the entire pod to TAMU instead, probably because of a late seed switch.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 1, 2015 17:04:05 GMT -5
I still think this was set up as a UNC-hosted regional and the Committee had to scramble on seeds when UNC lost to Duke - please note I'm not suggesting any malfeasance here, but look at it this way: the Committee isn't projecting from Final RPI.. they are working off of last week's RPI in the room and reacting to what happens as they are setting up the bracket on Friday/Saturday: In 11/23 RPI, you have for the final seeding spot (Top 15 were pretty well established, IMO): 16 WKU 17 Mizzou 18 Ark St. 19 Kentucky 20 UNC 21 Creighton WKU and Ark St. were likely not even considered because of their Nitty Gritty. So for the 16th seed, they are looking at Mizzou, KY and UNC. They see Mizzou has the highest RPI, most Top 25 wins and H2H over KY - they are probably leaning this way - but are a bit skeptical of one of their big wins (Ark. St.) and they note a fairly weak SOS and only 4 Top 50 wins. When Mizzou loses to TAMU Friday night, they are watching the match but aren't running the updated numbers after every match finishes. They assume Mizzou's RPI drops significantly because of the loss - or more than it does in realtiy. (And we do have evidence of the Committee over-reacting to last week wins and losses on projected RPI - the biggest example was Notre Dame for a seed a few years back, I have a post on this in my history. Also maybe CSUN and Ohio at-larges last year, Pitt this year (but not KState/Baylor, oddly - maybe that match was too late). So it's up to UNC and KY - UNC has 2 good T25 and the most Top 50 wins of the group, and they want to reward UNC for scheduling the #1 non-conference SOS, as well as finishing 10-0 (or so they think) and KY is held back by the H2H loss to Mizzou and seeding them would cause overall bracket drama. Congratulations on your seed UNC! Committee moves on to other things - like actually filling in the regionals and tourney field - assuming UNC is going to beat Duke. UNC's regional is filled in with two locals and a Midwestern fly-in who was a bubble seed (Creighton? Mizzou?) for bracket balance. So they set up the regionals and all of a sudden they see that UNC lost, and it doesn't really make sense to give them a seed. But at that point in the process, they've already filled out the bracket and finding fly-in homes for UNC, Coastal and UNC-W, as well as rearrange for whatever new seed gets to host would be problematic. At that point, all the matches are done and they get handed the final RPI and Creighton is up to 15. A 15 RPI with only one Top 25 win - and over a non-seed at that - probably wouldn't get it done for a seed wit a bracket de novo, but given the circumstances it's certainly enough to justify it (esp. with the #3 non-conference SOS). They may have already been in that pod and the lack of hosting bid makes the number change a formality. Under this theory - they would have virtually had to rearranged a lot of stuff. The original bracket with UNC as a seed (before they no longer could justify giving them a seed) could not have had Creighton w/o increasing the number of fly-ins. The Kansas/Nebraska/Wisconsin/Minnesota area is already pretty much stuffed with drive-ins.
Back tracking - the brackets could have ended up being:
Minnesota: Creighton/UNI Wisconsin: Iowa State/Marquette/Oregon UNC: Miami/UNCW
That would have been a very light UNC regional and not sure how to get Oregon out of a #4.
Or maybe we involve another region (still cannot get Oregon out of a #4):
Minnesota: Creighton/UNI Wisconsin: Iowa State/Marquette/Oregon
Texas: SMU/Miami UNC: Purdue/UNCW
I can see this possible (having already decided on UNC as a host). However, I have a hard time believing they finalized anything before Saturday evening. I don't think there is any way Nebraska gets the #4 seed w/o knowing they beat PSU on Saturday night. I find the whole idea of making conclusions or plans before the last matches as being a bad idea...
I think you are misunderstanding me - this doesn't have much to do with getting Oregon out of a 4. I'm more interested in how UNC hosts a regional with 3 Carolina teams as a non-seed. The last matches wrapped up at about 11 PM Eastern on Saturday night. I have a hard time believing they left everything for Sunday morning/early afternoon and think we have good evidence a lot of things are in place before last matches (how else do you explain them completely ignoring Texas-Florida last year?)
|
|
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 Dec 1, 2015 17:42:14 GMT -5
I can see this possible (having already decided on UNC as a host). However, I have a hard time believing they finalized anything before Saturday evening. I don't think there is any way Nebraska gets the #4 seed w/o knowing they beat PSU on Saturday night. I find the whole idea of making conclusions or plans before the last matches as being a bad idea...
I think you are misunderstanding me - this doesn't have much to do with getting Oregon out of a 4. I'm more interested in how UNC hosts a regional with 3 Carolina teams as a non-seed. The last matches wrapped up at about 11 PM Eastern on Saturday night. I have a hard time believing they left everything for Sunday morning/early afternoon and think we have good evidence a lot of things are in place before last matches (how else do you explain them completely ignoring Texas-Florida last year?) I just threw in the Oregon part because that is probably the worst part of the bracket. I think your theory is possible, I don't think it is likely (but I have no idea). I believe this committee acted (much) better than any previous recent committee, so I am assuming that they didn't cut corners like this one (which would be a pretty big one).
|
|