|
Post by SportyBucky on Dec 2, 2015 9:05:55 GMT -5
Wow there are a lot of dumb posts on here but this one takes the cake. If in any season where the RPIs flaw has been exposed it is this one. Look at Florida there is just no way a team with that many questionable losses should be in the Top 4-5 spots for a seed yes the committee tried to do justice and seed Florida lower than their RPI, but one could argue they should have been seeded even lower, if not at all. We beat Texas, Oregon, FSU, and most of the teams we lost to at some point in the season etc, even the matches we lost we beat those teams at some point in the season. Hopefully we will play in the post season like we were earlier in the year when we beat decent teams but we will see what happens. It will be tough to go past a regional final I think but you never know. Main issue for Florida is consistency. Also the year we were not seeded in 2011 we got to the regional final anyways, so it didn't really matter. All those teams you beat beginning of the season improved. That's not the case with FL.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Dec 2, 2015 10:18:49 GMT -5
Ok so I get that we all hate the RPI. Really. But since everyone knows what the committee uses then the only thing we should use to measure is the RPI, Pablo and Avca are nice, but RPI is what matters. Imagine if instead of everyone complaining about the committee using straight RPI, we should wonder why the coaches scheduled the way they did. Colorado shame on you for your non conference, Hawaii- get off the island once a year in the non-conference, 14 team leagues- play a balanced schedule so that some teams don't get stuck playing a bad schedule... Since the RPI, regionalization etc are going to be here; can't we just go with it. The rules of the game are laid out pretty clearly. Does it suck a little, sure, but at least we all know the rules. what a load of garbage dude - RPI fundamentally devalues western volleyball - to suggest to just sit back and 'embrace' it is a load of dung two conferences in particular, the WCC & Big West, get devalued (screwed if you like) by it year after year because it makes it appear a lot of conference teams are a lot worse than they actually are - and many people take RPI to the bank also, leave Hawaii out of the RPI discussion - they are an outlier, unique program, aside from the RPI penalty they often pay and scheduling is NOT that simple - if you are in the west, fewer conferences and it's not always simple to schedule teams - plus you can't control the schedules of other schools in your conference plus it is NOT necessarily 'easy' to game RPI - what the committee showed was they really place an extreme value on top 25 wins, basically Oregon got in on the strength of 1 top 25 win and 4 RPI top 100 wins all season long (just using them as an example, they are a good team and get RPI devaluation as well) so to 'fix' that issue, then a team needs to probably schedule teams ranked about 10-30 (scheduling top 10 is just gonna yield high probability losses so let's have everyone out west try to schedule the following teams as an example, and just 'chase' them in their schedule: North Carolina, Florida State, Duke, Miami, Kentucky, Texas A&M, Mizzou, Kansas, Iowa State, & maybe Purdue & Ohio State : play the teams in that 'sweet spot' of 10-30 mostly south/eastern RPI boosters where the commmittee shows you only need to go 2-9 to get your bubble bid and if you've only got about 12 conference games, than that's not reasonable plus the practicle aspect of scheduling those teams - because the east of the rockies teams don't have the geographical bias and it's not their job to accomadate western teams and then on top of that, mid-majors have to schedule them in the first four weekends of the year when your team could be a lot different than the last four weeks, so in that regard the BCS conferences in particular don't have that problem whereas mid-majors have to front-load their schedule - the RPI compounding of it's flaws is not so simple, and neither is scheduling simple as people often try to make it out to be, you can try to 'game' it, but the NCAA's use of it is a distinct disadvantage out west - it is what it is, but the NCAA basically is telling western mid-majors to go f themselves by using it and if you don't like the complaint - too dang bad!!!!
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 2, 2015 11:25:19 GMT -5
I will say, I can sympathize with the OP. I get tired of hearing whining about RPI, especially in cases where it is off topic. Save your rants for the appropriate places. But discussions about who is getting in the tournament are not the places to complain about RPI.
Save it for threads like this.
For example, you want to know why people complain about RPI? It's for reasons like these....
1) RPI is supposed to be a reflection of what a team has done, taking SOS into account, and is not supposed to be a predictive tool. OK, let's see how it does then, in terms of reflecting "what a team has done." For example, how well does it reflect outcomes of matches that has been played? This year it was 81.4%. That's historically consistent. Is it good? Well, the Ultimate Rankings gets something on the order of 87% (ignoring HCA). Pablo rankings this week have 83.3% with HCA, and if I just ignore the HCA, it's still 82.2%, and that's not optimized. So in terms of just reflecting who won, RPI doesn't do as good as a job as Pablo. That's a difference of about 60 matches that Pablo gets right that RPI doesn't. And that is just looking at the thing that RPI is supposed to be doing best!
2) And then there are the regional issues. If we break down the correct outcomes over inter-regional matchups, the pattern is terrible. For example, when teams from the (NCAA) east region play matches outside the region, when they are favored by RPI they win 78% of the time, but when the opponent is favored, they win 84% of the time. What that means is that RPI is overrating teams from the east region. The midwest is worse, winning only 77% of the time when favored, but non-regional opponents are winning 87% of the time when they are favored.
At the other end, when teams from the Pacific or West regions are favored in inter-regional matchups, they win 86-87% of the time, but when the opponent is favored, they only win 72% against the Pacific team and 78% against the West region team.
You can group them up by trends. East/Midwest/Northeast are the regions overrated, Central/Mideast/South are pretty neutral, and Pacific/West are underrated. Add them up, and you get the following comparisons
E-MW-NE vs C-ME-S When the EMWNE teams are favored they win 79.2% of the time When the CMES teams are favored, they win 84.9% of the time
E-MW-NE vs P-W When the EMWNE teams are favored, they only win 61.7% of the time (yikes!) When the PW teams are favored, they win 90.8% of the time RPI is massively overrating the eastern teams here
C-ME-S vs P-W When the CMES team is favored, they win 75.9% of the time When the PW team is favored, they win 88.1% of the time Again, the western teams are massively underrated.
And the problem is, this happens every. Stinking. Year.
I've done this analysis many years, and it is always the same. The Pacific and (to a lesser extent) West teams are getting hammered, compared to what they have done. They beat the teams in the east, but, ultimately, are more likely to be ranked behind them in RPI than when the teams in the east beat those in the west.
The pattern is persistent. How do you fix it?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2015 12:10:35 GMT -5
The pattern is persistent. How do you fix it? You stop using RPI. OK, let's say the NCAA is unwilling to even consider that. Then maybe they need to do what they have done over and over and over again -- add fudge factors to RPI to hide that it is fundamentally broken. They could add regional adjustment factors that would raise the RPI of all Western teams collectively. They could do exactly the analysis you just did, and apply the adjustments to 2016 based on the 2015 results. @017 based on the 2016 results. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 2, 2015 12:18:13 GMT -5
You don't need to get rid of RPI, just use it sanely... like the Men's Basketball Committee, that leaves teams out with an RPI of 22 when they recognize that rating is bunk from a conference-wide RPI inflation, and will take teams with high-60s RPIs when they have a good resume.
Seniors from one of the snubbed teams (Colorado? Da Beach?) should file a Title IX suit against the NCAA, arguing for disparate treatment (not in the RPI being used, but HOW it's being used) from MBB. I don't even think they'd need to win to get the NCAA to settle and agree to some different procedures.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2015 12:27:46 GMT -5
Seniors from one of the snubbed teams (Colorado? Da Beach?) should file a Title IX suit against the NCAA, arguing for disparate treatment (not in the RPI being used, but HOW it's being used) from MBB. I don't even think they'd need to win to get the NCAA to settle and agree to some different procedures. Better find some law firm that needs to rack up a lot of pro bono hours, because there is no way a few college seniors have the resources to sue the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 2, 2015 12:53:22 GMT -5
You don't need to get rid of RPI, just use it sanely... like the Men's Basketball Committee, that leaves teams out with an RPI of 22 when they recognize that rating is bunk from a conference-wide RPI inflation, and will take teams with high-60s RPIs when they have a good resume. Seniors from one of the snubbed teams (Colorado? Da Beach?) should file a Title IX suit against the NCAA, arguing for disparate treatment (not in the RPI being used, but HOW it's being used) from MBB. I don't even think they'd need to win to get the NCAA to settle and agree to some different procedures. The eye test works when you can watch games all year long. Probably 99.9% of men's division I basketball games are broadcast. If you add more emphasis on the eye test to volleyball, how in the world are you going to compare Arkansas State, who the committee may be able to see once or twice in a season, to Colorado who they can watch every match. All that would do is tip the balance of power to the Big 5 schools, the exact thing that the committee tries to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2015 13:00:38 GMT -5
You don't need to get rid of RPI, just use it sanely... like the Men's Basketball Committee, that leaves teams out with an RPI of 22 when they recognize that rating is bunk from a conference-wide RPI inflation, and will take teams with high-60s RPIs when they have a good resume. Seniors from one of the snubbed teams (Colorado? Da Beach?) should file a Title IX suit against the NCAA, arguing for disparate treatment (not in the RPI being used, but HOW it's being used) from MBB. I don't even think they'd need to win to get the NCAA to settle and agree to some different procedures. The eye test works when you can watch games all year long. Probably 99.9% of men's division I basketball games are broadcast. If you add more emphasis on the eye test to volleyball, how in the world are you going to compare Arkansas State, who the committee may be able to see once or twice in a season, to Colorado who they can watch every match. All that would do is tip the balance of power to the Big 5 schools, the exact thing that the committee tries to avoid. Use an eye that watches everyone equally -- like pablo.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 2, 2015 13:14:29 GMT -5
The eye test works when you can watch games all year long. Probably 99.9% of men's division I basketball games are broadcast. If you add more emphasis on the eye test to volleyball, how in the world are you going to compare Arkansas State, who the committee may be able to see once or twice in a season, to Colorado who they can watch every match. All that would do is tip the balance of power to the Big 5 schools, the exact thing that the committee tries to avoid. Use an eye that watches everyone equally -- like pablo. The NCAA refuses to use margin of victory. Again, people don't like this but it is certainly not for vindictive reasons. It's also worth noting that the RPI is easily explained (25%-50%-25%). Pablo is not an easy formula that you can duplicate at home in excel. I 100% agree that Pablo is better at identifying who is better, but it's not an unreasonable thing for the NCAA to want a more simple formula.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Dec 2, 2015 13:16:43 GMT -5
I will say, I can sympathize with the OP. I get tired of hearing whining about RPI, especially in cases where it is off topic. Save your rants for the appropriate places. But discussions about who is getting in the tournament are not the places to complain about RPI. Save it for threads like this. The pattern is persistent. How do you fix it? I think you covered it in detail a year or two ago, but would weighting the 3 factors differently help RPI. Say 40-20-40, just as an example. The opp opp % differences are minute, correct? So maybe a 40-40-20 would help? Or 40-50-10? Just spitballin' here.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 2, 2015 13:21:38 GMT -5
You don't need to get rid of RPI, just use it sanely... like the Men's Basketball Committee, that leaves teams out with an RPI of 22 when they recognize that rating is bunk from a conference-wide RPI inflation, and will take teams with high-60s RPIs when they have a good resume. Seniors from one of the snubbed teams (Colorado? Da Beach?) should file a Title IX suit against the NCAA, arguing for disparate treatment (not in the RPI being used, but HOW it's being used) from MBB. I don't even think they'd need to win to get the NCAA to settle and agree to some different procedures. The eye test works when you can watch games all year long. Probably 99.9% of men's division I basketball games are broadcast. If you add more emphasis on the eye test to volleyball, how in the world are you going to compare Arkansas State, who the committee may be able to see once or twice in a season, to Colorado who they can watch every match. All that would do is tip the balance of power to the Big 5 schools, the exact thing that the committee tries to avoid. Arkansas State's 3 most recent volleyball matches available for replay at WatchESPN. 2 of their 3 biggest regular season matches were also broadcast on ESPN3. Additionally, all of their home matches were broadcast online on the Sun Belt Digital Network. There were many, many, many chances for the Committee to see A-State this year.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2015 13:22:12 GMT -5
Use an eye that watches everyone equally -- like pablo. The NCAA refuses to use margin of victory. Again, people don't like this but it is certainly not for vindictive reasons. It's also worth noting that the RPI is easily explained (25%-50%-25%). Pablo is not an easy formula that you can duplicate at home in excel. I 100% agree that Pablo is better at identifying who is better, but it's not an unreasonable thing for the NCAA to want a more simple formula. WTF?! You try duplicating RPI at home in excel. Betcha can't do it. RPI is NOT a simple formula. We know this because if you do compute it using the simple formula, you get a different answer than the NCAA publishes. RPI has a whole bunch of tweaks and adjustments and fudge factors hidden inside it. Besides all that, W-L is a simple formula. "Simple" is not the only criteria, and it's certainly not the overriding criteria. RPI is used not because it shows which teams are better, but because it forces certain scheduling behavior that a key NCAA stakeholder (small conferences) likes. There is also an element of the wolves and the sheep voting on lunch -- the vast majority of the D1 schools are in the East, and guess who gets a boost from RPI? The Eastern and Midwest schools are not going to vote at their own expense to stop screwing the West, and the West doesn't have enough members to force the issue.
|
|
|
Post by vbphilsdad on Dec 2, 2015 13:26:25 GMT -5
The opp opp % differences are minute, correct?
That would be good to know. What is the spread between the highest and lowest opp opp % in, say, the top-100. To give opp opp the same weight as team % should have some reason.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Dec 2, 2015 13:41:56 GMT -5
The pattern is persistent. How do you fix it? You stop using RPI. OK, let's say the NCAA is unwilling to even consider that. Then maybe they need to do what they have done over and over and over again -- add fudge factors to RPI to hide that it is fundamentally broken. They could add regional adjustment factors that would raise the RPI of all Western teams collectively. They could do exactly the analysis you just did, and apply the adjustments to 2016 based on the 2015 results. @017 based on the 2016 results. Etc. Or, we know it is biased, so you counteract it by always biasing the selection committee. That is, you fill it with Western Reps, especially those from SoCal, because the clubs and beaches of that regions are the heart and soul of American Volleyball. Just look at the UW starting lineup.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Dec 2, 2015 14:33:20 GMT -5
Ok so I get that we all hate the RPI. Really. But since everyone knows what the committee uses then the only thing we should use to measure is the RPI, Pablo and Avca are nice, but RPI is what matters. Imagine if instead of everyone complaining about the committee using straight RPI, we should wonder why the coaches scheduled the way they did. Colorado shame on you for your non conference, Hawaii- get off the island once a year in the non-conference, 14 team leagues- play a balanced schedule so that some teams don't get stuck playing a bad schedule... Since the RPI, regionalization etc are going to be here; can't we just go with it. The rules of the game are laid out pretty clearly. Does it suck a little, sure, but at least we all know the rules. I don't mind when people complain, b/c it naturally leads to discussion about the RPI. and year in and year out there are people who come on this board who don't understand it ... whether it be b/c they're new to the board, or just haven't really followed the issue. the complaints and eventual discussions clear up misconceptions too. like the one in your op ... the RPI as it's used for the women's game does not factor in home and away matches.
|
|