|
Post by TCMullet on Oct 13, 2016 0:05:41 GMT -5
RPI Futures is a ... 54. (50) Loyola Marymount (19-11) - 62 I'm puzzled. A couple days ago, I copied the top 50 of your list and made the list I posted; just the team names and sorted alphabetically. Loyola Marymount was within the top 50 as evidenced by it being in my list (cloned from your list). Yet now your list shows it at 54. Did you edit the list? (I regret I did not save my "saving" of your list, but only have my sorted results. Perhaps you'll say I copied from the week before. I doubt that as I had specifically wanted to start with the most recent one, which was this one.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 13, 2016 0:18:54 GMT -5
He comes out with a new list every week. Likely you were looking at Week 6.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Oct 13, 2016 3:26:39 GMT -5
They did fly in Utah a couple of years ago while flying Fairfield, Hampton, and Radford out of region. So it wouldn't be unprecedented to add a flight for bracket balance. Ah - 2013. Just took the slate of teams and ran it through the program, and the NCAA actually did have the fewest fly-ins possible (while not having 2 teams from the same conference in the same sub-regional). I couldn't believe it - but there was almost a perfect storm that Required a Pac 12 team to be flown into Penn State. #1 Texas (Texas State, UTSA, TAM) - no fly-ins #3 Washington (Alabama State, LSU, Michigan) 3 fly-ins #4 Missouri (Purdue, IUPUI, Central Arkansas) 0 fly-ins #5 Florida (Jacksonville, Georgia Southern, Florida State) 0 fly-ins #6 USC (New Hampshire, Colorado State, CSU Northridge) - 2 fly-ins #7 Stanford (Hampton, Alabama, Oklahoma) - 3 fly-ins #8 Nebraska (Oregon, Miami, Fairfield) - 3 fly-ins, takes 1st unseeded PAC team #9 San Diego (UCSB, New Mexico State, Arizona) 2 fly-ins, takes 2nd unseeded PAC team #10 Minnesota (Radford, Colorado, Iowa State) 2 fly-ins, takes 3rd unseeded PAC team #11 Hawaii (Idaho State, Arizona State, BYU) 3 fly-ins, takes 4th unseeded PAC team #12 Wisconsin (Milwaukee, UNC, Cal) 2 fly-ins, takes 5th unseeded PAC team #13 Illinois (Morehead State, Louisville, Marquette) 0 fly-ins #14 Kansas (Wichita State, Creighton, Arkansas) 0 fly-ins #15 Kentucky (Duquesne, Ohio, Michigan State) 0 fly-ins #16 Duke (Charleston, Georgia, American) 0 fly-ins #2 Penn State (Utah, LIU Brooklyn, Yale) 1 fly-in, takes 6th unseeded PAC team The committee was required to fly-in Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Arizona State, Cal, and Utah to one of 6 spots (Penn State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, San Diego, Hawaii, & Nebraska) - actually, they could have switched some stuff up where Kansas got a PAC team instead of Nebraska/Minnesota/Wisconsin - but they had to send one to Penn State. Much appreciated Blue can you explain to me why Hawaii was flowin into Texas las the year instead of the traditional Wedt Coast PAC sub-regional they usually get.
|
|
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 Oct 13, 2016 8:13:43 GMT -5
Ah - 2013. Just took the slate of teams and ran it through the program, and the NCAA actually did have the fewest fly-ins possible (while not having 2 teams from the same conference in the same sub-regional). I couldn't believe it - but there was almost a perfect storm that Required a Pac 12 team to be flown into Penn State. #1 Texas (Texas State, UTSA, TAM) - no fly-ins #3 Washington (Alabama State, LSU, Michigan) 3 fly-ins #4 Missouri (Purdue, IUPUI, Central Arkansas) 0 fly-ins #5 Florida (Jacksonville, Georgia Southern, Florida State) 0 fly-ins #6 USC (New Hampshire, Colorado State, CSU Northridge) - 2 fly-ins #7 Stanford (Hampton, Alabama, Oklahoma) - 3 fly-ins #8 Nebraska (Oregon, Miami, Fairfield) - 3 fly-ins, takes 1st unseeded PAC team #9 San Diego (UCSB, New Mexico State, Arizona) 2 fly-ins, takes 2nd unseeded PAC team #10 Minnesota (Radford, Colorado, Iowa State) 2 fly-ins, takes 3rd unseeded PAC team #11 Hawaii (Idaho State, Arizona State, BYU) 3 fly-ins, takes 4th unseeded PAC team #12 Wisconsin (Milwaukee, UNC, Cal) 2 fly-ins, takes 5th unseeded PAC team #13 Illinois (Morehead State, Louisville, Marquette) 0 fly-ins #14 Kansas (Wichita State, Creighton, Arkansas) 0 fly-ins #15 Kentucky (Duquesne, Ohio, Michigan State) 0 fly-ins #16 Duke (Charleston, Georgia, American) 0 fly-ins #2 Penn State (Utah, LIU Brooklyn, Yale) 1 fly-in, takes 6th unseeded PAC team The committee was required to fly-in Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Arizona State, Cal, and Utah to one of 6 spots (Penn State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, San Diego, Hawaii, & Nebraska) - actually, they could have switched some stuff up where Kansas got a PAC team instead of Nebraska/Minnesota/Wisconsin - but they had to send one to Penn State. Much appreciated Blue can you explain to me why Hawaii was flowin into Texas las the year instead of the traditional Wedt Coast PAC sub-regional they usually get. Short answer (my guess) - because they could send them there (along with probably a couple other places) without increasing the overall fly-ins for the tournament's 1st two rounds. In other years it may not be possible (or easy) when there are many PAC schools that are flying with very limited options and the committee is left with finding non PAC teams to fly-in to PAC hosts.
|
|
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 Oct 13, 2016 8:16:00 GMT -5
RPI Futures is a ... 54. (50) Loyola Marymount (19-11) - 62 I'm puzzled. A couple days ago, I copied the top 50 of your list and made the list I posted; just the team names and sorted alphabetically. Loyola Marymount was within the top 50 as evidenced by it being in my list (cloned from your list). Yet now your list shows it at 54. Did you edit the list? (I regret I did not save my "saving" of your list, but only have my sorted results. Perhaps you'll say I copied from the week before. I doubt that as I had specifically wanted to start with the most recent one, which was this one. Just from your post - Week 7 RPI Future has LMU at #54 and Last Week (Week 6 RPI) at #50. So they were top 50 as of week 6 and have dropped a bit for week 7.
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Oct 13, 2016 8:22:04 GMT -5
So looks like you're saying I visited the wrong list, that I accidentally took week 6 instead of 7.
|
|
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 Oct 13, 2016 10:11:10 GMT -5
So looks like you're saying I visited the wrong list, that I accidentally took week 6 instead of 7. Don't know - sounds like you used the current list at the time which was Week 6 and had LMU in the top 50. Then when you saw Week 7 they had dropped to #54. There will be a handful of teams falling below 50 or rising into the top 50 over the rest of the season. It is isn't That static.
Not knowing what you are doing - sounds like you have a list of 50 teams you are working with (much smaller than the 334). As the season progresses, you may want/need to add the handful of teams that dip below the 50 line? Or you just consider this noise as it is unlikely that more than 2 or 3 of these teams makes the final 32 in the tournament.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,324
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 13, 2016 12:04:57 GMT -5
bluepenquin With the PAC beating up on eachother, what is the least possible amount of seeded teams you see? Last year USC, Washington ran away with it. This year things looked jumbled. Not good for seeding
|
|
|
Post by flyingMoose on Oct 13, 2016 12:15:58 GMT -5
So looks like you're saying I visited the wrong list, that I accidentally took week 6 instead of 7. Don't know - sounds like you used the current list at the time which was Week 6 and had LMU in the top 50. Then when you saw Week 7 they had dropped to #54. There will be a handful of teams falling below 50 or rising into the top 50 over the rest of the season. It is isn't That static.
Not knowing what you are doing - sounds like you have a list of 50 teams you are working with (much smaller than the 334). As the season progresses, you may want/need to add the handful of teams that dip below the 50 line? Or you just consider this noise as it is unlikely that more than 2 or 3 of these teams makes the final 32 in the tournament.
For sure you looked at the wrong list. If bluepenguin has edited his original Week #7 post, there would be a note to that effect in the lower right-hand corner of the post. As examples, see his third post on this thread and your first post on this thread ("Last edit: ...) - both on Page One.
|
|
|
Post by flyingMoose on Oct 13, 2016 12:20:25 GMT -5
Deleted by OP.
|
|
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 Oct 13, 2016 12:28:36 GMT -5
bluepenquin With the PAC beating up on eachother, what is the least possible amount of seeded teams you see? Last year USC, Washington ran away with it. This year things looked jumbled. Not good for seeding 3 - which seems like their historical minimum? But this year's competiveness seems rather extreme. I think it is possible that they only have 2 in the top 16 in RPI, but I would have a hard time seeing only 2 seeds if there is a 3rd team close (which I think would be the worse case scenario). But yeah - not good at all for seeding.
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Oct 13, 2016 18:23:12 GMT -5
So looks like you're saying I visited the wrong list, that I accidentally took week 6 instead of 7. Don't know - sounds like you used the current list at the time which was Week 6 and had LMU in the top 50. It turns out I DID use Week 6 by mistake. It wasn't the current list; both were there and I had meant to use 7 but having multiple browsers open at VT has it's price--confusion of me. Today I went down the top 50 of week 6 one by one looking up on my alpha list. Exactly matched. Then I did for 7 was I was going to start with 8 (which is not out yet)--I scanned looking for those not in my list. As expected I found several had risen to the top 50: Cal Poly Cleveland State Hofstra > There will be a handful of teams falling below 50 or rising into the top 50 over the rest of the season. It is isn't that static. Yes, I knew that. Just like the AVCA poll. So I'll tack this short list of 3 onto my paper list of 50 to have on hand for my alpha lookup purposes. After some number of weeks, when it gets too cumbersome, I'll merge the several groups of add-ins into the list and reprint. There actually is a reason for me to keep the add-ins separate temporarily, even though I'll still consider them in the top 53. (I need to temporarily remember that they weren't in my initially built list of 50.) So now my list of the top teams has 53 in it. Thank you SO much for creating these RPI Futures lists.
|
|
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 Oct 15, 2016 8:21:06 GMT -5
Trying to make sense of RPI (Futures) right now.
North Carolina started the week at #14. Their 5 set win in a Pablo 50-50 match against Notre Dame puts them currently at #7. If they had lost, they would have been #15. This is a much larger variance between win and loss than is typical for teams in this range and points to just how unusually volatile things are between #5 and #25.
Stanford has accrued so much credit prior to the injury that it will take a while before/if there is any kind of RPI collapse and it will be hard to predict the positive impact to other PAC teams. This will create even more uncertainty in a conference that was already not lacking for uncertainty.
Penn State looks to be for real and I suspect they will eventually end up being #5 in RPI - but the jump to #4 remains enormous. I am going to guess that the top 4 Pablo teams will be Big Ten teams after this weekend and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to see a scenario that doesn't include 3 B1G teams as a regional host.
In terms of seeds or Top 16 RPI, there isn't anyone safe after the top 4 (maybe Florida because of their schedule). The difference among the teams 5 through 26 is rather small and highly volatile. The difference between #4 Minnesota and #5 Stanford is larger than the difference between #5 Stanford and #26 Arizona. Wisconsin remains #1 for now - and the difference between Wisconsin and Stanford is more than Stanford and #34 Baylor.
Here is the top 60 after Friday's matches:
1. Wisconsin 2. Nebraska 3. Texas 4. Minnesota 5. Stanford 6. Florida 7. North Carolina 8. San Diego 9. Michigan 10. Penn State 11. Kansas State 12. Michigan State 13. Washington 14. BYU 15. Purdue 16. Kentucky 17. Washington State 18. Kansas 19. Western Kentucky 20. UCLA 21. UNLV 22. Creighton 23. Missouri 24. TCU 25. Oregon 26. Arizona 27. Dayton 28. Marquette 29. Texas A&M 30. Wichita State 31. Utah 32. Pittsburgh 33. USC 34. Baylor 35. Ohio State 36. Florida State 37. Coastal Carolina 38. Colorado State 39. Hawaii 40. Colorado 41. Georgia Tech 42. SMU 43. Illinois 44. Notre Dame 45. Cincinnati 46. Miami-OH 47. Cleveland State 48. Iowa State 49. Boise State 50. Hofstra 51. Iowa 52. Cal Poly 53. Loyola Marymount 54. Northern Iowa 55. Florida Gulf Coast 56. Temple 57. Southern Illinois 58. Texas-San Antonio 59. Wyoming 60. UConn
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Oct 15, 2016 8:37:48 GMT -5
Trying to make sense of RPI (Futures) right now. I am going to guess that the top 4 Pablo teams will be Big Ten teams after this weekend and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to see a scenario that doesn't include 3 B1G teams as a regional host. As I hoped/suspected would be the outcome. If PSU can knock off 1 of the 3 Wisconsin/Minnesota or at least go 5 on the road and/or beat Nebraska at home that has got to move them closer to a top 4 spot. Or have some of those teams lose a trap game here and there. It is Going to be fun!!
|
|
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 Oct 15, 2016 8:48:58 GMT -5
Trying to make sense of RPI (Futures) right now. I am going to guess that the top 4 Pablo teams will be Big Ten teams after this weekend and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to see a scenario that doesn't include 3 B1G teams as a regional host. As I hoped/suspected would be the outcome. If PSU can knock off 1 of the 3 Wisconsin/Minnesota or at least go 5 on the road and/or beat Nebraska at home that has got to move them closer to a top 4 spot. Or have some of those teams lose a trap game here and there. It is Going to be fun!! I don't think PSU can get in the top 4 in RPI - but I doubt it will matter if they win the Big Ten.
|
|