|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Nov 14, 2016 15:05:19 GMT -5
www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-volleyball-rpi1 Texas Big 12 2 Nebraska Big Ten 3 Wisconsin Big Ten 4 Minnesota Big Ten 5 Florida Southeastern 6 BYU West Coast 7 Stanford Pac-12 8 North Carolina Atlantic Coast 8 San Diego West Coast 10 Kansas Big 12 11 Michigan St. Big Ten 12 UCLA Pac-12 21-5-0 13 Washington Pac-12 14 Missouri Southeastern 15 Michigan Big Ten 16 Western Ky. Conference USA 17 Creighton Big East 18 Kentucky Southeastern 19 Kansas St. Big 12 20 Oregon Pac-12 21 Purdue Big Ten 22 Utah Pac-12 23 Texas A&M Southeastern 24 UNLV Mountain West 25 Penn St. This makes no sense to me. I'll add this to the list of things that don't make sense to me in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Nov 14, 2016 15:12:46 GMT -5
I know everyone already knows this, but I feel like it should be restated for posterity.
#2 Nebraska has wins over #1 Texas, #3 Wisconsin, #4 Minnesota, and #5 Florida.
|
|
|
Post by eotexas5 on Nov 14, 2016 15:17:50 GMT -5
I know everyone already knows this, but I feel like it should be restated for posterity. #2 Nebraska has wins over #1 Texas, #3 Wisconsin, #4 Minnesota, and #5 Florida. Damn - I hadn't realized that Nebraska had wins over the next four teams after them. That's pretty ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by urkillinmesmalls on Nov 14, 2016 15:31:53 GMT -5
Texas is ahead of Nebraska because all of the teams that they played this year have 10+ wins. Nebraska has matches against teams that are 8-20, 6-20, 4-25, 5-20. RPI just looks at Wins and Losses. It doesn't matter if that 20-5 team you played is ranked in the Top 10 of the country or just receiving votes. Strong RPIs are teams with good W-L records playing teams with good W-L records. The RPIs goal is not to tell you who would win between Texas and Nebraska. It's just stating that for the entire body of work, Texas has played more teams with higher win-loss percentages.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 14, 2016 15:37:16 GMT -5
Can someone show me the math to explain how Texas losing to ISU hurts them less than beating Northwestern and Illinois "hurts" Wisconsin? I thought won-lost record was the most important variable in RPI.
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Nov 14, 2016 15:40:09 GMT -5
Can someone show me the math to explain how Texas losing to ISU hurts them less than beating Northwestern and Illinois "hurts" Wisconsin? I thought won-lost record was the most important variable in RPI. Nope sorry. Opponents win percentage is the most important variable. RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 14, 2016 15:40:10 GMT -5
Let's stop pretending we don't know how RPI works. Texas at 1 isn't surprising at all.
I think Hawaii moved up to 36, lol. I'm not even mad. I mean, the "outrage thread" was 12 years ago and my argument wasn't about Hawaii's seeding (they were a top 4 seed in 2004), it was about sending Hawaii to play all of its matches on the road as a top seed. Over the years, Hawai'i has been a seeded team that was sent to play on the road more often than not and now that seeded teams are allowed to host, Hawai'i is out of seeding range. How ironic. It's okay though because I like where Hawai'i is at. Obviously, I'd love for them to be seeded because then we'd get to see them play a couple more games at home but being that it's out of the question, it's time for revenge. Some teams are benefiting from beating a banged up Hawaii squad earlier in the season... a couple of rematches are in order.
|
|
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: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 14, 2016 15:46:48 GMT -5
RPI doesn't matter until the end of the season!
As for now - Texas's opponents have a much better record than Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. It is more complicated that this - but here is some 'easy' math showing the main factors for these 4 teams RPI right now:
W/L%: Texas - .826 Nebraska - .960 Wisconsin - .880 Minnesota - .840
Opponents W/L% Texas - .669 Nebraska - .575 Wisconsin - .603 Minnesota - .606
Now, take 25% of the 1st number and 50% of the 2nd number and you get:
Texas - .541 Nebraska - .528 Wisconsin - .522 Minnesota - .513
If it is any consolation - Texas' RPI future will probably drop to #3 this week.
|
|
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: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 14, 2016 15:53:33 GMT -5
Can someone show me the math to explain how Texas losing to ISU hurts them less than beating Northwestern and Illinois "hurts" Wisconsin? I thought won-lost record was the most important variable in RPI. I don't have the math easily in front of me - but trust me this week did more RPI 'harm' to Texas than Wisconsin. Texas beats ISU and they would be even farther in 1st place and that much harder to catch - and given how close the top 3 are right now, they can be easily caught.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 14, 2016 16:08:18 GMT -5
The thing about RPI is that you will go down just for PLAYING a team like Rutgers, even if you win -3, -4, and -5. It's a faulty ranking system that would punish you for playing a perfect game. Playing Rutgers with the RPI is just like global thermonuclear war, the only winning move is not to play. Greetings, Professor Falken.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 14, 2016 16:19:58 GMT -5
Here's my bracket if the season ended today. At-larges are going by straight RPI. Indiana was last in, and while they don't have the best resume, Illinois right behind them with a 7 game losing streak wasn't going to jump and GT's profile is terribly empty. Plus, all of the borderline teams with good cases to jump the RPI cutline either moseyed on up (Iowa St., MVC teams) or fell off entirely (Colorado)
1 Nebraska New Hampshire Wichita St. K State
Boise St. Utah American 8 BYU
9 Washington Towson Penn St. Colorado St.
WKU Purdue ETSU 16 Kentucky
5 Kansas Howard Missouri St. Arizona
Baylor USC Denver 12 San Diego
13 Michigan St. Sacred Heart Cincy Dayton
Wazzu Iowa St. North Dakota 4 Minnesota
2 Wisconsin Fairfield Marquette UNI
Florida St. Oregon Alabama St. 7 Florida
10 UCLA New Mexico St. UNLV Hawaii
Cleveland St. Pitt Miami (OH) 15 Michigan
6 North Carolina Radford Coastal Lipscomb
TCU Ohio St. Princeton 11 Stanford
14 Missouri Murray St. Creighton Indiana
Texas A&M SMU TAMU-CC 3 Texas
|
|
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: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 14, 2016 16:52:04 GMT -5
Here's my bracket if the season ended today. At-larges are going by straight RPI. Indiana was last in, and while they don't have the best resume, Illinois right behind them with a 7 game losing streak wasn't going to jump and GT's profile is terribly empty. Plus, all of the borderline teams with good cases to jump the RPI cutline either moseyed on up (Iowa St., MVC teams) or fell off entirely (Colorado) One slight tweak that would reduce the fly-ins by one and make a slightly better bracket (I think).
Move Murray State to from Michigan State to Missouri. This is a drive-in for Murray State and would be a more appropriate 4th seed in a sub-regional. Move Sacred Heart from Minnesota to Michigan State. Move North Dakota down to face Minnesota in the 1st round. Move UNI from Missouri to Minnesota.
That would leave: Minnesota vs. North Dakota; Washington State vs. UNI. Missouri vs. Murray State; Creighton vs. Indiana/Illinois/Iowa. Michigan State vs. Sacred Heart; Western Kentucky vs. Dayton.
I would also flip Missouri State and Wichita State since Missouri State was in the Kansas Sub-regional last year.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 14, 2016 16:55:27 GMT -5
Here's my bracket if the season ended today. At-larges are going by straight RPI. Indiana was last in, and while they don't have the best resume, Illinois right behind them with a 7 game losing streak wasn't going to jump and GT's profile is terribly empty. Plus, all of the borderline teams with good cases to jump the RPI cutline either moseyed on up (Iowa St., MVC teams) or fell off entirely (Colorado) One slight tweak that would reduce the fly-ins by one and make a slightly better bracket (I think).
Move Murray State to from Michigan State to Missouri. This is a drive-in for Murray State and would be a more appropriate 4th seed in a sub-regional. Move Sacred Heart from Minnesota to Michigan State. Move North Dakota down to face Minnesota in the 1st round. Move UNI from Missouri to Minnesota.
That would leave: Minnesota vs. North Dakota; Washington State vs. UNI. Missouri vs. Murray State; Creighton vs. Indiana/Illinois/Iowa. Michigan State vs. Sacred Heart; Western Kentucky vs. Dayton.
I would also flip Missouri State and Wichita State since Missouri State was in the Kansas Sub-regional last year.
Good catch. I had Murray as driveable for the Michigans but not Mizzou. It looks like WKU isn't drivable to Michigan St. either (who knew?!) so I actually need to revisit this. Edit: WKU/Cincy is an easy flip from MSU to KY. I didn't even check the Kentucky schools' distance since the Michigans to Kentucky is always so automatic.
|
|
|
Post by Steve vb on Nov 14, 2016 17:04:50 GMT -5
Here's my bracket if the season ended today. Cincy Purdue ETSU 16 Kentucky Cleveland St. Pitt Miami (OH) 15 Michigan My main criticisms to your very well thought out brackets are that the 15th and 16th seeds have among the easiest groups. I would consider moving Penn State to Kentucky and send Purdue to Washington. #7 Florida has a very tough group compared to #15 Michigan's and #16 Kentucky's.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Nov 14, 2016 17:05:19 GMT -5
Texas is ahead of Nebraska because all of the teams that they played this year have 10+ wins. Nebraska has matches against teams that are 8-20, 6-20, 4-25, 5-20. RPI just looks at Wins and Losses. It doesn't matter if that 20-5 team you played is ranked in the Top 10 of the country or just receiving votes. Strong RPIs are teams with good W-L records playing teams with good W-L records. The RPIs goal is not to tell you who would win between Texas and Nebraska. It's just stating that for the entire body of work, Texas has played more teams with higher win-loss percentages. That's true. It's very difficult for anyone to look at a list and not see it as a qualitative ranking (i.e., 1 is better than 2, 2 is better than 3. etc.) RPI is just an objective numerical rating not a qualitative ranking. Whether it's a good rating or serves any useful purpose is its own debate.
|
|