|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 12, 2016 11:29:32 GMT -5
So nine years, times 16 = 144 seeds. PSU 2016 is one of only two times that a team with RPI > 25 was seeded. That makes it a pretty big outlier. And that's why people are bothered by it.
|
|
|
|
Post by reader on Dec 12, 2016 11:48:10 GMT -5
Plus getting to host doesn't hurt either.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 12, 2016 11:51:52 GMT -5
So nine years, times 16 = 144 seeds. PSU 2016 is one of only two times that a team with RPI > 25 was seeded. That makes it a pretty big outlier. And that's why people are bothered by it. Except Penn State this year WAS an outlier. I challenge you to find a team that was top 5 in Pablo on selection day and did not get a seed. I'd be willing to bet the the region rankings had Penn State ahead of both Michigan schools so the RPI did drag down their seed A LOT. Think about the alternative. Think Creighton would've been happy getting that #16 seed, but having Penn State shipped to your subregional? Penn State was without a doubt one of the 16 best teams in the country. They had four wins over seeded teams to prove it (Michigan State, Michigan, Minnesota), they scheduled a couple of top 10 non-conference opponents (UNC and Stanford). Every single thing about their resume indicated a good seed except their final RPI rank. They WERE an outlier this year and the committee got it right (in fact, I think they should've been seeded ahead of Kansas State). |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 12, 2016 12:05:21 GMT -5
In 2010, Washington was number 11 in AVCA -- exactly the same as PSU this year. They did not get a seed. Many of us (especially in the west) are familiar with times that our programs were highly ranked and very good, but didn't have the RPI to get a seed. It happens -- except I guess not to PSU.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 12, 2016 12:12:13 GMT -5
In 2010, Washington was number 11 in AVCA -- exactly the same as PSU this year. They did not get a seed. Many of us (especially in the west) are familiar with times that our programs were highly ranked and very good, but didn't have the RPI to get a seed. It happens -- except I guess not to PSU. And their RPI of 37 was considerably worse than Penn State's RPI of 26. |
|
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 Dec 12, 2016 14:08:57 GMT -5
So nine years, times 16 = 144 seeds. PSU 2016 is one of only two times that a team with RPI > 25 was seeded. That makes it a pretty big outlier. And that's why people are bothered by it. Except Penn State this year WAS an outlier. I challenge you to find a team that was top 5 in Pablo on selection day and did not get a seed. I'd be willing to bet the the region rankings had Penn State ahead of both Michigan schools so the RPI did drag down their seed A LOT. Think about the alternative. Think Creighton would've been happy getting that #16 seed, but having Penn State shipped to your subregional? Penn State was without a doubt one of the 16 best teams in the country. They had four wins over seeded teams to prove it (Michigan State, Michigan, Minnesota), they scheduled a couple of top 10 non-conference opponents (UNC and Stanford). Every single thing about their resume indicated a good seed except their final RPI rank. They WERE an outlier this year and the committee got it right (in fact, I think they should've been seeded ahead of Kansas State). It worked out well for Creighton and making it to the final 8. But in terms of Pablo probabilities would they have been worse off?
Creighton playing on the road in Kansas increased their win probably by just 1% compared to getting Penn State at home. But then their chances in the 1st round would most likely been considerably easier than Northern Iowa - a match they came very close to losing. But then potentially getting Nebraska in Lincoln for the 3rd round would have been much tougher than Michigan on a neutral court. Would be interesting to run the numbers - but off the top of my head not getting a seed made Creighton much worse off for winning the 1st match and then also worse off for getting out of the 2nd round. Getting past the 3rd round may have been when it may have worked in their favor not having a seed - but this doesn't have anything to do with Penn State being in their sub regional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Dec 12, 2016 14:10:25 GMT -5
The Selection Committee's decision to give Penn State a seed was not isolated. They have made comparable decisions with other low RPI teams in years past (see my post above). Actually, Oregon was a beneficiary of such a decision back in 2009. RPI was T-21 (tied with USC at 21, although USC was ranked higher before the Adjusted-RPI), their pre-tourney record was 19-9, and the seed given was #14. This season was unprecedented in the B1G, with the top 3 seeded teams in the tourney and in the AVCA poll all coming from the same conference. I'm certain that had an effect on the committee's decision to seed PSU. I think this actually proves this was an isolated incident. In the past 9 years there have been 144 ranked teams in the tournament. Only ONCE was there a team with a great difference between their RPI and their seeding. Did you read the post above the one you quoted? UCLA in 2008 had an RPI of #27 and was given the #14 seed (I'm hoping that's the ONE time you are referring too). Also, there were 3 times when a team with a lower RPI jumped 7 spots into a higher seeded position. |
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Dec 12, 2016 14:10:43 GMT -5
The Selection Committee's decision to give Penn State a seed was not isolated. They have made comparable decisions with other low RPI teams in years past (see my post above). Actually, Oregon was a beneficiary of such a decision back in 2009. RPI was T-21 (tied with USC at 21, although USC was ranked higher before the Adjusted-RPI), their pre-tourney record was 19-9, and the seed given was #14. This season was unprecedented in the B1G, with the top 3 seeded teams in the tourney and in the AVCA poll all coming from the same conference. I'm certain that had an effect on the committee's decision to seed PSU. You mean when Oregon got the 14 seed but didn't host, got went cross country to a Top 25 Kentucky team, and also drew an at-large team in the first round? That's comparable? Also 26 is still not close to 21 in the RPI. Then, why was Oregon given the #14 seed? And why did Oregon not host? Did the school even put in a bid to host? The point was the disparity between seeding number and RPI. Did the PAC-12 have the top 3 teams in the country in 2009? Also, jumping 5 spots in RPI between 21-26 is not the same as jumping 5 spots from 1-6 or even 5-10. There is a much bigger difference in quality of teams in the 1-10 range versus the 10-20's, and so on. Did you read my other post about UCLA's 13 spot jump in 2008? We can't pick some years to scrutinize and then overlook other years. We have to look at the whole body of work of the Selection Committee over all the years in order to get a clearer picture. The fact remains, this was not isolated incident and the committee did the right thing (based on all the evidence, past and present). In 2016, do you know which schools between RPI #17-25 did or did not submit a request to host? In general, I don't think this has brought up in other conversations regarding seeding this year. I'm not sure where to even look in order to find this kind of information, but I think it's relevant here. I know for a fact that Penn State submits a request to host every single year, regardless of record. |
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Dec 12, 2016 14:29:17 GMT -5
In 2010, Washington was number 11 in AVCA -- exactly the same as PSU this year. They did not get a seed. Many of us (especially in the west) are familiar with times that our programs were highly ranked and very good, but didn't have the RPI to get a seed. It happens -- except I guess not to PSU. Or UCLA... or Oregon... or Illinois... or Stanford. Your original argument was that 2016 was an isolated incident. The data shows it was not. I am more intrigued about your argument regarding Washington in 2010. I'm curious to see what other high RPI teams did not get seeded. I know I saw a couple, but did not earmark them. The spreadsheet is available if anyone would like to do the research. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 12, 2016 14:35:12 GMT -5
You mean when Oregon got the 14 seed but didn't host, got went cross country to a Top 25 Kentucky team, and also drew an at-large team in the first round? That's comparable? Also 26 is still not close to 21 in the RPI. Then, why was Oregon given the #14 seed? And why did Oregon not host? Did the school even put in a bid to host? The point was the disparity between seeding number and RPI. Did the PAC-12 have the top 3 teams in the country in 2009? Also, jumping 5 spots in RPI between 21-26 is not the same as jumping 5 spots from 1-6 or even 5-10. There is a much bigger difference in quality of teams in the 1-10 range versus the 10-20's, and so on. Did you read my other post about UCLA's 13 spot jump in 2008? We can't pick some years to scrutinize and then overlook other years. We have to look at the whole body of work of the Selection Committee over all the years in order to get a clearer picture. The fact remains, this was not isolated incident and the committee did the right thing (based on all the evidence, past and present). In 2016, do you know which schools between RPI #17-25 did or did not submit a request to host? In general, I don't think this has brought up in other conversations regarding seeding this year. I'm not sure where to even look in order to find this kind of information, but I think it's relevant here. I know for a fact that Penn State submits a request to host every single year, regardless of record. My theory on Oregon being given the #14 seed that year was because a putatively seeded Notre Dame team lost twice the last week in the season and Oregon had a big win at Washington, one of those last-minute fudges where the commit overcorrects more than RPI would and probably was the only substitution that wouldn't be a huge change to bracket travel (they shuffled Notre Dame to Michigan). Oregon did not host as a seed because, prior to the rules being changed a couple of years back, the Committee had the leeway to ship seeded teams in geographically remote areas out on the road to minimize travel(ask Minnesota, Hawaii, or Washington about this). Oregon had to play North Carolina in D.C. as a seeded team in 2008. Oregon got no advantage from the seed that year, having to go play 2,000 miles away on the road at a good team and not getting an AQ in the first round. If PSU had been seeded but given a similar situation, there would not have been the same reaction. Even then, the Ducks were only 5 out of the #16 RPI spot - 10 is a big difference. If you go back many years and only find one comparable, from 2008, then it is pretty out of the norm. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 12, 2016 14:47:01 GMT -5
In 2010, Washington was number 11 in AVCA -- exactly the same as PSU this year. They did not get a seed. Many of us (especially in the west) are familiar with times that our programs were highly ranked and very good, but didn't have the RPI to get a seed. It happens -- except I guess not to PSU. Or UCLA... or Oregon... or Illinois... or Stanford. Your original argument was that 2016 was an isolated incident. The data shows it was not. I am more intrigued about your argument regarding Washington in 2010. I'm curious to see what other high RPI teams did not get seeded. I know I saw a couple, but did not earmark them. The spreadsheet is available if anyone would like to do the research. The data -- your data, shows very much that it was. Only two out of 144 seeds were that far out (25+) on RPI. In 2010 everybody knew Washington was a seed-quality team, and everybody knew they wouldn't be seeded. They played, (if I recall correctly) Michigan, then Hawaii, then Nebraska, and then lost to Cal. It was terrifically exciting. The Nebraska match resulted in the famous argument at the end. A far cry from LIU Brooklyn and Dayton. Two years later the NCAA stuck Hawaii into Washington's sub-regional, and that was one of the best matches I've ever seen. Much better than most finals. Washington was AVCA #5 and RPI #14, and they were seeded. Hawaii was AVCA #8 but RPI #21, and they didn't get a seed. It went five sets and featured a really outstanding level of play. If PSU had been unseeded this year, it would have been exciting. They would have gone into somebody's sub-region and it would have been a great fight. It also would have given them a good chance for an upset win. But no, you guys got two patsies and then lost. Came close to a huge upset, but close isn't a win. Besides that, giving PSU a gift seed obviously meant that some team that had fought their way to a top RPI was passed over. The tournament would probably be better is they used pablo for seeding decisions rather than RPI, but if they are going to do it, then they need to do it for everybody. Not just for PSU. |
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Dec 12, 2016 15:17:26 GMT -5
Then, why was Oregon given the #14 seed? And why did Oregon not host? Did the school even put in a bid to host? The point was the disparity between seeding number and RPI. Did the PAC-12 have the top 3 teams in the country in 2009? Also, jumping 5 spots in RPI between 21-26 is not the same as jumping 5 spots from 1-6 or even 5-10. There is a much bigger difference in quality of teams in the 1-10 range versus the 10-20's, and so on. Did you read my other post about UCLA's 13 spot jump in 2008? We can't pick some years to scrutinize and then overlook other years. We have to look at the whole body of work of the Selection Committee over all the years in order to get a clearer picture. The fact remains, this was not isolated incident and the committee did the right thing (based on all the evidence, past and present). In 2016, do you know which schools between RPI #17-25 did or did not submit a request to host? In general, I don't think this has brought up in other conversations regarding seeding this year. I'm not sure where to even look in order to find this kind of information, but I think it's relevant here. I know for a fact that Penn State submits a request to host every single year, regardless of record. My theory on Oregon being given the #14 seed that year was because a putatively seeded Notre Dame team lost twice the last week in the season and Oregon had a big win at Washington, one of those last-minute fudges where the commit overcorrects more than RPI would and probably was the only substitution that wouldn't be a huge change to bracket travel (they shuffled Notre Dame to Michigan). Oregon did not host as a seed because, prior to the rules being changed a couple of years back, the Committee had the leeway to ship seeded teams in geographically remote areas out on the road to minimize travel(ask Minnesota, Hawaii, or Washington about this). Oregon had to play North Carolina in D.C. as a seeded team in 2008. Oregon got no advantage from the seed that year, having to go play 2,000 miles away on the road at a good team and not getting an AQ in the first round. If PSU had been seeded but given a similar situation, there would not have been the same reaction. Even then, the Ducks were only 5 out of the #16 RPI spot - 10 is a big difference. If you go back many years and only find one comparable, from 2008, then it is pretty out of the norm. I feel for you guys not hosting in 2008, that really stinks. Regarding your theory, couldn't you say the same thing about San Diego not getting a seed this year. They lost 2 of their last 5 regular season matches (much like Notre Dame) and had 3 losses in their last month. One huge natural benefit of Northeastern schools is that they are very compact geographically. Which means, that PSU will almost always have relatively easy first and second round matches whenever they host. UCLA jumping 13 spots is also a big difference, and they got a higher seed than PSU with a lower RPI. Regarding comparable, don't forget there were 3 instances in 2011, 2012, and 2013 of an RPI jump of 7 spots. I think these are close enough to use as comps, especially since 2 of those schools were beyond the top 16 RPI range. I agree, 2016 was not within the norm, but it wasn't isolated either, which was the original argument I was addressing. I wanted to verify if the committee had some precedent to fall back on. At the end of the day, I don't agree with everything the selection committee does/did. I think a group of people from this board would do a better job. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 15:46:13 GMT -5
My theory on Oregon being given the #14 seed that year was because a putatively seeded Notre Dame team lost twice the last week in the season and Oregon had a big win at Washington, one of those last-minute fudges where the commit overcorrects more than RPI would and probably was the only substitution that wouldn't be a huge change to bracket travel (they shuffled Notre Dame to Michigan). Oregon did not host as a seed because, prior to the rules being changed a couple of years back, the Committee had the leeway to ship seeded teams in geographically remote areas out on the road to minimize travel(ask Minnesota, Hawaii, or Washington about this). Oregon had to play North Carolina in D.C. as a seeded team in 2008. Oregon got no advantage from the seed that year, having to go play 2,000 miles away on the road at a good team and not getting an AQ in the first round. If PSU had been seeded but given a similar situation, there would not have been the same reaction. Even then, the Ducks were only 5 out of the #16 RPI spot - 10 is a big difference. If you go back many years and only find one comparable, from 2008, then it is pretty out of the norm. I feel for you guys not hosting in 2008, that really stinks. . . . At the end of the day, I don't agree with everything the selection committee does/did. I think a group of people from this board would do a better job. So does the group of people from this board.  |
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Dec 12, 2016 15:54:56 GMT -5
Or UCLA... or Oregon... or Illinois... or Stanford. Your original argument was that 2016 was an isolated incident. The data shows it was not. I am more intrigued about your argument regarding Washington in 2010. I'm curious to see what other high RPI teams did not get seeded. I know I saw a couple, but did not earmark them. The spreadsheet is available if anyone would like to do the research. The data -- your data, shows very much that it was. Only two out of 144 seeds were that far out (25+) on RPI. In 2010 everybody knew Washington was a seed-quality team, and everybody knew they wouldn't be seeded. They played, (if I recall correctly) Michigan, then Hawaii, then Nebraska, and then lost to Cal. It was terrifically exciting. The Nebraska match resulted in the famous argument at the end. A far cry from LIU Brooklyn and Dayton. Two years later the NCAA stuck Hawaii into Washington's sub-regional, and that was one of the best matches I've ever seen. Much better than most finals. Washington was AVCA #5 and RPI #14, and they were seeded. Hawaii was AVCA #8 but RPI #21, and they didn't get a seed. It went five sets and featured a really outstanding level of play. If PSU had been unseeded this year, it would have been exciting. They would have gone into somebody's sub-region and it would have been a great fight. It also would have given them a good chance for an upset win. But no, you guys got two patsies and then lost. Came close to a huge upset, but close isn't a win. Besides that, giving PSU a gift seed obviously meant that some team that had fought their way to a top RPI was passed over. The tournament would probably be better is they used pablo for seeding decisions rather than RPI, but if they are going to do it, then they need to do it for everybody. Not just for PSU. Yes, but you said that NO other school EVER received this treatment. THE data (not mine) shows that there was a PRECEDENT set by the Selection Committee in previous years. I wish I could go back another 10 years, I'm certain there would be more comps. At the end of the day, I was the first Penn State fan who thought seeding PSU was not a good idea. I specifically wrote that I would have preferred an unseeded spot this year. I did not want to face Nebraska in the 3rd round. Regarding the first two rounds, PSU has a huge natural benefit of being located in a very condensed geographic area. Unfortunately, many schools out west suffer from the exact opposite and I truly feel for you all. There is nothing anyone can do about that, unless the NCAA changes their travel/cost rules. I say that because there is no point in constantly bringing it up. PSU's record, history, hall of fame coach, etc. did not get them those easy match ups. To conclude, I agree completely that having PSU unseeded this year would have made for some interesting match ups. I would have loved to see them compete in another bracket, playing spoiler to a seeded team. It would have made a lot of people happy (or unhappy depending on which sub-regional they would've gotten), and PSU fans would certainly not have complained. |
|
|
|
Post by paidlive on Dec 12, 2016 16:08:53 GMT -5
When it came down to it they went with PSU. a bit odd but tOSU would've been fine too in lieu. Oregon would just not have looked right with the head of committee. Creighton, San Diego, UH, Florida State maybe even Boise State could have been better.
They should always make a concerted effort to at least give 3-5 mid majors a shot at the seeded-16 field also.
You knew that there was going to be controversy this season with the coaches and the RPI being sooo incongruent.
With Florida going down early and with PSU losing 0-3 down the stretch in Lincoln, this season's selections were an exemplary taste of that east coast / NCAA bias. It's been what's been suspected of happening for a few years now, but this 2016 is truly a case in point.
It seems unacceptable.
rose couldn't care less about it either. MN's coach is the next B1G leader who could correct wrongs.
Nebraska is always fearful of upending any system which by they could strategically benefit. |
|
