|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 2, 2017 0:45:29 GMT -5
I wonder who has the nerve to play Creighton OOC? Their going to be very good early. I would like to see Nebraska play Creighton in preseason. Doesn't USC have an agreement with them?
|
|
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: 28,153
|
Post by trojansc on Jan 2, 2017 1:49:49 GMT -5
USC / Creighton / Northern Iowa / Kentucky renewed their agreement for 4 more years (2017-2020)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 2, 2017 1:51:25 GMT -5
USC / Creighton / Northern Iowa / Kentucky renewed their agreement for 4 more years (2017-2020) That's an RPI goldmine of a tourney.
|
|
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: 28,153
|
Post by trojansc on Jan 2, 2017 1:53:33 GMT -5
USC / Creighton / Northern Iowa / Kentucky renewed their agreement for 4 more years (2017-2020) That's an RPI goldmine of a tourney. Yup - and all four of them know it. Of course going 0-3 won't help you, but even 1-2 could be the difference between a bid and no bid for a team like Northern Iowa. USC went 12-0 however, I think only dropping two sets to Creighton and one to Northern Iowa (both this year).
|
|
|
Post by simpleton on Jan 2, 2017 22:50:10 GMT -5
This is really good info. Great resource.
|
|
|
Post by Steve vb on Jan 3, 2017 1:15:46 GMT -5
They have been in an annual tournament with Kentucky, USC, and Northern Iowa for the past few years. From my understanding, Creighton will host the tournament next season.
Edit to add: Sorry, I should have read till the end of the thread before this post.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 3, 2017 15:13:46 GMT -5
I wonder who has the nerve to play Creighton OOC? Their going to be very good early. I would like to see Nebraska play Creighton in preseason. Any and every top team should want to play them - particularly if they get them at home or neutral. Not the best team to play in terms of RPI - they will be a tough win, but the risk to the RPI if you lose is pretty small. Essentially a low risk high reward opponent. The question will be how Creighton schedules? Just looking at what happened to them this year in terms of RPI - they need to schedule well in OOC, and thy need to win more matches. I don't follow what you mean here. Basic RPI doesn't care if you win or lose a particular match. A loss is a loss and a win is a win. You get the benefit (or penalty) of your opponent's record in your SOS regardless of whether you win or lose. Do you mean that their expected record will benefit RPI through SOS more than a loss will hurt RPI? It seems like that obviously depends on the team in question. For instance, if team A has a perfect record and also an SOS percentage higher than Creighton's expected W-L %, then they would only lose RPI by playing them regardless of the outcome of the match. (Of course, such a team would already have an insanely high RPI.)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 3, 2017 15:33:28 GMT -5
Any and every top team should want to play them - particularly if they get them at home or neutral. Not the best team to play in terms of RPI - they will be a tough win, but the risk to the RPI if you lose is pretty small. Essentially a low risk high reward opponent. The question will be how Creighton schedules? Just looking at what happened to them this year in terms of RPI - they need to schedule well in OOC, and thy need to win more matches. I don't follow what you mean here. Basic RPI doesn't care if you win or lose a particular match. A loss is a loss and a win is a win. You get the benefit (or penalty) of your opponent's record in your SOS regardless of whether you win or lose. Do you mean that their expected record will benefit RPI through SOS more than a loss will hurt RPI? It seems like that obviously depends on the team in question. For instance, if team A has a perfect record and also an SOS percentage higher than Creighton's expected W-L %, then they would only lose RPI by playing them regardless of the outcome of the match. (Of course, such a team would already have an insanely high RPI.) Creighton will be an SOS benefit for every team - SOS caps out in the mid-60s, with most top teams in the high 50s, and Creighton is well above that. Creighton has traditionally been one of the better risk/reward options with the degree of difficulty with the opportunity for Top 25/50 bonus points - and consistency (RPI darlings from smaller conferences are usually difficult to predict - only a small few- Creighton, WKU, American, Lipscomb have been as predictable) making them better options than some of the other RPI-pumping opportunities. Plus Creighton, with a Top 25-ish RPI, has non mathematic benefits for your profile. The Committee loves teams that play Top 25 opponents in the non-con and Creighton is one of the best options to do that and to boost RPI (playing a 10-loss PAC/B1G team won't do as much for you and won't be any easier to beat).
|
|
|
Post by bbk on Jan 3, 2017 15:55:08 GMT -5
I don't follow what you mean here. Basic RPI doesn't care if you win or lose a particular match. A loss is a loss and a win is a win. You get the benefit (or penalty) of your opponent's record in your SOS regardless of whether you win or lose. Do you mean that their expected record will benefit RPI through SOS more than a loss will hurt RPI? It seems like that obviously depends on the team in question. For instance, if team A has a perfect record and also an SOS percentage higher than Creighton's expected W-L %, then they would only lose RPI by playing them regardless of the outcome of the match. (Of course, such a team would already have an insanely high RPI.) Creighton will be an SOS benefit for every team - SOS caps out in the mid-60s, with most top teams in the high 50s, and Creighton is well above that. Creighton has traditionally been one of the better risk/reward options with the degree of difficulty with the opportunity for Top 25/50 bonus points - and consistency (RPI darlings from smaller conferences are usually difficult to predict - only a small few- Creighton, WKU, American, Lipscomb have been as predictable) making them better options than some of the other RPI-pumping opportunities. Plus Creighton, with a Top 25-ish RPI, has non mathematic benefits for your profile. The Committee loves teams that play Top 25 opponents in the non-con and Creighton is one of the best options to do that and to boost RPI (playing a 10-loss PAC/B1G team won't do as much for you and won't be any easier to beat). Interesting discussion. But would not the team playing a high RPI team also get Opponents Opponents SOS as well?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 3, 2017 16:07:36 GMT -5
Creighton will be an SOS benefit for every team - SOS caps out in the mid-60s, with most top teams in the high 50s, and Creighton is well above that. Creighton has traditionally been one of the better risk/reward options with the degree of difficulty with the opportunity for Top 25/50 bonus points - and consistency (RPI darlings from smaller conferences are usually difficult to predict - only a small few- Creighton, WKU, American, Lipscomb have been as predictable) making them better options than some of the other RPI-pumping opportunities. Plus Creighton, with a Top 25-ish RPI, has non mathematic benefits for your profile. The Committee loves teams that play Top 25 opponents in the non-con and Creighton is one of the best options to do that and to boost RPI (playing a 10-loss PAC/B1G team won't do as much for you and won't be any easier to beat). Interesting discussion. But would not the team playing a high RPI team also get Opponents Opponents SOS as well? Opp SOS is not big enough to be a consideration in scheduling IMO. The difference between the very best SOS's (Nebraska at 60% - and that's post-tourney) and lowest (Alcorn St. at 38%) is only 1/4 the range of actual W-L percentages (which do go from 0-100). But the range gets even smaller when you remove outliers. As long as you don't play in the MEAC or SWAC, almost everybody you play will be somewhere in the 40s and 50s. Creighton was over 50% in OPP SOS FWIW. OPP SOS is making very small changes to a metric that's only worth half as much.
|
|
|
Post by bbk on Jan 3, 2017 16:22:22 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. But would not the team playing a high RPI team also get Opponents Opponents SOS as well? Opp SOS is not big enough to be a consideration in scheduling IMO. The difference between the very best SOS's (Nebraska at 60% - and that's post-tourney) and lowest (Alcorn St. at 38%) is only 1/4 the range of actual W-L percentages (which do go from 0-100). But the range gets even smaller when you remove outliers. As long as you don't play in the MEAC or SWAC, almost everybody you play will be somewhere in the 40s and 50s. Creighton was over 50% in OPP SOS FWIW. OPP SOS is making very small changes to a metric that's only worth half as much. Makes sense only if you are in one of those conferences whose RPI averages in the mid 200's
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 3, 2017 16:49:15 GMT -5
I don't follow what you mean here. Basic RPI doesn't care if you win or lose a particular match. A loss is a loss and a win is a win. You get the benefit (or penalty) of your opponent's record in your SOS regardless of whether you win or lose. Do you mean that their expected record will benefit RPI through SOS more than a loss will hurt RPI? It seems like that obviously depends on the team in question. For instance, if team A has a perfect record and also an SOS percentage higher than Creighton's expected W-L %, then they would only lose RPI by playing them regardless of the outcome of the match. (Of course, such a team would already have an insanely high RPI.) Creighton will be an SOS benefit for every team - SOS caps out in the mid-60s, with most top teams in the high 50s, and Creighton is well above that. Creighton has traditionally been one of the better risk/reward options with the degree of difficulty with the opportunity for Top 25/50 bonus points - and consistency (RPI darlings from smaller conferences are usually difficult to predict - only a small few- Creighton, WKU, American, Lipscomb have been as predictable) making them better options than some of the other RPI-pumping opportunities. Plus Creighton, with a Top 25-ish RPI, has non mathematic benefits for your profile. The Committee loves teams that play Top 25 opponents in the non-con and Creighton is one of the best options to do that and to boost RPI (playing a 10-loss PAC/B1G team won't do as much for you and won't be any easier to beat). There is no "cap" for SOS, as far as I am aware. Do you just mean that in practice the highest SOSs run to that range?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 3, 2017 17:00:02 GMT -5
Creighton will be an SOS benefit for every team - SOS caps out in the mid-60s, with most top teams in the high 50s, and Creighton is well above that. Creighton has traditionally been one of the better risk/reward options with the degree of difficulty with the opportunity for Top 25/50 bonus points - and consistency (RPI darlings from smaller conferences are usually difficult to predict - only a small few- Creighton, WKU, American, Lipscomb have been as predictable) making them better options than some of the other RPI-pumping opportunities. Plus Creighton, with a Top 25-ish RPI, has non mathematic benefits for your profile. The Committee loves teams that play Top 25 opponents in the non-con and Creighton is one of the best options to do that and to boost RPI (playing a 10-loss PAC/B1G team won't do as much for you and won't be any easier to beat). There is no "cap" for SOS, as far as I am aware. Do you just mean that in practice the highest SOSs run to that range? Yes. I think there's been maybe one team to get into the 70s. And it's a rarity for a team to get within a couple of points of that. Texas only made it to 67.7% pre-tourney, and that's with a relatively short conference season (only 16 v 10 non-con) and pretty optimal scheduling.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Jan 3, 2017 17:02:52 GMT -5
Creighton will be an SOS benefit for every team - SOS caps out in the mid-60s, with most top teams in the high 50s, and Creighton is well above that. Creighton has traditionally been one of the better risk/reward options with the degree of difficulty with the opportunity for Top 25/50 bonus points - and consistency (RPI darlings from smaller conferences are usually difficult to predict - only a small few- Creighton, WKU, American, Lipscomb have been as predictable) making them better options than some of the other RPI-pumping opportunities. Plus Creighton, with a Top 25-ish RPI, has non mathematic benefits for your profile. The Committee loves teams that play Top 25 opponents in the non-con and Creighton is one of the best options to do that and to boost RPI (playing a 10-loss PAC/B1G team won't do as much for you and won't be any easier to beat). There is no "cap" for SOS, as far as I am aware. Do you just mean that in practice the highest SOSs run to that range? There IS a SOS cap for teams playing in conferences. Not counting your own results against them, your conference opponents will have an equal number of wins and losses in conference (assuming balance schedule) or close to that if imbalanced schedule. Your SOS is .500 for conference matches (for balanced conference schedules) or close to that for unbalanced conference schedules. There is a mathematical "cap" to how much you can improve (or reduce that) that, but it depends on exactly how many non-conference matches you play. The numbers he mentioned are an accurate SOS range, with theoretical max caps slightly higher.
|
|
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 Jan 3, 2017 18:03:26 GMT -5
Any and every top team should want to play them - particularly if they get them at home or neutral. Not the best team to play in terms of RPI - they will be a tough win, but the risk to the RPI if you lose is pretty small. Essentially a low risk high reward opponent. The question will be how Creighton schedules? Just looking at what happened to them this year in terms of RPI - they need to schedule well in OOC, and thy need to win more matches. I don't follow what you mean here. Basic RPI doesn't care if you win or lose a particular match. A loss is a loss and a win is a win. You get the benefit (or penalty) of your opponent's record in your SOS regardless of whether you win or lose. Do you mean that their expected record will benefit RPI through SOS more than a loss will hurt RPI? It seems like that obviously depends on the team in question. For instance, if team A has a perfect record and also an SOS percentage higher than Creighton's expected W-L %, then they would only lose RPI by playing them regardless of the outcome of the match. (Of course, such a team would already have an insanely high RPI.) The line of logic I had is:
1) losing a match to a team with a very good overall record (in this example Creighton for next year) will have a very small (negative) impact on a team's final RPI compared to not playing the match. 2) winning a match against a team with a very good overall record has a strong positive impact to the team's RPI compared to not playing the match. 3) There are other potential aspects - potential Top 25 win and the bonus points that go along with this. Also may make the difference in terms of scheduling bonus points (although there are many better options for this). 4) There are plenty of bad teams (bad records) where you are much worse off playing the match and winning compared to not playing the match at all.
If a top team has something like a 50% chance of beating Creighton - than this is a great risk/reward opportunity for the team. A 15-25% chance of winning probably makes this a good decision to schedule (a Top 15 team is probably going to be something close to 50%). Given the conference for Creighton - there is probably a very low chance that Creighton doesn't have a really good record, they may be one of the better bets for a very good record and for being a Top 25 opponent.
Teams to avoid for RPI are teams from the Big Ten or Pac 12. There is the risk that they will have a middling record despite being a quality opponent - and if they do have a really good record than they become very hard to beat. Creighton may be difficult to beat, but they are not likely to be elite level - and seems like a pretty good bet to have a very good record. Hard to find many other Top 25 teams that are both 'beatable' and have a high % chance of being a top 25 team. For this reason - any and all top teams should want Creighton on their schedule (Creighton needs to be 'choosey' on who they want to play, they should have the power). You can probably throw Kansas, North Carolina, and Kentucky into a similar boat - everyone should be trying to schedule these teams, so these teams should have the power in determining who they get to play. USC is benefited more by playing Creighton and Kentucky than Creighton and Kentucky are benefited by playing USC. Way too much risk associated with playing a team like USC - they can be elite or very hard to beat and they can also end up with a middling record because of the hard conference they play in.
|
|