|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 27, 2017 17:52:24 GMT -5
I've seen LB's schedule where I thought it would be great for RPI (good ACC & SEC opponents from prior years), solid western opponents - and then it just falls flat That's because despite years of complaining about the RPI, you *still* have no idea how it works or what a good RPI schedule looks like. lol - that was so informative I guess after years of posting, you still have no class
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 27, 2017 17:58:59 GMT -5
I think it can be simplistic to think one can always 'game' RPI one adage is to just schedule decent 'East' for the western teams - it's one thing to try to project your opponents schedule while also trying to get agreements for home and homes, etc. a lot of people on here try to make it sound easy I've seen LB's schedule where I thought it would be great for RPI (good ACC & SEC opponents from prior years), solid western opponents - and then it just falls flat it really is not as easy as a lot of people make it sound - it's not s if like coaches of teams ranked in that purgatory of 40-100 don't realize they want RPI to be on their side - but there are a lot of variables to scheduling my point is, overcoming RPI bias shouldn't be a primary focus of scheduling - it's neanderthal Agreed - there is no guarantee and things can work out badly despite doing the best job of scheduling. But that is true for every team regardless of their region of the country. I am talking about improving ones odds (and all teams are not doing this).
My hypothesis is there would be no regional bias if everyone (conferences) gamed the system. That may not be the best way to get to the right solution, but if we are going to rely on RPI it may be the only way to get to a more acceptable answer. Better RPI Education and a commitment from the conferences with their schools.
agree with most of that I just question the idea that with all the information available about RPI that most (not every one) does not try to game it in some way - that it is likely in the mind of almost every staff when they do scheduling - and especially in the west where they KNOW they have a bigger RPI hurdle to overcome now knowing what they need to do, and having the scheduling flexibility and budget to do it can be two different things - plus you have (in the abstract) all the western teams chasing the same goal by trying to schedule the 'RPI favorable' pool now a program like Fullerton or Riverside - RPI is probably not something to dwell on because they are trying to just get good enough to where RPI would even matter.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 27, 2017 18:36:01 GMT -5
Agreed - there is no guarantee and things can work out badly despite doing the best job of scheduling. But that is true for every team regardless of their region of the country. I am talking about improving ones odds (and all teams are not doing this).
My hypothesis is there would be no regional bias if everyone (conferences) gamed the system. That may not be the best way to get to the right solution, but if we are going to rely on RPI it may be the only way to get to a more acceptable answer. Better RPI Education and a commitment from the conferences with their schools.
agree with most of that I just question the idea that with all the information available about RPI that most (not every one) does not try to game it in some way - that it is likely in the mind of almost every staff when they do scheduling - and especially in the west where they KNOW they have a bigger RPI hurdle to overcome now knowing what they need to do, and having the scheduling flexibility and budget to do it can be two different things - plus you have (in the abstract) all the western teams chasing the same goal by trying to schedule the 'RPI favorable' pool now a program like Fullerton or Riverside - RPI is probably not something to dwell on because they are trying to just get good enough to where RPI would even matter. Clearly they don't. Long Beach flew for their opening weekend tournament (so they had the funds for a team flight). To where? Not east, but Portland to play Portland State (#7 in the Big Sky preseason poll), Texas Tech (#8 in the Big 12 preseason poll), and Colorado (#7 in the Pac-12 preseason poll). They also played San Jose State later in the year (#10 in the Mt West preseason poll) and Cal (#10 in the Pac-12 preseason poll). If Gimmillaro is trying to game the RPI in some way, it's in a way that I don't know about. Since you mention Fullerton and Riverside, getting them to buy in to the RPI game is just as important. The SEC has done this masterfully. The teams in the bottom of the league almost always are scheduling to simply pick up as many non-conference wins as possible. If the top Big West coaches can't convince the cellar dwellars to buy in, that's a major issue.
|
|
|
Post by Northern lights on Feb 27, 2017 19:08:54 GMT -5
I would think no matter what method the NCAA uses, it will always be contentious.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Feb 27, 2017 20:06:46 GMT -5
Agreed - there is no guarantee and things can work out badly despite doing the best job of scheduling. But that is true for every team regardless of their region of the country. I am talking about improving ones odds (and all teams are not doing this).
My hypothesis is there would be no regional bias if everyone (conferences) gamed the system. That may not be the best way to get to the right solution, but if we are going to rely on RPI it may be the only way to get to a more acceptable answer. Better RPI Education and a commitment from the conferences with their schools.
Most Western teams simply aren't willing to fly across the country in September to play the likes of Dayton or Howard or Florida Gulf Coast, all of which would have been excellent RPI boosters last year. Besides, when Washington *did* do that last year, they got trashed for it and ended up being seeded below two teams that they placed ahead of in conference play. Washington is a poor example to use for scheduling for RPI, just as someone else pointed out for LBSU. Washington did NOT get trashed for flying East as you contend - playing American and JMU actually HELPED their RPI. Stanford and UCLA did better at scheduling for RPI and were rewarded accordingly. They are better models of how to schedule for RPI, not Washington or LBSU. BAD CHOICES: Idaho Utah Valley Maryland QUESTIONABLE CHOICES: Seattle* Oklahoma* GOOD CHOICES: American JMU Villanova Hawaii NIU *Seattle was 18-11 in 2015, but a tradition of losing seasons. *Oklahoma has a tradition of winning, but had a losing record in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Feb 27, 2017 20:11:59 GMT -5
This would be the only excuse for conferences not being able to overcome the regional bias. However, my sense is that teams in the West are more likely to view their scheduling in terms of their own team and teams in the East are scheduling for the good of the conference.
The opportunity for scheduling are not the same possibly for financial reasons - doesn't mean they couldn't do better. Look at San Francisco's non conference schedule last year - doesn't look very regional to me. Savannah State, UNC Asheville, Georgia, Indiana, Columbia, Campbell, Princeton, St. John's, Brown, UCSB, UC Irvine, N.Arizona, UC Riverside. That schedule doesn't look much different than Rutgers. As it turns out, both teams went 4-9 out of conference. This was actually an appropriate schedule for San Francisco (they just ended up being a bad team). Seems like more Western teams could expand the regions of their opponents, but choose not to.
I think it can be simplistic to think one can always 'game' RPI one adage is to just schedule decent 'East' for the western teams - it's one thing to try to project your opponents schedule while also trying to get agreements for home and homes, etc. a lot of people on here try to make it sound easy I've seen LB's schedule where I thought it would be great for RPI (good ACC & SEC opponents from prior years), solid western opponents - and then it just falls flat it really is not as easy as a lot of people make it sound - it's not s if like coaches of teams ranked in that purgatory of 40-100 don't realize they want RPI to be on their side - but there are a lot of variables to scheduling my point is, overcoming RPI bias shouldn't be a primary focus of scheduling - it's neanderthal Regarding your last sentence – scheduling for RPI actually SHOULD be a primary consideration if a team goal is to earn an at-large bid (or better seed) in NCAA tournament. Or scheduling for WHATEVER criteria the NCAA decide on for selection. If your main goal is something else: improve record over last season, win conference regular season, help with conference RPI, win conference tournament, get better by playing tough teams, etc., etc., well you may want to schedule differently for those goals.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 27, 2017 20:32:38 GMT -5
agree with most of that I just question the idea that with all the information available about RPI that most (not every one) does not try to game it in some way - that it is likely in the mind of almost every staff when they do scheduling - and especially in the west where they KNOW they have a bigger RPI hurdle to overcome now knowing what they need to do, and having the scheduling flexibility and budget to do it can be two different things - plus you have (in the abstract) all the western teams chasing the same goal by trying to schedule the 'RPI favorable' pool now a program like Fullerton or Riverside - RPI is probably not something to dwell on because they are trying to just get good enough to where RPI would even matter. Clearly they don't. Long Beach flew for their opening weekend tournament (so they had the funds for a team flight). To where? Not east, but Portland to play Portland State (#7 in the Big Sky preseason poll), Texas Tech (#8 in the Big 12 preseason poll), and Colorado (#7 in the Pac-12 preseason poll). They also played San Jose State later in the year (#10 in the Mt West preseason poll) and Cal (#10 in the Pac-12 preseason poll). If Gimmillaro is trying to game the RPI in some way, it's in a way that I don't know about. Since you mention Fullerton and Riverside, getting them to buy in to the RPI game is just as important. The SEC has done this masterfully. The teams in the bottom of the league almost always are scheduling to simply pick up as many non-conference wins as possible. If the top Big West coaches can't convince the cellar dwellars to buy in, that's a major issue. I wasn't referring to last year in regards to LB - last year wasn't good was referring to the prior year where they had Alabama & Duke come out. And went and played a tournament at Harvard that had 2 teams from the tourney the year before. And until last year, they had typically played ACC-SEC-Big 10 teams and other eastern teams regularly, not always with great RPI results of course it helps if UCR & Fullerton game their RPI for the conference, but the fact is those schools have much bigger things to worry about than RPI, they aren't going to compete for an at-large until they make other strides in the program. That's my point, people come on here and make it sound like scheduling for RPI is simple, there's a lot of things out a team's control, and it's harder in the west and when a program has limited resources.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Feb 27, 2017 20:35:53 GMT -5
It would be a shame to shutdown RPI -- really a solid institution academically speaking ...
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 27, 2017 20:53:13 GMT -5
Most Western teams simply aren't willing to fly across the country in September to play the likes of Dayton or Howard or Florida Gulf Coast, all of which would have been excellent RPI boosters last year. Besides, when Washington *did* do that last year, they got trashed for it and ended up being seeded below two teams that they placed ahead of in conference play. Washington is a poor example to use for scheduling for RPI, just as someone else pointed out for LBSU. Washington did NOT get trashed for flying East as you contend - playing American and JMU actually HELPED their RPI. Stanford and UCLA did better at scheduling for RPI and were rewarded accordingly. They are better models of how to schedule for RPI, not Washington or LBSU. BAD CHOICES: Idaho Utah Valley Maryland QUESTIONABLE CHOICES: Seattle* Oklahoma* GOOD CHOICES: American JMU Villanova Hawaii NIU *Seattle was 18-11 in 2015, but a tradition of losing seasons. *Oklahoma has a tradition of winning, but had a losing record in 2015. You obviously misunderstood what I wrote. I know those choices helped their RPI. My point was that even though they had a good RPI, they were seeded 3rd from the PAC even though they won the conference and had that good RPI. Why? Apparently it was because the committee decided to penalize them for their non-conference schedule even though it was very much the schedule that RPI says they should have tried to schedule. It was very annoying. The committee can reward teams for their high RPI despite playing a schedule much weaker than any PAC-12 team plays, and yet if you are a PAC-12 team then a high RPI does not seem to give you much credit.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 27, 2017 20:57:21 GMT -5
Washington is a poor example to use for scheduling for RPI, just as someone else pointed out for LBSU. Washington did NOT get trashed for flying East as you contend - playing American and JMU actually HELPED their RPI. Stanford and UCLA did better at scheduling for RPI and were rewarded accordingly. They are better models of how to schedule for RPI, not Washington or LBSU. BAD CHOICES: Idaho Utah Valley Maryland QUESTIONABLE CHOICES: Seattle* Oklahoma* GOOD CHOICES: American JMU Villanova Hawaii NIU *Seattle was 18-11 in 2015, but a tradition of losing seasons. *Oklahoma has a tradition of winning, but had a losing record in 2015. You obviously misunderstood what I wrote. I know those choices helped their RPI. My point was that even though they had a good RPI, they were seeded 3rd from the PAC even though they won the conference and had that good RPI. Why? Apparently it was because the committee decided to penalize them for their non-conference schedule even though it was very much the schedule that RPI says they should have tried to schedule. It was very annoying. The committee can reward teams for their high RPI despite playing a schedule much weaker than any PAC-12 team plays, and yet if you are a PAC-12 team then a high RPI does not seem to give you much credit. Washington fans obviously aren't happy, but I think the committee has been fairly consistent with this. When it comes to teams on the bubble and hosting, raw RPI numbers have been paramount. However, when comparing the best of the best they've always seemed to care more about playing and beating other elite teams.
|
|
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 Feb 27, 2017 21:29:39 GMT -5
agree with most of that I just question the idea that with all the information available about RPI that most (not every one) does not try to game it in some way - that it is likely in the mind of almost every staff when they do scheduling - and especially in the west where they KNOW they have a bigger RPI hurdle to overcome now knowing what they need to do, and having the scheduling flexibility and budget to do it can be two different things - plus you have (in the abstract) all the western teams chasing the same goal by trying to schedule the 'RPI favorable' pool now a program like Fullerton or Riverside - RPI is probably not something to dwell on because they are trying to just get good enough to where RPI would even matter. Clearly they don't. Long Beach flew for their opening weekend tournament (so they had the funds for a team flight). To where? Not east, but Portland to play Portland State (#7 in the Big Sky preseason poll), Texas Tech (#8 in the Big 12 preseason poll), and Colorado (#7 in the Pac-12 preseason poll). They also played San Jose State later in the year (#10 in the Mt West preseason poll) and Cal (#10 in the Pac-12 preseason poll). If Gimmillaro is trying to game the RPI in some way, it's in a way that I don't know about. Since you mention Fullerton and Riverside, getting them to buy in to the RPI game is just as important. The SEC has done this masterfully. The teams in the bottom of the league almost always are scheduling to simply pick up as many non-conference wins as possible. If the top Big West coaches can't convince the cellar dwellars to buy in, that's a major issue. IMO - there has been a lot of very good comments in this thread and way more agreement than it might appear. But this here really hits it on the head for me. It isn't just teams that need to schedule better - it is the conferences that need to schedule better. It sure the heck appears to me that Rutgers is scheduling in the best interest of the Big Ten. The bottom teams in the SEC are scheduling in the best interest of the SEC. Some bottom teams in the MWC scheduled in the best interest of the MWC. This may be just coincidence. This may be better probabilities of getting it right because of geography. This may be completely random. But it is happening and can happen - and I just don't see the WCC and Big West Conference playing the same game. We probably all agree there is a better way that doesn't include RPI. But this is an old argument whose only solution has been to just complain. If RPI isn't going away - then I believe there is a way to make RPI better w/o having the NCAA to change how RPI is calculated. And that is for each conference to work to maximize their RPI opportunity. It will not perfect - but it has a good chance of reducing much of the bad biases currently going on. MWC and SEC gained an RPI advantage - but that advantage can only be obtained if other similar conferences are not trying to take the same advantages against the system.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 27, 2017 21:29:58 GMT -5
You obviously misunderstood what I wrote. I know those choices helped their RPI. My point was that even though they had a good RPI, they were seeded 3rd from the PAC even though they won the conference and had that good RPI. Why? Apparently it was because the committee decided to penalize them for their non-conference schedule even though it was very much the schedule that RPI says they should have tried to schedule. It was very annoying. The committee can reward teams for their high RPI despite playing a schedule much weaker than any PAC-12 team plays, and yet if you are a PAC-12 team then a high RPI does not seem to give you much credit. Washington fans obviously aren't happy, but I think the committee has been fairly consistent with this. When it comes to teams on the bubble and hosting, raw RPI numbers have been paramount. However, when comparing the best of the best they've always seemed to care more about playing and beating other elite teams. And winning the PAC-12 doesn't count for that? Look, this is why RPI was created. When the "elite teams" only play each other ("Big 4" tournament, etc.) then other good teams get dinged because they didn't play the elite teams. And yet the elite teams don't risk anything, because if they lose, well they lost to PSU or Texas, etc. RPI was initially created to reward those elite teams for playing other teams that had good records. Washington last year was 26-4 going into the tournament. They won the PAC-12. They had the number 6 RPI. And they were sent to play Nebraska in Nebraska, seeded below RPI#8 North Carolina and RPI#11 Stanford (who they lost to twice but beat in the conference standings). And yes, obviously I know Stanford won the tournament, but they didn't have to play Nebraska in Nebraska either. The NCAA should fix this stuff. Right now they have such nebulous standards for seeding that those people in the closed room can come up with almost anything and defend it if they want. RPI? Important, except when it's not. Head-to-head? Important, except when it's not. Winning the conference? Important, except when it's not. North Carolina's entire "elite" resume basically consisted of playing Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Penn State once each, but somehow that was enough to jump them over Washington in the seedings. How did THAT happen? What I'm asking for is that the NCAA more clearly communicates what they want teams to do to get seeded, then makes sure that all teams have an equal chance to do it. Something like pablo would be ideal -- it doesn't depend on whether you scheduled "the right" teams. Or even RPI, if they just said "we're going strictly by RPI". At least then teams would know what they need to do.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Feb 27, 2017 21:31:31 GMT -5
Washington is a poor example to use for scheduling for RPI, just as someone else pointed out for LBSU. Washington did NOT get trashed for flying East as you contend - playing American and JMU actually HELPED their RPI. Stanford and UCLA did better at scheduling for RPI and were rewarded accordingly. They are better models of how to schedule for RPI, not Washington or LBSU. BAD CHOICES: Idaho Utah Valley Maryland QUESTIONABLE CHOICES: Seattle* Oklahoma* GOOD CHOICES: American JMU Villanova Hawaii NIU *Seattle was 18-11 in 2015, but a tradition of losing seasons. *Oklahoma has a tradition of winning, but had a losing record in 2015. You obviously misunderstood what I wrote. I know those choices helped their RPI. My point was that even though they had a good RPI, they were seeded 3rd from the PAC even though they won the conference and had that good RPI. Why? Apparently it was because the committee decided to penalize them for their non-conference schedule even though it was very much the schedule that RPI says they should have tried to schedule. It was very annoying. The committee can reward teams for their high RPI despite playing a schedule much weaker than any PAC-12 team plays, and yet if you are a PAC-12 team then a high RPI does not seem to give you much credit. Thanks for explaining what you meant. But, "as you know" - winning the conference is not part of the primary selection criteria. Also, "as you know", there are other criteria for selection and seeding besides RPI. The 3 teams mentioned were all PAC, so not sure what your last argument is in reference too. We can break down the NCAA team sheets on the 3 teams if you want, but not really germane to the thread. In summary, Washington scheduled average for RPI, won a lot of games, got benefit of PAC conference RPI, and ended up with a good RPI. Their other selection/seeding criteria were not as strong as some other teams.
|
|
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 Feb 28, 2017 9:04:46 GMT -5
Washington fans obviously aren't happy, but I think the committee has been fairly consistent with this. When it comes to teams on the bubble and hosting, raw RPI numbers have been paramount. However, when comparing the best of the best they've always seemed to care more about playing and beating other elite teams. And winning the PAC-12 doesn't count for that? Look, this is why RPI was created. When the "elite teams" only play each other ("Big 4" tournament, etc.) then other good teams get dinged because they didn't play the elite teams. And yet the elite teams don't risk anything, because if they lose, well they lost to PSU or Texas, etc. RPI was initially created to reward those elite teams for playing other teams that had good records. Washington last year was 26-4 going into the tournament. They won the PAC-12. They had the number 6 RPI. And they were sent to play Nebraska in Nebraska, seeded below RPI#8 North Carolina and RPI#11 Stanford (who they lost to twice but beat in the conference standings). And yes, obviously I know Stanford won the tournament, but they didn't have to play Nebraska in Nebraska either. The NCAA should fix this stuff. Right now they have such nebulous standards for seeding that those people in the closed room can come up with almost anything and defend it if they want. RPI? Important, except when it's not. Head-to-head? Important, except when it's not. Winning the conference? Important, except when it's not. North Carolina's entire "elite" resume basically consisted of playing Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Penn State once each, but somehow that was enough to jump them over Washington in the seedings. How did THAT happen? What I'm asking for is that the NCAA more clearly communicates what they want teams to do to get seeded, then makes sure that all teams have an equal chance to do it. Something like pablo would be ideal -- it doesn't depend on whether you scheduled "the right" teams. Or even RPI, if they just said "we're going strictly by RPI". At least then teams would know what they need to do. Agreed.
I probably defended the committee more than anyone after the selection - however I found the seeding of Washington and Penn State getting seeded very confusing. Going forward, I feel we have less clarity as opposed to more.
Near as I can tell - we have to go with undefined/changing metrics in determining the order of the 16 seeds? Maybe they used there honest opinion of how the teams should be seeded - and downgrade the importance of RPI. This may be a good thing, but doesn't really provide much clarity going forward.
RPI: Washington finished #6 - but the difference between #5 and #14 was less than the difference between #4 and #5. For this reason, I would like to think the committee would not strictly go by just RPI rank because the difference in many cases was essentially rounding differences.
Conference Championship: I think this should have a major impact when seeding - it would appear that the committee disagreed last year, but it would also appear this hasn't been consistent and really doesn't provide much clarity going forward. It seemed to matter in past years, didn't matter last year - will it matter this year?
Non Conference Schedule: This might be the most overrated metric that appears to have been used by the committee (again, I am choosing to agree to disagree). If you play in the PAC or B1G - you cannot help but play a tough schedule no matter what was done in the noncom. Why would we just look at the non conference schedule and not the entire schedule. And this notion of a team's Non Conference RPI is the absolute dumbest metric I have ever heard. The sample size is way too small to mean anything - and small sample sizes are the death of any metric (not to mention an already flawed metric such as RPI).
I think there was some improvements to the 2016 Brackets, but I also feel we have less clarity on what is going to be important for 2017.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 28, 2017 11:30:23 GMT -5
Washington facing Nebraska in a Regional in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016 (five out of seven years) is not coincidental, but can only be explained by intentional manipulation.
|
|