|
Post by n00b on Feb 28, 2017 12:01:00 GMT -5
Washington facing Nebraska in a Regional in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016 (five out of seven years) is not coincidental
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 28, 2017 12:10:45 GMT -5
Fine, you explain it. Looks to me that the wheel is crooked.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Feb 28, 2017 12:16:34 GMT -5
I realize unbalanced schedules in many conferences has SLIGHTLY diminished winning a conference title, but it seems to me by not putting significant weight on a conference championship, the NCAA selection committee is almost disregarding the regular season of volleyball.
I still maintain that, barring really unusual circumstances, there should be a rule that final conference standings have to align with seeding.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Feb 28, 2017 12:53:37 GMT -5
I realize unbalanced schedules in many conferences has SLIGHTLY diminished winning a conference title, but it seems to me by not putting significant weight on a conference championship, the NCAA selection committee is almost disregarding the regular season of volleyball. I still maintain that, barring really unusual circumstances, there should be a rule that final conference standings have to align with seeding. No there shouldn't, especially because of unbalanced schedules. Someone plays 4 top teams in conference twice, while other team plays them once (and bottom 4 twice). That is not comparing apples to apples. But also because of non-conference schedule. Someone beats (or loses to) cupcakes while someone else beats other teams going to NCAA's. Look at entire resume. Including conference wins/losses (but to actually who they played). Including non-conference. Including head to head, including common opponents. Including teams qualified or considered for NCAA. Oh wait, they already do all that....
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 28, 2017 13:10:51 GMT -5
I realize unbalanced schedules in many conferences has SLIGHTLY diminished winning a conference title, but it seems to me by not putting significant weight on a conference championship, the NCAA selection committee is almost disregarding the regular season of volleyball. I still maintain that, barring really unusual circumstances, there should be a rule that final conference standings have to align with seeding. I was really surprised at Washington's seedings. I was one of those who had seen evidence for the Committee valuing conference championships. What the Committee did here was say they value big wins more than not losing to Arizona. I agree with what Mike was saying, the Committee is now in a position where they can seed in any way they please and there are enough criteria that they can retcon whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 28, 2017 13:16:06 GMT -5
I realize unbalanced schedules in many conferences has SLIGHTLY diminished winning a conference title, but it seems to me by not putting significant weight on a conference championship, the NCAA selection committee is almost disregarding the regular season of volleyball. I still maintain that, barring really unusual circumstances, there should be a rule that final conference standings have to align with seeding. No there shouldn't, especially because of unbalanced schedules. Someone plays 4 top teams in conference twice, while other team plays them once (and bottom 4 twice). That is not comparing apples to apples. But also because of non-conference schedule. Someone beats (or loses to) cupcakes while someone else beats other teams going to NCAA's. Look at entire resume. Including conference wins/losses (but to actually who they played). Including non-conference. Including head to head, including common opponents. Including teams qualified or considered for NCAA. Oh wait, they already do all that.... The B1G (which is who you are talking about) has made their own bed, and they can now lie in it. They chose to expand, and they chose how to set up their schedules. And there is no reason why the last 2/3 of a team's schedule should mean much less for seeding than the first 1/3 of a team's schedule.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 28, 2017 13:34:00 GMT -5
I realize unbalanced schedules in many conferences has SLIGHTLY diminished winning a conference title, but it seems to me by not putting significant weight on a conference championship, the NCAA selection committee is almost disregarding the regular season of volleyball. I still maintain that, barring really unusual circumstances, there should be a rule that final conference standings have to align with seeding. I was really surprised at Washington's seedings. I was one of those who had seen evidence for the Committee valuing conference championships. What the Committee did here was say they value big wins more than not losing to Arizona. I agree with what Mike was saying, the Committee is now in a position where they can seed in any way they please and there are enough criteria that they can retcon whatever they want. Thanks. I know that a single-elim tournament is what it is, and some teams are always going to have stupidly harder paths than other teams, and no, I don't think the committee particularly has some grudge against Washington. But I would be strongly in favor of an algorithmic seeding process that takes things out of the hands of the committee. They have been inconsistent enough in the past that they can now do anything they want with no transparency, just when it's now more important than ever (because now it matters for who hosts the regionals). There should be a clear process for seeding that everyone knows in advance, so everyone can schedule and/or win their way into a regional host seed. If I was emperor, I would say that it should be pablo, although I would want to have some version control and more transparency of exactly how pablo works. Last year the pablo top eight seeds would have been: 1 Nebraska v. 8 Hawaii 2 Minnesota v. 7 Texas 3 Wisconsin v. 6 Washington 4 Stanford v. 5 Penn State And yes, that makes Penn State not only a seed but a high seed. Which was fair, because they were good. My objection to seeding them last year was not that they were not a good team, but that it violated past practice based on RPI. I think teams should be able to control their own fate by knowing what standard will be used for seeding and knowing that it won't be mysteriously changed based on what happens inside a closed discussion by the committee.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Feb 28, 2017 14:13:38 GMT -5
No there shouldn't, especially because of unbalanced schedules. Someone plays 4 top teams in conference twice, while other team plays them once (and bottom 4 twice). That is not comparing apples to apples. But also because of non-conference schedule. Someone beats (or loses to) cupcakes while someone else beats other teams going to NCAA's. Look at entire resume. Including conference wins/losses (but to actually who they played). Including non-conference. Including head to head, including common opponents. Including teams qualified or considered for NCAA. Oh wait, they already do all that.... The B1G (which is who you are talking about) has made their own bed, and they can now lie in it. They chose to expand, and they chose how to set up their schedules. And there is no reason why the last 2/3 of a team's schedule should mean much less for seeding than the first 1/3 of a team's schedule. Yes, the B1G did change schedule - understanding that conference championships are not important for NCAA bid or seeding in power conferences. PAC did not and "they can lie in the bed they made". Especially those with easy non-conference schedules. Funny that MPSF does same stupid stuff and complains about Men's VB bids/seeding. Kinda hilarious. It is not rocket science. I think the SEC does similar to the B1G with their schedule. Might make you go hmmmmmmm. The conference and non-conference both need to be considered. It should be weighted according to the criteria for bids/seeding. I.e., for weaker conferences, the first 1/3 MAY mean more than the last 2/3 (for at-large and seeding, not auto bids). Think about what you wrote and apply it to a weaker 2 bid conference that plays an unbalanced schedule. It is not a good general rule. It is a good rule for getting your team the seed you want.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 28, 2017 14:34:38 GMT -5
Dude, I've already said what I think would be a better system: something like pablo. Because it doesn't matter who you play in pablo, it's about how well you play. If you play well enough, pablo can figure out that you are a good team. There does have to be *some* mixing of opponents, of course.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 28, 2017 15:35:42 GMT -5
The B1G (which is who you are talking about) has made their own bed, and they can now lie in it. They chose to expand, and they chose how to set up their schedules. And there is no reason why the last 2/3 of a team's schedule should mean much less for seeding than the first 1/3 of a team's schedule. Yes, the B1G did change schedule - understanding that conference championships are not important for NCAA bid or seeding in power conferences. PAC did not and "they can lie in the bed they made". Especially those with easy non-conference schedules. Funny that MPSF does same stupid stuff and complains about Men's VB bids/seeding. Kinda hilarious. It is not rocket science. I think the SEC does similar to the B1G with their schedule. Might make you go hmmmmmmm. The conference and non-conference both need to be considered. It should be weighted according to the criteria for bids/seeding. I.e., for weaker conferences, the first 1/3 MAY mean more than the last 2/3 (for at-large and seeding, not auto bids). Think about what you wrote and apply it to a weaker 2 bid conference that plays an unbalanced schedule. It is not a good general rule. It is a good rule for getting your team the seed you want. The B1G changed the schedule not with any "understanding" but because of expansion to 14 teams. This expansion showed a side effect of unbalanced schedules - based on your conference draw, you can have wild RPI variations based on who you draw (by avoiding sure-fire losses to top teams or Rutgers-sized RPI bombs). The B1G hasn't realized that it's likely to hurt them on the bubble (see Michigan and Purdue 2014 as teams that could have made it with better conference schedules - though Purdue's OOC was way off that year - Illinois is probably in the tourney this year if instead of MD/Rutgers x2 they got rematches versus Iowa and Indiana - or chances at home against good teams who aren't great on the road like PSU and Michigan). The mid-level teams have the most variation in RPI from unbalanced schedules (top teams will generally win regardless, and bottoms will lose regardless, and not being on the mitigates SOS bombs) but the B1G's lower mid-level teams generally should be at-large quality and these teams have much more to lose than gain from that variation. The SEC loves it, as their mid-level teams would be on the outside looking in but can get a boost from the unbalanced schedule to grab a bid. I'd like to see a system that can evaluate teams in spite of their schedule, not because of it.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 28, 2017 16:00:16 GMT -5
I'd like to see a system that can evaluate teams in spite of their schedule, not because of it. Agreed. Which brings me back to pablo....
|
|
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 21:52:38 GMT -5
Yes, the B1G did change schedule - understanding that conference championships are not important for NCAA bid or seeding in power conferences. PAC did not and "they can lie in the bed they made". Especially those with easy non-conference schedules. Funny that MPSF does same stupid stuff and complains about Men's VB bids/seeding. Kinda hilarious. It is not rocket science. I think the SEC does similar to the B1G with their schedule. Might make you go hmmmmmmm. The conference and non-conference both need to be considered. It should be weighted according to the criteria for bids/seeding. I.e., for weaker conferences, the first 1/3 MAY mean more than the last 2/3 (for at-large and seeding, not auto bids). Think about what you wrote and apply it to a weaker 2 bid conference that plays an unbalanced schedule. It is not a good general rule. It is a good rule for getting your team the seed you want. The B1G changed the schedule not with any "understanding" but because of expansion to 14 teams. This expansion showed a side effect of unbalanced schedules - based on your conference draw, you can have wild RPI variations based on who you draw (by avoiding sure-fire losses to top teams or Rutgers-sized RPI bombs). The B1G hasn't realized that it's likely to hurt them on the bubble (see Michigan and Purdue 2014 as teams that could have made it with better conference schedules - though Purdue's OOC was way off that year - Illinois is probably in the tourney this year if instead of MD/Rutgers x2 they got rematches versus Iowa and Indiana - or chances at home against good teams who aren't great on the road like PSU and Michigan). The mid-level teams have the most variation in RPI from unbalanced schedules (top teams will generally win regardless, and bottoms will lose regardless, and not being on the mitigates SOS bombs) but the B1G's lower mid-level teams generally should be at-large quality and these teams have much more to lose than gain from that variation.
The SEC loves it, as their mid-level teams would be on the outside looking in but can get a boost from the unbalanced schedule to grab a bid.
I'd like to see a system that can evaluate teams in spite of their schedule, not because of it. I don't believe this to be the case (but I could be wrong). I think you have taken a couple examples and attached a cause to fit the narrative. There are many variables that impacts the RPI rankings within a conference. I am pretty sure that it wouldn't take much for either the PAC or B1G to meet a mini RPI disaster that would have nothing to do with the unbalanced schedule. The B1G either saw this in 2014 or were close to it. It will happen to the PAC - who is probably in more risk with regional bias. I believe the 2014 B1G RPI 'situation' was mostly due to enough underperformance in the non conference to set back the entire conference team's RPI - including Penn State and Wisconsin who had to pretty much dominated the conference to stay in the top 8 in RPI. Florida's unbalanced SEC conference schedule this past year was horrible for them. It prevented them from having a chance of a top 4 RPI - before they went ahead and lost a couple conference matches. I believe that the unbalanced conference schedules can create more RPI variation - but it is not predictable in likely to hurt mid-level teams. It can randomly hurt or help anyone.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 28, 2017 23:14:51 GMT -5
The B1G changed the schedule not with any "understanding" but because of expansion to 14 teams. This expansion showed a side effect of unbalanced schedules - based on your conference draw, you can have wild RPI variations based on who you draw (by avoiding sure-fire losses to top teams or Rutgers-sized RPI bombs). The B1G hasn't realized that it's likely to hurt them on the bubble (see Michigan and Purdue 2014 as teams that could have made it with better conference schedules - though Purdue's OOC was way off that year - Illinois is probably in the tourney this year if instead of MD/Rutgers x2 they got rematches versus Iowa and Indiana - or chances at home against good teams who aren't great on the road like PSU and Michigan). The mid-level teams have the most variation in RPI from unbalanced schedules (top teams will generally win regardless, and bottoms will lose regardless, and not being on the mitigates SOS bombs) but the B1G's lower mid-level teams generally should be at-large quality and these teams have much more to lose than gain from that variation.
The SEC loves it, as their mid-level teams would be on the outside looking in but can get a boost from the unbalanced schedule to grab a bid.
I'd like to see a system that can evaluate teams in spite of their schedule, not because of it. I don't believe this to be the case (but I could be wrong). I think you have taken a couple examples and attached a cause to fit the narrative. There are many variables that impacts the RPI rankings within a conference. I am pretty sure that it wouldn't take much for either the PAC or B1G to meet a mini RPI disaster that would have nothing to do with the unbalanced schedule. The B1G either saw this in 2014 or were close to it. It will happen to the PAC - who is probably in more risk with regional bias. I believe the 2014 B1G RPI 'situation' was mostly due to enough underperformance in the non conference to set back the entire conference team's RPI - including Penn State and Wisconsin who had to pretty much dominated the conference to stay in the top 8 in RPI. Florida's unbalanced SEC conference schedule this past year was horrible for them. It prevented them from having a chance of a top 4 RPI - before they went ahead and lost a couple conference matches. I believe that the unbalanced conference schedules can create more RPI variation - but it is not predictable in likely to hurt mid-level teams. It can randomly hurt or help anyone. I think his point was not that the mid-level teams take a bigger hit to their RPI, but rather that RPI is more important to them and so the consequences can be bigger.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 28, 2017 23:24:52 GMT -5
I don't believe this to be the case (but I could be wrong). I think you have taken a couple examples and attached a cause to fit the narrative. There are many variables that impacts the RPI rankings within a conference. I am pretty sure that it wouldn't take much for either the PAC or B1G to meet a mini RPI disaster that would have nothing to do with the unbalanced schedule. The B1G either saw this in 2014 or were close to it. It will happen to the PAC - who is probably in more risk with regional bias. I believe the 2014 B1G RPI 'situation' was mostly due to enough underperformance in the non conference to set back the entire conference team's RPI - including Penn State and Wisconsin who had to pretty much dominated the conference to stay in the top 8 in RPI. Florida's unbalanced SEC conference schedule this past year was horrible for them. It prevented them from having a chance of a top 4 RPI - before they went ahead and lost a couple conference matches. I believe that the unbalanced conference schedules can create more RPI variation - but it is not predictable in likely to hurt mid-level teams. It can randomly hurt or help anyone. I think his point was not that the mid-level teams take a bigger hit to their RPI, but rather that RPI is more important to them and so the consequences can be bigger. That's part of it. Where Florida is in the RPI, raw RPI is not as important as in the bubble. I'm also not sold that the SEC unbalanced schedule cost Florida. If they got Mizzou/UK x2 plus Arkansas x2 would they have been all that close to a top 4 RPI? My bigger point is that mid-level teams have a much greater W-L variance because of the unbalanced schedule. Florida would have maybe 1 more loss in a tough-as-possible SEC schedule, whereas an Alabama/A&M is going to have a significant difference in record based on unbalanced schedule. Nebraska's record was going to be pretty consistent regardless of who they draw - and the same with Rutgers. ,Rutgers and Maryland are the only teams with W-L records that make a tangible impact on the SOS if you draw them. A lower mid-level team's W-L is going to be greatly, greatly impacted by an unbalanced schedule.
|
|
mommy
Sophomore
Posts: 241
|
Post by mommy on Feb 28, 2017 23:43:07 GMT -5
What does RPI even stand for?
|
|