|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 1, 2017 0:54:38 GMT -5
|
|
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 Mar 1, 2017 9:12:59 GMT -5
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. I get that RPI is (only) most important to teams trying to get a seed (or regional host) and teams on the bubble. It has no relevance to teams out of contention for making the tournament. I just don't believe that an unbalanced schedule necessarily hurts or is more likely to hurt a mid-level team from the B1G. I think it is just as likely to help as hurt. The unbalanced schedule creates more variability.
I think you are taking the example of last year - Illinois misses the tournament, B1G has an unbalanced schedule, therefore Illinois was hurt because of the unbalanced schedule. In the PAC - all the mid-level teams made the tournament (except maybe Colorado), the PAC has mostly a balanced conference schedule, therefore the balanced schedule helped the mid-level teams.
I believe there were many factors unrelated to the unbalanced schedule that caused those outcomes. Illinois may not have had the right conference schedule for them to make the tournament last year, but it is just as likely that them or another team will get the right schedule that gets them in the tournament. It is random on whether it will help or hurt. And then there are many more factors that are more important.
|
|
|
Post by lo4um on Mar 1, 2017 9:34:52 GMT -5
What I don't understand is Illinois for example and a few other B1G teams that didn't make the tourney could easily beat teams like American and Miami OH (came to MI for 1st round) but those teams make it and Illinois is sitting home
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 1, 2017 10:17:54 GMT -5
What I don't understand is Illinois for example and a few other B1G teams that didn't make the tourney could easily beat teams like American and Miami OH (came to MI for 1st round) but those teams make it and Illinois is sitting home American and Miami won their conference and automatically qualified. Half the teams in the tournament are automatic qualifiers, and half are selected at-large from those who did not automatically qualify.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 1, 2017 10:54:58 GMT -5
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. I get that RPI is (only) most important to teams trying to get a seed (or regional host) and teams on the bubble. It has no relevance to teams out of contention for making the tournament. I just don't believe that an unbalanced schedule necessarily hurts or is more likely to hurt a mid-level team from the B1G. I think it is just as likely to help as hurt. The unbalanced schedule creates more variability.
I think you are taking the example of last year - Illinois misses the tournament, B1G has an unbalanced schedule, therefore Illinois was hurt because of the unbalanced schedule. In the PAC - all the mid-level teams made the tournament (except maybe Colorado), the PAC has mostly a balanced conference schedule, therefore the balanced schedule helped the mid-level teams.
I believe there were many factors unrelated to the unbalanced schedule that caused those outcomes. Illinois may not have had the right conference schedule for them to make the tournament last year, but it is just as likely that them or another team will get the right schedule that gets them in the tournament. It is random on whether it will help or hurt. And then there are many more factors that are more important.
I'm not saying that it "helps" the mid-level teams in the PAC to have a balanced schedule - it has no impact. And it is just as likely to "help" in raw RPI terms as it is to hurt, but where those mid-level teams are on the bubble - based on team quality, results, OOC schedule and what a "B1G schedule" should be - help gets you nothing (go from 40s to low 30s - woo hoo?) and hurt loses you everything. THAT is why it can only hurt in real terms. Yes, there are a lot of factors that go into it - but this is a crucial factor AT THE MARGINS for teams where the margins matter.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 1, 2017 10:59:23 GMT -5
I get that RPI is (only) most important to teams trying to get a seed (or regional host) and teams on the bubble. It has no relevance to teams out of contention for making the tournament. I just don't believe that an unbalanced schedule necessarily hurts or is more likely to hurt a mid-level team from the B1G. I think it is just as likely to help as hurt. The unbalanced schedule creates more variability.
I think you are taking the example of last year - Illinois misses the tournament, B1G has an unbalanced schedule, therefore Illinois was hurt because of the unbalanced schedule. In the PAC - all the mid-level teams made the tournament (except maybe Colorado), the PAC has mostly a balanced conference schedule, therefore the balanced schedule helped the mid-level teams.
I believe there were many factors unrelated to the unbalanced schedule that caused those outcomes. Illinois may not have had the right conference schedule for them to make the tournament last year, but it is just as likely that them or another team will get the right schedule that gets them in the tournament. It is random on whether it will help or hurt. And then there are many more factors that are more important.
I'm not saying that it "helps" the mid-level teams in the PAC to have a balanced schedule - it has no impact. And it is just as likely to "help" in raw RPI terms as it is to hurt, but where those mid-level teams are on the bubble - based on team quality, results, OOC schedule and what a "B1G schedule" should be - help gets you nothing (go from 40s to low 30s - woo hoo?) and hurt loses you everything. THAT is why it can only hurt in real terms. Yes, there are a lot of factors that go into it - but this is a crucial factor AT THE MARGINS for teams where the margins matter. Since you are talking rankings, every step up in rank is at the expense of pushing someone else down. So a step up from 40s to 30s is a big deal to whoever didn't make that step up. Because if you push yourself off the bubble, you drop somebody else down onto it.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 1, 2017 11:55:54 GMT -5
What I don't understand is Illinois for example and a few other B1G teams that didn't make the tourney could easily beat teams like American and Miami OH (came to MI for 1st round) but those teams make it and Illinois is sitting home American and Miami won their conference and automatically qualified. Half the teams in the tournament are automatic qualifiers, and half are selected at-large from those who did not automatically qualify. Miami was an at large. This comes down to accomplishment vs true team strength and which we want to be rewarded when we're picking teams for the NCAA tournament. From what I read, this was the foremost debate at this NCAA conference among stat-heads. My personal opinion is that it should just be based on accomplishment (match W-L, including opponent strength and location). As the great philosopher Herman said, "you play to win the game." At the end of the day, point percentage and set percentage are inconsequential to what a team has accomplished. I don't think anything that Illinois did this past season showed that they could've won 20 straight matches, even against Miami's schedule (that win streak also included wins over tourney teams Missouri and Cincinnati). It's always going to be very difficult to compare the 2nd place team in the MAC with the 10th place team in the Big Ten. Our emotion and familiarity with the Big Ten makes us think Illinois would win. Even if that's true, should it matter if Miami had a more successful regular season?
|
|
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 Mar 1, 2017 12:01:52 GMT -5
I get that RPI is (only) most important to teams trying to get a seed (or regional host) and teams on the bubble. It has no relevance to teams out of contention for making the tournament. I just don't believe that an unbalanced schedule necessarily hurts or is more likely to hurt a mid-level team from the B1G. I think it is just as likely to help as hurt. The unbalanced schedule creates more variability.
I think you are taking the example of last year - Illinois misses the tournament, B1G has an unbalanced schedule, therefore Illinois was hurt because of the unbalanced schedule. In the PAC - all the mid-level teams made the tournament (except maybe Colorado), the PAC has mostly a balanced conference schedule, therefore the balanced schedule helped the mid-level teams.
I believe there were many factors unrelated to the unbalanced schedule that caused those outcomes. Illinois may not have had the right conference schedule for them to make the tournament last year, but it is just as likely that them or another team will get the right schedule that gets them in the tournament. It is random on whether it will help or hurt. And then there are many more factors that are more important.
I'm not saying that it "helps" the mid-level teams in the PAC to have a balanced schedule - it has no impact. And it is just as likely to "help" in raw RPI terms as it is to hurt, but where those mid-level teams are on the bubble - based on team quality, results, OOC schedule and what a "B1G schedule" should be - help gets you nothing (go from 40s to low 30s - woo hoo?) and hurt loses you everything. THAT is why it can only hurt in real terms. Yes, there are a lot of factors that go into it - but this is a crucial factor AT THE MARGINS for teams where the margins matter. But it is equally possible that the unbalanced schedule in the B1G moved a team from #55 to #45 in the RPI. I don't think the hurt/help/no impact is related to where the team is in the conference standings - it is random.
|
|
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 Mar 1, 2017 12:07:11 GMT -5
American and Miami won their conference and automatically qualified. Half the teams in the tournament are automatic qualifiers, and half are selected at-large from those who did not automatically qualify. Miami was an at large. This comes down to accomplishment vs true team strength and which we want to be rewarded when we're picking teams for the NCAA tournament. From what I read, this was the foremost debate at this NCAA conference among stat-heads. My personal opinion is that it should just be based on accomplishment (match W-L, including opponent strength and location). As the great philosopher Herman said, "you play to win the game." At the end of the day, point percentage and set percentage are inconsequential to what a team has accomplished. I don't think anything that Illinois did this past season showed that they could've won 20 straight matches, even against Miami's schedule (that win streak also included wins over tourney teams Missouri and Cincinnati). It's always going to be very difficult to compare the 2nd place team in the MAC with the 10th place team in the Big Ten. Our emotion and familiarity with the Big Ten makes us think Illinois would win. Even if that's true, should it matter if Miami had a more successful regular season? There are some very smart people that I respect who disagree with this. I also come down on the side of 'accomplishment'. There is clearly no consensus on this issue and it is fundamental to Pomeroy or Pablo not being used in the selection process.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 1, 2017 12:10:32 GMT -5
I believe Bofa once pointed out that the purpose of the NCAA tournament is not to find the best team. It is to crown an NCAA champion.
We all know (or at least I assume we all know) that a single-elimination tournament is a terrible way to make sure the two best teams end up playing for the championship. But what it is good at is unambiguously deciding what team won the tournament. Only one team will go 6-0. Every other team will lose. Very clear.
So given that the purpose of the tournament is to crown a champion, not to find the best team, it only makes sense that each conference is allowed to select an entry. That means that no matter who you are, no matter what conference your school is in, you have the ability to play your way into being NCAA champion. The lack of this is exactly why people dislike the way D1 football has selected their champion.
But some conferences are stronger than others, and it doesn't make sense that only conference champions should get in. For instance, last year's NCAA champion was not the champion of their conference, and would not have even been in the tournament if not for the at-large system. But you probably only have to go down about 20 (or maybe fewer) teams to make sure you have the best teams. By going down into the 40s (after accounting for AQs from the stronger conferences), the NCAA is surely going deep enough to know that switching the last few selected and the last few not selected will not really affect the outcome of the tournament.
It matters a lot for the individual teams if they are the last in or the last out, but for the tournament as a whole that's not a very important decision.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 1, 2017 12:15:42 GMT -5
Miami was an at large. This comes down to accomplishment vs true team strength and which we want to be rewarded when we're picking teams for the NCAA tournament. From what I read, this was the foremost debate at this NCAA conference among stat-heads. My personal opinion is that it should just be based on accomplishment (match W-L, including opponent strength and location). As the great philosopher Herman said, "you play to win the game." At the end of the day, point percentage and set percentage are inconsequential to what a team has accomplished. I don't think anything that Illinois did this past season showed that they could've won 20 straight matches, even against Miami's schedule (that win streak also included wins over tourney teams Missouri and Cincinnati). It's always going to be very difficult to compare the 2nd place team in the MAC with the 10th place team in the Big Ten. Our emotion and familiarity with the Big Ten makes us think Illinois would win. Even if that's true, should it matter if Miami had a more successful regular season? There are some very smart people that I respect who disagree with this. I also come down on the side of 'accomplishment'. There is clearly no consensus on this issue and it is fundamental to Pomeroy or Pablo not being used in the selection process. I just argued that the criteria for getting the last few teams in or out isn't terribly important (as long as it is reasonably accurate and, most importantly, fair). But for seeding, it's very important that the seeding should be done based on which teams are actually the most likely to win, not which teams had the "best" (in whose eyes?) accomplishments. That's because the purpose of the seeding is to fight against the great weakness of the single-elim format -- top teams meeting too soon and knocking each other out. To get the best chance of having the best teams actually meet in the finals, the seeding *must* be done on the basis of which teams are most likely to win, not on which teams have had the most impressive season.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 1, 2017 12:39:47 GMT -5
I'm not saying that it "helps" the mid-level teams in the PAC to have a balanced schedule - it has no impact. And it is just as likely to "help" in raw RPI terms as it is to hurt, but where those mid-level teams are on the bubble - based on team quality, results, OOC schedule and what a "B1G schedule" should be - help gets you nothing (go from 40s to low 30s - woo hoo?) and hurt loses you everything. THAT is why it can only hurt in real terms. Yes, there are a lot of factors that go into it - but this is a crucial factor AT THE MARGINS for teams where the margins matter. But it is equally possible that the unbalanced schedule in the B1G moved a team from #55 to #45 in the RPI. I don't think the hurt/help/no impact is related to where the team is in the conference standings - it is random. That's just not going to happen that often. It would take both a terrible RPI year AND a team totally f'ing up its non-conference schedule for a tournament-eligible to be in that RPI position. Iowa had a rather favorable B1G schedule and only made it up to #70 (their OOC SOS was also prohibitively bad, but improving that might cause .500 eligibility issues).
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 1, 2017 13:14:50 GMT -5
There are some very smart people that I respect who disagree with this. I also come down on the side of 'accomplishment'. There is clearly no consensus on this issue and it is fundamental to Pomeroy or Pablo not being used in the selection process. I just argued that the criteria for getting the last few teams in or out isn't terribly important (as long as it is reasonably accurate and, most importantly, fair). But for seeding, it's very important that the seeding should be done based on which teams are actually the most likely to win, not which teams had the "best" (in whose eyes?) accomplishments. That's because the purpose of the seeding is to fight against the great weakness of the single-elim format -- top teams meeting too soon and knocking each other out. To get the best chance of having the best teams actually meet in the finals, the seeding *must* be done on the basis of which teams are most likely to win, not on which teams have had the most impressive season. Going into the tournament, Penn State was 4th in Pablo this year. Would you have been ok with them getting a 4 seed and hosting regionals?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 1, 2017 13:15:38 GMT -5
I just argued that the criteria for getting the last few teams in or out isn't terribly important (as long as it is reasonably accurate and, most importantly, fair). But for seeding, it's very important that the seeding should be done based on which teams are actually the most likely to win, not which teams had the "best" (in whose eyes?) accomplishments. That's because the purpose of the seeding is to fight against the great weakness of the single-elim format -- top teams meeting too soon and knocking each other out. To get the best chance of having the best teams actually meet in the finals, the seeding *must* be done on the basis of which teams are most likely to win, not on which teams have had the most impressive season. Going into the tournament, Penn State was 4th in Pablo this year. Would you have been ok with them getting a 4 seed and hosting regionals? 5th, actually. And apparently you didn't read what I already wrote about that.
|
|
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 Mar 1, 2017 13:54:13 GMT -5
There are some very smart people that I respect who disagree with this. I also come down on the side of 'accomplishment'. There is clearly no consensus on this issue and it is fundamental to Pomeroy or Pablo not being used in the selection process. I just argued that the criteria for getting the last few teams in or out isn't terribly important (as long as it is reasonably accurate and, most importantly, fair). But for seeding, it's very important that the seeding should be done based on which teams are actually the most likely to win, not which teams had the "best" (in whose eyes?) accomplishments. That's because the purpose of the seeding is to fight against the great weakness of the single-elim format -- top teams meeting too soon and knocking each other out. To get the best chance of having the best teams actually meet in the finals, the seeding *must* be done on the basis of which teams are most likely to win, not on which teams have had the most impressive season. Home court that is attached with a seed makes the seed more important - and now with regional hosts. This is not good for bracket purity - and puts much more importance on the seed order.
But we are still not agreeing with '*must* be done on the basis of which teams are most likely to win'.
In theory - you would have to say that for MLB, NBA or NFL seeding for the playoffs - they should go with an analytic metric to determine the playoff matchups -seeds (record would still determine if you make the playoffs). The Rocket teams from the 90's would have the 6th seed based on record, but Vegas (and metrics if done at the time) would have considered them the #1 or #2 team most likely to win.
|
|