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 Oct 17, 2017 12:42:59 GMT -5
ACC
26. Louisville - ACC, Avg RPI Rank - 26.39 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 3% T45 - 92% 18W (15%), Avg Rank - 19.2; 17th (14%), 18th (16%), 19th (15%), 20th (14%), 21st (11%) 17W (25%), Avg Rank - 23.0; 16W (29%), Avg Rank - 26.9; 15W (17%), Avg Rank - 30.6; 14W (8%), Avg Rank - 35.8;
29. Pittsburgh - ACC, Avg RPI Rank - 30.996 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - <1% T45 - 97% 19W (15%), Avg Rank - 23.7; 18W (27%), Avg Rank - 27.5; 17W (29%), Avg Rank - 31.5; 16W (17%), Avg Rank - 36.7; 15W (7%), Avg Rank - 42.4;
35. Notre Dame - ACC, Avg RPI Rank - 38.213 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 82% 14W (19%), Avg Rank - 30.2: 13W (24%), Avg Rank - 34.8: 12W (26%), Avg Rank - 40.2; 11W (16%), Avg Rank - 46.2: 10W (6%), Avg Rank - 52.9:
38. NC State - ACC, Avg RPI Rank - 40.231 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 76% 18W (13%), Avg Rank - 30.4: 17W (25%), Avg Rank - 34.8: 16W (40%), Avg Rank - 40.1; 15W (18%), Avg Rank - 45.8; 14W (11%), Avg Rank - 52.7;
43. Florida State - ACC, Avg RPI Rank - 42.38 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 66% 15W (6%), Avg Rank - 26.6: 14W (13%), Avg Rank - 31.5: 13W (25%), Avg Rank - 36.8: 12W (23%), Avg Rank - 42.6; 11W (19%), Avg Rank -49.7; 10W (9%), Avg Rank - 57.2;
51. Miami-FL - ACC, Avg RPI Rank - 51.101 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 38% 14W (17%), Avg Rank - 38.0: 13W (22%), Avg Rank - 44.4: 12W (26%), Avg Rank - 52.5: 11W (17%), Avg Rank - 61.5; 10W (9%), Avg Rank - 73.1;
56. North Carolina - ACC, Avg RPI Rank - 61.363 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 12% 15W (5%), Avg Rank - 38.4: 14W (13%), Avg Rank - 45.9: 13W (24%), Avg Rank - 53.5; 12W (24%), Avg Rank - 61.6; 11W (20%), Avg Rank - 70.5; 10W (10%), Avg Rank - 83.7;
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Oct 17, 2017 13:23:49 GMT -5
Big 12
6. Texas - Big 12, Avg RPI Rank - 4.646 (47) T4 - 48% T16 - 100% T45 - 100% 16W (30%), RPI Rank - 2.7; 1st (15%), 2nd (33%), 3rd (30%), 4th (16%) 15W (42%), RPI Rank - 4.6; 3rd (14%), 4th (27%), 5th (30%), 6th (18%) 14W (21%), RPI Rank - 6.4; 5th (16%), 6th (33%), 7th (33%), 8th (14%)
There is not a lot of room for error for Texas to host a regional in this data. They go from a 94% chance of finishing in the top 4 at undefeated the rest of the way, to a 41% projection of finishing in the top 4 based on one loss, to a 0% chance with two losses. It's important to realize these are projections, and not predictions. Also, the regional hosts do not have to be determined solely based on RPI. It's a committee of human beings, with both the perception and fallibility that entails. But based on this data, one loss for Texas precipitously impacts their ability to be in the top 4. Which is also not the end of the world. I wouldn't want to be another host team looking at Texas being in their regional bracket. There's a good chance someone is going to be 2016's Stanford upsetting a regional host. Texas would have as good a shot of playing that role as anyone.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 17, 2017 13:48:01 GMT -5
Big 12
6. Texas - Big 12, Avg RPI Rank - 4.646 (47) T4 - 48% T16 - 100% T45 - 100% 16W (30%), RPI Rank - 2.7; 1st (15%), 2nd (33%), 3rd (30%), 4th (16%) 15W (42%), RPI Rank - 4.6; 3rd (14%), 4th (27%), 5th (30%), 6th (18%) 14W (21%), RPI Rank - 6.4; 5th (16%), 6th (33%), 7th (33%), 8th (14%)
There is not a lot of room for error for Texas to host a regional in this data. They go from a 94% chance of finishing in the top 4 at undefeated the rest of the way, to a 41% projection of finishing in the top 4 based on one loss, to a 0% chance with two losses. It's important to realize these are projections, and not predictions. Also, the regional hosts do not have to be determined solely based on RPI. It's a committee of human beings, with both the perception and fallibility that entails. But based on this data, one loss for Texas precipitously impacts their ability to be in the top 4. Which is also not the end of the world. I wouldn't want to be another host team looking at Texas being in their regional bracket. There's a good chance someone is going to be 2016's Stanford upsetting a regional host. Texas would have as good a shot of playing that role as anyone. I don't think Texas' big issue here is the aggregate RPI, it's the nitty gritty...they come up short against teams also in consideration for a top 4 seed.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Oct 17, 2017 14:49:20 GMT -5
There is not a lot of room for error for Texas to host a regional in this data. They go from a 94% chance of finishing in the top 4 at undefeated the rest of the way, to a 41% projection of finishing in the top 4 based on one loss, to a 0% chance with two losses. It's important to realize these are projections, and not predictions. Also, the regional hosts do not have to be determined solely based on RPI. It's a committee of human beings, with both the perception and fallibility that entails. But based on this data, one loss for Texas precipitously impacts their ability to be in the top 4. Which is also not the end of the world. I wouldn't want to be another host team looking at Texas being in their regional bracket. There's a good chance someone is going to be 2016's Stanford upsetting a regional host. Texas would have as good a shot of playing that role as anyone. I don't think Texas' big issue here is the aggregate RPI, it's the nitty gritty...they come up short against teams also in consideration for a top 4 seed. I've seen you use that term elsewhere, but I don't understand the distinction you're making here. It's an RPI futures projection. The projection assumes certain things to happen based on their percentage chance to happen. How it reflects reality at the end of the year is a guess. This is attempting to quantify that guess. How the nitty gritty looks will depend somewhat on what teams do between now and then. This specific projection is saying if Texas wins out, their comparison will look good for a regional host role. If they don't win out, it won't. What does the nitty gritty have to do with that? It sounds like I'm being dismissive or snarky, but I'm not. I'm honestly curious about your perspective here, and what you're trying to communicate.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 17, 2017 14:55:50 GMT -5
I don't think Texas' big issue here is the aggregate RPI, it's the nitty gritty...they come up short against teams also in consideration for a top 4 seed. I've seen you use that term elsewhere, but I don't understand the distinction you're making here. It's an RPI futures projection. The projection assumes certain things to happen based on their percentage chance to happen. How it reflects reality at the end of the year is a guess. This is attempting to quantify that guess. How the nitty gritty looks will depend somewhat on what teams do between now and then. This specific projection is saying if Texas wins out, their comparison will look good for a regional host role. If they don't win out, it won't. What does the nitty gritty have to do with that? It sounds like I'm being dismissive or snarky, but I'm not. I'm honestly curious about your perspective here, and what you're trying to communicate. you mentioned little room for error for Texas to host a regional (and I agree, tbh, I don't think they control their own destiny). well being a regional host means the committee selects you as a top 4 seed, and lots of factors, supposedly, go into that. The aggregate RPI is just one factor, the nitty gritty is what really makes the difference. These are this years' criteria. EVALUATIVE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE Among the other tools the committee uses: ● Regional advisory committee rankings ● Division I record ● Overall RPI ● Non-conference record ● Non-conference RPI ● Conference record ● Conference RPI ● Road record ● Record in last 10 games ● Record against teams ranked 1-50 by RPI ● Record against teams ranked 51-100 by RPI ● Record against teams ranked 101-200 by RPI ● Record against teams ranked below 200 by RPI ● Record against other teams under consideration ● Head-to-head ● Signi cant wins and losses ● Results against common opponents ● Results against teams already receiving at-large bids ● Site of match ● Other circumstances that could affect results (e.g. injuries) the pre-championship manual is a good read. www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIWVB_MANPreChamp_20170915.pdf I think Texas loses out on a number of these factors when their resume is put up against teams also in consideration for a top 4 seed. And them winning out in the Big 12 doesn't change that, IMO. I'm not saying Texas won't be a top 4 seed, but, I think other teams also in consideration need to take some licks for Texas to feel more confident about their placement. these are the criteria that, IMO, will actually matter come selection of the top 4 seeds (in no particular order): -Regional Advisory Committee Rankings -Non conference RPI and Record -Road Record -Head to Head -Significant Wins and Losses -Results Against Common Opponents
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 17, 2017 15:00:38 GMT -5
Is Top 25 the metric they use for significant wins?
How do they define significant losses?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 17, 2017 15:05:05 GMT -5
Is Top 25 the metric they use for significant wins? How do they define significant losses? For teams on the bubble, they use Top 25 (of ultimate importance) and Top 50. For seeding, they use other teams under seeding consideration and Top 25 wins mostly. Losses are usually ignored, unless it's a H2H result or there is a critical mass of bad losses (3+ sub-100 losses seems to be a risk for at-large hopefuls) For Top 4 regional hosts, I'm not sure we have enough data yet - and the Committee may still be thinking through it.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 17, 2017 15:19:19 GMT -5
Is Top 25 the metric they use for significant wins? How do they define significant losses? For teams on the bubble, they use Top 25 (of ultimate importance) and Top 50. For seeding, they use other teams under seeding consideration and Top 25 wins mostly. Losses are usually ignored, unless it's a H2H result or there is a critical mass of bad losses (3+ sub-100 losses seems to be a risk for at-large hopefuls) For Top 4 regional hosts, I'm not sure we have enough data yet - and the Committee may still be thinking through it. I guess you are answering my 1st question in the affirmative? The reason I asked is the Nitty Gritty criteria posted by ay doesn't specifically mention Top 25 wins as a factor. That's why I thought it had to fall under the "Significant Wins and Losses" category.
|
|
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 Oct 17, 2017 15:22:16 GMT -5
And the rest that I plan to do this week.
16. BYU - West Coast, Avg RPI Rank - 17.223 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 50% T45 - 100% 18W (24%), Avg Rank - 13.2; 10th (9%), 11th (9%), 12th (15%), 13th (21%), 14th (14%), 15th (6%) 17W (37%), Avg Rank - 16.3; 13th (9%), 14th (11%), 15th (15%), 16th (15%), 17th (12%), 18th (10%) 16W (26%), Avg Rank - 19.1; 16th or better (22%) 15W (10%), Avg Rank - 23.1;
21. Cal Poly - Big West, Avg RPI Rank - 21.128 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 13% T45 - 100% 16W (46%), Avg Rank - 18.4; 16th or better (24%), 17th (16%), 18th (13%), 19th (13%) 15W (39%), Avg Rank - 21.9; 16th or better (5%) 14W (14%), Avg Rank - 25.9;
25. San Diego - West Coast, Avg RPI Rank - 25.628 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 3% T45 - 100% 17W (11%), Avg Rank - 18.4; 16th or better (26%) 16W (31%), Avg Rank - 22.3; 15W (32%), Avg Rank - 26.2; 14W (19%), Avg Rank - 29.9;
48. Hawaii - Big West, Avg RPI Rank - 48.508 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 41% 15W (4%), Avg Rank - 34.0; 14W (27%), Avg Rank - 40.3; 45th or better (85%) 13W (39%), Avg Rank - 47.9; 45th or better (31%) 12W (22%), Avg Rank - 55.4; 45th or better (4%) 11W (7%), RPI Rank - 65.5;
15. Creighton - Big East, Avg RPI Rank - 16.696 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 53% T45 - 100% T90 - 1 17W (19%), Avg Rank - 12.8; 11th (13%), 12th (22%), 13th (16%), 14th (14%), 16th or better (94%) 16W (41%), Avg Rank - 15.5; 14th (15%), 15th (16%), 16th (17%), 17th (13%), 16th or better (67%) 15W (27%), Avg Rank - 18.2; 16th or better (29%) 14W (10%), Avg Rank - 21.8; 16th or better (3%) 14W (8%), Avg Rank - 35.8;
27. Marquette - Big East, Avg RPI Rank - 29.635 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 99% T90 - 1 17W (23%), Avg Rank - 24.2; 16W (42%), Avg Rank - 28.4; 15W (25%), Avg Rank - 32.9; 14W (9%), Avg Rank - 37.35; 45th or better (94%)
44. Missouri State - Missouri Valley, Avg RPI Rank - 43.81 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 63% T90 - 1 18W (29%), Avg Rank - 36.5; 45th or better 99% 17W (41%), Avg Rank - 43.0; 45th or better 71% 16W (22%), Avg Rank - 49.2; 45th or better (24%) 15W (7%), Avg Rank - 57.2;
46. Northern Iowa - Missouri Valley, Avg RPI Rank - 44.824 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 57% T90 - 1 17W (12%), Avg Rank - 34.4; 16W (37%), Avg Rank - 40.7; 45th or better (84%) 15W (32%), Avg Rank - 46.76; 45th or better (41%) 14W (16%), Avg Rank - 54.6; 45th or better (5%)
18. Wichita State - American Athletic, Avg RPI Rank - 17.759 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 42% T45 - 100% 20W (42%), Avg Rank - 15.3; 12th or better (15%), 14th or better (41%), 16th or better (84%) 19W (38%), Avg Rank - 18.1; 12th or better (3%), 14th or better (13%), 16th or better (32%) 18W (16%), Avg Rank - 21.6; 16th or better (4%)
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 17, 2017 15:25:40 GMT -5
For teams on the bubble, they use Top 25 (of ultimate importance) and Top 50. For seeding, they use other teams under seeding consideration and Top 25 wins mostly. Losses are usually ignored, unless it's a H2H result or there is a critical mass of bad losses (3+ sub-100 losses seems to be a risk for at-large hopefuls) For Top 4 regional hosts, I'm not sure we have enough data yet - and the Committee may still be thinking through it. I guess you are answering my 1st question in the affirmative? The reason I asked is the Nitty Gritty criteria posted by ay doesn't specifically mention Top 25 wins as a factor. That's why I thought it had to fall under the "Significant Wins and Losses" category. I'm pretty sure someone posted screen shots of the team sheets the committee was given and significant wins were teams in the top 25 rpi and a significant loss were teams sub 100 rpi.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Oct 17, 2017 15:35:18 GMT -5
I've seen you use that term elsewhere, but I don't understand the distinction you're making here. It's an RPI futures projection. The projection assumes certain things to happen based on their percentage chance to happen. How it reflects reality at the end of the year is a guess. This is attempting to quantify that guess. How the nitty gritty looks will depend somewhat on what teams do between now and then. This specific projection is saying if Texas wins out, their comparison will look good for a regional host role. If they don't win out, it won't. What does the nitty gritty have to do with that? It sounds like I'm being dismissive or snarky, but I'm not. I'm honestly curious about your perspective here, and what you're trying to communicate. you mentioned little room for error for Texas to host a regional (and I agree, tbh, I don't think they control their own destiny). well being a regional host means the committee selects you as a top 4 seed, and lots of factors, supposedly, go into that. The aggregate RPI is just one factor, the nitty gritty is what really makes the difference. These are this years' criteria. EVALUATIVE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE Among the other tools the committee uses: ● Regional advisory committee rankings ● Division I record ● Overall RPI ● Non-conference record ● Non-conference RPI ● Conference record ● Conference RPI ● Road record ● Record in last 10 games ● Record against teams ranked 1-50 by RPI ● Record against teams ranked 51-100 by RPI ● Record against teams ranked 101-200 by RPI ● Record against teams ranked below 200 by RPI ● Record against other teams under consideration ● Head-to-head ● Signi cant wins and losses ● Results against common opponents ● Results against teams already receiving at-large bids ● Site of match ● Other circumstances that could affect results (e.g. injuries) the pre-championship manual is a good read. www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIWVB_MANPreChamp_20170915.pdf I think Texas loses out on a number of these factors when their resume is put up against teams also in consideration for a top 4 seed. And them winning out in the Big 12 doesn't change that, IMO. I'm not saying Texas won't be a top 4 seed, but, I think other teams also in consideration need to take some licks for Texas to feel more confident about their placement. these are the criteria that, IMO, will actually matter come selection of the top 4 seeds (in no particular order): -Regional Advisory Committee Rankings -Non conference RPI and Record -Road Record -Head to Head -Significant Wins and Losses -Results Against Common Opponents I don't disagree with anything you're saying per se. If Penn State, Stanford, and Florida win out, they would all be ahead of Texas for sure. Kentucky and Florida have their head to head. If Texas wins out, it's very difficult for me to envision both Florida and Kentucky being regional hosts ahead of Texas. I guess we'd see. Texas hasn't even won out, yet. We're simply assuming it because that's what your post seems to be based on, and I'm good with that. Then you have Penn State, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Texas would need for one team from the B1G to stand out and be the conference representative as the regional host, with the other outstanding conference teams being shipped off elsewhere. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable scenario at all, to me. They'll need to lose for that to transpire, but given what we've seen so far in the B1G, that feels like a likely outcome.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 17, 2017 15:41:44 GMT -5
For teams on the bubble, they use Top 25 (of ultimate importance) and Top 50. For seeding, they use other teams under seeding consideration and Top 25 wins mostly. Losses are usually ignored, unless it's a H2H result or there is a critical mass of bad losses (3+ sub-100 losses seems to be a risk for at-large hopefuls) For Top 4 regional hosts, I'm not sure we have enough data yet - and the Committee may still be thinking through it. I guess you are answering my 1st question in the affirmative? The reason I asked is the Nitty Gritty criteria posted by ay doesn't specifically mention Top 25 wins as a factor. That's why I thought it had to fall under the "Significant Wins and Losses" category. It may not be in the criteria, but everything the Committee sees (Nitty Gritty/Team Sheets) positions Top 25 wins separately and, combined with their track record, makes it pretty obvious it's one of the biggest factors.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 17, 2017 16:12:42 GMT -5
you mentioned little room for error for Texas to host a regional (and I agree, tbh, I don't think they control their own destiny). well being a regional host means the committee selects you as a top 4 seed, and lots of factors, supposedly, go into that. The aggregate RPI is just one factor, the nitty gritty is what really makes the difference. [snip] I don't disagree with anything you're saying per se. If Penn State, Stanford, and Florida win out, they would all be ahead of Texas for sure. Kentucky and Florida have their head to head. If Texas wins out, it's very difficult for me to envision both Florida and Kentucky being regional hosts ahead of Texas. I guess we'd see. Texas hasn't even won out, yet. We're simply assuming it because that's what your post seems to be based on, and I'm good with that. Then you have Penn State, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Texas would need for one team from the B1G to stand out and be the conference representative as the regional host, with the other outstanding conference teams being shipped off elsewhere. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable scenario at all, to me. They'll need to lose for that to transpire, but given what we've seen so far in the B1G, that feels like a likely outcome. While unlikely, it's possible that both Penn State and Nebraska could win the rest of their Big Ten Conference matches. Would both be likely to receive Top 4 seeds in that scenario? Here's what bluepenguin shows for the +1/-1 for these two teams this week: Penn State winning out would actually put them at 19 wins, so even better than the +1 shown in bluepenguin's figures. I'm guessing this would make them nearly a lock for the #1 seed. Nebraska winning out would also put them at 19 wins and most likely in the 2-5 range in the final RPI. With many of the nitty gritty items in their favor, I would like their chances of getting a Top 4 seed under those circumstances. In this hypothetical, the contenders for the remaining two Top 4 seeds would most likely be Stanford, Kentucky, Florida and Texas. Based on some of the discussion earlier in this thread, it seems Stanford, Kentucky and Florida might have the upper hand in comparison to Texas. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the remainder of the regular season.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Oct 17, 2017 17:00:00 GMT -5
I don't disagree with anything you're saying per se. If Penn State, Stanford, and Florida win out, they would all be ahead of Texas for sure. Kentucky and Florida have their head to head. If Texas wins out, it's very difficult for me to envision both Florida and Kentucky being regional hosts ahead of Texas. I guess we'd see. Texas hasn't even won out, yet. We're simply assuming it because that's what your post seems to be based on, and I'm good with that. Then you have Penn State, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Texas would need for one team from the B1G to stand out and be the conference representative as the regional host, with the other outstanding conference teams being shipped off elsewhere. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable scenario at all, to me. They'll need to lose for that to transpire, but given what we've seen so far in the B1G, that feels like a likely outcome. While unlikely, it's possible that both Penn State and Nebraska could win the rest of their Big Ten Conference matches. Would both be likely to receive Top 4 seeds in that scenario? Here's what bluepenguin shows for the +1/-1 for these two teams this week: Penn State winning out would actually put them at 19 wins, so even better than the +1 shown in bluepenguin's figures. I'm guessing this would make them nearly a lock for the #1 seed. Nebraska winning out would also put them at 19 wins and most likely in the 2-5 range in the final RPI. With many of the nitty gritty items in their favor, I would like their chances of getting a Top 4 seed under those circumstances. In this hypothetical, the contenders for the remaining two Top 4 seeds would most likely be Stanford, Kentucky, Florida and Texas. Based on some of the discussion earlier in this thread, it seems Stanford, Kentucky and Florida might have the upper hand in comparison to Texas. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the remainder of the regular season. As a Texas fan, I think my key thought is that Nebraska with four losses would be tough to select as a regional host over Texas with 2 losses. I'm not saying that's fair, or right, but that's my complete guess. Nebraska plays in a much better conference, so that should and will help, but we're assuming Texas has won out, so that's 2 wins over KU, 2 wins over ISU, and 2 wins over Baylor. It's not the same as sweeping Penn State in Happy Valley, and of course Nebraska fared quite a bit better against the Gophers at home than Texas did, but those are decent squads with good wins on their resume. More likely is that Texas doesn't win out, but if they did, I like UT's chances over Nebraska as a regional host. The key thing is that the Longhorns would have lost to only Florida and Minnesota. I just don't see them getting penalized for the rest of their schedule to the degree the Cornhuskers end up getting favored ahead of them. Same with Florida/Kentucky. I'd argue one of those is getting a regional host unless there's an unanticipated implosion. But it's hard for me to envision both of them getting regional hosts over Texas. But I have a heavy bias, which I readily admit. I'm not trying to proselytize. I appreciate everyone's viewpoints and their willingness to share. I'm just not sure how those other teams get selected ahead of the Longhorns assuming a 24-2 overall record, with both losses coming in the early going against other top teams. Especially when everyone else that would be competing with them for that #4 seed will have a much more recent loss. I'm not married to the position. I hope we get a chance to find out, because it means Texas won their remaining 10 games. What is way more fascinating to me is how fast their chances drop with even one more loss.
|
|
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 Oct 17, 2017 17:26:13 GMT -5
Some more detail on Big Ten probabilities. If Nebraska loses 1 more match - they only have a 16% chance of being in the top 4 in RPI.
1. Penn State - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 3.357 (246) T4 - 72% T16 - 100% T45 - 100% 19W (11%), Avg RPI - 1.1: 1st (90%), 2nd (10%) 18W (26%), Avg RPI - 1.7; 1st (48%), 2nd (37%), 3rd (13%) 17W (34%), Avg RPI - 3.14; 2nd (25%), 3rd (30%), 4th (22%), 5th (11%), 4th or better (85%) 16W (21%), Avg RPI - 5.2; 4th (18%), 5th (25%), 6th (25%), 4th or better (XX%) 15W (7%), Avg RPI - 7.1; 6th (21%), 7th (28%), 8th (30%)
4. Minnesota - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 4.173 (151) T4 - 56% T16 - 100% T45 - 100% 18W (8%), Avg RPI - 1.2; 1st (81%), 2nd (17%) 17W (28%), Avg RPI - 2.3; 2nd (39%), 1st (28%), 3rd (20%) 16W (32%), Avg RPI - 4.1; 3rd (19%), 4th (26%), 5th (18%), 6th (18%), 4th or better (XX%) 15W (20%), Avg RPI - 5.9; 5th (25%), 6th (30%), 7th (22%), 4th or better (XX%) 14W (10%), Avg RPI - 7.4;
7. Nebraska - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 5.702 (10) T4 - 27% T16 - 100% T45 - 100% 19W (29%), Avg RPI - 3.8; 2nd (15%), 3rd (26%), 4th (29%), 5th (15%), 4th or better (72%) 18W (40%), Avg RPI - 5.7; 5th (25%), 6th (31%), 7th (25%), 4th or better (16%) 17W (22%), Avg RPI - 7.0; 6th (22%), 7th (39%), 8th (22%), 4th or better (1%) 16W (7%), Avg RPI - 8.4; 7th (16%), 8th (39%), 9th (24%), 10th (14%)
8. Wisconsin - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 8.52 (6) T4 - 7% T16 - 99% T45 - 100% 15W (7%), Avg RPI - 4.1; 4th or better (27%) 14W (21%), Avg RPI - 6.6; 6th (28%), 7th (29%), 8th (25%) 13W (31%), Avg RPI - 8.3; 7th (15%), 8th (43%), 9th (31%) 12W (24%), Avg RPI - 9.5; 8th (19%), 9th (33%), 10th (30%) 11W (12%), Avg RPI - 11.5;
13. Michigan State - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 13.911 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 76% T45 - 100% 17W (10%), Avg RPI - 9.3; 16W (27%), Avg RPI - 11.0; 10th (27%), 11th (32%), 12th (19%) 15W (30%), Avg RPI - 13.2; 12th (17%), 13th (27%), 14th (20%), 16th or better (93%) 14W (20%), Avg RPI - 16.7; 15th (13%), 16th (14%), 17th (13%), 18th (16%), 16th or better (48%) 13W (9%), Avg RPI - 20.9;
22. Illinois - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 21.181 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 24% T45 - 100% 14 W (12%), Avg RPI - 13.5; 16th or better (87%) 13 W (20%), Avg RPI - 16.8; 16th or better (45%) 12W (25%), Avg RPI - 20.6; 16th or better (3%) 11W (23%), Avg RPI - 24.4; 10W (11%), Avg RPI - 28.6;
23. Purdue - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 23.985 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 11% T45 - 100% 14W (6%), Avg RPI - 17.6; 16th or better (86%) 13W (16%), Avg RPI - 17.6; 16th or better (28%) 12W (26%), Avg RPI - 21.3; 11W (23%), Avg RPI - 25.4; 10W (18%), Avg RPI - 29.9;
33. Ohio State - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 35.404 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 89% 11W (7%), Avg RPI - 24.4; 10W (18%), Avg Rank - 28.5; 9W (27%), Avg Rank - 33.4; 8W (26%), Avg Rank - 38.5; Below .500 overall record 7W (13%), Avg Rank - 44.9; Below .500 overall record
37. Iowa - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 40.042 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 74% T90 10W (12%), Avg Rank - 29.4; 9W (19%), Avg Rank - 33.5; 8W (27%), Avg Rank - 38.7; 45th or better (98%) 7W (23%), Avg Rank - 45.0; 45th or better (55%) 6W (12%), Avg Rank - 52.1; 45th or better (4%) 5W (XX%), Avg Rank - 59.9; Below .500 overall record
39. Michigan - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 40.376 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - 0% T45 - 73% T90 - 1 11W (6%), Avg Rank - 26.9; 10W (12%), Avg Rank - 31.0; 9W (25%), Avg Rank - 35.8; 8W (26%), Avg Rank - 41.8; 45th or better (89%) 7W (19%), Avg Rank - 47.9; 45th or better (24%) 6W (XX%), Avg Rank - 54.5
47. Maryland - Big Ten, Avg RPI Rank - 47.562 (0) T4 - 0% T16 - <1% T45 - 41% T90 - 1 8W (9%), Avg Rank - 34.9; 7W (24%), Avg Avg - 41.2; 45th or better (90%) 6W (32%), Avg Avg - 47.9; 45th or better (21%) 5W (22%), Avg Avg - 54.6; 4W (8%), Avg Rank - 62.7; Below .500 overall record
|
|