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: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 23, 2017 21:42:41 GMT -5
I think that USC became the 9th team to get a seed. That leaves 7 spots left and here is how I would rank the remaining contenders for those next 7 spots. Utah is pretty close to being a lock. Below is if their final game(s) result is this, then this is the % chance they will finish in the top 14 or 16 in RPI. Utah 1L - Avg RPI - 13.4, 14th or better (83%), 16th or better (98%) Baylor 1L - Avg RPI - 13.7, 14th pr better (68%), 16th or better (94%) Iowa State 1W - Avg RI - 12.6, 14th or better (93%), 16th or better (99%) Wisconsin 1L -Avg RPI - 16.3, 14th or better (22%), 16th or better (47%) Kansas 1W - Avg RPI - 13.5; 14th or better (68%), 16th or better (89%) Creighton BE Champs - Avg RPI - 10.5, Michigan State 2W - Avg RPI - 13.5, 14th or better (71%), 16th or better (91%) UCLA 1W - Avg RPI - 16.4, 14th or better (8%), 16th or better (54%), 18th or better (95%) Colorado 1W - Avg RPI - 16.2; 14th or better (16%), 16th or better (55%), 18th or better (92%) BYU 14th or better (24%), 16TH or better (61%) Wichita State 1W - Avg RPI - 16.0, 14th or better (21%), 16TH or better (57%) So why is Wisconsin so high up on this ranking given their projected RPI? Bonus points? Because they have a real chance of beating Penn State - and then all seed questions cease. No one below them on my list has that kind of opportunity/chance. Also - I think they could end up being a seed even if they don't finish in the top 16 RPI.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 23, 2017 21:57:48 GMT -5
Cannot see two SEC teams getting top 4 seeds. In fact I'd bet on it and I'm not a betting man. The committee loves Nebraska, I don't see them dropping out of top 4 with their remaining schedule. Stanford is in, if they don't drop another. Penn State is definitely in, even if they drop one more. That leaves one spot, which I think goes to Florida. Sorry Kentucky, but I think Texas would get a crack at it before KY. I try to "think like the committee", but don't know what that is. Actually, the committee loved Stanford enough on 10/30 to vault them more spots compared to their RPI ranking than how many spots they vaulted Nebraska; of course, the Cardinal had more room to climb. As I noted, everyone's resume will have changed after 4 weeks of competition. So, the committee has the complete set of criteria to evaluate now (or will in a couple of days), while on 10/30 they had 2/3 of it. Another poster asked the question as to whether Nebraska's RPI drop (to spots) would correlate to a drop in the committees rankings/seedings. Most feel it will; no one knows how much, though. It makes sense that it would as the other teams trailing Nebraska in certain criteria made up some ground, or surpassed. I know bluepenquin has run some projections to include the last matches of the season. And, Kentucky might not end up with the #1 RPI. But, as of today, they are. My seedings were as of today, so not projecting what will occur on Friday/Saturday. It has been rare for teams ranked #1 or #2 in RPI to not be a Top 4 national seed; at brought up FSU in 2014. Not sure if there are others. So, tonight, I can't see Kentucky falling 4 spots compared to their RPI. If Kentucky's final RPI is #1 or #2 and they are given a #5 seed or lower, then that will tell us which criteria (Top 25 RPI wins) the committee emphasized strongly; but, no one thinks that criteria will favor Washington and vault them up to a Top 4 national seed.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 24, 2017 0:41:16 GMT -5
Does anyone recall if last season's committee provided their rationale for bumping Penn State all they way up to the #16 national seed? That might have been the biggest surprise of all the seedings. Is there a team out there this season who could get bumped all the way up to #16 that no one is considering a candidate right now? I don't recall the committee commenting on that. However, this is still listed in the selection criteria section: " Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Women’s Volleyball Committee." So regional rankings could definitely play a role and those could be affected by Pablo rankings or very subjective opinions of what team is best. They were #5 in Pablo at the time and believe it or not, there actually ARE some volleyball people on the committee. It's quite possible that they considered that the biggest result of not seeding Penn State would be REALLY screwing over whichever seeded team they got sent to play. Without looking it up, I'm guessing that situation was without precedent: a top 5 Pablo and an RPI outside of the Top 25. I don't think that decision tells us anything about future seeding decisions.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 24, 2017 1:32:12 GMT -5
If Kentucky's final RPI is #1 or #2 and they are given a #5 seed or lower, then that will tell us which criteria (Top 25 RPI wins) the committee emphasized strongly; but, no one thinks that criteria will favor Washington and vault them up to a Top 4 national seed. In softball, they looked at Top-10 wins, top-25 wins, and strength of schedule as the most important factors in seeding, and dumped the #1 ranked team in the coaches' poll entirely out of the seeds. They didn't even mention RPI (they were #13). www.tidesports.com/ncaa-releases-statement-minnesota-softball-not-seeded/Both Kentucky and Florida have slim resumes, due to the weakness of their conference. That and their strength of schedule (?) is what might sink them. Florida has the fewer, but better, quality wins, however. The only question with Washington is whether they can leap-frog Minnesota, it seems to me. (To get a #4 seed, Kentucky, Florida, Texas, and Minnesota would have to be dumped below them, which doesn't seem likely.) Otherwise, they and USC look to be headed to #1 Penn State's regional. Moving up one or down two would likely send them to #2 Stanford's regional, which I can't imagine Stanford would be too thrilled about, since the Huskies have beaten them 5 sets to 4. Top-10/25 wins: Kentucky 3/2 Penn State 3/5 Florida 3/0 Stanford 4/6 Texas 0/7 Nebraska 2/6 Minnesota 1/4 Washington 3/6 I'm thinking the top three seeds will be Penn State, Stanford, Florida, and Nebraska. Florida makes it in based on wins over Texas and Nebraska, which are more impressive than Kentucky's wins over USC and Utah. Nebraska leap-frogs Texas and Kentucky.
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Nov 24, 2017 1:44:54 GMT -5
I'm hoping PSU was credited for the strength of their conference, and weren't motivated by an uncontrolled urge to kiss Russ Rose's behind. On the other hand, it gave Pitt, Dayton, and LIU Brooklyn a place to drive to. Maybe it was all-three... Was just wondering if one specific criteria (wins over Top 25 teams, games played against Top 25 teams, etc.) was valued by the committee and it worked in PSU's favor. From last year's thread: NCAA chair Lisa Peterson explains seedings, decisions volleytalk.net/thread/66769/chair-peterson-explains-seedings-decisions?page=15Quote from: volleyballmag.com/ncaafield/ article
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 24, 2017 2:01:59 GMT -5
Was just wondering if one specific criteria (wins over Top 25 teams, games played against Top 25 teams, etc.) was valued by the committee and it worked in PSU's favor. From last year's thread: NCAA chair Lisa Peterson explains seedings, decisions volleytalk.net/thread/66769/chair-peterson-explains-seedings-decisions?page=15Quote from: volleyballmag.com/ncaafield/ article Selection Committee Criteria:W/L: Matches and Games Point differential against teams Away W/L Home W/L Record against Top 10 Teams Record against Top 25 Teams Record against Top 50 Teams Record against Top 75 Teams Record against Top 100 Teams The RPI PABLO. This became a part of the process a few years ago, It is a great addition to the process. Regional Rankings Last ten match results Last five match results Thanks for finding all that. It's interesting that the chairperson noted "Top 15 wins" even though it's not specifically one of the parameters listed. A couple of days ago, I posted the following in a different thread: "Using the latest RPI futures rankings, Texas would be 6-2 against national Top 16 teams (seeds): Florida (L), Minnesota (L), Kansas (2), Baylor (2), and Iowa State (2). Florida would be 3-1. Nebraska would be 3-2. Stanford would be 4-3. Penn State is currently 2-1, but could end up 4-1 if they win at Wisconsin and Minnesota." Honestly, the committee could emphasize different parameter and then easily justify their seeedigs.
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Nov 24, 2017 2:11:33 GMT -5
Thanks for finding all that. It's interesting that the chairperson noted "Top 15 wins" even though it's not specifically one of the parameters listed. A couple of days ago, I posted the following in a different thread: "Using the latest RPI futures rankings, Texas would be 6-2 against national Top 16 teams (seeds): Florida (L), Minnesota (L), Kansas (2), Baylor (2), and Iowa State (2). Florida would be 3-1. Nebraska would be 3-2. Stanford would be 4-3. Penn State is currently 2-1, but could end up 4-1 if they win at Wisconsin and Minnesota." Honestly, the committee could emphasize different parameter and then easily justify their seeedigs. Here's a link to see the selection committee's 2016 nitty gritty work papers: extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/16%20VB%20Nitty%20Gritty%20thru%20Nov%2026.pdfThis is a good resource for all historical data: extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/default.aspxShout out to n00b for that find.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 24, 2017 2:23:57 GMT -5
W/L: Matches and Games Point differential against teams Away W/L Home W/L Record against Top 10 Teams Record against Top 25 Teams Record against Top 50 Teams Record against Top 75 Teams Record against Top 100 Teams The RPI PABLO. This became a part of the process a few years ago, It is a great addition to the process. Regional Rankings Last ten match results Last five match results Where did you get that list? The Pre-Championship Manual only lists the following:
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 24, 2017 2:53:16 GMT -5
There is no evidence that pablo is considered by the committee.
I'm pretty much convinced that RPI is the main tool used, except when it gives an answer that the committee doesn't like, in which case they handwave other criteria (like they did last year when PSU was #26 (#22 adjusted) in the final RPI but got seeded anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Nov 24, 2017 3:05:48 GMT -5
Someone posted it last year, and no one questioned it, if I remember correctly. However, I did not verify it, although, I do recall that it felt odd that Pablo was included.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 24, 2017 3:12:05 GMT -5
There is no evidence that pablo is considered by the committee. I'm pretty much convinced that RPI is the main tool used, except when it gives an answer that the committee doesn't like, in which case they handwave other criteria (like they did last year when PSU was #26 (#22 adjusted) in the final RPI but got seeded anyway). At the time selections were made, Penn State was #26 adjusted, #30 unadjusted. I was stunned.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 24, 2017 3:20:43 GMT -5
There is no evidence that pablo is considered by the committee. I'm pretty much convinced that RPI is the main tool used, except when it gives an answer that the committee doesn't like, in which case they handwave other criteria (like they did last year when PSU was #26 (#22 adjusted) in the final RPI but got seeded anyway). At the time selections were made, Penn State was #26 adjusted, #30 unadjusted. I was stunned. It was reported here that PSU was #26 adjusted. The NCAA final "nitty gritty" report says they were #22 adjusted. Either way, the excuse given above was weak sauce. PSU went 3-8 against the RPI top-25. San Diego went 3-3, and had an RPI that put them right in line with being seeded. Surely it's harder to win 3/6 of your matches against the top-25 than to win 3/11 of your top-25 matches, right?
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Nov 24, 2017 3:25:22 GMT -5
There is no evidence that pablo is considered by the committee. I'm pretty much convinced that RPI is the main tool used, except when it gives an answer that the committee doesn't like, in which case they handwave other criteria (like they did last year when PSU was #26 (#22 adjusted) in the final RPI but got seeded anyway). At the time selections were made, Penn State was #26 adjusted, #30 unadjusted. I was stunned. I saw that too, but didn't want to get MikeG and TomC started again on the matter. LOL! For what it's worth, in 2008 the selection committee gave UCLA the #14 seed with an RPI of 27.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Nov 24, 2017 3:40:57 GMT -5
At the time selections were made, Penn State was #26 adjusted, #30 unadjusted. I was stunned. I saw that too, but didn't want to get MikeG and TomC started again on the matter. LOL! For what it's worth, in 2008 the selection committee gave UCLA the #14 seed with an RPI of 27. Also penn state did push #1 seed nebraska to 5, so the seed wasnt ALL that bad, but I think they got it in name only
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Nov 24, 2017 10:32:30 GMT -5
I would say that if Colorado beats Utah tonight, then Colorado has a very good chance at a seed. Both Denver and Colorado State (automatic bid winners from their conference championships) are less than a 1 hour drive to Boulder, and that will be very attractive to the committee -- on top of Colorado's resume and RPI.
|
|