|
Post by bbk on Sept 18, 2018 11:44:28 GMT -5
That's right. The computer will see a result not who set or played in the match. Pitt has the wins and that will be all that matter.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 18, 2018 12:22:44 GMT -5
Michigan has done a great job of gaming/lucking the RPI non conference SOS. They could literally go the entire season without picking up a single win against an RPI top 25 team and still end up with a top 10 RPI. This is probably true. If Michigan goes 12-8 in conference (losing only to Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska 2X, Penn State 2X, and Wisconsin 2X) they would have an RPI Futures of #9. Add in Purdue and they go 11-9 and their RPI Futures is #11. Add in losses to Michigan State (2X) and they are 9-11 in conference - their RPI Futures is #15. This is why they currently have a 97% chance of finishing in the top 16 in RPI.
They have a chance of being a seed with their best wins being Iowa/Colorado State/Ohio State/Auburn/Notre Dame (2X), Indiana (2X). They are likely to have better wins - but this is possible.
that would be such a shame, IMO.....nitty gritty would have to pump those damn breaks.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 18, 2018 12:24:25 GMT -5
I think Penn State and Minnesota would have to do very well in Big 10 play to get to the top 4, IMO. Minnesota maybe, but I think PSU is still too young to do well in the Big 10 gauntlet. USC is in the same boat in the Pac 12. Shot themselves in the foot with those 3 losses in week 2. I don't know about that. USC played a really tough schedule, right now they have 4 wins against the top 25 in RPI futures and that's just out of conference. All three of USC's losses are against teams in the top 25 of RPI Futures. well, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying USC is totally out of it, but they'd have to do VERY well in conference....like 3 losses MAX in conference for them to be in real top 4 talks.
|
|
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 Sept 18, 2018 13:18:34 GMT -5
Here are some projected regular conference wins and thus favorites to win conferences that are seldom talked about. Also potential bubble busters.
American East: Albany (8.9), Stony Brook (8.5) Atlantic 10: Dayton (12.1), VCU (10.4) - Dayton looks like a tournament team even if they don't win their conference Atlantic Sun: Kennesaw State (13.4), Florida Gulf Coast (13.0) - Kennesaw could get in the at-large conversation if they won out in the regular season. Big Sky: Northern Arizona (13.3), Northern Colorado (12.3) Big South: High Point (14.3), Radford (12.9) - despite some thinking Radford will get the auto - High Point is probably the clear favorite. Colonial: College of Charleston (11.3), James Madison (11.1), Hofstra (10.9), UNCW (9.8) - such a competitive conference at the top which will hurt College of Charleston's chances of getting an at-large if not winning the conference tournament. And then the status of UNCW adds a layer of uncertainty. Conference USA: Rice (11.0), Western Kentucky (10.7), Florida Atlantic (10.4), UTSA (8.9) - when was the last time Western Kentucky wasn't the favorite. Rice or Western Kentucky could get an at-large. Horizon: Northern Kentucky (10.6), Cleveland State (10.5), Wright State (9.7) Ivy: Princeton (11.9), Yale (9.3) Metro Atlantic: Fairfield (12.8), Iona (12.6), Marist (12.5), Canisius (11.9) - this should be an entertaining conference race. MAC: Ball State (11.1), Miami (10.9), Western Michigan (10.6) Northeast: Bryant (10.2), Sacred Heart (9.1) Ohio Valley: Austin Peay (13.1), Morehead State (11.0) Patriot: Navy (12.1), American (11.8) Southern: East Tennessee State (14.1), Samford (10.3) - ETSU is a huge favorite, but also have at large potential if they lose in the conference tournament. Southland: Stephen F. Austin (13.6), Sam Houston State (11.5), Central Arkansas (10.8) Sun Belt: Texas State (12.4), Arkansas Little Rock (10.9) - Texas State could be in the conversation for an at-large. The Summit: Denver (12.9), South Dakota (10.3) WAC: California Baptist (10.9), New Mexico State (10.0), UT Rio Grande Valley (9.6) - I believe that Cal Baptist is not eligible.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 18, 2018 20:40:55 GMT -5
I don't know about that. USC played a really tough schedule, right now they have 4 wins against the top 25 in RPI futures and that's just out of conference. All three of USC's losses are against teams in the top 25 of RPI Futures. well, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying USC is totally out of it, but they'd have to do VERY well in conference....like 3 losses MAX in conference for them to be in real top 4 talks. I mean, it's probably true that they can't lose more than 3 times in conference but that's always true for a team hoping to get a top 4 seed. It's been six years since a team got a top 4 seed with more than 4 overall losses. I didn't feel like looking up the conference record of all those teams, but no matter the situation, if you lose more than 3 conference matches, you won't get a top 4 seed.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 18, 2018 20:41:26 GMT -5
Patriot: Navy (12.1), American (11.8) Interesting
|
|
|
Post by txnut on Sept 19, 2018 2:24:02 GMT -5
So what do we think of Pittsburgh ? If they end up undefeated would they get a top 4 seed? BYU is pretty much guaranteed a top 4 seed with one loss or running the table, right? I think the 4 regionals come from four of these teams: Stanford Illinois BYU Wisconsin Nebraska Texas USC Penn State Minnesota Pittsburgh Oregon is still technically in it but would have to do major damage in PAC. But basically, yes, it is down to those teams.
|
|
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: 28,162
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 19, 2018 4:09:51 GMT -5
I have a question. When I look at the B1G's work OOC - I see that their record is slightly better than the PAC but they've also played weaker competition (based on the W/L record of their opponents thus far). So I'm curious how much this really comes into play. What is the difference or impact between having your worst teams in the conference go 12-0 against really weak competition, or going 10-2 vs. better competition? I understand that's probably complex to answer, but I figure you might have an idea bluepenquin
|
|
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 Sept 19, 2018 8:12:10 GMT -5
I have a question. When I look at the B1G's work OOC - I see that their record is slightly better than the PAC but they've also played weaker competition (based on the W/L record of their opponents thus far). So I'm curious how much this really comes into play. What is the difference or impact between having your worst teams in the conference go 12-0 against really weak competition, or going 10-2 vs. better competition? I understand that's probably complex to answer, but I figure you might have an idea bluepenquin Taking the worst team in a conference and replacing 2 losses against great records teams and replacing with 2 wins against terrible record teams:
At the extreme - I believe the impact is ~ .0023 for the other teams in the conference assuming they play that bottom team twice. Or about the same as the scheduling bonus or Top 25 win bonus. The impact in the rankings is ~ 1 or 2 places. By 'extreme' - this would be the minimum impact.
I based this on a very easy example. West Virginia in the Big 12. West Virginia scheduled Stanford and BYU - two teams that are projected to have among the very best records this year. I replaced those two losses with wins against NJIT and Manhattan College - two teams among the projected worse records. Then compared the impact on the rest of the teams in the Big 12 - and the results are what I have above.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 19, 2018 8:56:04 GMT -5
(50) Western Kentucky with a big win over (26) Cincinnati last night. After a slow start, they really picked up some good wins towards the end of their non-conference schedule.
(71) UCSB could've made some noise with a good conference record, but a loss to Irvine might crush their hopes.
(54) Valparaiso won a 5-setter against Fort Wayne.
Wednesday's bubbly games: 8:00 (66) Arkansas at (68) Texas A&M [SECN] 9:00 (28) Alabama at (47) Missouri [ESPNU] 9:00 (39) Utah at (32) Colorado [P12N]
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Sept 19, 2018 10:00:19 GMT -5
Although I'm a bit ambivalent about where is the best place to post three posts I'm going to make, maybe here and now is the best spot and time.
My goal has been to figure out as soon as possible in the season the smallest set of teams that will include the Final 32 teams. In the past, Bluepenguin has said or hinted that by about week 4, we might have a better feel. So I have gone back in time 2 seasons and am reporting here my findings.
Here are the 2016 Final 32 teams (alpha order) and the first 4 weeks' of RPI Futures: (to be followed by 2017)
Arizona (50,39,46,35) Baylor (74,88,84,49) - sticks out most Boise State (64,50,65.40) BYU (7,7,7,9) Coastal Carolina (43,29,28,28) Creighton (23,34,26,27) Florida (14,8,5,7) Florida State (12,22,30,36) Hawaii (35,41,47,41) Kansas (9,11,15,24) Kansas State (30,20,17,10) Kentucky (19,28,25,17 Michigan (11,5,6,8) Michigan State (29,19,18.15) Minnesota (4,4,3,4) Missouri (16,43,40,26) Nebraska (1,1,1,1) North Carolina (21,13,9,14) Ohio State (6,16,29,39) Oregon (54,30,19,16) Penn State (8,17,33,33) Pittsburgh (46,27,35,38) Purdue (24,12,8,5) SMU (22,46,69,45) Stanford (15,10,10,6) TCU (20,15,21,19) Texas (2,3,2,3) UCLA (18,9,13,12) UNLV (93,33,32,22) Washington (5,6,11,13) Washington State (94,25,14,20) Wisconsin (3,2,4,2)
In the absolute sense, we had to follow week 4's top 49 (See Baylor) to ensure following the Final 32. However, the next lower one is SMU at 45. So if we had cut off at 45, we would have had the Final 31 and followed only 45 teams. The 3rd lowest was Hawaii at 41, so if we would have settled for Top 30, only 41 of week 4 needed to be followed the rest of the season.
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Sept 19, 2018 10:06:11 GMT -5
2017 Top 32, first 4 weeks’ RPI Futures
Baylor (39,38,35,27) BYU (23,25,34,30) Cal Poly (40,33,33,22) Colorado (37,20,17,21) Colorado State (44,32,29,39) Creighton (6,5,7,14) Florida (1,2,1,1) Illinois (31,9,11,11) Iowa State (22,22,16,10) Kentucky (11,12,13,9) Miami-FL (91,44,32,32) Michigan State (20,15,18,31) Minnesota (2,1,3,2) Missouri (27,51,99,85) - sticks out most Nebraska (7,11,8,12) North Carolina State (72,90,49,44) Oregon (10,13,10,8) Penn State (13,7,4,3) Pittsburgh (48,56,70,46) Purdue (18,16,14,16) San Diego (25,31,27,29) Stanford (4,6,6,7) Texas (3,4,5,5) UCLA (8,8,20,15) UNI (35,52,84,61) USC (17,19,19,24) Utah (15,17,15,17) Washington (9,10,9,6) Washington State (19,27,25,25) Western Kentucky (26,41,42,28) Wichita State (16,14,24,18) Wisconsin (5,3,2,4)
Missouri (85) sticks WAY out beyond the rest and would make me want to follow only the top 31 teams. 2md highest is Pittsburgh at 46, then NC State at 44. So I think this would have been easy to decide to follow the top 31, as gap between 31st and 32nd is wide.
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Sept 19, 2018 10:14:19 GMT -5
So if I am at a point of decision tending to affect the rest of the season (for me), I have to decide now how many and which teams to follow. Based on the past 2 years' trends given above, I think I shall attempt to follow these 46 teams (simply copied from the top) and thereby believe there is a high probability that within these 46 teams will be the Final 31 teams:
1. (1) Stanford - Pac 12 .6987 (24-5) - 3 2. (2) Illinois - Big Ten .6804 (25-6) - 6 3. (4) BYU - West Coast .6776 (26-2) - 30 4. (5) Wisconsin - Big Ten .6763 (22-6) - 4 5. (3) Pittsburgh - Atlantic Coast .6679 (27-3) - 26 6. (7) Michigan - Big Ten .6623 (24-7) - 5 7. (6) Texas - Big 12 .6569 (17-7) - 2 8. (9) Nebraska - Big Ten .6552 (23-7) - 14 9. (11) USC - Pac 12 .6498 (20-11) - 1 10. (10) Penn State - Big Ten .6456 (22-8) - 16 11. (8) Washington State - Pac 12 .6405 (21-9) - 12 12. (15) Purdue - Big Ten .6313 (21-10) - 8 13. (31) Washington - Pac 12 .6233 (19-11) - 7 14. (27) Kentucky - Southeastern .6214 (18-10) - 13 15. (17) Minnesota - Big Ten .6203 (18-10) - 11 16. (14) Marquette - Big East .6200 (24-6) - 69 17. (28) Baylor - Big 12 .6176 (18-9) - 19 18. (20) UCF - American Athletic .6150 (22-8) - 41 19. (24) Creighton - Big East .6148 (24-6) - 72 20. (16) Florida - Southeastern .6140 (21-9) - 46 21. (19) Cal Poly - Big West .6105 (23-4) - 105 22. (26) Oregon - Pac 12 .6103 (19-11) - 20 23. (18) Northern Iowa - Missouri Valley .6102 (20-10) - 22 24. (22) Georgia - Southeastern .6089 (20-9) - 44 25. (23) Kansas State - Big 12 .6086 (19-8) - 45 26. (21) Cincinnati - American Athletic .6027 (22-10) - 47 27. (49) Dayton - Atlantic 10 .6006 (22-7) - 79 28. (13) Alabama - Southeastern .6003 (23-9) - 56 29. (40) Michigan State - Big Ten .5960 (22-11) - 48 30. (36) Loyola Marymount - West Coast .5946 (22-7) - 90 31. (32) East Tennessee State - Southern .5938 (26-5) - 137 32. (44) Colorado - Pac 12 .5930 (18-13) - 24 33. (25) Illinois State - Missouri Valley .5929 (22-8) - 67 34. (34) South Carolina - Southeastern .5923 (18-10) - 39 35. (50) Texas Tech - Big 12 .5914 (19-11) - 43 36. (12) Ohio State - Big Ten .5909 (17-15) - 9 37. (46) Rice - Conference USA .5892 (20-7) - 82 38. (39) UCLA - Pac 12 .5882 (14-13) - 10 39. (38) Utah - Pac 12 .5881 (17-14) - 17 40. (37) Duke - Atlantic Coast .5880 (17-10) - 28 41. (84) Texas State - Sun Belt .5869 (21-9) - 74 42. (35) Colorado State - Mountain West .5867 (22-8) - 89 43. (51) Kansas - Big 12 .5866 (15-12) - 15 44. (55) Auburn - Southeastern .5851 (16-12) - 23 45. (29) Louisville - Atlantic Coast .5849 (21-8) - 81 46. (41) Portland - West Coast .5841 (23-7) - 111
I've monitored Bluepenguin's reports each week adding and subtracting subjectively, and this list is not far from what I had last week. I MAY refine in these next few weeks of conference play. But I don't like to keep changing who I'm following. (I'm not thrilled that TxSt, Duke, EaTnSt, LMU and Portland are in this, as I haven't seen them much til now.)
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Sept 19, 2018 10:15:17 GMT -5
And I should throw in a quick thanks to Bluepenguin for (as you always do and do so well) putting this data together for us all.
|
|
|
Post by kcvbnut on Sept 19, 2018 10:27:38 GMT -5
And I should throw in a quick thanks to Bluepenguin for (as you always do and do so well) putting this data together for us all. Bluepenguin is amazing..... and much appreciated!
|
|