|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Nov 19, 2018 10:21:19 GMT -5
Very good logic and balance.
But, I don't see the need to ship South Carolina all the way to Stanford when they could be sent to Minnesota instead. And, that would allow Pepperdine to be sent to Stanford. Seems like an even swap.
Pepperdine staying out West somewhere could prevent Tennessee or South Carolina from having to fly so far.
Only one of Pepperdine and Saint Marys could go to Stanford (same conference along with USD). It kind of works out that the SEC teams have to move out West since there are so many unseeded PAC and Big West teams and the top B1G teams are within driving of so many seeded teams and those SEC teams have to fly regardless. I guess it might work putting either South Carolina/Tennessee to Minny and Pepperdine to Washington State - but if I was the SEC team I would rather take my chances against Washington State. How does Pepperdine move up to the 2nd tier, with an RPI around 41? Aren't there more worthy teams in the 17-36 range? Or are they moving up based on winning out. Also wondering if their games in LA are counting as neutral site or home games for RPI?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 19, 2018 10:54:53 GMT -5
I think you all might be overthinking this way too much. While RPI is very important in selections, and they have in the past just drawn the line at RPI, seeds have never gone that way. There are always seeds from outside the top 16 in RPI, and teams are moved around. They use RPI in seeding, but aren't wedded to it at all.
So in the end, you still have
1) BYU undefeated (assuming they end up that way), and even though their RPI is not top because of the overall strength of schedule, 2) they beat Stanford.
I'd be very surprised if they didn't end up #1.
|
|
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 Nov 19, 2018 10:57:28 GMT -5
Only one of Pepperdine and Saint Marys could go to Stanford (same conference along with USD). It kind of works out that the SEC teams have to move out West since there are so many unseeded PAC and Big West teams and the top B1G teams are within driving of so many seeded teams and those SEC teams have to fly regardless. I guess it might work putting either South Carolina/Tennessee to Minny and Pepperdine to Washington State - but if I was the SEC team I would rather take my chances against Washington State. How does Pepperdine move up to the 2nd tier, with an RPI around 41? Aren't there more worthy teams in the 17-36 range? Or are they moving up based on winning out. Also wondering if their games in LA are counting as neutral site or home games for RPI? I have their RPI Futures at #35. As far as 2nd tier - I had these changes in terms of RPI Futures rank:
Moved up: Missouri (34), Pepperdine (35), Colorado State (36) Moved down: Rice (29), Dayton (26), Florida State (27)
Florida State is likely to become a 3 seed unless Florida gets a seed. As I had it - UCF had only 3 other teams within driving (Florida, Florida State, Florida Gulf Coast And I was thinking Rice and Dayton will move down to #3 teams as they have drive-in options. That caused the next 3 to move up including Pepperdine. Who knows what would actually happen...
|
|
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 Nov 19, 2018 11:05:43 GMT -5
I think you all might be overthinking this way too much. While RPI is very important in selections, and they have in the past just drawn the line at RPI, seeds have never gone that way. There are always seeds from outside the top 16 in RPI, and teams are moved around. They use RPI in seeding, but aren't wedded to it at all. So in the end, you still have 1) BYU undefeated (assuming they end up that way), and even though their RPI is not top because of the overall strength of schedule, 2) they beat Stanford. I'd be very surprised if they didn't end up #1. I will not be surprised if BYU is #1 either. But, in every instance that I can think of where H2H pointed one way and EVERY other metric pointed in a different direction - they went with the every other metric. Now, if undefeated carries weight - then that would be different than the other examples. Undefeated + H2H trumps everything could be possible, it has never happened from what I have seen. History shows that undefeated doesn't carry much weight - there are several examples were an undefeated team was not the highest seed. Maybe undefeated + H2H will mean something.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 19, 2018 11:13:25 GMT -5
I think you all might be overthinking this way too much. While RPI is very important in selections, and they have in the past just drawn the line at RPI, seeds have never gone that way. There are always seeds from outside the top 16 in RPI, and teams are moved around. They use RPI in seeding, but aren't wedded to it at all. So in the end, you still have 1) BYU undefeated (assuming they end up that way), and even though their RPI is not top because of the overall strength of schedule, 2) they beat Stanford. I'd be very surprised if they didn't end up #1. I will not be surprised if BYU is #1 either. But, in every instance that I can think of where H2H pointed one way and EVERY other metric pointed in a different direction - they went with the every other metric. Now, if undefeated carries weight - then that would be different than the other examples. Undefeated + H2H trumps everything could be possible, it has never happened from what I have seen. History shows that undefeated doesn't carry much weight - there are several examples were an undefeated team was not the highest seed. Maybe undefeated + H2H will mean something. But when in the past has there been undefeated with a win over the #1 RPI team? Give me an example where that team has not been a #1 seed and I'll buy it. Undefeated team not being #1, sure. Having beaten the #1 seed? Sure. But I don't think there is precedence for the combination. And I disagree with your assessment that "history shows that undefeated doesn't carry much weight." How in the past have undefeated teams been treated compared to their RPI? Do you know that they haven't been treated better than their RPI? There just aren't a lot of undefeated teams around to consider.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 19, 2018 11:14:40 GMT -5
For the past several years I've contended that placement of teams within the middle of the field is largely irrelevant. Tier 1 contains the seeded teams and Tier 4 should be the 16 AQ teams with the worst RPI's. The teams in those two tiers should always be matched up in the 1st round. The past couple of years the committee has done this.
The RPI (or Pablo) difference between the #17 and #48 teams in the field should not be that large. I think to obsess over placing them into distinct tiers (2 & 3) involves focusing on distinctions without any significant difference.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 19, 2018 11:27:23 GMT -5
For the past several years I've contended that placement of teams within the middle of the field is largely irrelevant. Tier 1 contains the seeded teams and Tier 4 should be the 16 AQ teams with the worst RPI's. The teams in those two tiers should always be matched up in the 1st round. The past couple of years the committee has done this. The RPI (or Pablo) difference between the #17 and #48 teams in the field should not be that large. I think to obsess over placing them into distinct tiers (2 & 3) involves focusing on distinctions without any significant difference. This is how we ended up with a subregional in 2011 with 3 of the Top 16 Pablo teams.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 19, 2018 11:32:44 GMT -5
I think you all might be overthinking this way too much. While RPI is very important in selections, and they have in the past just drawn the line at RPI, seeds have never gone that way. There are always seeds from outside the top 16 in RPI, and teams are moved around. They use RPI in seeding, but aren't wedded to it at all. So in the end, you still have 1) BYU undefeated (assuming they end up that way), and even though their RPI is not top because of the overall strength of schedule, 2) they beat Stanford. I'd be very surprised if they didn't end up #1. On the other hand, BYU's relative weakness in RPI provides the committee the flexibility (i.e. cover) to seed in the order they need to create the match-ups they really want.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 19, 2018 11:35:43 GMT -5
I think you all might be overthinking this way too much. While RPI is very important in selections, and they have in the past just drawn the line at RPI, seeds have never gone that way. There are always seeds from outside the top 16 in RPI, and teams are moved around. They use RPI in seeding, but aren't wedded to it at all. So in the end, you still have 1) BYU undefeated (assuming they end up that way), and even though their RPI is not top because of the overall strength of schedule, 2) they beat Stanford. I'd be very surprised if they didn't end up #1. On the other hand, BYU's relative weakness in RPI provides the committee the flexibility (i.e. cover) to seed in the order they need to create the match-ups they really want. Is there any evidence that the committee "really wants" any particular matchup?
|
|
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 Nov 19, 2018 11:51:25 GMT -5
I will not be surprised if BYU is #1 either. But, in every instance that I can think of where H2H pointed one way and EVERY other metric pointed in a different direction - they went with the every other metric. Now, if undefeated carries weight - then that would be different than the other examples. Undefeated + H2H trumps everything could be possible, it has never happened from what I have seen. History shows that undefeated doesn't carry much weight - there are several examples were an undefeated team was not the highest seed. Maybe undefeated + H2H will mean something. But when in the past has there been undefeated with a win over the #1 RPI team? Give me an example where that team has not been a #1 seed and I'll buy it. Undefeated team not being #1, sure. Having beaten the #1 seed? Sure. But I don't think there is precedence for the combination. And I disagree with your assessment that "history shows that undefeated doesn't carry much weight." How in the past have undefeated teams been treated compared to their RPI? Do you know that they haven't been treated better than their RPI? There just aren't a lot of undefeated teams around to consider. 2014 Missouri 34-0 and #4 seed. Their RPI was somewhere in the 3-5 range, cannot remember exactly. I believe there was an undefeated Hawaii team that wasn't a #1 seed, but cannot remember specifically. I don't think there are many examples of undefeated and not #1 RPI (or even undefeated anymore) - Missouri is the last I can remember. Missouri didn't have the H2H with the top 3 seeds that year - they did beat #4/5 Florida twice.
Yes - I said there is no example of undefeated and H2H over the #1 RPI team. I agree that is the path for BYU - there is no precedent for this. And I agree that #1 for BYU is a possibility.
But I am also saying there is a real possibility of an alternative. Undefeated teams (limited sample) have not been treated (much) better than their RPI - Missouri being the most recent example. And there are many examples (I believe from memory) where 1 team had the H2H advantage, but the other team had the advantage in all the other metrics used and they went with the other team as the higher seed.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 19, 2018 12:01:05 GMT -5
On the other hand, BYU's relative weakness in RPI provides the committee the flexibility (i.e. cover) to seed in the order they need to create the match-ups they really want. Is there any evidence that the committee "really wants" any particular matchup? It's hard to know since they won't say it out loud, but I think it's implausible that they don't at least consider what the final match-ups will look like (on paper anyway) in the deliberation process. It's pretty clear o this board that when people decide on a ranking for a team or set of teams, they create an internal narrative. Is it going to be a Stanford-BYU re-match in the final (with each having to go through a BIG team), or in the semi-final with the winner going against a B1G. I wouldn't be surprised to see BYU anywhere from 1 to 4 seed for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 19, 2018 12:05:12 GMT -5
Is there any evidence that the committee "really wants" any particular matchup? It's hard to know since they won't say it out loud, but I think it's implausible that they don't at least consider what the final match-ups will look like (on paper anyway) in the deliberation process. . What they do say out loud is that they assign seeds based on the factors given. "Desired matchups" is not one of the factors given. Moreover, we have seen examples of really dumb matchups. Like putting three seeded B1G teams in the same regional. If they were actually thinking about matchups, wouldn't you think they would try to avoid that? No, all indications are that they don't do this with matchups in mind.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 19, 2018 12:07:40 GMT -5
But when in the past has there been undefeated with a win over the #1 RPI team? Give me an example where that team has not been a #1 seed and I'll buy it. Undefeated team not being #1, sure. Having beaten the #1 seed? Sure. But I don't think there is precedence for the combination. And I disagree with your assessment that "history shows that undefeated doesn't carry much weight." How in the past have undefeated teams been treated compared to their RPI? Do you know that they haven't been treated better than their RPI? There just aren't a lot of undefeated teams around to consider. 2014 Missouri 34-0 and #4 seed. Their RPI was somewhere in the 3-5 range, cannot remember exactly. I believe there was an undefeated Hawaii team that wasn't a #1 seed, but cannot remember specifically. I don't think there are many examples of undefeated and not #1 RPI (or even undefeated anymore) - Missouri is the last I can remember. Missouri didn't have the H2H with the top 3 seeds that year - they did beat #4/5 Florida twice.
Yes - I said there is no example of undefeated and H2H over the #1 RPI team. I agree that is the path for BYU - there is no precedent for this. And I agree that #1 for BYU is a possibility.
But I am also saying there is a real possibility of an alternative. Undefeated teams (limited sample) have not been treated (much) better than their RPI - Missouri being the most recent example. And there are many examples (I believe from memory) where 1 team had the H2H advantage, but the other team had the advantage in all the other metrics used and they went with the other team as the higher seed.
But it's about the combination, which is why I listed both factors. It would be better to look at the cases where the non-#1 RPI team didn't get the #1 seed. Which happens regularly. What were the factors that put them ahead?
|
|
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 Nov 19, 2018 12:08:04 GMT -5
It was 2013:
Seed. School (Record) - Selection RPI (T25 record)
1. Texas (25-2) - 2 (11-1) 2. Penn State (29-2) - 1 (9-1) 3. Washington (26-2) - 5 (7-1) 4. Missouri (34-0) - 4 (4-0) 5. Florida (27-3) - 3 (6-3) 6. USC (26-5) - 7 (6-4) 7. Stanford (24-5) - 6 (4-5) 8. Nebraska (23-6) - 8 (7-2)
Undefeated Missouri finished #4 in RPI and #4 Seed. Washington moved up from #5 RPI to #3 Seed and Florida dropped from #3 RPI to #5 Seed.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 19, 2018 12:11:06 GMT -5
It was 2013: Seed. School (Record) - Selection RPI (T25 record) 1. Texas (25-2) - 2 (11-1) 2. Penn State (29-2) - 1 (9-1) 3. Washington (26-2) - 5 (7-1) 4. Missouri (34-0) - 4 (4-0) 5. Florida (27-3) - 3 (6-3) 6. USC (26-5) - 7 (6-4) 7. Stanford (24-5) - 6 (4-5) 8. Nebraska (23-6) - 8 (7-2) Undefeated Missouri finished #4 in RPI and #4 Seed. Washington moved up from #5 RPI to #3 Seed and Florida dropped from #3 RPI to #5 Seed. So Missouri was undefeated and was placed ahead of the team ahead of them in RPI who they beat. Yeah, in this case, it was Florida moved down instead of Missouri moving up, but I don't think they are going to drop Stanford.
|
|