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 12:12:59 GMT -5
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? 2013 was an example of this - and it appears that H2H was a crucial difference. Penn State #1 in RPI and Texas #2. Texas beat Penn State early in the season and got the #1 seed over Penn State. Texas also had the better record against the Top 25, but Penn State had the tougher conference rank. This would support your position of BYU being the #1 this year - although the difference in RPI is much bigger this year than it was in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 19, 2018 12:13:32 GMT -5
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. Have you ever met any of the hacks on some of these committee's? Absent being in the room, there is probably not going to be much evidence. If your argument is resting entirely on the committee's stated criteria, then simply looking for contradictions with the criteria isn't really much evidence at all either.
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Nov 19, 2018 12:16:38 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. Oy, that year. It looms large in my thinking that the committee should not be counted on to know much about volleyball. All they had to do was look at Missouri's schedule and ponder, "Hmm, maybe Florida is overrated and, if so, then Missouri is, too, because their only 'good' wins are over Florida," but they didn't. (And, as the tournament bore out, both were way overrated.) (I am not making a parallel with this year. I don't think either Stanford or BYU is overrated. Although USC...)
|
|
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 12:24:03 GMT -5
2015:
RPI was 1. Texas, 2. Minnesota, 3. USC, 4. Nebraska Seed was 1. USC, 2. Minnesota, 3. Texas, 4. Nebraska
No H2H among the top 3 - Texas and Minnesota both beat Nebraska. USC had more T25 wins than Texas. USC also had the best record (30-2). Not sure what the deciding factor for the top 3 here?
|
|
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 12:26:04 GMT -5
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. Oy, that year. It looms large in my thinking that the committee should not be counted on to know much about volleyball. All they had to do was look at Missouri's schedule and ponder, "Hmm, maybe Florida is overrated and, if so, then Missouri is, too, because their only 'good' wins are over Florida," but they didn't. (And, as the tournament bore out, both were way overrated.) (I am not making a parallel with this year. I don't think either Stanford or BYU is overrated. Although USC...) Pablo had Florida #4 and Missouri #5 at selection time.
|
|
|
Post by big10+4 fan on Nov 19, 2018 12:26:18 GMT -5
2015: RPI was 1. Texas, 2. Minnesota, 3. USC, 4. Nebraska Seed was 1. USC, 2. Minnesota, 3. Texas, 4. Nebraska No H2H among the top 3 - Texas and Minnesota both beat Nebraska. USC had more T25 wins than Texas. USC also had the best record (30-2). Not sure what the deciding factor for the top 3 here? And the avca poll isn't included in selection criteria but Washington was the #1 ranked team going into tournament I believe and they got the #5 seed.
|
|
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 12:35:41 GMT -5
2016 was kind of interesting year:
RPI: 1. Wisconsin, 2. Minnesota, 3. Nebraska, 4. Texas Seed: 1. Nebraska, 2. Minnesota, 3. Wisconsin, 4. Texas
Nebraska split with Minnesota and beat Wisconsin and Texas at home. Minnesota swept Wisconsin and split with Nebraska Wisconsin was swept by Minnesota, lost on the road to Nebraska and won on the road against Texas.
Minnesota's 'bad' loss was a 3-2 loss at Penn State who was only #26 RPI but much, much better in Pablo. Nebraska swept Penn State, beating them 3-2 @ Penn State.
|
|
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 12:44:56 GMT -5
Looking at the top of the seeds - looks like H2H looms rather large. It certainly seemed like a large factor in this committees early reveal this year. The examples I have above shows H2H being big. In addition 2016 Washington finished ahead of Stanford in the PAC12 and had the better RPI - Stanford got the higher seed. Kansas in the same year won their conference over Texas but split in the H2H - so Texas got the higher seed as they also had the higher RPI.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 19, 2018 12:51:06 GMT -5
2015: RPI was 1. Texas, 2. Minnesota, 3. USC, 4. Nebraska Seed was 1. USC, 2. Minnesota, 3. Texas, 4. Nebraska No H2H among the top 3 - Texas and Minnesota both beat Nebraska. USC had more T25 wins than Texas. USC also had the best record (30-2). Not sure what the deciding factor for the top 3 here? And the avca poll isn't included in selection criteria but Washington was the #1 ranked team going into tournament I believe and they got the #5 seed. And Washington also did not play a single tournament match at home that year. Sent to CSU; then TAMU; then San Antonio. I think the outcry from UW not being able to host a single match is what led to the rule that seeded teams host.
|
|
|
Post by big10+4 fan on Nov 19, 2018 12:59:35 GMT -5
And the avca poll isn't included in selection criteria but Washington was the #1 ranked team going into tournament I believe and they got the #5 seed. And Washington also did not play a single tournament match at home that year. Sent to CSU; then TAMU; then San Antonio. I think the outcry from UW not being able to host a single match is what led to the rule that seeded teams host. That was 05, this example is 15 😁
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 19, 2018 13:00:57 GMT -5
And Washington also did not play a single tournament match at home that year. Sent to CSU; then TAMU; then San Antonio. I think the outcry from UW not being able to host a single match is what led to the rule that seeded teams host. That was 05, this example is 15 😁 Oops. Eyesight. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 19, 2018 14:05:39 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. No, that was due to the disconnect between Pablo and RPI. Colorado State was #28 and Oregon was #30 in the RPI. That's not a stacked sub-regional from the committee's perspective.
|
|