|
Post by Kingsley on Oct 21, 2019 21:59:35 GMT -5
40.5% chance that 2 teams from the Horizon end up in the top 50 - not counting the impact of the conference tournament. I bet this % chance goes up if we could (easily) account for the conference tournament. I bet there is a reasonable path for the Horizon to be a 2 bid conference this year. Huh! They can't both play Wisconsin!
|
|
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: 12,392
Member is Online
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 21, 2019 22:00:44 GMT -5
36.0% chance that both Marquette and Creighton finish in the top 14. 50.5% chance that both finish in the top 15. 61.8% chance that both finish in the top 16.
This doesn't include the conference tournament - I believe these percentages would improve with their tournament. Especially with it looking likely that Villanova and St. John's will be the 1st round match and they both have excellent records.
Rough guess - probably 70-75% chance that both end up with as a seed.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 21, 2019 22:24:43 GMT -5
Any idea what Pitt's odds of top 4 are if they win out? I see RPI futures/Pablo still says they lose another.
|
|
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: 12,392
Member is Online
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 7:19:51 GMT -5
Any idea what Pitt's odds of top 4 are if they win out? I see RPI futures/Pablo still says they lose another. Pittsburgh: If 18-0 in Conference (32.2%): 1st: <1% 2nd: 30% 3rd: 39% 4th: 20% 5th: 7% 6th: 3% 7th: <1% If 17-1 (38.7%) 2nd: 8% 3rd: 18% 4th: 26% 5th: 18% 6th: 17% 7th: 9% 8th: 3% 9th: 1% 10th: <1% If 16-2 (21.2%) Average RPI is 6.8 with a range of 3rd to 15th.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 22, 2019 10:12:58 GMT -5
Any idea what Pitt's odds of top 4 are if they win out? I see RPI futures/Pablo still says they lose another. Pittsburgh: If 18-0 in Conference (32.2%): 1st: <1% 2nd: 30% 3rd: 39% 4th: 20% 5th: 7% 6th: 3% 7th: <1% If 17-1 (38.7%) 2nd: 8% 3rd: 18% 4th: 26% 5th: 18% 6th: 17% 7th: 9% 8th: 3% 9th: 1% 10th: <1% If 16-2 (21.2%) Average RPI is 6.8 with a range of 3rd to 15th. Thanks. How do you do all this anyway? Statistician in the real world or just a hobby?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 22, 2019 10:16:40 GMT -5
Any idea what Pitt's odds of top 4 are if they win out? I see RPI futures/Pablo still says they lose another. Pittsburgh: If 18-0 in Conference (32.2%): 1st: <1% 2nd: 30% 3rd: 39% 4th: 20% 5th: 7% 6th: 3% 7th: <1% If 17-1 (38.7%) 2nd: 8% 3rd: 18% 4th: 26% 5th: 18% 6th: 17% 7th: 9% 8th: 3% 9th: 1% 10th: <1% If 16-2 (21.2%) Average RPI is 6.8 with a range of 3rd to 15th. So Pittsburgh's odds of a top four RPI position is actually higher (38.7%) if they lose once than if they go undefeated in conference (32.2%). Did I read that correctly? That seems counterintuitive to me, but I'm not an expert. Just curious as to why that would be the case.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Oct 22, 2019 10:26:59 GMT -5
Pittsburgh: If 18-0 in Conference (32.2%): 1st: <1% 2nd: 30% 3rd: 39% 4th: 20% 5th: 7% 6th: 3% 7th: <1% If 17-1 (38.7%) 2nd: 8% 3rd: 18% 4th: 26% 5th: 18% 6th: 17% 7th: 9% 8th: 3% 9th: 1% 10th: <1% If 16-2 (21.2%) Average RPI is 6.8 with a range of 3rd to 15th. So Pittsburgh's odds of a top four RPI position is actually higher (38.7%) if they lose once than if they go undefeated in conference (32.2%). Did I read that correctly. That seems counterintuitive to me, but I'm not an expert. Just curious as to why that would be the case. 38.7% is the odds they lose a game in conference. Odds of each place are listed underneath that, adds to 52% if they lose, 89 if they don't, by my math.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Oct 22, 2019 10:45:02 GMT -5
blue Would you mind doing UNC’s T45 odds if they a) win out (18-10) and b) lose one more (17-11)? Know it’s a stretch but interested if there’s still a marginal chance for a tourney bid.
|
|
|
Post by bracketbuster on Oct 22, 2019 10:50:07 GMT -5
When was the last time a team that had the most top 25 wins on the year was left out of a top 4 seed? In 2018, Nebraska (9-3) and Washington (9-5) were tied for the most top 25 wins with Penn State and Stanford. Nebraska and Washington were beaten out for Top 4 seeds by Kentucky (4-3) and Florida (3-1). For the most part, yes the team with the most Top 25 wins is rewarded with a Top 4 seed. However, in 2017 the difference was Nebraska and Washington had 1 loss to a >25 RPI team, and Florida and Kentucky did not. Washington has 2 such losses right now. You can't lose to "just ok" teams and get a Top 4 seed. Baylor, Stanford, Wisconsin, Texas, Nebraska, Pittsburgh and others have not lost to a >25 RPI team yet this year. I went back and looked at the last decade of RPIs and only 3 times has a team gotten a Top 4 seed with 2 RPI losses to >25 times. So 3/36 (8.3%). Basically, Washington needs to win out IMO and hope USC climbs into the Top 25 and to be safe also hope Washington State doesn't fall outside the Top 50.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 22, 2019 11:23:48 GMT -5
So Pittsburgh's odds of a top four RPI position is actually higher (38.7%) if they lose once than if they go undefeated in conference (32.2%). Did I read that correctly. That seems counterintuitive to me, but I'm not an expert. Just curious as to why that would be the case. 38.7% is the odds they lose a game in conference. Odds of each place are listed underneath that, adds to 52% if they lose, 89 if they don't, by my math. Oh, I see. Thank you for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Oct 22, 2019 11:49:08 GMT -5
When was the last time a team that had the most top 25 wins on the year was left out of a top 4 seed? In 2018, Nebraska (9-3) and Washington (9-5) were tied for the most top 25 wins with Penn State and Stanford. Nebraska and Washington were beaten out for Top 4 seeds by Kentucky (4-3) and Florida (3-1). For the most part, yes the team with the most Top 25 wins is rewarded with a Top 4 seed. However, in 2017 the difference was Nebraska and Washington had 1 loss to a >25 RPI team, and Florida and Kentucky did not. Washington has 2 such losses right now. You can't lose to "just ok" teams and get a Top 4 seed. Baylor, Stanford, Wisconsin, Texas, Nebraska, Pittsburgh and others have not lost to a >25 RPI team yet this year. I went back and looked at the last decade of RPIs and only 3 times has a team gotten a Top 4 seed with 2 RPI losses to >25 times. So 3/36 (8.3%). Basically, Washington needs to win out IMO and hope USC climbs into the Top 25 and to be safe also hope Washington State doesn't fall outside the Top 50. I wonder what the H2H record was between Kentucky and Florida with Nebraska and Washington.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 22, 2019 12:42:47 GMT -5
When was the last time a team that had the most top 25 wins on the year was left out of a top 4 seed? In 2018, Nebraska (9-3) and Washington (9-5) were tied for the most top 25 wins with Penn State and Stanford. Nebraska and Washington were beaten out for Top 4 seeds by Kentucky (4-3) and Florida (3-1). For the most part, yes the team with the most Top 25 wins is rewarded with a Top 4 seed. However, in 2017 the difference was Nebraska and Washington had 1 loss to a >25 RPI team, and Florida and Kentucky did not. Washington has 2 such losses right now. You can't lose to "just ok" teams and get a Top 4 seed. Baylor, Stanford, Wisconsin, Texas, Nebraska, Pittsburgh and others have not lost to a >25 RPI team yet this year. I went back and looked at the last decade of RPIs and only 3 times has a team gotten a Top 4 seed with 2 RPI losses to >25 times. So 3/36 (8.3%). Basically, Washington needs to win out IMO and hope USC climbs into the Top 25 and to be safe also hope Washington State doesn't fall outside the Top 50. I think you mean 2017 for the first part of your post, and I agree that year brought up some dilemmas, but there were some other competing things re criteria at play. Firstly, the idea that Nebraska's loss to a sub top 25 team is what did them in seems kinda false (At least in hindsight). When the committee released its early look at the top 4 seeds, Nebraska already had those losses to UNI and Oregon. The Big 10 and Pac-12 had the potential to rack up loads of top 25 wins because of the conference, and I think compared to Nebraska it could be argued that Florid and Kentucky had enough top 50 wins in total that they shouldn't be punished because they don't play in the Pac or Big. Florida had a head to head win against Nebraska (and Texas, for that matter). Kentucky had a much higher non conference SOS and, I think the kicker was that they beat 3 teams, mostly on the road, in the non conference who were top 25 teams whereas Nebraska beat just 1 team, at home, in the non-conference (they also had the edge in common opponents). Washington had just 1 non conference top 25 win. Where I differ from the potential situation this year is that Washington has a strong non-conference RPI compared to Nebraska (and a solid advantage in common opponents) and Pitt and head to head wins against Wisconsin. Neither Nebraska or Pitt brings the quality of wins against top 25 teams non-conference that Washington can bring. I will agree that at 7 losses it's a tough sell, but I wholly disagree that Washington has to win out to get a seed, at least in this futures. I think they can feel rather comfortable at 5 losses total (2 more losses). re looking back at seeds that have 2+ losses to teams outside the top 25 RPI, I think that's a misplaced statistic because it doesn't capture what else happened. Teams who get seeds don't tend to lose much regardless of who they are too. The real inquiry is far more "nitty gritty". Those teams with 2+ losses to teams outside the top 25 would still have to check off OTHER big RPI boxes such as 1- number of quality wins, non conference SOS and wins, head to head, common opponent record, etc. against the field in their own years.
|
|
|
Post by bracketbuster on Oct 22, 2019 13:22:49 GMT -5
In 2018, Nebraska (9-3) and Washington (9-5) were tied for the most top 25 wins with Penn State and Stanford. Nebraska and Washington were beaten out for Top 4 seeds by Kentucky (4-3) and Florida (3-1). For the most part, yes the team with the most Top 25 wins is rewarded with a Top 4 seed. However, in 2017 the difference was Nebraska and Washington had 1 loss to a >25 RPI team, and Florida and Kentucky did not. Washington has 2 such losses right now. You can't lose to "just ok" teams and get a Top 4 seed. Baylor, Stanford, Wisconsin, Texas, Nebraska, Pittsburgh and others have not lost to a >25 RPI team yet this year. I went back and looked at the last decade of RPIs and only 3 times has a team gotten a Top 4 seed with 2 RPI losses to >25 times. So 3/36 (8.3%). Basically, Washington needs to win out IMO and hope USC climbs into the Top 25 and to be safe also hope Washington State doesn't fall outside the Top 50. I think you mean 2017 for the first part of your post, and I agree that year brought up some dilemmas, but there were some other competing things re criteria at play. Firstly, the idea that Nebraska's loss to a sub top 25 team is what did them in seems kinda false (At least in hindsight). When the committee released its early look at the top 4 seeds, Nebraska already had those losses to UNI and Oregon. The Big 10 and Pac-12 had the potential to rack up loads of top 25 wins because of the conference, and I think compared to Nebraska it could be argued that Florid and Kentucky had enough top 50 wins in total that they shouldn't be punished because they don't play in the Pac or Big. Florida had a head to head win against Nebraska (and Texas, for that matter). Kentucky had a much higher non conference SOS and, I think the kicker was that they beat 3 teams, mostly on the road, in the non conference who were top 25 teams whereas Nebraska beat just 1 team, at home, in the non-conference (they also had the edge in common opponents). Washington had just 1 non conference top 25 win. Where I differ from the potential situation this year is that Washington has a strong non-conference RPI compared to Nebraska (and a solid advantage in common opponents) and Pitt and head to head wins against Wisconsin. Neither Nebraska or Pitt brings the quality of wins against top 25 teams non-conference that Washington can bring. I will agree that at 7 losses it's a tough sell, but I wholly disagree that Washington has to win out to get a seed, at least in this futures. I think they can feel rather comfortable at 5 losses total (2 more losses). re looking back at seeds that have 2+ losses to teams outside the top 25 RPI, I think that's a misplaced statistic because it doesn't capture what else happened. Teams who get seeds don't tend to lose much regardless of who they are too. The real inquiry is far more "nitty gritty". Those teams with 2+ losses to teams outside the top 25 would still have to check off OTHER big RPI boxes such as 1- number of quality wins, non conference SOS and wins, head to head, common opponent record, etc. against the field in their own years. If you want to say my statistics are misplaced, I'll make it even more simple. In the last decade, no team lower than 6 in the selection Sunday RPI has been a Top 4 seed. That only happened once (Wisconsin, 2014, they were 5-2 against the Top 25 and had no bad losses). 35 of the 36 seeds have come from teams with a Top 5 RPI. The RPI futures projects Washington at #9 with 7 losses. Now I don't think they'll lose 7, but I also don't think Texas loses 4, or Wisconsin loses 6, or Stanford loses 5, or Pittsburgh loses 2 even. I'll stand by my statement, Washington needs to not lose (mayyyybe just 1 more against a good team) and finish in at least the Top 6 of the RPI at the end to have a chance. As much as I HATE the RPI and think it's a joke, the history of how the committee uses it doesn't lie. If you want a great chance at a top 4 seed, you better be in the Top 5 RPI at the end. I'll change my tune if the projections start showing Washington up there.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 22, 2019 13:45:16 GMT -5
In 2018, Nebraska (9-3) and Washington (9-5) were tied for the most top 25 wins with Penn State and Stanford. Nebraska and Washington were beaten out for Top 4 seeds by Kentucky (4-3) and Florida (3-1). For the most part, yes the team with the most Top 25 wins is rewarded with a Top 4 seed. However, in 2017 the difference was Nebraska and Washington had 1 loss to a >25 RPI team, and Florida and Kentucky did not. Washington has 2 such losses right now. You can't lose to "just ok" teams and get a Top 4 seed. Baylor, Stanford, Wisconsin, Texas, Nebraska, Pittsburgh and others have not lost to a >25 RPI team yet this year. I went back and looked at the last decade of RPIs and only 3 times has a team gotten a Top 4 seed with 2 RPI losses to >25 times. So 3/36 (8.3%). Basically, Washington needs to win out IMO and hope USC climbs into the Top 25 and to be safe also hope Washington State doesn't fall outside the Top 50. I think you mean 2017 for the first part of your post, and I agree that year brought up some dilemmas, but there were some other competing things re criteria at play. Firstly, the idea that Nebraska's loss to a sub top 25 team is what did them in seems kinda false (At least in hindsight). When the committee released its early look at the top 4 seeds, Nebraska already had those losses to UNI and Oregon. The Big 10 and Pac-12 had the potential to rack up loads of top 25 wins because of the conference, and I think compared to Nebraska it could be argued that Florid and Kentucky had enough top 50 wins in total that they shouldn't be punished because they don't play in the Pac or Big. Florida had a head to head win against Nebraska (and Texas, for that matter). Kentucky had a much higher non conference SOS and, I think the kicker was that they beat 3 teams, mostly on the road, in the non conference who were top 25 teams whereas Nebraska beat just 1 team, at home, in the non-conference (they also had the edge in common opponents). Washington had just 1 non conference top 25 win. Where I differ from the potential situation this year is that Washington has a strong non-conference RPI compared to Nebraska (and a solid advantage in common opponents) and Pitt and head to head wins against Wisconsin. Neither Nebraska or Pitt brings the quality of wins against top 25 teams non-conference that Washington can bring. I will agree that at 7 losses it's a tough sell, but I wholly disagree that Washington has to win out to get a seed, at least in this futures. I think they can feel rather comfortable at 5 losses total (2 more losses). re looking back at seeds that have 2+ losses to teams outside the top 25 RPI, I think that's a misplaced statistic because it doesn't capture what else happened. Teams who get seeds don't tend to lose much regardless of who they are too. The real inquiry is far more "nitty gritty". Those teams with 2+ losses to teams outside the top 25 would still have to check off OTHER big RPI boxes such as 1- number of quality wins, non conference SOS and wins, head to head, common opponent record, etc. against the field in their own years. With regard to the "false" idea that Nebraska's loss to Northern Illinois hurt them in 2017, this was actually covered in-depth by ESPN at the time in this article. The whole thing is worth reading, but the way the committee justified the discrepancy between the early look and the final bracket was (quoting from the article): "The reveal is not to be taken as set in stone. It's just to stimulate discussion in the sport...In short, it's a suggestion of what the committee is thinking at the time, but not anything that will bind them once they actually start putting together the bracket." They also added that the early reveal doesn't have the final data and is done via conference call rather than in person like the real bracket is. Now, just because the committee says that, you don't necessarily have to accept their explanation. But according to them, the Northern Illinois loss did indeed hurt Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 22, 2019 14:11:36 GMT -5
I think you mean 2017 for the first part of your post, and I agree that year brought up some dilemmas, but there were some other competing things re criteria at play. Firstly, the idea that Nebraska's loss to a sub top 25 team is what did them in seems kinda false (At least in hindsight). When the committee released its early look at the top 4 seeds, Nebraska already had those losses to UNI and Oregon. The Big 10 and Pac-12 had the potential to rack up loads of top 25 wins because of the conference, and I think compared to Nebraska it could be argued that Florid and Kentucky had enough top 50 wins in total that they shouldn't be punished because they don't play in the Pac or Big. Florida had a head to head win against Nebraska (and Texas, for that matter). Kentucky had a much higher non conference SOS and, I think the kicker was that they beat 3 teams, mostly on the road, in the non conference who were top 25 teams whereas Nebraska beat just 1 team, at home, in the non-conference (they also had the edge in common opponents). Washington had just 1 non conference top 25 win. Where I differ from the potential situation this year is that Washington has a strong non-conference RPI compared to Nebraska (and a solid advantage in common opponents) and Pitt and head to head wins against Wisconsin. Neither Nebraska or Pitt brings the quality of wins against top 25 teams non-conference that Washington can bring. I will agree that at 7 losses it's a tough sell, but I wholly disagree that Washington has to win out to get a seed, at least in this futures. I think they can feel rather comfortable at 5 losses total (2 more losses). re looking back at seeds that have 2+ losses to teams outside the top 25 RPI, I think that's a misplaced statistic because it doesn't capture what else happened. Teams who get seeds don't tend to lose much regardless of who they are too. The real inquiry is far more "nitty gritty". Those teams with 2+ losses to teams outside the top 25 would still have to check off OTHER big RPI boxes such as 1- number of quality wins, non conference SOS and wins, head to head, common opponent record, etc. against the field in their own years. If you want to say my statistics are misplaced, I'll make it even more simple. In the last decade, no team lower than 6 in the selection Sunday RPI has been a Top 4 seed. That only happened once (Wisconsin, 2014, they were 5-2 against the Top 25 and had no bad losses). 35 of the 36 seeds have come from teams with a Top 5 RPI. The RPI futures projects Washington at #9 with 7 losses. Now I don't think they'll lose 7, but I also don't think Texas loses 4, or Wisconsin loses 6, or Stanford loses 5, or Pittsburgh loses 2 even. I'll stand by my statement, Washington needs to not lose (mayyyybe just 1 more against a good team) and finish in at least the Top 6 of the RPI at the end to have a chance. As much as I HATE the RPI and think it's a joke, the history of how the committee uses it doesn't lie. If you want a great chance at a top 4 seed, you better be in the Top 5 RPI at the end. I'll change my tune if the projections start showing Washington up there. Fair! That’s a much more damning long term statistic for Washington’s chances at a top 4 seed.
|
|