|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 22, 2019 14:27:44 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. 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. Well the committee already knew of the UNI and Oregon loss at the first reveal. If they are hanging their hat on the losses hurting Nebraska in the end and using a conference call v in person as justification, perhaps the reading between the lines conclusion is that there are some influencers on the committee that don’t like Nebraska 🤣
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:42:04 GMT -5
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. Well the committee already knew of the UNI and Oregon loss at the first reveal. If they are hanging their hat on the losses hurting Nebraska in the end and using a conference call v in person as justification, perhaps the reading between the lines conclusion is that there are some influencers on the committee that don’t like Nebraska 🤣 My take: 1) The early reveal doesn't mean a lot - and you cannot necessarily bridge this to the final. This is a good thing - the Final should be independent. 2) History since regional seeds is too new to make definitive claims. The sample size is too small. 3) What the chairperson says as the reason for making a decision should be taken with a huge grain of salt. When I think about how the discussion go, there easily could be no consensus of reasons. You have X number of members and each may have their own opinion and different reasons for choosing/voting for one team over another. A decision is finally made - but how the chairperson tells us the reason can be something not completely accurate w/o lying. There may be no way to generalize the deciding factor (out of conference scheduling, common opponents, injury, last 10 games) among so many different opinions. As such, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in those kinds of specifics from the chairperson - and it probably will have no bearing on future selections.
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:52:54 GMT -5
I am going through a series of probabilities for teams that I think are in contention for a seed. I omitted those with conference tournaments (Creighton, Marquette, Rice, Western Kentucky) along with Baylor and Texas (lets look at them after this week) and Pittsburgh who I already did. Also could have included Utah who has a real path to a seed, but I am going to give it a week and see where they go.
This will have the team, then various ending conference records (with the % chance of this happening in parenthesis). Then the % chance of landing at specific RPI rank, or just a summary of the average RPI rank for that specific conference record.
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:53:15 GMT -5
Wisconsin: 20-0 (5.1%) 1st: 12% 2nd: 78% 3rd: 10%
19-1 (22.0%) 1st: 2% 2nd: 60% 3rd: 29% 4th: 7% 5th: 2%
18-2 (31.9%) 2nd: 15% 3rd: 28% 4th: 30% 5th: 16% 6th: 6% 7th: 4%
17-3 (24.6%) 2nd: 2% 3rd: 7% 4th: 11% 5th: 21% 6th: 28% 7th: 17% 8th: 11% 9th: 3% 10th: <1%
16-4 (10.8%) Avg: 8.4 Range: 5th to 12th
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:55:24 GMT -5
Stanford: 19-1 (8.1%) 1st: 14% 2nd: 72% 3rd: 12% 4th: 3%
18-2 (24.4%) 1st: <1% 2nd: 48% 3rd: 37% 4th: 11% 5th: 3% 6th: 1%
17-3 (31.9%) 2nd: 7% 3rd: 24% 4th: 30% 5th: 25% 6th: 9% 7th: 3% 8th: <1% 9th: <1%
16-4 (20.7%) 3rd: 1% 4th: 9% 5th: 20% 6th: 26% 7th: 23% 8th: 12% 9th: 7% 10th: 1% 11th: <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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:56:07 GMT -5
Nebraska: 19-1 (6.8%) 1st: 4% 2nd: 69% 3rd: 18% 4th: 7% 5th: 2%
18-2 (21.9%) 2nd: 12% 3rd: 30% 4th: 31% 5th: 21% 6th: 6%
17-3 (31.0%) 2nd: <1% 3rd: 6% 4th: 12% 5th: 24% 6th: 26% 7th: 20% 8th: 9% 9th: 3%
16-4 (24.7%) Avg 8.3 Range: 4th to 15th
15-5 (11.%) Avg 11.8 Range: 7th to 17th
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:56:27 GMT -5
Kentucky: 17-1 (7.7%) 2nd: 29% 3rd: 31% 4th: 25% 5th: 12% 6th: 4%
16-2 (22.3%) 2nd: 5% 3rd: 12% 4th: 25% 5th: 25% 6th: 22% 7th: 9% 8th: 4%
15-3 (30.0%) Avg 7.1 Range: 3rd to 12th
14-4 (24.2%) Avg 9.9 Range: 6th to 17th
13-5 (19.%) Avg 13.3 Range: 6th to 19th
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:57:06 GMT -5
Washington: 18-2 (0.8%) 2nd: 50% 3rd: 50%
17-3 (6.4%) 2nd: 17% 3rd: 44% 4th: 20% 5th: 16% 6th: 2% 7th: 2%
16-4 (16.6%) 2nd: 1% 3rd: 9% 4th: 30% 5th: 24% 6th: 20% 7th: 13% 8th: 2% 9th: 1%
15-5 (26.0%) 3rd: <1% 4th: 5% 5th: 12% 6th: 17% 7th: 28% 8th: 20% 9th: 11% 10th: 6% 11th: 1% 12th: <1%
14-6 (24.6%) Avg 9.6 Range 5th to 16th
13-7 (14.6%) Avg 13.1 Range 8th to 18th
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:57:46 GMT -5
Florida: 17-1 (1.3%) 2nd: 8% 3rd: 31% 4th: 39% 5th: 15% 6th: 8%
16-2 (6.6%) 3rd: 3% 4th: 11% 5th: 27% 6th: 26% 7th: 20% 8th: 14%
15-3 (17.6%) Avg 8.5 Range: 5th to 14th
14-4 (28.8%) Avg 11.9
13-5 (26.0%) Avg 15.3
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:58:14 GMT -5
Hawaii: 14-2 (13.4%) Avg 9.7 Range: 4th to 16th
13-3 (37.5%) 7th: <1% 8th: 1% 9th: 2% 10th: 8% 11th: 16% 12th: 17% 13th: 21% 14th: 16% 15th: 11% 16th: 5% 17th: 2% 18th: 1%
12-4 (31.7%) 10th: <1% 11th: 1% 12th: 2% 13th: 4% 14th: 10% 15th: 16% 16th: 14% 17th: 17% 18th: 12% 19th: 10% 20th: 6% 21st: 3% 22nd: 3% 23rd: 1% 24th: <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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:58:57 GMT -5
Louisville 16-2 (8.9%) Avg 7.3 Range: 4th to 11th
15-3 (23.2%) Avg 10.6 Range: 6th to 17th
14-4 (30.4%) 9th: 1% 10th: 3% 11th: 7% 12th: 9% 13th: 18% 14th: 18% 15th: 14% 16th: 15% 17th: 8% 18th: 5% 19th: 2% 20th: <1%
13-5 (22.2%) Avg 18.6 Range: 13th to 25th
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 14:59:29 GMT -5
Minnesota 18-2 (5.0%) 3rd: 8% 4th: 4% 5th: 28% 6th: 24% 7th: 18% 8th: 12% 9th: 6%
17-3 (13.7%) Avg 8.7 Range: 5th to 13th
16-4 (25.9%) Avg 12.4 Range: 7th to 20th
15-5 (24.8%) 10th: <1% 11th: 2% 12th: 5% 13th: 11% 14th: 17% 15th: 15% 16th: 19% 17th: 12% 18th: 13% 19th: 5% 20th: 2%
14-6 (18.1%) Avg 21.0 Range: 13th to 29th
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 15:00:02 GMT -5
Penn State 18-2 (6.2%) Avg 8.3 Range: 5th to 13th
17-3 (16.9%) Avg 11.8 Range: 5th to 18th
16-4 (26.7%) 9th: <1% 10th: <1% 11th: 3% 12th: 6% 13th: 7% 14th: 9% 15th: 15% 16th: 16% 17th: 17% 18th: 13% 19th: 7% 20th: 7%
15-5 (23.8%) Avg 20.5 Range: 13th to 28th
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 15:03:52 GMT -5
Cal 18-2 (4.5%) Avg 7.9 Range: 5th to 14th
17-3 (16.3%) Avg 11.3 Range: 7th to 19th
16-4 (23.6%) 9th: <1% 10th: <1% 11th: 3% 12th: 6% 13th: 7% 14th: 9% 15th: 15% 16th: 16% 17th: 17% 18th: 13% 19th: 7% 20th: 7%
15-5 (23.8%) Avg 20.5 Range: 13th to 28th
|
|
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: 12,446
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 22, 2019 15:04:13 GMT -5
Texas A&M 14-4 (14.0%) Avg 9.1 Range: 4th to 13th
13-7 (28.8%) 7th: 1% 8th: 2% 9th: 8% 10th: 10% 11th: 16% 12th: 16% 13th: 15% 14th: 18% 15th: 8% 16th: 5% 17th: 1% 18th: <1% 19th: <1%
12-8 (28.6%) 10th: <1% 11th: <1% 12th: 3% 13th: 8% 14th: 9% 15th: 16% 16th: 20% 17th: 10% 18th: 12% 19th: 13% 20th: 5% 21st: 3% 22nd: 1% 23rd: <1%
11-9 (18.3%) Avg 21.1 Range: 15th to 32nd
|
|