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 Nov 25, 2019 22:53:09 GMT -5
Also, the SMU vs. North Texas match is not being accounted for here. What does SMU look like with a win? Didn't know this was a scheduled match. Adding the match moves SMU to #55 in Futures and #52 if they win.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Nov 25, 2019 22:53:12 GMT -5
Re: Pittsburgh (PS why is there an H at the end?) That's how it is spelled in Pennsylvania. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Pittsburghtl;dr: Scottish influence, like Edinburgh. "Pittsburg" is in northern California (and a lot of other places).
|
|
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 Nov 25, 2019 23:11:22 GMT -5
And if Wisconsin loses once while the rest win their remaining matches - 25.4% chance:
43.3%: 2. Pittsburgh, 3. Texas, 4. Stanford, 5. Wisconsin 40.2%: 2. Texas, 3. Pittsburgh, 4. Stanford, 5. Wisconsin 9.4%: 2. Pittsburgh, 3. Stanford 4. Texas 5. Wisconsin 2.0%: 2. Texas, 3. Pittsburgh, 4. Wisconsin, 5. Stanford 1.6%: 2. Pittsuburgh, 3. Texas, 4. Wisconsin, 5. Stanford 1.2%: 2. Stanford, 3. Pittsburgh, 4. Texas, 5. Wisconsin 1.2%: 2. Texas, 3. Stanford, 4. Pittsburgh, 5. Wisconsin 1.2%: 2. Stanford, 3. Texas, 4. Pittsburgh, 5. Wisconsin
Wisconsin 4th Place - 3.5% 5th Place - 96.5%
Pittsburgh 2nd Place - 54.3% 3rd Place - 43.3% 4th Place - 2.4%
Texas 2nd Place - 43.3% 3rd Place - 46.1% 4th Place - 10.6%
Stanford 2nd Place - 2.4% 3rd Place - 10.6% 4th Place - 83.5% 5th Place -3.5%
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 25, 2019 23:40:17 GMT -5
thanks blue.
|
|
|
Post by txnut on Nov 26, 2019 0:08:41 GMT -5
The Penn State matches have the potential to really swing things for Wisconsin, Pittsburgh, and Texas.
For Texas, they are obviously hoping for Penn State to beat Wisconsin, lose to Minnesota. Pittsburgh wants them to beat both (but Wisconsin more so than Minnesota if they go 1-1.
The question is what would work out better for Wisconsin for the PSU v Minn match. Minnesota losing bumps Texas down some but Pitt up and the other result does the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Nov 26, 2019 0:40:39 GMT -5
And in the end none of us know how close the committee will match seeding to RPI. It’s fun to speculate, but that’s all we’re doing.
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 26, 2019 1:10:24 GMT -5
If South Dakota gets in -- they would just be the 2nd team in the past 20 years to receive an at-large bid without beating a T50 RPI team. It concerns me. So, in 2016, the committee admitted that UNLV was one of the last-teams in the tournament. (On my Final Bracketology, it was the same). UNLV was like ~33 or so in RPI with only 1 T50 victory, I think it was Boise State who was also somewhere in the 30s in RPI. So if a team with a mid-30s RPI and 1 T50 win was just barely in the tournament in 2016, why has the committee shifted towards leaning on RPI more heavily? 2017 and 2018 made much different statements than 2016. It doesn't make sense. Perhaps because adjusted RPI already gives RPI bonus points for top 25 and 50 wins? So, using top 25 and 50 wins as a separate criteria all its own, is an unnecessary double accounting which would overweight. The teams they came against and the scores can be seen in the team sheets. The nitty-gritty shows overall record against the various adjusted RPI tiers. That along with adjusted RPI would seem to fully present and account. So, unnecessary to weigh them further as a separate criteria independent of adjusted RPI. If that happened in the past, well, that's unfortunate.
|
|
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: 28,151
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 26, 2019 1:20:51 GMT -5
If South Dakota gets in -- they would just be the 2nd team in the past 20 years to receive an at-large bid without beating a T50 RPI team. It concerns me. So, in 2016, the committee admitted that UNLV was one of the last-teams in the tournament. (On my Final Bracketology, it was the same). UNLV was like ~33 or so in RPI with only 1 T50 victory, I think it was Boise State who was also somewhere in the 30s in RPI. So if a team with a mid-30s RPI and 1 T50 win was just barely in the tournament in 2016, why has the committee shifted towards leaning on RPI more heavily? 2017 and 2018 made much different statements than 2016. It doesn't make sense. Perhaps because adjusted RPI already gives RPI bonus points for top 25 and 50 wins? So, using top 25 and 50 wins as a separate criteria all its own, is an unnecessary double accounting which would overweight. The teams they came against and the scores can be seen in the team sheets. The nitty-gritty shows overall record against the various adjusted RPI tiers. That along with adjusted RPI would seem to fully present and account. So, unnecessary to weigh them further as a separate criteria independent of adjusted RPI. If that happened in the past, well, that's unfortunate. I don't really understand exactly what you are saying here. I'm saying that the NCAA has shown the past two years that it is ignoring other criteria (Significant Wins/Losses, H2H Competition, Results against Common Opponents) in favor of just using straight RPI cut-off for at-large bids. The committee always uses significant losses/wins as another tool -- along with RPI. Are you arguing that the Top 4 RPI should host regionals? So, should Pitt end up there, they should deserve it? and Top 32 after AQ's should just get automatic bids?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2019 1:54:33 GMT -5
Perhaps because adjusted RPI already gives RPI bonus points for top 25 and 50 wins? So, using top 25 and 50 wins as a separate criteria all its own, is an unnecessary double accounting which would overweight. The teams they came against and the scores can be seen in the team sheets. The nitty-gritty shows overall record against the various adjusted RPI tiers. That along with adjusted RPI would seem to fully present and account. So, unnecessary to weigh them further as a separate criteria independent of adjusted RPI. If that happened in the past, well, that's unfortunate. I don't really understand exactly what you are saying here. I'm saying that the NCAA has shown the past two years that it is ignoring other criteria (Significant Wins/Losses, H2H Competition, Results against Common Opponents) in favor of just using straight RPI cut-off for at-large bids. The committee always uses significant losses/wins as another tool -- along with RPI. Are you arguing that the Top 4 RPI should host regionals? So, should Pitt end up there, they should deserve it? and Top 32 after AQ's should just get automatic bids? For the record, this year in the cumulative PTW contests, RPI has out performed all of the others. No explanation why, but fact. While I believe RPI has had an unduly strong influence in picking the last at larges, I believe it is disregarded a great measure more in determining seedings.
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 26, 2019 3:03:24 GMT -5
Perhaps because adjusted RPI already gives RPI bonus points for top 25 and 50 wins? So, using top 25 and 50 wins as a separate criteria all its own, is an unnecessary double accounting which would overweight. The teams they came against and the scores can be seen in the team sheets. The nitty-gritty shows overall record against the various adjusted RPI tiers. That along with adjusted RPI would seem to fully present and account. So, unnecessary to weigh them further as a separate criteria independent of adjusted RPI. If that happened in the past, well, that's unfortunate. I don't really understand exactly what you are saying here. I'm saying that the NCAA has shown the past two years that it is ignoring other criteria (Significant Wins/Losses, H2H Competition, Results against Common Opponents) in favor of just using straight RPI cut-off for at-large bids. The committee always uses significant losses/wins as another tool -- along with RPI. Are you arguing that the Top 4 RPI should host regionals? So, should Pitt end up there, they should deserve it? and Top 32 after AQ's should just get automatic bids? I was only responding to your last:
"If South Dakota gets in -- they would just be the 2nd team in the past 20 years to receive an at-large bid without beating a T50 RPI team.
It concerns me. So, in 2016, the committee admitted that UNLV was one of the last-teams in the tournament. (On my Final Bracketology, it was the same). UNLV was like ~33 or so in RPI with only 1 T50 victory, I think it was Boise State who was also somewhere in the 30s in RPI.
So if a team with a mid-30s RPI and 1 T50 win was just barely in the tournament in 2016, why has the committee shifted towards leaning on RPI more heavily? 2017 and 2018 made much different statements than 2016. It doesn't make sense."
From this quote, I see in it what I interpret as your concern about RPI shifting to being used as a cut-off criteria w/o the additional emphasis on T50 wins that it had in the past. My response is that since top 25 and 50 wins result in bonus points reflected in the Adjusted RPI used for selection, and that the team sheets and nitty-gritty provide additional context of what teams those RPI tier wins came against and in what quantity along with match scores, then no additional weighing of top 25 and 50 wins is necessary as some sort of independent criteria apart from Adjusted RPI. If that happened in the past, that seems unfortunate.
NCAA general selection criteria is w/l record, SoS, and eligibility and availability of student athletes. NCAA permits DIV-I WVB to designate as Primary selection criteria: RPI, H2H, common opponents results, and sig-wins and sig-losses. Secondary selection criteria if the primary isn't adequate is: last 10 matches performance, eligibility and availability of student athletes, and location of contest. Also, a number of 'other' evaluative tools are listed, which are basically ways of breaking down and presenting the above criteria. The committee is presented this information in various forms, most of which is found in the nitty-gritty and team sheet breakdowns.
Of the primary criteria, the sig-win and sig-loss category is the most subjective. It's not defined in the champ manual exactly what it is, it isn't a separate category on the team sheet or nitty-gritty, or any other evaluative sheet breakdown that I've seen in the RPI archives. However adjusted RPI appears to take care of this in an objective way. RPI adjusts for sig-wins by giving bonus points for Top25 and 50 (original RPI) wins. And it adjusts RPI for sig-losses by applying an RPI penalty for losses against teams ranked Bottom288 and Bottom313 (original RPI). By objective algorithm, RPI also weighs w/l records and SoS components, and non-conference schedules where 50% or more of teams played rank 1-75 in the original RPI will receive a bonus. So, of all the NCAA general and primary criteria for DIV-I WVB, Adjusted RPI objectively accounts for all of it except for H2H, common opponents and student eligibility/availability.
My opinion FWIW, is that Adjusted RPI does not require the committee to evaluate in a subjective way what Adjusted RPI already accounts for in an objective way. To the extent they engage in that behavior, I see that as done in disdain for or ignorance of their primary selection tool Adjusted RPI. Perhaps reflecting a desire to effectively ignore its algorithm and bonus/penalty structure to achieve a more desired result. As a committee, it is free to make that call, but by doing so it charts a path into a subjective territory down a path of its own making.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 26, 2019 3:24:41 GMT -5
I don't really understand exactly what you are saying here. I'm saying that the NCAA has shown the past two years that it is ignoring other criteria (Significant Wins/Losses, H2H Competition, Results against Common Opponents) in favor of just using straight RPI cut-off for at-large bids. The committee always uses significant losses/wins as another tool -- along with RPI. Are you arguing that the Top 4 RPI should host regionals? So, should Pitt end up there, they should deserve it? and Top 32 after AQ's should just get automatic bids? NCAA general selection criteria is w/l record, SoS, and eligibility and availability of student athletes. NCAA permits DIV-I WVB to designate as Primary selection criteria: RPI, H2H, common opponents results, and sig-wins and sig-losses. Secondary selection criteria if the primary isn't adequate is: last 10 matches performance, eligibility and availability of student athletes, and location of contest. Also, a number of 'other' evaluative tools are listed, which are basically ways of breaking down and presenting the above criteria. The committee is presented this information in various forms, most of which is found in the nitty-gritty and team sheet breakdowns.
Of the primary criteria, the sig-win and sig-loss category is the most subjective. It's not defined in the champ manual exactly what it is, it isn't a separate category on the team sheet or nitty-gritty, or any other evaluative sheet breakdown that I've seen in the RPI archives. However adjusted RPI appears to take care of this in an objective way. RPI adjusts for sig-wins by giving bonus points for Top25 and 50 (original RPI) wins. And it adjusts RPI for sig-losses by applying an RPI penalty for losses against teams ranked Bottom288 and Bottom313 (original RPI). By subjective algorithm, RPI also weighs w/l records and SoS components, and non-conference schedules where 50% or more of teams played rank 1-75 in the original RPI will receive a bonus. So, of all the NCAA general and primary criteria for DIV-I WVB, Adjusted RPI objectively accounts for all of it accept for H2H, common opponents and student eligibility/availability.
My opinion FWIW, is that Adjusted RPI does not require the committee to evaluate in a subjective way what Adjusted RPI already accounts for in an objective way. To the extent they engage in that behavior, I see that as done in disdain for or ignorance of their primary selection tool Adjusted RPI. Perhaps reflecting a desire to effectively ignore its algorithm and bonus/penalty structure to achieve a more desired result. As a committee, it is free to make that call, but by doing so it charts a path into a subjective territory down a path of its own making.
I understand your concern and think it's valid. But, while adjusted RPI already accounts for significant wins/losses, it does so in a blatantly stupid way. Why is a win over the team with RPI 25 worth twice what a win over RPI 26 is worth? Why would somewhat adjusting for that be bad?
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 26, 2019 3:57:21 GMT -5
NCAA general selection criteria is w/l record, SoS, and eligibility and availability of student athletes. NCAA permits DIV-I WVB to designate as Primary selection criteria: RPI, H2H, common opponents results, and sig-wins and sig-losses. Secondary selection criteria if the primary isn't adequate is: last 10 matches performance, eligibility and availability of student athletes, and location of contest. Also, a number of 'other' evaluative tools are listed, which are basically ways of breaking down and presenting the above criteria. The committee is presented this information in various forms, most of which is found in the nitty-gritty and team sheet breakdowns.
Of the primary criteria, the sig-win and sig-loss category is the most subjective. It's not defined in the champ manual exactly what it is, it isn't a separate category on the team sheet or nitty-gritty, or any other evaluative sheet breakdown that I've seen in the RPI archives. However adjusted RPI appears to take care of this in an objective way. RPI adjusts for sig-wins by giving bonus points for Top25 and 50 (original RPI) wins. And it adjusts RPI for sig-losses by applying an RPI penalty for losses against teams ranked Bottom288 and Bottom313 (original RPI). By subjective algorithm, RPI also weighs w/l records and SoS components, and non-conference schedules where 50% or more of teams played rank 1-75 in the original RPI will receive a bonus. So, of all the NCAA general and primary criteria for DIV-I WVB, Adjusted RPI objectively accounts for all of it accept for H2H, common opponents and student eligibility/availability.
My opinion FWIW, is that Adjusted RPI does not require the committee to evaluate in a subjective way what Adjusted RPI already accounts for in an objective way. To the extent they engage in that behavior, I see that as done in disdain for or ignorance of their primary selection tool Adjusted RPI. Perhaps reflecting a desire to effectively ignore its algorithm and bonus/penalty structure to achieve a more desired result. As a committee, it is free to make that call, but by doing so it charts a path into a subjective territory down a path of its own making.
I understand your concern and think it's valid. But, while adjusted RPI already accounts for significant wins/losses, it does so in a blatantly stupid way. Why is a win over the team with RPI 25 worth twice what a win over RPI 26 is worth? Why would somewhat adjusting for that be bad? Thanks, and I apologize to you and trojansc for the wordiness. I posted it a bit too quickly before a good proofread. I've finished with edits. You did underline the bottom line take away, so my tip of hat to you for getting though it all and finding that which I should have put up front.
I agree that the cut off from 25 to 26 seems like it results in bonus step change that looks a little large and arbitrary. But you have to draw lines somewhere. It's possible to look at RPI from a normal distribution, standard deviation perspective and come away with tiers of strength based on one sigma, two sigma, etc. I did that once and it showed that seeds 1-4 were the highest sigma tier, followed by 5~50 in the next tier. So, a top 25 basically incorporates the strongest tier and the top half of the next strength tier. Based on that finding, I view the existing step change in the bonus between top 25 and 26-50 as someone drawing a line based partly on tradition and partly on statistical distribution. In other words it was compromise of sorts, and like all compromises it's imperfect but settled an issue that permitted everyone to move on.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 26, 2019 4:10:57 GMT -5
I understand your concern and think it's valid. But, while adjusted RPI already accounts for significant wins/losses, it does so in a blatantly stupid way. Why is a win over the team with RPI 25 worth twice what a win over RPI 26 is worth? Why would somewhat adjusting for that be bad? Thanks, and I apologize to you and trojansc for the wordiness. I posted it a bit too quickly before a good proofread. I've finished with edits. You did underline the bottom line take away, so my tip of hat to you for getting though it all and finding that which I should have put up front.
I agree that the cut off from 25 to 26 seems like it results in bonus step change that looks a little large and arbitrary. But you have to draw lines somewhere. It's possible to look at RPI from a normal distribution, standard deviation perspective and come away with tiers of strength based on one sigma, two sigma, etc. I did that once and it showed that seeds 1-4 were the highest sigma tier, followed by 5~50 in the next tier. So, a top 25 basically incorporates the strongest tier and the top half of the next strength tier. Based on that finding, I view the existing step change in the bonus between top 25 and 26-50 as someone drawing a line based partly on tradition and partly on statistical distribution. In other words it was compromise of sorts, and like all compromises its imperfect but settled an issue that permitted everyone to move on.
Your post was fine.
You don't have to draw a line with a cliff drop off, though. You could do it with, e.g, the team with RPI 1 getting a 3 weight and RPI 50 getting 0.5 then have tiny steps for each team, e.g, RPI 2 is 2.9. Those weights don't work but it would be easy enough to find something that does.
The distinction between 25 and 26 or 49 and 50 is arbitrary. There's usually no real difference between Team 25 and Team 26. (If there is a big difference there, it's a coincidence.) Teams end up moving a lot based on whether a team they played 2 months ago ends up at 25 or 26 (or drops out of the Top 50), often based on what teams that team played do.
I'd have far less of a problem with the Committee relying almost exclusively on some objective criteria if that criteria made a lot more sense than the way RPI works now. I prefer that they base it in large part on some objective criteria but allow adjustments. I realize there are problems with either approach.
|
|
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 Nov 26, 2019 10:15:19 GMT -5
I don't really understand exactly what you are saying here. I'm saying that the NCAA has shown the past two years that it is ignoring other criteria (Significant Wins/Losses, H2H Competition, Results against Common Opponents) in favor of just using straight RPI cut-off for at-large bids. The committee always uses significant losses/wins as another tool -- along with RPI. Are you arguing that the Top 4 RPI should host regionals? So, should Pitt end up there, they should deserve it? and Top 32 after AQ's should just get automatic bids? While I believe RPI has had an unduly strong influence in picking the last at larges, I believe it is disregarded a great measure more in determining seedings.I would use the word - small deviations than disregard a great measure more (that may be the same thing?). I think RPI means a Lot for seeding - they will make some small deviations from the RPI. Pittsburgh having an RPI in the 3-5 range has a huge impact on how they will get seeded compared to Washington with an RPI in the 7-9 range. Going on a different tangent - Washington is an interesting case to me. I have them at #5 on my Top 25 ballot and have had them at #4 fairly recently. I clearly have them rated higher than other pollsters or even Pablo. But I really think that if they had an RPI in the 2-5 range - we would be talking about them being very likely to be a regional host. W/O the RPI, no one is talking about them. And the difference for Washington having an RPI 3-4 spots better is just in the scheduling of a couple insignificant matches.
|
|
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 Nov 26, 2019 10:21:09 GMT -5
The Penn State matches have the potential to really swing things for Wisconsin, Pittsburgh, and Texas. For Texas, they are obviously hoping for Penn State to beat Wisconsin, lose to Minnesota. Pittsburgh wants them to beat both (but Wisconsin more so than Minnesota if they go 1-1. The question is what would work out better for Wisconsin for the PSU v Minn match. Minnesota losing bumps Texas down some but Pitt up and the other result does the opposite. Pittsburgh wants/needs Penn State to beat Wisconsin for sure. Penn State winning both along with Utah winning both could be really big for Pitt. Wisconsin just needs to beat Penn State - cannot imagine how they get left out of regional host with that win to end their B1G season. Texas is kind of stuck in the middle - and it sort of looks like last year where they could end up being odd team left out. For Texas, anything that hurts Wisconsin or Pittsburgh is a plus. I would be for Penn State against Wisconsin - even if this helps Pittsburgh. And certainly for Minnesota to beat PSU to hurt Pitt some.
|
|