|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 2, 2019 16:37:33 GMT -5
^ oh crap. If nobody has done that, what could possibly be the basis for discussion and comparison up until now?
|
|
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: 28,363
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 2, 2019 16:41:06 GMT -5
Despite all the committee’s shenanigans throughout the years — I’ve still managed to just miss on 7 at-large bids through 8 years, just enough to stay under less than 1 missed per year.
Given my opponent — I have to say thats pretty damn good!
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Dec 2, 2019 16:44:20 GMT -5
^ oh crap. If nobody has done that, what could possibly be the basis for discussion and comparison up until now? "eye test". that seems to be what everyone values more than RPI, right? according to the whining
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 17:12:47 GMT -5
Ok. Here are Temple and Cal's non-conference schedules listed by Pablo Rank. Temple's non-conference schedule Ranked #49 70 Princeton 73 Villanova 77 American 124 Ohio 134 Winthrop 177 Fairfield 229 Columbia 257 Lehigh 262 Radford 272 UMBC 296 Lafayette California's non-conference schedule Ranked #141 16 Colorado State 33 Oklahoma 57 North Carolina 95 UNLV 97 Saint Mary's 97 Saint Mary's 174 Buffalo 193 North Dakota State 212 UC Irvine 265 Chicago State These are Pablo ranks, and not RPI? This big of a gap from Pablo makes no sense. By RPI, the ranks of these 10 Cal matches are 19,33,88,116,144,144,152,175,270 and 286. For an average of 142 Temple is 48,60,74,75,100,110,161,208,242,264,297. Average of 149.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 2, 2019 17:13:22 GMT -5
OK, did what I had asked for:
Seeding / RPI / Pablo / subregional #2 seed RPI /
1. Baylor / 1 / 6 / Southern Cal / 28 / 2. Texas / 2 / 3 / Texas St. / 30 / 3. Stanford / 3 / 1 / Georgia / 31 / 4. Wisconsin / 5 / 2 / UCLA / 27 / 5. Nebraska / 8 / 4 / Mizzou / 19 / 6. Pittsburgh / 4 / 7 / VCU / 47 / 7. Minn / 10 / 8 / Creighton / 20 / 8. UDub / 9 / 10 / Colo. St. / 23 / 9. Kentucky / 6 / 9 / Michigan / 39 10. Florida / 7 / 12 / UCF / 24 11. Penn St. / 16 / 5 / American / 54 12. Hawaii / 11 / 30 / San Diego / 26 / 13. TAMU / 11 / 18 / Rice / 14 / 14. BYU / 17 / 13 / Utah / 18 / 15. Western Kentucky / 15 / 19 / Louisville / 25 / 16. Purdue / 21 / 17 / Marquette / 13 /
Edited Pablo rankings... I had originally errantly put Rich Kern Poll rankings
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 17:15:46 GMT -5
Despite all the committee’s shenanigans throughout the years — I’ve still managed to just miss on 7 at-large bids through 8 years, just enough to stay under less than 1 missed per year. Given my opponent — I have to say thats pretty damn good! Either that, or you are both equally crazy
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 2, 2019 17:23:54 GMT -5
^ According to the above, relying upon RPI and not Pablo of the 2nd seed, we can conclude that the most competitive sub regionals are, in order:
1. BYU, whose opponent is +1 in RPI 2. TAMU, whose opponent is +3 in RPI 3. Purdue, whose opponent is -8 in RPI 4/5. Minn and Western Ky, whose opponents are +10 in RPI 6. Nebraska, whose opponent is +11 in RPI 7. UDub with +14 8. Hawaii, with +15 9. . Florida, with +17 10. Wisconsin with +22 11. Baylor with +27 12/13. Texas and Stanford with +28 14. Kentucky with +33 15. Penn St. with +38 16. Pitt with +40
So, basically, Marquette not hosting is not really a liability, given their opponent. The same can be said of Rice and Utah. All three could have made a claim to hosting, but all three will have as good a chance of advancing as if they had in fact hosted, with the exception of Home Court Advantage... which can backfire at times, as we all know. I think Utah will relish the opportunity to beat BYU on their own court. The opposite of pressure. I think Marquette will be pissed, which is also better than pressure. Rice? Who knows how they think... it's mostly binary so I cannot relate.
edited after I fixed UCLA and USC RPI which were 1 off.
|
|
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: 28,363
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 2, 2019 17:25:33 GMT -5
Despite all the committee’s shenanigans throughout the years — I’ve still managed to just miss on 7 at-large bids through 8 years, just enough to stay under less than 1 missed per year. Given my opponent — I have to say thats pretty damn good! Either that, or you are both equally crazy But I'm not doing this based on how I would do it, that's always been clear. Now way in hell I would have had Kentucky at #6 or Utah not seeded -- but I was right on one of those two things. I'm doing it PREDICTING what the NCAA committee will do. There's a huge difference there.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Dec 2, 2019 17:30:14 GMT -5
OK, did what I had asked for: Seeding / RPI / Pablo / subregional #2 seed RPI / 1. Baylor / 1 / 2 / Southern Cal / 27 / 2. Texas / 2 / 3 / Texas St. / 30 / 3. Stanford / 3 / 1 / Georgia / 31 / 4. Wisconsin / 5 / 5 / UCLA / 26 / 5. Nebraska / 8 / 7 / Mizzou / 19 / 6. Pittsburgh / 4 / 4 / VCU / 47 / 7. Minn / 10 / 6 / Creighton / 20 / 8. UDub / 9 / 9 / Colo. St. / 23 / 9. Kentucky / 6 / 11 / Michigan / 39 10. Florida / 7 / 12 / UCF / 24 11. Penn St. / 16 / 8 / American / 54 12. Hawaii / 11 / 19 / San Diego / 26 / 13. TAMU / 11 / 24 / Rice / 14 / 14. BYU / 17 / 10 / Utah / 18 / 15. Western Kentucky / 15 / 22 / Louisville / 25 / 16. Purdue / 21 / 17 / Marquette / 13 / Thanks, that IS an easier way to look at it. So, BYU vs Utah is the most competitive, followed by TAMU vs Rice.
|
|
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: 28,363
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 2, 2019 17:34:42 GMT -5
These are Pablo ranks, and not RPI? This big of a gap from Pablo makes no sense. By RPI, the ranks of these 10 Cal matches are 19,33,88,116,144,144,152,175,270 and 286. For an average of 142 Temple is 48,60,74,75,100,110,161,208,242,264,297. Average of 149. Even when you look at the ranking of those teams in RPI strength -- it's incredible to think that Cal is a whole 100 spots worse than Temple in non-conference S.O.S. That is a gigantic flaw in a rankings system that is an all-or-nothing for NCAA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 17:38:48 GMT -5
These are Pablo ranks, and not RPI? This big of a gap from Pablo makes no sense. By RPI, the ranks of these 10 Cal matches are 19,33,88,116,144,144,152,175,270 and 286. For an average of 142 Temple is 48,60,74,75,100,110,161,208,242,264,297. Average of 149. Even when you look at the ranking of those teams in RPI strength -- it's incredible to think that Cal is a whole 100 spots worse than Temple in non-conference S.O.S. That is a gigantic flaw in a rankings system that is an all-or-nothing for NCAA. If the committee is looking at RPI, then they should not be seeing Temple as having a far better non-conference schedule. In fact it is a little worse. Unless I am missing something here regarding the Pablo ranking? And FWIW, with all of the discussion regarding Illinois on this board the last two days, Pablo still has them at 20.
|
|
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: 28,363
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 2, 2019 17:50:34 GMT -5
Even when you look at the ranking of those teams in RPI strength -- it's incredible to think that Cal is a whole 100 spots worse than Temple in non-conference S.O.S. That is a gigantic flaw in a rankings system that is an all-or-nothing for NCAA. If the committee is looking at RPI, then they should not be seeing Temple as having a far better non-conference schedule. In fact it is a little worse. Unless I am missing something here regarding the Pablo ranking? And FWIW, with all of the discussion regarding Illinois on this board the last two days, Pablo still has them at 20. Go Look at the numbers yourself. extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/Team%20Sheets_120119_SELECTION.pdfCal is on page 49, Temple is on page 121. Look at where it says "Strength of Schedule - Non Conference"
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2019 18:16:18 GMT -5
The thing to remember is that a bad RPI team can be a good team for your RPI strength of schedule (or vice versa).
|
|
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: 28,363
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 2, 2019 18:32:11 GMT -5
The thing to remember is that a bad RPI team can be a good team for your RPI strength of schedule (or vice versa). Yes. And it's impossible to know exactly who will be what, though some things vary less than others. I'm just evidencing how ridiculous RPI is that Cal would be an easy guaranteed lock to the tournament being 9-2 vs. Temple's OOC than 10-0 vs. it's own. That's crazy. Still, you're better off trying to schedule at least a few RPI teams that will be top 25 or top 50 wins in the non conference. Cal did a better job of that than some other bubble teams but they lost out on the RPI war. Usually, you can win enough to get yourself in RPI consideration. Cal did that with clear better victories and it still wasn't good enough. It's really really unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by jammaster on Dec 2, 2019 18:57:28 GMT -5
Despite all the committee’s shenanigans throughout the years — I’ve still managed to just miss on 7 at-large bids through 8 years, just enough to stay under less than 1 missed per year. Given my opponent — I have to say thats pretty damn good! Your record speaks for itself...great service for the board. Anyone who gives you crap about Cal/VCU is welcome to put up their own brackets. Thanks for doing this.
|
|