|
Post by B1Gminnesotafan on Feb 5, 2020 15:50:14 GMT -5
I don't understand. Who is better than a big ten team to raise your RPI? Those non-conference matches can lower RPI too.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Feb 5, 2020 16:41:48 GMT -5
I don't understand. Who is better than a big ten team to raise your RPI? Those non-conference matches can lower RPI too. Playing teams that play each other a lot, if all other factors are ewual, is worse than playing teams that play different opponents. If you play teams A, B, and C, and those teams each play each other twice, you have six guaranteed losses factored into your opponent record portion of your RPI. If you play team D (let's say Western Kentucky), who doesn't play any of those other three teams, you don't have those guaranteed losses. Even though Michigan and Purdue are a lot better than many of the small conference winners, it can often provide more of an advantage to play the latter group of teams.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 5, 2020 16:51:31 GMT -5
I don't understand. Who is better than a big ten team to raise your RPI? Those non-conference matches can lower RPI too. Well, are you talking Rutgers, Ohio State or Wisconsin?
|
|
|
Post by B1Gminnesotafan on Feb 5, 2020 16:52:31 GMT -5
I don't understand. Who is better than a big ten team to raise your RPI? Those non-conference matches can lower RPI too. Playing teams that play each other a lot, if all other factors are ewual, is worse than playing teams that play different opponents. If you play teams A, B, and C, and those teams each play each other twice, you have six guaranteed losses factored into your opponent record portion of your RPI. If you play team D (let's say Western Kentucky), who doesn't play any of those other three teams, you don't have those guaranteed losses. Even though Michigan and Purdue are a lot better than many of the small conference winners, it can often provide more of an advantage to play the latter group of teams. Ahh, I think I get it. My concern is that the other D1 conferences that play more than just preseason non-conference opponents aren't good RPI teams.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Feb 5, 2020 17:56:44 GMT -5
Playing teams that play each other a lot, if all other factors are ewual, is worse than playing teams that play different opponents. If you play teams A, B, and C, and those teams each play each other twice, you have six guaranteed losses factored into your opponent record portion of your RPI. If you play team D (let's say Western Kentucky), who doesn't play any of those other three teams, you don't have those guaranteed losses. Even though Michigan and Purdue are a lot better than many of the small conference winners, it can often provide more of an advantage to play the latter group of teams. Ahh, I think I get it. My concern is that the other D1 conferences that play more than just preseason non-conference opponents aren't high RPI teams. I don't understand what you're trying to say in your second sentence. I'm also not sure how you're defining "high RPI teams". Looking at the 2019 season, many casual fans would think playing Illinois or Arizona State is better for a team's RPI than playing Fairfield or Robert Morris. Those casual fans would be wrong. Two of the best teams to have on a non-conference schedule in 2019 would have been Towson and Stephen F. Austin. Besides having great W/L records, they both finished in the Top 50 of the RPI. Identifying teams that will have that type of season in 2020 and getting them on your non-conference schedule is a tough puzzle to solve.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Feb 5, 2020 18:49:18 GMT -5
Playing teams that play each other a lot, if all other factors are ewual, is worse than playing teams that play different opponents. If you play teams A, B, and C, and those teams each play each other twice, you have six guaranteed losses factored into your opponent record portion of your RPI. If you play team D (let's say Western Kentucky), who doesn't play any of those other three teams, you don't have those guaranteed losses. Even though Michigan and Purdue are a lot better than many of the small conference winners, it can often provide more of an advantage to play the latter group of teams. Ahh, I think I get it. My concern is that the other D1 conferences that play more than just preseason non-conference opponents aren't good RPI teams. That's definitely true. I also don't think that would work and it probably isn't something Big Ten coaches would entertain.
|
|
|
Post by Rutgers fan on Feb 5, 2020 18:58:24 GMT -5
I say that the Big 10 keeps the 20 game schedule. The consistant top 7 in conference play each other twice then play lower 7 one time. The lower 7 play each other twice. Better chance at more wins for lower then when top 7 plays them and it would boost strength of schedule for all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 19:30:51 GMT -5
I say that the Big 10 keeps the 20 game schedule. The consistant top 7 in conference play each other twice then play lower 7 one time. The lower 7 play each other twice. Better chance at more wins for lower then when top 7 plays them and it would boost strength of schedule for all. First off, this would only be 19 games. Second, the difference in the difficulty of the schedules between teams 6 & 7 and 8 & 9 would be enough to flip the standings. Teams at 6 or 7 would be playing Wisconsin, MInn, Neb and PSU twice. Teams at 8 and 9 would only play them once, but get Ohio State, Maryland, MSU and Rutgers twice?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 13:38:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2020 18:15:35 GMT -5
**EDIT: A hawk-eyed VTer helpfully pointed out that a couple of the data points were season-wide, as opposed to B10 only stats. No one was off by more than .03 but I have duly corrected them for the sake of accuracy**
Thought some of this info was cool...
Big Ten schools ranked from first to worst in terms of 2019 passing grades. Best primary passer and worst primary passer, with their respective grades are also listed. All stats are conference play only - to keep things more equitable.
(1) Purdue 2.22 - best passer Hornung 2.28 - worst passer Otec 2.17
(2) Penn State 2.19 2.20 - best passer White 2.31 - worst passer Parker 1.84
(3) Wisconsin 2.17 - best passer (joint) Clark & Dodge 2.27 - worst passer Haggerty 2.01
(4) Illinois 2.12 2.15 - best passer Welsh 2.38 - worst passer Quade 2.00
(5) Ohio State 2.11 - best passer Murr 2.23 - worst passer Franklin 2.06
(6) Michigan 2.09 - best passer Smith 2.13 - worst passer Hamacher 1.94
(7) Iowa 2.08 - best passer Boyer 2.22 - worst passer Hughes 1.98
(8) Nebraska 2.03 2.02 - best passer Kubik 2.13 - worst Sun 1.85
(t10) Michigan State 2.03 1.99 - best passer Gibbs 2.13 - worst passer Norris 2.03
(10) Indiana 1.99 - best passer Malloy 2.14 - worst passer Edwards 1.88
(11) Minnesota 1.98 - best passer Sheehan 2.06 - worst passer Hart 1.83
(12) Rutgers 1.97 - best passer Marmen 2.04 - worst passer Kojadinovic 1.92
(13) Northwestern 1.91 - best passer Pitsas 1.99 - worst passer Cronister 1.81
(14) Maryland 1.91 - best passer Rivas 2.11 - worst passer Rath 1.75
A few thoughts... Some of the best passing teams are going to take big ball control losses; Wisconsin lose their two top passers in Clark and Dodge (Barnes had a down year after a solid 2018). So do Illinois (Welsh and O'Brien) and PSU (White & Holcomb). Purdue is the exception - they return all 4 of their primary passers and had 3 players over 2.2 this year. Although Nebraska had their worst year passing in a long time, they keep all their passers and you'd expect the Fr to improve but need to figure out what happened to Sun; she passed a 2.14 in 2018 to 1.85 this year. That's the biggest fall in the conference this year. Others are fairly obvious. If anyone has any questions, feel free to tag.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2020 18:19:13 GMT -5
Thought some of this info was cool... Big Ten schools ranked from first to worst in terms of 2019 passing grades. Best primary passer and worst primary passer, with their respective grades are also listed. All stats are conference play only - to keep things more equitable. (1) Purdue 2.22 - best passer Hornung 2.28 - worst passer Otec 2.17 (2) Penn State 2.19 - best passer White 2.31 - worst passer Parker 1.84 (3) Wisconsin 2.17 - best passer (joint) Clark & Dodge 2.27 - worst passer Haggerty 2.01 (4) Illinois 2.12 - best passer Welsh 2.38 - worst passer Quade 2.00 (5) Ohio State 2.11 - best passer Murr 2.23 - worst passer Franklin 2.06 (6) Michigan 2.09 - best passer Smith 2.13 - worst passer Hamacher 1.94 (7) Iowa 2.08 - best passer Boyer 2.22 - worst passer Hughes 1.98 (t8) Nebraska 2.03 - best passer Kubik 2.13 - worst Sun 1.85 (t8) Michigan State 2.03 - best passer Gibbs 2.13 - worst passer Norris 2.03 (10) Indiana 1.99 - best passer Malloy 2.14 - worst passer Edwards 1.88 (11) Minnesota 1.98 - best passer Sheehan 2.06 - worst passer Hart 1.83 (12) Rutgers 1.97 - best passer Marmen 2.04 - worst passer Kojadinovic 1.92 (13) Northwestern 1.91 - best passer Pitsas 1.99 - worst passer Cronister (14) Maryland 1.91 - best passer Rivas 2.11 - worst passer Rath 1.75 A few thoughts... Some of the best passing teams are going to take big ball control losses; Wisconsin lose their two top passers in Clark and Dodge (Barnes had a down year after a solid 2018). So do Illinois (Welsh and O'Brien) and PSU (White & Holcomb). Purdue is the exception - they return all 4 of their primary passers and had 3 players over 2.2 this year. Although Nebraska had their worst year passing in a long time, they keep all their passers and you'd expect the Fr to improve but need to figure out what happened to Sun; she passed a 2.14 in 2018 to 1.85 this year. That's the biggest fall in the conference this year. Others are fairly obvious. If anyone has any questions, feel free to tag. Are she Sheehan and Hamacher really a primary passer? Sheehan didn't see much court time and Hamacher was often times hidden in serve receive...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2020 18:24:28 GMT -5
Thought some of this info was cool... Big Ten schools ranked from first to worst in terms of 2019 passing grades. Best primary passer and worst primary passer, with their respective grades are also listed. All stats are conference play only - to keep things more equitable. (1) Purdue 2.22 - best passer Hornung 2.28 - worst passer Otec 2.17 (2) Penn State 2.19 - best passer White 2.31 - worst passer Parker 1.84 (3) Wisconsin 2.17 - best passer (joint) Clark & Dodge 2.27 - worst passer Haggerty 2.01 (4) Illinois 2.12 - best passer Welsh 2.38 - worst passer Quade 2.00 (5) Ohio State 2.11 - best passer Murr 2.23 - worst passer Franklin 2.06 (6) Michigan 2.09 - best passer Smith 2.13 - worst passer Hamacher 1.94 (7) Iowa 2.08 - best passer Boyer 2.22 - worst passer Hughes 1.98 (t8) Nebraska 2.03 - best passer Kubik 2.13 - worst Sun 1.85 (t8) Michigan State 2.03 - best passer Gibbs 2.13 - worst passer Norris 2.03 (10) Indiana 1.99 - best passer Malloy 2.14 - worst passer Edwards 1.88 (11) Minnesota 1.98 - best passer Sheehan 2.06 - worst passer Hart 1.83 (12) Rutgers 1.97 - best passer Marmen 2.04 - worst passer Kojadinovic 1.92 (13) Northwestern 1.91 - best passer Pitsas 1.99 - worst passer Cronister (14) Maryland 1.91 - best passer Rivas 2.11 - worst passer Rath 1.75 A few thoughts... Some of the best passing teams are going to take big ball control losses; Wisconsin lose their two top passers in Clark and Dodge (Barnes had a down year after a solid 2018). So do Illinois (Welsh and O'Brien) and PSU (White & Holcomb). Purdue is the exception - they return all 4 of their primary passers and had 3 players over 2.2 this year. Although Nebraska had their worst year passing in a long time, they keep all their passers and you'd expect the Fr to improve but need to figure out what happened to Sun; she passed a 2.14 in 2018 to 1.85 this year. That's the biggest fall in the conference this year. Others are fairly obvious. If anyone has any questions, feel free to tag. Are she Sheehan and Hamacher really a primary passer? Sheehan didn't see much court time and Hamacher was often times hidden in serve receive... Hamacher passed 250 balls. Sheehan had almost 100 IIRC (I copied the above from a DM I sent someone a couple weeks ago)... There were only two Gophers over 2.00 (but I'm not allowed to talk about that or they get mad at me).
|
|
|
Post by psuvbfan10 on Feb 18, 2020 19:21:45 GMT -5
Thought some of this info was cool... Big Ten schools ranked from first to worst in terms of 2019 passing grades. Best primary passer and worst primary passer, with their respective grades are also listed. All stats are conference play only - to keep things more equitable. (1) Purdue 2.22 - best passer Hornung 2.28 - worst passer Otec 2.17 (2) Penn State 2.19 - best passer White 2.31 - worst passer Parker 1.84 (3) Wisconsin 2.17 - best passer (joint) Clark & Dodge 2.27 - worst passer Haggerty 2.01 (4) Illinois 2.12 - best passer Welsh 2.38 - worst passer Quade 2.00 (5) Ohio State 2.11 - best passer Murr 2.23 - worst passer Franklin 2.06 (6) Michigan 2.09 - best passer Smith 2.13 - worst passer Hamacher 1.94 (7) Iowa 2.08 - best passer Boyer 2.22 - worst passer Hughes 1.98 (t8) Nebraska 2.03 - best passer Kubik 2.13 - worst Sun 1.85 (t8) Michigan State 2.03 - best passer Gibbs 2.13 - worst passer Norris 2.03 (10) Indiana 1.99 - best passer Malloy 2.14 - worst passer Edwards 1.88 (11) Minnesota 1.98 - best passer Sheehan 2.06 - worst passer Hart 1.83 (12) Rutgers 1.97 - best passer Marmen 2.04 - worst passer Kojadinovic 1.92 (13) Northwestern 1.91 - best passer Pitsas 1.99 - worst passer Cronister (14) Maryland 1.91 - best passer Rivas 2.11 - worst passer Rath 1.75 A few thoughts... Some of the best passing teams are going to take big ball control losses; Wisconsin lose their two top passers in Clark and Dodge (Barnes had a down year after a solid 2018). So do Illinois (Welsh and O'Brien) and PSU (White & Holcomb). Purdue is the exception - they return all 4 of their primary passers and had 3 players over 2.2 this year. Although Nebraska had their worst year passing in a long time, they keep all their passers and you'd expect the Fr to improve but need to figure out what happened to Sun; she passed a 2.14 in 2018 to 1.85 this year. That's the biggest fall in the conference this year. Others are fairly obvious. If anyone has any questions, feel free to tag. This is great, however who rates the passers? Is every home school doing this and is it by the same person. I just wonder what the error bars around these figures actually are since I presume it's human judgement with some obvious pre-defined criteria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2020 19:44:34 GMT -5
Thought some of this info was cool... Big Ten schools ranked from first to worst in terms of 2019 passing grades. Best primary passer and worst primary passer, with their respective grades are also listed. All stats are conference play only - to keep things more equitable. (1) Purdue 2.22 - best passer Hornung 2.28 - worst passer Otec 2.17 (2) Penn State 2.19 - best passer White 2.31 - worst passer Parker 1.84 (3) Wisconsin 2.17 - best passer (joint) Clark & Dodge 2.27 - worst passer Haggerty 2.01 (4) Illinois 2.12 - best passer Welsh 2.38 - worst passer Quade 2.00 (5) Ohio State 2.11 - best passer Murr 2.23 - worst passer Franklin 2.06 (6) Michigan 2.09 - best passer Smith 2.13 - worst passer Hamacher 1.94 (7) Iowa 2.08 - best passer Boyer 2.22 - worst passer Hughes 1.98 (t8) Nebraska 2.03 - best passer Kubik 2.13 - worst Sun 1.85 (t8) Michigan State 2.03 - best passer Gibbs 2.13 - worst passer Norris 2.03 (10) Indiana 1.99 - best passer Malloy 2.14 - worst passer Edwards 1.88 (11) Minnesota 1.98 - best passer Sheehan 2.06 - worst passer Hart 1.83 (12) Rutgers 1.97 - best passer Marmen 2.04 - worst passer Kojadinovic 1.92 (13) Northwestern 1.91 - best passer Pitsas 1.99 - worst passer Cronister (14) Maryland 1.91 - best passer Rivas 2.11 - worst passer Rath 1.75 A few thoughts... Some of the best passing teams are going to take big ball control losses; Wisconsin lose their two top passers in Clark and Dodge (Barnes had a down year after a solid 2018). So do Illinois (Welsh and O'Brien) and PSU (White & Holcomb). Purdue is the exception - they return all 4 of their primary passers and had 3 players over 2.2 this year. Although Nebraska had their worst year passing in a long time, they keep all their passers and you'd expect the Fr to improve but need to figure out what happened to Sun; she passed a 2.14 in 2018 to 1.85 this year. That's the biggest fall in the conference this year. Others are fairly obvious. If anyone has any questions, feel free to tag. This is great, however who rates the passers? Is every home school doing this and is it by the same person. I just wonder what the error bars around these figures actually are since I presume it's human judgement with some obvious pre-defined criteria. Glad you found it interesting. Games are coded by the same team, all using the same criteria, for the analytics site Volleymetrics. Their service is paid for by many D1 programs and although nothing is ever going to be 100% accurate, each value is coded to game film, so if something looks suspicious, you can isolate the plays within the coded game film and watch them for yourself. In terms of analytics, it is (one of) the best tools available and - as you noted - there's less subjectivity because it's a centralised grading system.
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Feb 18, 2020 22:01:00 GMT -5
When the time is right, I’m gonna write some update pieces on all the teams based on offseason developments that have transpired. More statistics and research will get shoved in there, too. I’ll try to figure out the best time to do that, as we’ve got another transfer “season” to get through, and we’ll be getting schedules soon.
|
|