|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 12, 2024 13:21:18 GMT -5
Strawman. No one is saying to rate Penn State high because of their RPI. You have been among the strongest proponents of Pablo for 10+ years (along with among the strongest critics of RPI). Interesting that you are now so easily able to toss Pablo aside with regards to Penn State this year. Interesting that RPI for Penn State is much closer to what believe than Pablo. If Pablo was the key metric for seeding instead of RPI - Penn State isn't sniffing a top 4 seed. With RPI as the key metric - they are 85% likely to be a top 4 seed. Once again, I am not arguing for Penn State because of RPI. I agree Pablo is much better, but I have also never said Pablo is definitive and never advocated to seed straight by Pablo. I have also been one of the loudest in pointing out that, like with any system, Pablo has outliers. How convenient you are forgetting that trying to make whatever point you are attempting. Your purported accusations are so off base. One can use Pablo while also recognizing that Pablo is off on Penn State. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 12, 2024 13:22:22 GMT -5
Interesting to see some of those that have been most critical of RPI in the past - and calling out for a better system such as Pablo - are the ones that want to so easily trash Pablo and embrace RPI when it comes to Penn State this year. Who are you talking about? I think RPI is terrible. My analysis of them is based on who they have beaten and who they have lost to. Penn State is also sixth in adjusted RPI right now, so it's not even like RPI favors them that much. It's just not laughably low like Pablo is at 11. Edit: Purdue, a five-loss team that Penn State beat by 20 points on the road, is ranked higher (9) in Pablo than Penn State (11) right now. Agan - I tend to trust the sample of 3,500 points played in a season to determine how good a team is vs. your belief that we should just cherry pick a couple hundred points played. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 12, 2024 13:23:34 GMT -5
Who are you talking about? I think RPI is terrible. My analysis of them is based on who they have beaten and who they have lost to. Penn State is also sixth in adjusted RPI right now, so it's not even like RPI favors them that much. It's just not laughably low like Pablo is at 11. Edit: Purdue, a five-loss team that Penn State beat by 20 points on the road, is ranked higher (9) in Pablo than Penn State (11) right now. Agan - I tend to trust the sample of 3,500 points played in a season to determine how good a team is vs. your belief that we should just cherry pick a couple hundred points played. This reminds me of when Team USA walked out of 2014 World Championships thinking Murphy was our best weapon. Not every point matters the same. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 12, 2024 13:24:56 GMT -5
What’s funny about Penn St. and Pablo is that their blowouts of top teams are actually underweighted because they played comparatively fewer points there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 12, 2024 13:25:30 GMT -5
Strawman. No one is saying to rate Penn State high because of their RPI. You have been among the strongest proponents of Pablo for 10+ years (along with among the strongest critics of RPI). Interesting that you are now so easily able to toss Pablo aside with regards to Penn State this year. Interesting that RPI for Penn State is much closer to what believe than Pablo. If Pablo was the key metric for seeding instead of RPI - Penn State isn't sniffing a top 4 seed. With RPI as the key metric - they are 85% likely to be a top 4 seed. Again, this kind of discredits Pablo. But to the degree that it would be used, aren't you in favor of it being used similar to the way NET is used in college basketball? In other words, Penn State's own Pablo ranking wouldn't be considered, and Pablo would instead be used to evaluate its resume. |
|
|
|
Post by miss girl on Nov 12, 2024 13:25:47 GMT -5
strength of schedule is the biggest factor in high school volleyball seedings, not sure why NCAA doesn't consider it more.
|
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 12, 2024 13:26:02 GMT -5
You have been among the strongest proponents of Pablo for 10+ years (along with among the strongest critics of RPI). Interesting that you are now so easily able to toss Pablo aside with regards to Penn State this year. Interesting that RPI for Penn State is much closer to what believe than Pablo. If Pablo was the key metric for seeding instead of RPI - Penn State isn't sniffing a top 4 seed. With RPI as the key metric - they are 85% likely to be a top 4 seed. Once again, I am not arguing for Penn State because of RPI. I agree Pablo is much better, but I have also never said Pablo is definitive and never advocated to seed straight by Pablo. I have also been one of the loudest in pointing out that, like with any system, Pablo has outliers. How convenient you are forgetting that trying to make whatever point you are attempting. Your purported accusations are so off base. One can use Pablo while also recognizing that Pablo is off on Penn State. I didn't say you proposed seed straight from Pablo, but I do believe you have advocated for it to be a metric used by the committee (which is what I wrote). Of course Pablo isn't infallible. It could be wrong with Penn State. But why do we think this is one of the times it is off - what is the evidence to believe Pablo is missing something rather huge here? |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 12, 2024 13:29:07 GMT -5
What’s funny about Penn St. and Pablo is that their blowouts of top teams are actually underweighted because they played comparatively fewer points there. And Pablo doesn't take this into account? |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 12, 2024 13:29:34 GMT -5
Once again, I am not arguing for Penn State because of RPI. I agree Pablo is much better, but I have also never said Pablo is definitive and never advocated to seed straight by Pablo. I have also been one of the loudest in pointing out that, like with any system, Pablo has outliers. How convenient you are forgetting that trying to make whatever point you are attempting. Your purported accusations are so off base. One can use Pablo while also recognizing that Pablo is off on Penn State. I didn't say you proposed seed straight from Pablo, but I do believe you have advocated for it to be a metric used by the committee (which is what I wrote). Of course Pablo isn't infallible. It could be wrong with Penn State. But why do we think this is one of the times it is off - what is the evidence to believe Pablo is missing something rather huge here? Results against Louisville, Purdue, Oregon, Kentucky, Minnesota. Lack of loss to a team worse than Wisconsin. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 12, 2024 13:30:10 GMT -5
What’s funny about Penn St. and Pablo is that their blowouts of top teams are actually underweighted because they played comparatively fewer points there. And Pablo doesn't take this into account? Pablo himself has said that longer matches get weighted heavier because they are a bigger part of the sample with more points. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 12, 2024 13:34:40 GMT -5
You have been among the strongest proponents of Pablo for 10+ years (along with among the strongest critics of RPI). Interesting that you are now so easily able to toss Pablo aside with regards to Penn State this year. Interesting that RPI for Penn State is much closer to what believe than Pablo. If Pablo was the key metric for seeding instead of RPI - Penn State isn't sniffing a top 4 seed. With RPI as the key metric - they are 85% likely to be a top 4 seed. Again, this kind of discredits Pablo. But to the degree that it would be used, aren't you in favor of it being used similar to the way NET is used in college basketball? In other words, Penn State's own Pablo ranking wouldn't be considered, and Pablo would instead be used to evaluate its resume. To be clear. I do not advocate using 'who is the best team' to determine seeding. In terms of what you are saying here - I agree. I am also good with Penn State being the #4 seed this year (unless they lose to Purdue in which case that spot becomes up for grabs). I do believe that seeding is 100% about winning matches and not about % of points won. But that is different than who is better or likely better. And for that - I don't think Penn State is *that* good. Penn State may end up deserving to be seeded higher than Creighton (for which I would agree), but that is different than me saying that Penn State is a better team than Creighton or that I believe that Penn State is more likely to beat Creighton in a neutral site match (which I believe Creighton is more likely to win). My evidence/belief for this is Pablo and EVollve. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 12, 2024 13:43:39 GMT -5
Who are you talking about? I think RPI is terrible. My analysis of them is based on who they have beaten and who they have lost to. Penn State is also sixth in adjusted RPI right now, so it's not even like RPI favors them that much. It's just not laughably low like Pablo is at 11. Edit: Purdue, a five-loss team that Penn State beat by 20 points on the road, is ranked higher (9) in Pablo than Penn State (11) right now. Agan - I tend to trust the sample of 3,500 points played in a season to determine how good a team is vs. your belief that we should just cherry pick a couple hundred points played. I think this is a bit disingenuous, as that's not what I said. I think we should look at who teams have beaten and who teams have lost to. The point is to win matches, preferably against good teams, not to have a higher season-long scoring differential against varied competition. The latter is often correlated with a better W/L record, but there are exceptions. Based on your other comments, it seems that you agree that resume should be used for seeding. So I'm not really sure what your purpose is when you keep touting Pablo as evidence that Penn State isn't that good. You agreed with another commentor that Pablo isn't infallible. But respectfully, I am hard-pressed to think of a time where you have ever said that Pablo was wrong about something. |
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 12, 2024 13:50:16 GMT -5
Has someone really said Pablo should be used to determine seeding? That sounds purely idiotic, why even play matches at that point? Just have teams play 100 points against each other and don’t mark down W or L. Yes. There has been a large group of people on this board that believes; 1) Pablo is greatly superior to RPI 2) Pablo should be used as one of the key metrics for determining seeding. I agree that it’s a better predictive measure and better at telling the skill level of a team. But seeding shouldn’t be based on that, it should be based on how a team has performed. If Team A wins all its matches 3-2 getting outscored in each one including over Team B at home on the first day of the season, the Team B wins the rest of its matches in dominant fashion, who should be seeded higher? It has to be Team A due to performing better, though Pablo would certainly have B rated higher and favored in the rematch. You’re very much blurring the lines between whether a team is good and whether they have performed well with you seemingly asserting Penn State should be seeded lower because they dropped sets to Iowa and Northwestern. |
|
|
|
Post by bruinsgold on Nov 12, 2024 14:04:02 GMT -5
I wish Mommy and Daddy and all the drunk uncles would stop fighting over some man named Pablo who can't even hold down a job and is 6 months behind on child support payments 😭😭😭😭😭
|
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 12, 2024 14:12:26 GMT -5
This thread is about Bracketology. For those posters who are derailing this thread because you don't like the criteria used by the NCAA committee to seed teams, consider creating a new thread for that discussion/debate.
|
|
