|
|
Post by jwvolley on Nov 16, 2024 22:27:57 GMT -5
Written or not, they've specifically mentioned it in multiple years now (including this year). Flexibility of crtieria like significant wins. And we take what they say was important, or was it just an after the fact explanation? I mean, I do. They've said it in the mid-season selection top 10s as well, for example this year it was mentioned like 5 times lol. And in situations like 2019 for the selection show where it was a Nebraska v. Pitt comparison and it wasn't even for a regional hosting seed where they'd have a more clear reason to favor the big name (it was 5 vs 6, not 4 vs 5) |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 16, 2024 22:29:08 GMT -5
One thing the committee has been consistent on is that significant wins and losses are different in the context of hosting a regional versus getting a seed versus making a tournament. This is fair and one of the few things the committee does correctly. Beating a bunch of fringe at large caliber teams will say a lot about whether a team is tournament caliber. It probably says very little about whether a team should get a top 4 seed. I think this is true. What we haven't seen is a team with a boatload of #11-20 wins, the best non-conference SOS, an overall SOS that is basically the same as who they are competing with, a better RPI, better record. If this is a Creoghton reference, Penn St. has a win over a regional host and several others over teams in the seed discussion. It’s not close wins-wise. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 16, 2024 22:31:39 GMT -5
Written or not, they've specifically mentioned it in multiple years now (including this year). Flexibility of crtieria like significant wins. And we take what they say was important, or was it just an after the fact explanation? I think it's pretty obvious that they consider top 10 wins under the "significant wins and losses" criteria. It's arbitrary, but I think it makes more sense to give extra emphasis to beating some of the best teams in the country than to treat 1 and 25 as equivalent or 25 and 26 as significantly different. |
|
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: 13,303 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 16, 2024 22:35:00 GMT -5
It is something like:
11,15,16,17,17,17,22
vs.
3,10,15,16,22
I would say one has the best win - but the other has more volume of 'quality' wins. And this assumes PSU loses to Purdue and Nebraska - otherwise they would have the clear edge (IMO) and there isn't a discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Nov 16, 2024 22:36:07 GMT -5
I would say one has the best win - but the other has more volume of 'quality' wins. And this assumes PSU loses to Purdue and Nebraska - otherwise they would have the clear edge (IMO) and there isn't a discussion. Wait why are we assuming PSU loses to Purdue when they crushed them last time |
|
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: 13,303
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 16, 2024 22:37:03 GMT -5
And we take what they say was important, or was it just an after the fact explanation? I think it's pretty obvious that they consider top 10 wins under the "significant wins and losses" criteria. It's arbitrary, but I think it makes more sense to give extra emphasis to beating some of the best teams in the country than to treat 1 and 25 as equivalent or 25 and 26 as significantly different. Oddly - if Missouri beats Kentucky - Penn State and Creighton may end up with the exact same number of top 10 wins. |
|
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: 13,303
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 16, 2024 22:39:50 GMT -5
I would say one has the best win - but the other has more volume of 'quality' wins. And this assumes PSU loses to Purdue and Nebraska - otherwise they would have the clear edge (IMO) and there isn't a discussion. Wait why are we assuming PSU loses to Purdue when they crushed them last time I am not assuming they will lose - if I had to assume, I would assume they will win. I am just saying (and have been saying this for weeks) - if Penn State losses 4 matches (and doesn't beat Nebraska) this year and Creighton just 2 losses - there is a real question on who would be the #4 seed. Penn State just has 3 losses to Nebraska, Pittsburgh, and Wisconsin and they are probably a #3 seed and no chance they are worse than 4. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 16, 2024 22:41:29 GMT -5
It is something like: 11,15,16,17,17,17,22 vs. 3,10,15,16,22 I would say one has the best win - but the other has more volume of 'quality' wins. And this assumes PSU loses to Purdue and Nebraska - otherwise they would have the clear edge (IMO) and there isn't a discussion. The 3x 17 is super sus and the committee has been recognizing that since they went to seeding 32. |
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 16, 2024 22:52:32 GMT -5
I think it's pretty obvious that they consider top 10 wins under the "significant wins and losses" criteria. It's arbitrary, but I think it makes more sense to give extra emphasis to beating some of the best teams in the country than to treat 1 and 25 as equivalent or 25 and 26 as significantly different. Oddly - if Missouri beats Kentucky - Penn State and Creighton may end up with the exact same number of top 10 wins. The oddness of it is exactly why significance of wins makes more sense than arbitrary RPI cutoffs like you like. Marquette is looking at likely being a 7 seed. Missouri probably a 6. The committee knows this now that they’re seeding to 32. They are not as solely focused on numbers as you and can see the comparative weight of Penn States wins because they’ve put all those teams on seed lines. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 16, 2024 22:54:15 GMT -5
Oddly - if Missouri beats Kentucky - Penn State and Creighton may end up with the exact same number of top 10 wins. The oddness of it is exactly why significance of wins makes more sense than arbitrary RPI cutoffs like you like. Marquette is looking at likely being a 7 seed. Missouri probably a 6. The committee knows this now that they’re seeding to 32. They are not as solely focused on numbers as you and can see the comparative weight of Penn States wins because they’ve put all those teams on seed lines. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 16, 2024 22:56:47 GMT -5
Are you asking if like that's an official thing? It's definitely not. Unofficially? There is a good amount of evidence that supports the idea that the committee mostly ignores a lot of last-week stuff. Though there is also evidence that the committee will overreact to last-minute losses too and too harshly punish teams, it's random to predict. In the case of Stanford vs. San Diego - Regional hosting. The committee chair said that Stanford's extra top 25 wins gave them an edge. Those "extra" top 25 wins only came on the very last day when USC slotted in front of BYU for a Top 25 spot. San Diego actually held the edge of Top 25 wins until the week concluded. So, they must have been paying attention to the RPI in the last week that season, at least in certain things THEY were looking for, because they also ignored Tennessee's loss to Alabama in the last week that season and didn't notice (or didn't care) that their RPI fell into the high 50's. That was a post-facto explanation re: USD v Stanford Right. The Committee looks at Stanford and says, they are STANFORD. The Committee looks at San Diego and says, they are not Stanford. Then they say, OK, we're picking Stanford. How do we justify it? |
|
|
|
Post by GatorsChomp on Nov 17, 2024 1:09:45 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that it was like a pretty well known thing that the last week of play doesn't impact the seedings for the tournament ? Like isn't that a thing? Are you asking if like that's an official thing? It's definitely not. Unofficially? There is a good amount of evidence that supports the idea that the committee mostly ignores a lot of last-week stuff. Though there is also evidence that the committee will overreact to last-minute losses too and too harshly punish teams, it's random to predict. In the case of Stanford vs. San Diego - Regional hosting. The committee chair said that Stanford's extra top 25 wins gave them an edge. Those "extra" top 25 wins only came on the very last day when USC slotted in front of BYU for a Top 25 spot. San Diego actually held the edge of Top 25 wins until the week concluded. So, they must have been paying attention to the RPI in the last week that season, at least in certain things THEY were looking for, because they also ignored Tennessee's loss to Alabama in the last week that season and didn't notice (or didn't care) that their RPI fell into the high 50's. Sorry like yeah "unofficially" but then I do recall 2018 BYU's only loss in the reg season to LMU (?) in their last game and it impacted their seeding but then last season Tennessee losing to South Carolina in their last game and it not impacting their seed |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 17, 2024 1:33:30 GMT -5
Are you asking if like that's an official thing? It's definitely not. Unofficially? There is a good amount of evidence that supports the idea that the committee mostly ignores a lot of last-week stuff. Though there is also evidence that the committee will overreact to last-minute losses too and too harshly punish teams, it's random to predict. In the case of Stanford vs. San Diego - Regional hosting. The committee chair said that Stanford's extra top 25 wins gave them an edge. Those "extra" top 25 wins only came on the very last day when USC slotted in front of BYU for a Top 25 spot. San Diego actually held the edge of Top 25 wins until the week concluded. So, they must have been paying attention to the RPI in the last week that season, at least in certain things THEY were looking for, because they also ignored Tennessee's loss to Alabama in the last week that season and didn't notice (or didn't care) that their RPI fell into the high 50's. Sorry like yeah "unofficially" but then I do recall 2018 BYU's only loss in the reg season to LMU (?) in their last game and it impacted their seeding but then last season Tennessee losing to South Carolina in their last game and it not impacting their seed The BYU/LMU match was on a Tuesday. The Tennessee/South Carolina match was on a Saturday. So the committee had four extra days. |
|
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: 13,303
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 17, 2024 7:49:38 GMT -5
It is something like: 11,15,16,17,17,17,22 vs. 3,10,15,16,22 I would say one has the best win - but the other has more volume of 'quality' wins. And this assumes PSU loses to Purdue and Nebraska - otherwise they would have the clear edge (IMO) and there isn't a discussion. The 3x 17 is super sus and the committee has been recognizing that since they went to seeding 32. When I tried to use Pablo to quantify quality of wins - I was told that doesn't matter since the committee doesn't recognize Pablo. When I tried to use RPI to quantify quality of wins - I am told sus. |
|
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: 13,303
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 17, 2024 9:59:07 GMT -5
What I have for RPI Futures is exactly the same ranking for the top 11. 12-15 are the same teams, different order. That seems unusual.
Futures is more bullish on Purdue and more bearish on Florida.
Purdue: There SOS is going to take a MAJOR boost in their final 5 matches (.745 opponent w/l% compared to a current .566). With this comes some very challenging matches. If they can win just 3 of their final 5 - they are going to average around #16 in RPI (with Dayton ahead of them).
Florida: Their average opponent w/l% for their remaining 4 matches is just .475 (.582 is where they currently stand). They are favored in their final 4 matches - but they will need to win them all in order to stay roughly put with their current RPI.
Marquette is most likely to move up considerably if they to win and the added BE tournament with a loss to Creighton.
Other notes:
TCU's path to a top 16 seed seems Problematic. Their final 4 matches are collectively against horrible w/l%. There is almost no way they can keep from falling worse than their current #16 RPI. Their hope - the committee ignores the major RPI hit from their final 2 matches against West Virginia and Cincinnati.
Baylor - guess what - their final 4 matches are the same as TCU, so they are pretty much toast for getting a seed (I think).
BYU - they are the other B12 team with a legit path to a seed. Their remaining schedule isn't helping the RPI (Cincinatti, West Virginia, and K-State are all under .500) - but a win over Kansas would be huge. BYU wins their final 4 and I think they are in.
Missouri - I think they have a very good shot if they win out including a win over Kentucky. The RPI would likely be better than #16 - and wins over Kentucky and Texas - along with T50 wins over Illinois, Tennessee, Oklahoma, NC State (maybe) and maybe another one from those mid level SEC teams.
|
|
