Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2005 16:14:36 GMT -5
As Gorf's chart (again) illustrates, you lose within your conference and you drop -- unless you play in the Pac-10. I really hate this double standard. Excuse me, but is Minnesota no longer in the Big 10? They were badly swept (30-14, 30-24, 30-21 and hit -.043) by Penn State. Therefore, by "(R)uffda's Rule," since Minnesota loses within its conference, it will drop in the poll. But Minnesota actually moved up from #19 to #17, replacing Ohio State, the team it beat the same week. Clearly, the Minnesota loss to PSU hurt them in no way in the polls. Pac10 teams lose to teams ranked _behind_ them and move up, or, at worst, stay where they are.
|
|
|
Post by JHAM on Nov 21, 2005 16:16:06 GMT -5
The congestion among the Pac10 will take care of itself this weekend or become more muddled with Cal and Stanford taking on UCLA and USC respectively. Those teams in the middle of the poll should hope that Stanford comes out victorious against both. It's a crap shoot among the other three though. Anyone have thoughts on which team might come out of this weekend 0-2?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2005 16:29:43 GMT -5
Excuse me, but is Minnesota no longer in the Big 10? They were badly swept (30-14, 30-24, 30-21 and hit -.043) by Penn State. Therefore, by "(R)uffda's Rule," since Minnesota loses within its conference, it will drop in the poll. But Minnesota actually moved up from #19 to #17, replacing Ohio State, the team it beat the same week. Clearly, the Minnesota loss to PSU hurt them in no way in the polls. Pac10 teams lose to teams ranked _behind_ them and move up, or, at worst, stay where they are. Maybe the reason is simply that the 60 college coaches who vote--the great majority not from the west coast-- realize that the Pac Ten teams are generally underranked and the Big 10 teams are generally overranked and compensatory adjustments are called for. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2005 16:47:20 GMT -5
Well, duh.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Nov 21, 2005 16:57:52 GMT -5
Pac10 teams lose to teams ranked _behind_ them and move up, or, at worst, stay where they are. Maybe the reason is simply that the 60 college coaches who vote--the great majority not from the west coast-- realize that the Pac Ten teams are generally underranked and the Big 10 teams are generally overranked and compensatory adjustments are called for. ;D Bugger. I misread. Thanks Ruffda. Sigh. CAPITALIZE that "NOT" next time!
|
|
|
Post by gobears on Nov 21, 2005 17:03:21 GMT -5
part of how the votes are cast it seems.....some voters take results from matches prior to Oct 1 fairly seriously....others less seriously.... so it depends on how many votes are score based from the entire season...and wins and 3,4,5 games matches get tossed in there by some.... and how many votes are based more on recent scores and who is seemingly playing fairly well lately... however that is determined....
The "Top Teams" right now....can be who has earned it all season......or it can be who is likely to do really well from now on.....
I think we are all anxiously awaiting the post season seedings so we can comment on it all again!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2005 17:04:06 GMT -5
IB, many people will, however, realize you misread his post. Quick! Delete your response!
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 21, 2005 17:49:30 GMT -5
As Gorf's chart (again) illustrates, you lose within your conference and you drop -- unless you play in the Pac-10. I really hate this double standard. Excuse me, but is Minnesota no longer in the Big 10? They were badly swept (30-14, 30-24, 30-21 and hit -.043) by Penn State. Therefore, by "(R)uffda's Rule," since Minnesota loses within its conference, it will drop in the poll. But Minnesota actually moved up from #19 to #17, replacing Ohio State, the team it beat the same week. Clearly, the Minnesota loss to PSU hurt them in no way in the polls. Minnesota gets swept by Penn State ranked 17 spots higher, sweeps Ohio State ranked 2 spots higher and gains 100 points. California loses to Stanford in 5 games and gains 102. Tell me you honestly think those results in the voting are consistent. Up to this point the beliefs of those that have expressed their opinions seem to say that games won and lost in matches don't make a difference to voters that only look at matches won and lost. Plus, if you really do think California earned the extra votes by taking a higher ranked Stanford team to a close 5 games why does Stanford deserve to gain 39 points for nearly losing to the lower ranked California?
|
|
|
Post by vjcsetter22 on Nov 21, 2005 18:08:20 GMT -5
I agree 100% with Gatorvball. His rankings are true for the teams. I think that Missouri is underrated, and I think that Missouri or Notre Dame will get the 4th seed in the tourney. Next to Nebraska, Missouri is playing the best volleyball out there. They shut out Texas in 3 straight. Penn State is playing good, but not they will have to face injuries. I don't see a problem with it. In fact, I am nearly ready to vote them #1, except for the injury to Harmotto. Penn State has been playing the best volleyball in the country the last few weeks. You don't give Nebraska enough credit. Last time I checked, against a very tough schedule, they are still undefeated. So what if they lose a game here or there, they haven't lost a match. Penn State has lost 2, including one to Nebraska. Nebraska is the #1 team in the country and they should have all the votes. For a coach to vote otherwise, esp. when the team they vote #1 already lost head to head to Nebraska, is just plain silly and another reason why the poll is a joke. I think the top 10 should look like this: 1. Nebraska(all 60 votes) 2. Washington 3. Penn State 4. Notre Dame 5. Arizona 6. Stanford 7. Missouri 8. Florida 9. Hawaii 10. Texas
|
|
|
Post by vbmypassion on Nov 21, 2005 18:16:08 GMT -5
Did we forget that Cal also beat Santa Clara on Tuesday. That could be the reason the moved up or gain points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2005 18:21:21 GMT -5
Excuse me, but is Minnesota no longer in the Big 10? They were badly swept (30-14, 30-24, 30-21 and hit -.043) by Penn State. Therefore, by "(R)uffda's Rule," since Minnesota loses within its conference, it will drop in the poll. But Minnesota actually moved up from #19 to #17, replacing Ohio State, the team it beat the same week. Clearly, the Minnesota loss to PSU hurt them in no way in the polls. Minnesota gets swept by Penn State ranked 17 spots higher, sweeps Ohio State ranked 2 spots higher and gains 100 points. California gets swept by Arizona ranked 7 spots higher, sweeps Arizona State unranked or at least 20 spots lower based on the "getting votes" part of the poll and gained 102 points. Tell me you honestly think those results in the voting are consistent. Cannot really respond in the manner you requested because your facts are incorrect. Cal did not even play Arizona or Arizona State last week. Instead, Cal beat the #12 team (Santa Clara) and then lost to the #5 team (Stanford) in five on the road. I honestly do not have a problem with voters giving Cal a total of two more points than Minnesota gained when one considers that Cal beat the #12 team and lost to the #5 team in five and Minnesota beat the #17 team and lost to the #2 team in three lopsided games. In fact, I am surprised that Cal only gained two more votes than Minnesota gained. I am more impressed both with a team beating #12 in five than beating #17 in three and with a team losing to #5 in five than losing to #2 in three. You may personally disagree, but can you honestly say my position is irrational?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 21, 2005 18:24:34 GMT -5
Did we forget that Cal also beat Santa Clara on Tuesday. That could be the reason the moved up or gain points. Their victory of Santa Clara certainly didn't hurt California. They were probably given credit for playing close to Stanford as well, however, in that case why does Stanford gain 39 points for nearly losing to the lower ranked California?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 21, 2005 18:31:23 GMT -5
Minnesota gets swept by Penn State ranked 17 spots higher, sweeps Ohio State ranked 2 spots higher and gains 100 points. California gets swept by Arizona ranked 7 spots higher, sweeps Arizona State unranked or at least 20 spots lower based on the "getting votes" part of the poll and gained 102 points. Tell me you honestly think those results in the voting are consistent. Cannot really respond in the manner you requested because your facts are incorrect. Cal did not even play Arizona or Arizona State last week. Instead, Cal beat the #12 team (Santa Clara) and then lost to the #5 team (Stanford) in five on the road. I honestly do not have a problem with voters giving Cal a total of two more points than Minnesota gained when one considers that Cal beat the #12 team and lost to the #5 team in five and Minnesota beat the #17 team and lost to the #2 team in three lopsided games. In fact, I am surprised that Cal only gained two more votes than Minnesota gained. I am more impressed both with a team beating #12 in five than beating #17 in three and with a team losing to #5 in five than losing to #2 in three. You may personally disagree, but can you honestly say my position is irrational? I corrected my post before you posted but after you quoted. I don't think your position is irrational. I do disagree though. California does take a higher ranked Stanford to 5 games which is good, however, the 5 game win over Santa Clara as a team that was ranked higher the roughly the same number points than Ohio State was in comparison to Minnesota who won in a sweep to me is not as impressive if for no other reason than because California's close victory over Santa Clara was at home and Minnesota's easy victory over Ohio State was on the road. California was several spots higher ranked than Minnesota last week as well meaning it ought to be more difficult for them to gain points becuase of their higher position where there are few extra points to be earned. Plus, if California does get credit for taking Stanford to 5 games why does Stanford gain points as well for nearly being defeated by the lower ranked California team?
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Nov 21, 2005 18:34:48 GMT -5
Gorf's table showing the six Pac-10 teams receiving votes gained 300+ points during conf play is pretty indicative of how subjective the AVCA poll is.
I realize now that even Pablo's ratings/rankings can allow for a conference average to fluctuate somewhat based on how different a team's non-conf performance vs its conf performance. (i.e.; if a league team;Minn or Texas A&M for example, has a great non-conf record against teams that are currently performing well in the respective conf; but that team is somewhat under-achieving within it's conference that they will basically raise the conf avg of the conf, Big10/Big12. See Hawaii/UCSB for reverse example of not such a great non-conf but kicking but in conf means conf avg goes down).
Now these should be relatively small adjustments in general in Pablo. AVCA can have larger adjustments since not all teams in a conf are going to receive votes (but I believe it should theoretically be reserved for lowering a conf avg only when a team that is ranked loses to an unranked conf opponent who still doesn't merit receiving votes after the upset.)
For all other conferences, when ranked teams beat up on each other the overall conference avg from the wins/losses tends to be a wash. This concept doesn't seem to apply to Pac10 schools. 300+ increase for a conf is rediculous when a teams are just beating up on each other within a conf.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2005 18:39:09 GMT -5
Did we forget that Cal also beat Santa Clara on Tuesday. That could be the reason the moved up or gain points. Their victory of Santa Clara certainly didn't hurt California. They were probably given credit for playing close to Stanford as well, however, in that case why does Stanford gain 39 points for nearly losing to the lower ranked California? There were 60 different voters. Who knows which voters gave more points, and how many more, to Cal, Minnesota, Stanford, or anyone else? Overall, I don't think the results you complain about are out of line. Maybe the week before, some voters thought that Stanford was no longer to be taken seriously after Kehoe went down and were stingy in rating them, but were so impressed with their win against Cal that they "restored" the points they "withheld" the prior week. I doubt that Stanford got points for "nearly losing" to Cal; but I am confident they got points for demonstrating that even without two of their stars, they could prevail in a five gamer against a top 15 team.
|
|