|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 16:28:33 GMT -5
RPI may not be a great rating system, however, it is a valid system of comparison used by many people. Regarding RPI. How valid is it, truly? Let's look at what it's being used for. A national ranking system to comparativley rank teams within the same division. It is based on wins and losses of your own team, and those wins and losses of teams you've played. In a perfect world, without Regionalized schedules and burdens of travel, there could be a fair distribution of teams playing each other. But, we all know how imperfect the world can be. And volleyball schedules do not represent the "bell curve" of scheduling distribution. Because of that, there are 'pockets' of bias, where teams are unfairly vaulted in the RPI (and potentially other statistical rankings) because of their blah schedules.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 16:39:11 GMT -5
Which is a subjective opinion. Duke is ranked 38th in Pablo, Nevada is ranked 61. Maryland at 60 and Nevada at 61 would largely be a tossup based on Pablo. Impacted by where the match were to be played. I would love to know the difference between Maryland and Nevada's strengths of schedules. Nevada defeated Cal, and nearly UCLA this season. Does anyone truly believe that Maryland can do the same? If this is what he is saying, I'd have to read very deep between lines to get that. However, this is probably the biggest reason that I am even arguing this point at all. I believe that there are not teams that are EQUALLY equivalent of being in the NCAA tournament from the East or Northeast Regions as opposed to teams from the West Coast, or heaven forbid, even the Midwest (whereever that Region is). I've seen a lot of volleyball. I've seen a fair amount of far-east coast teams. Every team from those Regions I've ever seen have been some of the best from those Regions. Every one of those teams I've seen has been out-coached, out-strategized, out-athleticized (if that's a word) and out-played in every matchup with teams that are hardly not the champions from the West. But there is even LESS proof that these teams have actually beaten teams of any note. And their performance in the NCAA tournament, even with the crappy geographic pairings which allow cupcake teams such as Long Island, Yale, and Maryland to advance to the second round, shows no history of any success. Penn State and Big Ten fans won't allow them to be lumped into the East. They are in a midwest region. I tried to give the East something, but they didn't care then. Let's dismiss Championships entirely. Let's say Sweet 16's for a level of success. Show me a team from the Northeast Region, or the East Region, that has ever advanced to that round.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 8, 2005 16:39:33 GMT -5
Because of that, there are 'pockets' of bias, where teams are unfairly vaulted in the RPI (and potentially other statistical rankings) because of their blah schedules. Some programs try to schedule in such a way to "game" the RPI for a favorable rating. I'm not trying to single this [former] coach out (since she's someone I've actually met), but check out this description: www.vvdailypress.com/2001-2003/103712052345424.html
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 16:42:02 GMT -5
You can guage the validity of the RPI on how well it does / did in predicting match outcomes throughout the season and tournament.
As Mr. Dub said, it may be lower than Pablo in that regard, but it still does a respectable job of predicting outcomes.
As for your perfect world. If all teams from all parts of the country played each other on a regular basis then you'd seen those teams you consider to be weak continually getting stronger simply by playing matches against better competition then much of the "east is weak" comments would gradually start to become untrue.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 16:47:07 GMT -5
As for your perfect world. If all teams from all parts of the country played each other on a regular basis then you'd seen those teams you consider to be weak continually getting stronger simply by playing matches against better competition then much of the "east is weak" comments would gradually start to become untrue. I WOULD LOVE THIS! Instead, we have coaches and players getting awards and being complimented for doing nothing more than being below average. Instead, they could be pushing to be better by scheduling tougher competition, and teaching more skills at a higher level. It seems that now they are resting on crappy credentials, and being rewarded for it over teams that are doing the right things, and not being rewarded.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 8, 2005 17:10:38 GMT -5
As for your perfect world. If all teams from all parts of the country played each other on a regular basis then you'd seen those teams you consider to be weak continually getting stronger simply by playing matches against better competition then much of the "east is weak" comments would gradually start to become untrue. I WOULD LOVE THIS! Instead, we have coaches and players getting awards and being complimented for doing nothing more than being below average. Instead, they could be pushing to be better by scheduling tougher competition, and teaching more skills at a higher level. It seems that now they are resting on crappy credentials, and being rewarded for it over teams that are doing the right things, and not being rewarded. How in the world can you say that teams not in the holier-than-thou West are not "doing the right things"? You have absolutely no way of knowing that. You have no way of knowing if these schools aren't "teaching more skills at a higher level." That is such unbelievably near-sighted homerism.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 8, 2005 17:10:52 GMT -5
Instead, we have coaches and players getting awards and being complimented for doing nothing more than being below average. More west coast no perspective BS. None of the players or coaches on the all-region lists are below average. Do you know what "below average" really is? There are about 320 teams in the country. Below average means below 160. How many west coast teams are there? By conference, we have Big Sky Big West Mountain West Pac 10 West Coast WAC Considering an average of about 9 per conference, that means there are about 55 teams west of ...Nebraska. Add in the top teams in the east - Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and you are up to about 90 teams. Add the ACC for chuckles, and you get 100. Even if every single one of these teams is above average, that means that there are still 60 teams in the country that is above average. That is an average of almost 3 per conference that is left. You clearly have no grasp at where the "average" is.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 17:28:45 GMT -5
Which is a subjective opinion. Duke is ranked 38th in Pablo, Nevada is ranked 61. Maryland at 60 and Nevada at 61 would largely be a tossup based on Pablo. Impacted by where the match were to be played. I would love to know the difference between Maryland and Nevada's strengths of schedules. Nevada defeated Cal, and nearly UCLA this season. Does anyone truly believe that Maryland can do the same? It's still a subjective argument. Nevada beat UCLA very early in the season when the Bruins were struggling with injuries and fitting the frosh into their lineup. So yes, if Maryland played them at the same time I could potentially see similar results. Just as subjectively, if Nevada played UCLA now I doubt they'd do anything but get swept by the Bruins. Nevada also was taken to 5 games both at home and on the road by Lousiana Tech (198 Pablo). Do you think Maryland would have any problem matching that effort? Duke swept Sacramento State this season on a neutral court. Ohio is a team form the east. It seems to me they've done pretty well this season overall. They beat St. Marys, Sacramento State, Tennessee, and Ohio State this season. North Carolina took a game off of Arizona at 30-22 and took another game in the match to 33-31 before losing it That sounds fairly competitive to me. There may be many more good teams in the west than there are in the east, however, that is far different from sayig there are no teams in the east that are worthy of being in the tournament. Which is what you're coming across as saying. Temple, 2002. I think there are others, not frequent, but not going to look them all up for the past 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 17:35:29 GMT -5
As for your perfect world. If all teams from all parts of the country played each other on a regular basis then you'd seen those teams you consider to be weak continually getting stronger simply by playing matches against better competition then much of the "east is weak" comments would gradually start to become untrue. I WOULD LOVE THIS! Instead, we have coaches and players getting awards and being complimented for doing nothing more than being below average. Instead, they could be pushing to be better by scheduling tougher competition, and teaching more skills at a higher level. It seems that now they are resting on crappy credentials, and being rewarded for it over teams that are doing the right things, and not being rewarded. The west coast teams are commonly more rewarded for recruiting the highest level of talent from all over the country and not necessarily increasing their skill levels appreciably while those players are in their programs. How about this year we leave Hodge at home and see how North Carolina fairs with her on their team rather than sending her to the already stacked teams like Stanford, USC, Washington, Nebraska, Penn State, and the like? How about if Kim Willoughby had stay at home In Louisiana (or nearby state) rather than heading to Hawaii? How about if Logan Tom had state at home and played for one of the Utah schools or if Ogonna Nnamani had stayed at home and played for one of the Illinois schools? Would Logan, Kim, and Ogonna not have been just as good if they played at non-west teams? Would Stanford have won those national championship without Ogonna and Logan? Would Hawaii have made as many Final Fours without Kim? It seems to me it is more worthy to reward a coaching staff when they overperforming with the players those eastern teas are able to recruit than reward a coaching staff for winning a lot of matches when they annually get some of the best recruits from all over the country and world.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 18:25:02 GMT -5
How in the world can you say that teams not in the holier-than-thou West are not "doing the right things"? You have absolutely no way of knowing that. You have no way of knowing if these schools aren't "teaching more skills at a higher level." That is such unbelievably near-sighted homerism. I prefaced this earlier with saying teams I've seen. I have a pretty damned good clue as to what's happening on a volleyball court. I do know that for what I've seen it's true. There is no way to know it as fact for the rest of the teams because A) I haven't seen all the teams, B) there is no scheduling between these teams and the west coast teams I see typically because the East coast teams don't want to lose (You RARELY see them travel to the west coast, it's always the West coast teams travelling there, and usually thumping them). It's my opinion. I'm entitled to it and you, nor however many friends you can bribe or bandwagon on this are likely to convince me otherwise UNLESS some things change, - like these sucky teams coming out west and playing us occasionally, or at least playing teams that are not as sucky;
- having these sucky teams actually advance legitimately in a fairly seeded bracket, but that's not gonna happen, because these sucky teams keep claiming that they are not sucky so the clueless committee believes them and puts them in a tournament over worthy teams;
- you all drag me into the parking lot and hire some thugs to beat me up, but that still wouldn't change my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 18:42:14 GMT -5
You guys are twisting this argument so much I don't remember why we started.
The Regional Awards should go away. They are falsely giving the NCAA a reason to divide the country into Regions for the NCAA tournament. This regionalization of the tournament is only protested by about 30-40 coaches in the tournament and about 20 or so that didn't make the cut because the rest of the coaches are sitting on their hands. A regionalized tournament benefits the majority of the coaches, even if it does nothing to promote the sport. They fair better by sitting on their asses and being paired with an equally pathetic team in the tournament.
Then, if that is not enough, the coaches association awards them for doing this by equalizing the caliber of play of these players with those of the elite and championship caliber teams across the nation.
I will continue to use the word "suck" for these teams, because I equate them to leeches "sucking" the hard work and effort that championship and vying for getting to championship coaches put in year and year out.
Regional awards must go.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 8, 2005 18:46:07 GMT -5
I do know that for what I've seen it's true. There is no way to know it as fact for the rest of the teams because A) I haven't seen all the teams, B) there is no scheduling between these teams and the west coast teams I see typically because the East coast teams don't want to lose (You RARELY see them travel to the west coast, it's always the West coast teams travelling there, and usually thumping them). When do west coast teams travel east? I'm not going to survey everything, but for this year alone I know of 1) Purdue went to Pacific - and ended up in a tourney with Pacific, Bradley, and St Louis. Three east teams went west 2) UNI went to Pepperdine - it was Pepperdine, UNI, Colorado St, and ... Fresno St? 3) Ohio just went to Sac St Just out of random, I looked at the "Pre-Season Tournament Schedule" for Akron. They played two at Akron with no teams west of it looks like Ohio. They went to Michigan, with no teams west of Chicago. They went to Nevada, with Cal, Montana St, and Nevada. Contrast that with New Mexico, who hosted two of their own tournaments, with teams from Lamar, Villanova, Delaware St, Oral Roberts, and Syracuse. They also went to Montana, who had no east teams. Another random west team, UC Davis: played at Davis (Toledo), same Montana tourney, and Utah Valley St (Texas AM Corpus Christi) Meanwhile, Eastern Kentucky played At Eastern Kentucky: teams were Duquesne, Georgia St, Morehead St, Marquette, UAB, UNC-Greensboro, At Kent St: Dartmouth, Kent St, Robert Morris, Syracuse At Nevada with San Diego and UCLA Not counting NACWAA, the number of west teams that come east can probably be counted on one hand. You seem to be making stuff up whole cloth.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 18:46:44 GMT -5
Temple made the sweet 16 in 2002. Since, and including then, there have been 64 teams to match that accomplishment.
1 out of 64 = 1.56%
WOW!
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 8, 2005 18:55:57 GMT -5
Another random west team, UC Davis: played at Davis (Toledo), same Montana tourney, and Utah Valley St (Texas AM Corpus Christi) Extremely random. This is their second year in Division-I, and they just fired their coach.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 19:09:32 GMT -5
Temple made the sweet 16 in 2002. Since, and including then, there have been 64 teams to match that accomplishment. 1 out of 64 = 1.56% WOW! First you seem to be implying that no eastern teams are worthy of qualifying for the NCAA tournament. Then eastern teams are listed based on the merits of their season play compared to other western teeams that were selected this year. Then you change your mind and want to ignore the 64 selected teams and make it sweet 16 appearances. You ask for a "single team" that made it to the sweet 16 and you were given such a team. Now, you want to change it again. To take an argument that is just as subjective and "meaningful". How many eastern teams that have been selected to the touornament have performed worse than their seeding / ranking? How many western teams that have been selected to the tournament have performed worse than their seeding / ranking? Based on results from those questions we can say that western teams are overranked far more often than eastern teams.
|
|