|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2011 16:02:46 GMT -5
Why? How does "the WCC is as good or better than the ACC" follow from the conclusion (even granting it to be true) that the best of the WCC is better than the best of the ACC? Why evaluate conferences only on the best teams? Weak teams are part of the conference, too. If you want to ignore them, fine, but then don't act as if you are talking about "the conference." I get what you're saying, but I think his point is that teams from the WCC that aren't making the tournament (St. Mary's, BYU, etc.) are better than ACC teams that are making the tournament (Duke, UNC, etc.) and that the problem of RPI and scheduling disparities is responsible for that. oh brother, look BOFA I'm not trying to be precise and refer to tons of calculations. The WCC has wupped the ACCs rear so far this year. yet the ACC is gonna get 4 teams in, the WCC is gonna get 2 teams in probably. They are going to get hosed in tournament selection due to RPI. I think the WCC is better, top, bottom, middle, rear, back-side this year than the ACC because in the WCC-ACC challenge the WCC kicked their arse!! If you think otherwise based on your reams of data, hurrah!! rather than nit-pick apart what I'm saying with a NASA analysis, maybe you could provide a precise reasoning of who is better - until then I say the WCC is better. |
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 27, 2011 16:32:55 GMT -5
Thank you VERY much. That is crazy when just looking at the Pac 10 teams that were in the elite eight. Cal was 10 in RPI, Southern California was 8, Stanford was 2, and Washington.......37!?!?!? UW was ranked lower than Arizona (36) and UCLA (27) also. Is this how good of a predictor the RPI is? I know there are teams that get on hot streaks and just match-up well against other teams (much like NCAA BBall Tourny), but you would expect that a thing that has such a large impact on the tournament selections would be a little more accurate in predicting who should be in and where they should be ranked. Is RPI designed to be a predictor? Well is it not? The NCAA selection committee wouldn't be putting so much emphasis on the RPI if they didn't believe in it to predict how strong the teams are. If they thought UNI would be upset in the first round do you think the selection committee would have left them at #5? Upsets like that look bad on the selection committee, so I would expect to see a couple more "sure things" in the first round as far as seeding goes this year. You can't continually reward teams for playing mediocre schedules and then going and loosing in the first or second round of the tournament. Yes there are upsets, but Top 16 shouldn't lose in the first round, top 5 shouldn't lose in the second round, and then from there the remainder of the teams are pretty even so not really considered upsets. I would be willing to say that the current Top 5 in the AVCA are going to be playing come the second weekend of the NCAA tournament. Can't say the same about the Top 5 in the RPI. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 27, 2011 16:38:15 GMT -5
Again, the conference comparison by head-to-head comparison has nothing to do with RPI. As has been explained, its not the weay RPI works, neither in terms of comparing teams nor conferences, so the fact they come up with different conclusions means nothing.
So what's the point? That RPI conference ratings do not reflect the ordering you get by comparing head-to-head outcomes for the top teams in the conferences? Ok but so what? No one ever claimed it would so you, like so many others, are criticizing RPI for not doing something it is not intended to do.
RPI also does not change Ruffda's cats' kitty litter. It really sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 27, 2011 16:59:14 GMT -5
Is RPI designed to be a predictor? Well is it not? The NCAA selection committee wouldn't be putting so much emphasis on the RPI if they didn't believe in it to predict how strong the teams are. You know this how? You've talked to committee members? Although the phrase "predict how good teams are" is such a meaningless phrase that it is hard to figure out what it means. Perhaps the reason UNI was seeded 5th last year was because they best satisfied the criteria the NCAA uses to determine seeds? There is no inherent reason to assume that the committee thought they would beat any other team. There is nothing in the NCAA selection manual that directs them to seed teams based on their guess about who would win in matches that have not been played. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 27, 2011 16:59:33 GMT -5
[snip]UNI[snip] . . . You can't continually reward teams for playing mediocre schedules and then going and loosing in the first or second round of the tournament. Have you even looked at Northern Iowa's schedule? I'm guessing not, since their pre-conference schedule was anything but "mediocre". I'm assuming this is directed at Northern Iowa and maybe to a lesser extent, Iowa State. If those teams are seeded and host the 1st/2nd Rounds, I am fairly confident they will both advance to the second weekend. Upsets can happen, but you need to think in terms of which teams are likely to be assigned to those sites. Possibilities include: 1. Both could get lower level Big Ten teams, but it appears doubtful that there will be any unseeded Big Ten teams located within 400 miles of Cedar Falls or Ames. 2. Northern Iowa could get a lower level Big 12 team such as Missouri, Kansas or Kansas State. 3. Iowa State could get Missouri State from the MVC. 4. Both could get teams such as Northern Illinois or Marquette. 5. The remaining teams at each site are likely to be from small east coast conferences, since several of these teams end up traveling every year. I like the chances of both teams against those potential 1st/2nd Round fields. |
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 27, 2011 17:38:25 GMT -5
[snip]UNI[snip] . . . You can't continually reward teams for playing mediocre schedules and then going and loosing in the first or second round of the tournament. Have you even looked at Northern Iowa's schedule? I'm guessing not, since their pre-conference schedule was anything but "mediocre". I'm assuming this is directed at Northern Iowa and maybe to a lesser extent, Iowa State. If those teams are seeded and host the 1st/2nd Rounds, I am fairly confident they will both advance to the second weekend. Upsets can happen, but you need to think in terms of which teams are likely to be assigned to those sites. Possibilities include: 1. Both could get lower level Big Ten teams, but it appears doubtful that there will be any unseeded Big Ten teams located within 400 miles of Cedar Falls or Ames. 2. Northern Iowa could get a lower level Big 12 team such as Missouri, Kansas or Kansas State. 3. Iowa State could get Missouri State from the MVC. 4. Both could get teams such as Northern Illinois or Marquette. 5. The remaining teams at each site are likely to be from small east coast conferences, since several of these teams end up traveling every year. I like the chances of both teams against those potential 1st/2nd Round fields. Didn't UNI lose to Missouri in the first round last year? The only two teams UNI has played that are worth mentioning are Minnesota and Iowa State. Lost to Minn and beat ISU. I don't give any credit to them for beating Florida State or Northern Illinois because as I have mentioned numerous times, the ACC and MVC would be dominated by Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, maybe Arizona, Hawaii, San Diego, and Pepperdine. Florida State got beat by Pepperdine who is a solid team, but got easily handled by Hawaii twice already this season. Ya its the whole you can't say A beat B and C beat A so C would beat B, but there is also a point where you know a conference is weak and teams are weak and that is what the ACC/SEC/MVC are. I could see UNI drawing Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan, or Wisconsin in the first or second round and easily losing. UNI's best bet is that they do play one of the smaller schools in the area or an ACC/Big East school because I don't see them being able to compete with the Big 12 or Big 10 teams that could likely end up in their region. I'm sure you will point out that they beat Iowa State earlier in the year, but there have been plenty of top teams with a bad loss this year (USC-UCF, NEB-CSU, PSU-Oregon etc) so I don't really take that into consideration; it's a what have you done lately world, and lately they haven't done anything impressive enough to warrant a Top 5 seed. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 27, 2011 18:19:26 GMT -5
Didn't UNI lose to Missouri in the first round last year? Yes, in a hard-fought 5-set match. I don't follow the Big 12 as closely this year, but I'm pretty sure this Missouri team is not as strong as the one last year. And, you can't totally ignore the fact that UNI has beaten both Iowa State and Kansas already this season. That seems to show that they are competitive with teams in the Big 12. Your world is obviously based on "what have you done lately". However, selection and seeding in the NCAA tournament is actually based primarily on "what have you done all season". Otherwise teams like UNI, Hawaii, etc. would rarely be considered for seeds, since during their conference seasons they would not be able to satisy your "impressive lately" test. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2011 18:41:47 GMT -5
Again, the conference comparison by head-to-head comparison has nothing to do with RPI. As has been explained, its not the weay RPI works, neither in terms of comparing teams nor conferences, so the fact they come up with different conclusions means nothing. So what's the point? That RPI conference ratings do not reflect the ordering you get by comparing head-to-head outcomes for the top teams in the conferences? Ok but so what? No one ever claimed it would so you, like so many others, are criticizing RPI for not doing something it is not intended to do. RPI also does not change Ruffda's cats' kitty litter. It really sucks. you are making an incorrect claim and missing the point entirely. saying RPI sucks doesn't literally mean it sucks, it sucks in the context of it's use by the tournament committee. but you already know that. If the NCAA wants to use RPI to change their kitty litter, I guess they can do that as well, but there are better pooper scoopers out there. |
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 27, 2011 19:39:39 GMT -5
Didn't UNI lose to Missouri in the first round last year? Yes, in a hard-fought 5-set match. I don't follow the Big 12 as closely this year, but I'm pretty sure this Missouri team is not as strong as the one last year. And, you can't totally ignore the fact that UNI has beaten both Iowa State and Kansas already this season. That seems to show that they are competitive with teams in the Big 12. Your world is obviously based on "what have you done lately". However, selection and seeding in the NCAA tournament is actually based primarily on "what have you done all season". Otherwise teams like UNI, Hawaii, etc. would rarely be considered for seeds, since during their conference seasons they would not be able to satisy your "impressive lately" test. lol Kansas? They are last in the Big 12 right now aren't they? Hawaii at least has the athletes to compete after not playing anybody for a few months, where as UNI doesn't. UNI lost in the first round in 2010, the second round in 2009, the first round in 2008, and the first round in 2007. In all of those years UNI's worst season was 2007 where they were 22-10. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 27, 2011 20:03:44 GMT -5
lol Kansas? They are last in the Big 12 right now aren't they? Hawaii at least has the athletes to compete after not playing anybody for a few months, where as UNI doesn't. We've clearly established that you don't like the RPI. I guess I'm wondering what you propose using as a basis for comparing the relative strength of teams? AVCA poll? Pablo? Or, maybe just the totally subjective "dawgsfan test" that you applied to Hawaii and UNI in the response quoted above? This adds nothing to your argument since UNI was only seeded in one of those years (2010). We already know they were upset by Missouri that year. Here's what happened the other three years: 2009: Lost @ Nebraska in the 2nd Round. (They beat Washington State in the 1st Round that year.) 2008: Lost to Iowa State @ Minneapolis in the 1st Round. 2007: Lost @ Wisconsin in the 1st Round. As an unseeded team playing on the road in 2007, 2008 and 2009, which of the losing matches would you have expected them to win? |
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 27, 2011 20:23:07 GMT -5
lol Kansas? They are last in the Big 12 right now aren't they? Hawaii at least has the athletes to compete after not playing anybody for a few months, where as UNI doesn't. We've clearly established that you don't like the RPI. I guess I'm wondering what you propose using as a basis for comparing the relative strength of teams? AVCA poll? Pablo? Or, maybe just the totally subjective "dawgsfan test" that you applied to Hawaii and UNI in the response quoted above? This adds nothing to your argument since UNI was only seeded in one of those years (2010). We already know they were upset by Missouri that year. Here's what happened the other three years: 2009: Lost @ Nebraska in the 2nd Round. (They beat Washington State in the 1st Round that year.) 2008: Lost to Iowa State @ Minneapolis in the 1st Round. 2007: Lost @ Wisconsin in the 1st Round. As an unseeded team playing on the road in 2007, 2008 and 2009, which of the losing matches would you have expected them to win? I actually think a mixture of AVCA, RPI, and Pablo wouldn't be bad. Though I am not too familiar with Pablo, but others seem to reference it fairly frequently as a legitimate source for the rankings. In 2010 they had only lost 2 matches before they lost to Nebraska, so much like this year they walk through the schedule and get beat early. Nebraska was only the #10 seed so it wouldn't have been that unrealistic to think a 30-2 team might be able to compete with them; even though they couldn't. I mean shoot that was the year the #6 UW team lost to CSU in Fort Collins. By the second round you are going to see teams that are highly competitive, but shouldn't lose in the first round as a ranked team and shouldn't lose in the second round as a top 5 team. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 27, 2011 20:25:06 GMT -5
Didn't UNI lose to Missouri in the first round last year? So, You're damning them for one 5 set loss, while ignoring the fact that earlier in that season they: -Beat a team that made it to the Elite 8 -Beat a team that made it to the Sweet 16 -Beat 2 teams that made it to the round of 32 (one of them 3 times) That seems logical. |
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 27, 2011 20:34:06 GMT -5
Didn't UNI lose to Missouri in the first round last year? So, You're damning them for one 5 set loss, while ignoring the fact that earlier in that season they: -Beat a team that made it to the Elite 8 -Beat a team that made it to the Sweet 16 -Beat 2 teams that made it to the round of 32 (one of them 3 times) That seems logical. How many championships have been won in the regular season? |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 27, 2011 20:34:12 GMT -5
I'd like to hear how Missouri's win over UNI last year shows a problem with RPI?
By EVERY measure we have, UNI was a seeded team last year. In the last rankings before the tournament, they were #10 in the AVCA, Rich Kern Poll, and Pablo. Therefore, they deserved to be seeded of some sort, and anyone who claims otherwise is not realistic.
Now, given the general sentiment that seeded teams deserve to be hosts, then they would have played at home.
Next, given the regionalization guidelines of the NCAA, and given that Missouri would not have been placed in Ames nor in Nebraska, they would have ended up in Cedar Falls and could have just have easily been up against UNI.
It matters not one whit if they were seeded 5th, 10th, or even 16th. Missouri would have played @uni just the same, and their win was just as much of an upset. That upset was just as much a failure of the AVCA, Rich Kern, and Pablo rankings as it was RPI. To use it as an argument against RPI is either ignorant, or dishonest. Either way, it fails.
dawgsfan, you take your baseless combination of AVCA, Rich Kern, and Pablo, and apply it to the season last year, and you know what? You still will have UNI seeded, they will still be playing at home against Missouri, and that loss would still be an upset.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 27, 2011 20:40:02 GMT -5
By the second round you are going to see teams that are highly competitive, but shouldn't lose in the first round as a ranked team and shouldn't lose in the second round as a top 5 team. Due to regionalization, teams ranked in the AVCA poll occasionally play each other in the 1st Round. Somebody has to lose those matches "as a ranked team". You seem to think that UNI's loss to Missouri in the 1st Round last year is proof that they are not (and have not been) a "good" team. I choose to think of it as an example of the upsets that sometimes happen in NCAA volleyball. |
|
