|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2011 20:42:45 GMT -5
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. RPI should just not be used at all. Coaches poll & Pablo are ok, but a better improvement would be to expand seeding to all 64, and possibly have some play-in games (say 4) for the weakest rated conferences. Opens up 4 more spots for at-larges and with more seeding would make the 1st weekend a little more competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 27, 2011 20:43:33 GMT -5
That's a very faulty argument. Note, I'm not saying that one conference is better than the other (though Pablo does have a higher ranking for the WCC), just that the argument of the WCC being 4-1 against the ACC in pre-conference play means that the conference is better is faulty. ok, do you think the ACC is better than the WCC and why? what would you base it on other than head-to-head where the WCC top teams are clearly better? Please read what I wrote, where even though I said I wasn't picking one conference over the other, also I did include data that would suggest the WCC is stronger Again, please read what I wrote, there is nothing wrong with your data. It's only the conclusion and the certainty of that conclusion from that limited data that is wrong. 1) It's a very small sample size 2) Extrapolation from a small sample even in controlled environments is very faulty 3) If you have data, draw a conclusion from it. The conclusion can be right even if the methodology is wrong and the data doesn't support it. E.g. (for 1&2)let's even take the craziness of the ups and downs of people and teams and use a coin. Let's flip said coin 5 times, say it turns up heads 4 times and tails once. Your argument is that that is a significant enough sample size to use those as the odds for predicting what the next flips would be. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 27, 2011 21:08:26 GMT -5
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? Which means what? When looking at how good a team is, do you look at 1 match, or their whole schedule? Maybe UNI is really bad once they get to the NCAA tournament, maybe they have some kind of mental block that holds them back. But that does nothing to show that they didn't have a body of work to support their position. |
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 27, 2011 21:15:36 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. When have I said that UNI shouldn't be ranked? I think they are much better suited as a #10-15 team and would have no complaints. I'm not arguing that they wouldn't have played Missouri and lost to them as a #5, #10, or #15, but for other teams the seeds do make a difference. There are plenty of teams that would have taken that #5 seed because for other worthy teams, the only team they would have had to play leading up to the final four would have been Penn State in the elite eight. That's a risk Minnesota or Illinois probably would have loved. |
|
bp
High School
Posts: 11
|
Post by bp on Oct 27, 2011 21:31:01 GMT -5
Ive been reading these posts and find them very interesting. Alot of thought and speculation went into all the posts. Here is my take. Last years lost was a tough one for UNI agaisn't Missouri. They could of easily won that match and then went on to beat Northwestern and made the sweet sixteen. Then we would'nt be having this discussion. It was a very good match and could of went either way. No we are hearing some of the same arguments wondering why UNI is seeded No. 4 again this year.
Here my take. I follow UNI alot and watch alot of their matches. UNI is a team that don't have the big bangers to rely on night in night out. What they do rely on is a team that plays very very hard and is well coached. They have a setter who is a two time All American who is very aggressive and keeps the defense constantly guessing where and what will she do at that net. She is very deceptive and creates alot of one on ones for her hitters. Even though UNI don't have a big time hitter they are loaded with alot of guality hitters. Two very good middles that are very savy and are good blockers.
They have a outside who is undersized which can cause some problems. But overall she is a very smart hitter with alot of shots. Plus she plays all the way around and is our best passer and back row player.
We do have a new right side that has good size and has a strong arm. She started off this year slow but has been coming on. When she is on she can be is very tough to stop and shows alot of energy at the net.
Our back row is pretty much new. One DS from last year moved to Libero this year. She started off slow this year too. But she is coming on too. At times she can come up with any ball that is hit at her. But at times she can lose her confidence. Our other DS's are new to the lineup this year too. They are both setters turned DS's. Both show great serving skills with above average backrow skills and they too have improved as the year has gone on.
Overall when we serve receive well and pass well we are very dangerous. If we don't we struggle at times and has showed with our scores. We don't blow away alot of teams but we keep scratching and playing hard. We played a tough non conference schedule and beat some very good teams. I believe we beat around 5 or 6 teams with RPI's in the top 40. A couple of them are in the top 10.
And from my limited volleyball knowledge I would say its all about match ups. Do I think we are the best 4th best team in the country based on our RPI number, night in night out probably not. Top 12 I would say yes.
Time will tell. That is what makes any Ncaa tourney fun. Fans get to digest all the info and make their picks and discuss why these teams or those teams deserve their ranking or not. Its still fun and that is why we love the bantering back and forth.
Good Luck to all the teams!
A undersized
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 27, 2011 21:36:28 GMT -5
When have I said that UNI shouldn't be ranked? I think they are much better suited as a #10-15 team and would have no complaints. I'm not arguing that they wouldn't have played Missouri and lost to them as a #5, #10, or #15, Interesting statement: Yes there are upsets, but Top 16 shouldn't lose in the first round |
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Oct 27, 2011 21:50:43 GMT -5
I think we should double or triple Bofa's salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 27, 2011 21:51:23 GMT -5
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. RPI should just not be used at all. Coaches poll & Pablo are ok, but a better improvement would be to expand seeding to all 64, and possibly have some play-in games (say 4) for the weakest rated conferences. Opens up 4 more spots for at-larges and with more seeding would make the 1st weekend a little more competitive. I would be all for ranking all 64 or even having four #-1's, four #-2's, etc. Regionalization and RPI make the tournament much less exciting than it could be. I know NCAA Basketball does take into account some regionalization in their decision making, but they also say the Top 4 are the top 4 no matter where they are located. Based off the regular season ending RPI's and the bracket from last year, some teams rankings changed by +-3 spots because of regional alignment. That in my mind is way too much. Four top 11 RPI teams were placed in the Seattle regional last year because of their alignment, and lack of wanting to push Hawaii further east and/or Purdue further west. Why not make Hawaii who was RPI #11 the #10 seed instead of Minnesota and put Minnesota in a regional closer for them? In the end the Top 4 seeds should be the top seeds in regionals close to them. Nebraska should have been in Dayton and Stanford should have been in Seattle. Then from there you mix teams in accordingly, but should not be dropping teams 4-5 spots to make a regional work for them location wise. Teams work too hard to have a selection committee place them in a stacked regional just because of their location. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2011 22:07:02 GMT -5
ok, do you think the ACC is better than the WCC and why? what would you base it on other than head-to-head where the WCC top teams are clearly better? Please read what I wrote, where even though I said I wasn't picking one conference over the other, also I did include data that would suggest the WCC is stronger Again, please read what I wrote, there is nothing wrong with your data. It's only the conclusion and the certainty of that conclusion from that limited data that is wrong. 1) It's a very small sample size 2) Extrapolation from a small sample even in controlled environments is very faulty 3) If you have data, draw a conclusion from it. The conclusion can be right even if the methodology is wrong and the data doesn't support it. E.g. (for 1&2)let's even take the craziness of the ups and downs of people and teams and use a coin. Let's flip said coin 5 times, say it turns up heads 4 times and tails once. Your argument is that that is a significant enough sample size to use those as the odds for predicting what the next flips would be. i get the coin flip argument - but looks what happening with RPI, some conferences get to use a coin that's not 50-50. and for non-conference evaluation, the WCC-ACC this year is actually a pretty darn good sample size. The Volleyball committee wouldn't look at those WCC-ACC results, but let's say BYU or St. Marys has an RPI of 55 and Duke ends up with an RPI of 51 and Duke gets in. Does that make sense to you, given all the information (not just RPI) to you. And when you do look at those bubble teams, then those small sample sizes of wins against teams are important and should be, you'd say hmmm, we've got 4 ACC teams that didn't perform so well when tested outside their conference, they probably shouldn't be seeded as high, and BYU is more deserving to be in and make the decision accordingly, one way or another. What we are really talking about is scrutinizing a little more the 7th, 8th place teams of power conferences, or the 4th-5th place teams, or 2-3rd place teams of mid-majors and doing a sanity check. And if they played a soft schedule that inflated RPI, then you take that in to account. Look at Michigan State & Ohio State, ho-hum outside the conference, but now with a couple of nice wins at home in conference, RPI says they are good, but is the middle of the Big-10 really that good?? They beat other middling Big-10 teams. |
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 27, 2011 22:07:57 GMT -5
ORRRRRRR another crazy idea to help with this regionalization problem is to move another regional further west. The second most westerly regional this year is Minneapolis, and last year it was Austin. Why not have a regional on the Far West (California, Washington, Oregon, or Hawaii), another in the Mountain Time Zone (Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, Utah), another in the South (Florida, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky), and another in the Mid to North East (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Minnesota). With the travel this would help ease the problems of sending west coast schools too far east and east coast schools too far west.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2011 22:15:40 GMT -5
the NCAA could easily rectify this with not a lot of increased travel, just 2-3 more west teams each year tilted out towards the east would make a difference. what are we really talking about is probably marginally more travel - the whole travel factor is a joke - sending Miss. & NC out to Berkeley for slaughter - sending USC & Stanford east, lumping highest rated Pac-10 & Big-10 teams in the same regionals with Nebraska going west, Florida going west, while running Purdue & Ill down to Texas with Florida last year - that REALLY reduced travel didn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 27, 2011 22:59:11 GMT -5
i get the coin flip argument - but looks what happening with RPI, some conferences get to use a coin that's not 50-50. and for non-conference evaluation, the WCC-ACC this year is actually a pretty darn good sample size. possibly relative to other conference v conference play, but it still does not mean it's statistically significant. 1- They don't play a soft schedule to inflate their RPI, they do so to make sure they get enough wins to be NCAA tournament eligible (and to have a better record come contract time) 2- While the selection committee did go down the RPI list last year, there really wasn't a better argument for other teams that were left out. 3-I think you should do some NCAA selection research, they do have other criteria they can use, and they have expressed such use in the past skipping over teams in the 30-50 range You mean the Ohio State team that swept Minnesota? (Who went 5 with Nebraska, Illinois, USC, and swept Texas twice?) The Ohio State team that currently has an RPI of 43, but Pablo (which you're ok with) ranks at 29? |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2011 23:15:11 GMT -5
i get the coin flip argument - but looks what happening with RPI, some conferences get to use a coin that's not 50-50. and for non-conference evaluation, the WCC-ACC this year is actually a pretty darn good sample size. possibly relative to other conference v conference play, but it still does not mean it's statistically significant. 1- They don't play a soft schedule to inflate their RPI, they do so to make sure they get enough wins to be NCAA tournament eligible (and to have a better record come contract time) 2- While the selection committee did go down the RPI list last year, there really wasn't a better argument for other teams that were left out. 3-I think you should do some NCAA selection research, they do have other criteria they can use, and they have expressed such use in the past skipping over teams in the 30-50 range You mean the Ohio State team that swept Minnesota? (Who went 5 with Nebraska, Illinois, USC, and swept Texas twice?) The Ohio State team that currently has an RPI of 43, but Pablo (which you're ok with) ranks at 29? you answered a question with a question. Yeah, so they lost to Long Beach State who went 5 with Hawaii,. you mentioned just 5 Ohio State matches - must not be statistically significant - be careful.  I'd put Ohio State & Michigan State in before Duke I'd also put in BYU before Duke or Ball State. That Ohio State that beat Minny (at home of course - I'll be impressed if they can beat Minny in Minny). Pepperdine & Cal Poly had a good arguments last year,especially Pepperdine. Mississippi?  c'mon. Va Tech?? Getting over 0.500 & raising your RPI with soft scheduling - priceless!! |
|
|
|
Post by oldvbguy on Oct 28, 2011 0:11:03 GMT -5
Anyone know when round 2 of the RPI is due?
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 28, 2011 0:20:41 GMT -5
There wasn't a better argument for other teams that were left out? Compare St. Mary's or Oregon to Virginia Tech, Ole Miss, and Auburn last year.
|
|
I'd put Ohio State & Michigan State in before Duke 
c'mon. Va Tech??
