|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 28, 2011 1:07:57 GMT -5
you answered a question with a question. A rhetoric question really isn't a question. A few things: 1-I actually only listed 1 Ohio State match - knowing who they play is something you should know before you question how good a team is 2-I used 5 matches to support 1 team (Minnesota, which is one of those Big 10 middling teams) which is a bit different than using 5 matches to support hierarchy of 7 teams and their respective conferences 2a-I also used pablo, which incorporates a lot of matches 3-Just a point to make sure everyone knows...team's get at large selections, not conferences. 4-2nd point of clarification to your earlier post...RPI doesn't say that a team is good, people incorrectly interpret things that way. Just like some people think that a higher ACT/SAT score means you're smarter...when without any context it actually just means that you showed a better grasp of the knowledge on the test at the time that you took it. They had good arguments, as good as some of the teams that got in, but not really better. Actually, some of the teams they play in their 'soft schedule' actually hurts their RPI. Play around with Rich Kern's RKPI estimator, and you'll find out that your RPI can go up by playing certain teams and losing, and you can beat certain teams and have your RPI go down. (e.g. If Stanford had played a match at the end of the year against LMU, their RPI points would have dropped) |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 1:49:59 GMT -5
you answered a question with a question. A rhetoric question really isn't a question. A few things: 1-I actually only listed 1 Ohio State match - knowing who they play is something you should know before you question how good a team is 2-I used 5 matches to support 1 team (Minnesota, which is one of those Big 10 middling teams) which is a bit different than using 5 matches to support hierarchy of 7 teams and their respective conferences 2a-I also used pablo, which incorporates a lot of matches 3-Just a point to make sure everyone knows...team's get at large selections, not conferences. 4-2nd point of clarification to your earlier post...RPI doesn't say that a team is good, people incorrectly interpret things that way. Just like some people think that a higher ACT/SAT score means you're smarter...when without any context it actually just means that you showed a better grasp of the knowledge on the test at the time that you took it. They had good arguments, as good as some of the teams that got in, but not really better. Actually, some of the teams they play in their 'soft schedule' actually hurts their RPI. Play around with Rich Kern's RKPI estimator, and you'll find out that your RPI can go up by playing certain teams and losing, and you can beat certain teams and have your RPI go down. (e.g. If Stanford had played a match at the end of the year against LMU, their RPI points would have dropped) so you agree RIP that sucks I gather - hope that's not too technical a question |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 28, 2011 2:35:01 GMT -5
so you agree RIP that sucks I gather - hope that's not too technical a question It's not a question at all. It's more of a word puzzle. If we rearrange the words (and some of the letters) we might get something meaningful. Perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 28, 2011 6:00:50 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? Have you really analyzed the impact of the 1st/2nd Round travel restrictions? Or, are you just making broad generalized statements based on a cursory look at the bracket? Having carefully analyzed the bracket the past few years, I can tell you that the committee does generally restrict travel as much as possible. The number of teams traveling 400+ miles is almost always in the range of 15-20 and most years there is no possible way to get it any lower than that. We might not like the results, but I think it is unfair to say (or imply) that the committee is not doing it's job, given the restrictive rules they are required to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 6:08:13 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? Have you really analyzed the impact of the 1st/2nd Round travel restrictions? Or, are you just making broad generalized statements based on a cursory look at the bracket? Having carefully analyzed the bracket the past few years, I can tell you that the committee does generally restrict travel as much as possible. The number of teams traveling 400+ miles is almost always in the range of 15-20 and most years there is no possible way to get it any lower than that. I remember one year you come up with an alternate plan that cut out a couple, I think, but that was a rarity. But you are making a mistake. You have actually examined outcomes to figure out what's going on. Don't you know you are supposed to just bitch about RPI and blame the committee for being a bunch of idiots based on blatant assertion (see the OP for plenty of this). You aren't allowed to actually look stuff up to see if it has any bearing with reality. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 6:30:21 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, 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. So what was the point of bringing up their loss to Missouri? To show that they aren't as good as they were ranked in RPI? But as I said, if that is the case, then it also tells us they weren't as good as they were ranked in the AVCA, Rich Kern, or Pablo, either. So here's what it is: either 1) the Missouri win over UNI should have been expected, or 2) the Missouri win over UNI was an upset Now, the only way it could have been expected is if there were some reason to think that Missouri should have been ranked higher than UNI. Considering that no one was every suggesting that Missouri should have been seeded, the only way that could have been is if UNI were NOT ranked as high as they were, and, from a tournament perspective, not seeded. That is the consequence of what you are saying. OTOH, if the Missouri win over UNI is an upset, then it's an upset, and does not mean that they were improperly ranked before the match and therefore cannot be used as a criticism of their ranking. So what is it? Does Missouri's win over UNI indicate a problem with RPI or not? As I said, if you think it does, then you must think it also indicates a problem with AVCA, Rich Kern, or Pablo, or, taken to its logical conclusion, ANY ranking that has UNI ranked over Missouri (included having UNI seeded 15). Therefore, your bringing it up as a criticism of RPI implies that you think UNI should not have seeded at all. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 28, 2011 8:07:27 GMT -5
Travel restrictions and all, sometimes the committee are just idiots about it too. Why couldn't they flip UCLA and Arizona last year?
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 28, 2011 9:08:32 GMT -5
so you agree RIP that sucks I gather - hope that's not too technical a question As Bofa said, RPI is RPI; people interpreting it as more than what it actually is (e.g. predictor of match-up winners) is where we get into trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 9:15:55 GMT -5
so you agree RIP that sucks I gather - hope that's not too technical a question As Bofa said, RPI is RPI; people interpreting it as more than what it actually is (e.g. predictor of match-up winners) is where we get into trouble. Or even REFLECTING match-up winners, for that matter. But even as a predictor, I don't know that it "sucks." Sure, it's not as good as other prediction tools, but then again, it wasn't designed to, so that's not a surprise. OTOH, it is absolutely better than other predictive approaches. For example, it's much better than winning pct, that is for sure. "Sucks" is a relative term. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 11:16:28 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? Have you really analyzed the impact of the 1st/2nd Round travel restrictions? Or, are you just making broad generalized statements based on a cursory look at the bracket? Having carefully analyzed the bracket the past few years, I can tell you that the committee does generally restrict travel as much as possible. The number of teams traveling 400+ miles is almost always in the range of 15-20 and most years there is no possible way to get it any lower than that. We might not like the results, but I think it is unfair to say (or imply) that the committee is not doing it's job, given the restrictive rules they are required to follow. can you please provide your careful analysis? yes, I did do more than a cursory look at the brackets last year. Mississippi still stunk, and still traveled to Cal to get waxed. Same for North Carolina. It is unfair to say the committee is not doing it's job. On the contrary, they are doing very well at eating donuts, using a bad tool and bad guidelines in creating national tournament with competitve shortcomings, all the while minimizing travel in the process which really isn't that hard to do anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 11:24:53 GMT -5
As Bofa said, RPI is RPI; people interpreting it as more than what it actually is (e.g. predictor of match-up winners) is where we get into trouble. Or even REFLECTING match-up winners, for that matter. . who is getting into trouble? or is that a relative term? The WCC waxed the ACC this year : 4-1. The only one that got into trouble were the ACC teams (their top dogs BTW) that got beat. So BOFA and anyone else, let's put it this way, DO YOU THINK THE WCC IS BETTER THAN THE ACC? Seems like such an easy question, why not go ahead and answer it. A 2nd question. If you were selecting the tournament today, with the only guideline being to select the best teams after the Qs as a guideline, would you have 4 ACC teams and 2 WCC teams? that's an easy question to answer. |
|
|
|
Post by karplets on Oct 28, 2011 11:33:54 GMT -5
As Bofa said, RPI is RPI; people interpreting it as more than what it actually is (e.g. predictor of match-up winners) is where we get into trouble. No! Where we get in trouble is very good, very intelligent, very educated people accept this as an answer. It isn't. It's trite. RPI is RPI. It is what it is. It is because it is because it is. We do it because we do it. It may be right but it's trite. I actually find it rather fascinating that someone like you (and Bofa, whose contributions to this forum are tremendous) could find it acceptable. How can there be such a parting of the ways between myself, say, and people whose opinions I genuinely respect? What are the conditions that make that possible? Some of us are less precise with our language regarding RPI and what it does or is "supposed" to do (or what it doesn't do or doesn't do well) - and it can be helpful to point that out. But, really, is someone an unreasonable person for thinking "RPI is RPI" is an unacceptable answer? |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 11:42:46 GMT -5
So BOFA and anyone else, let's put it this way, DO YOU THINK THE WCC IS BETTER THAN THE ACC? Seems like such an easy question, why not go ahead and answer it. No, I don't. But it has nothing to do with anything you have said. Let's up the ante. You initially brought up the Big Ten and Pac 12. Remind us of that analysis and tell us what you think. Which conference is better? Because RPI says the Big 10 is better. What does your "compare head to head matches of the best teams" indicate? Then ask me which conference I think is better. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 28, 2011 11:51:14 GMT -5
Have you really analyzed the impact of the 1st/2nd Round travel restrictions? Or, are you just making broad generalized statements based on a cursory look at the bracket? Having carefully analyzed the bracket the past few years, I can tell you that the committee does generally restrict travel as much as possible. The number of teams traveling 400+ miles is almost always in the range of 15-20 and most years there is no possible way to get it any lower than that. We might not like the results, but I think it is unfair to say (or imply) that the committee is not doing it's job, given the restrictive rules they are required to follow. can you please provide your careful analysis? It's kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack. But, see: volleytalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=35855volleytalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=35984 |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 11:54:34 GMT -5
As Bofa said, RPI is RPI; people interpreting it as more than what it actually is (e.g. predictor of match-up winners) is where we get into trouble. No! Where we get in trouble is very good, very intelligent, very educated people accept this as an answer. It isn't. It's trite. RPI is RPI. It is what it is. It is because it is because it is. We do it because we do it. It may be right but it's trite. I actually find it rather fascinating that someone like you (and Bofa, whose contributions to this forum are tremendous) could find it acceptable. How can there be such a parting of the ways between myself, say, and people whose opinions I genuinely respect? What are the conditions that make that possible? Some of us are less precise with our language regarding RPI and what it does or is "supposed" to do (or what it doesn't do or doesn't do well) - and it can be helpful to point that out. But, really, is someone an unreasonable person for thinking "RPI is RPI" is an unacceptable answer? that's a great point. hearing RPI is RPI is like hearing from a Soviet bureaucrat that the 5 year plan is the 5 year plan, that's the tool we use, so don't say the 5 year plan sucks. The point of the thread is that RPI is overrated as primary tool to use for creating the most competitive national tournament. But I'm sure that statement will now get nit-picked to death in some form. Is the AVCA poll a better tool? The data supports that. But introducing it as a selection criteria could possibly introduce bias on the those that vote, knowing that. Is Pablo a better tool? the data supports that. But could introducing it as a selection tool possibly be detrimental to the sport by encouraging teams to pile up points? Could a better tool be developed that factors less or no emphasis on points with factoring home/road bias and sets won/lost. Is there a combination? As one poster suggested using a combined poll/Pable for seeding/selection. Adding play-in matches to de-emphasize the AQ berths? Changing the committee to include select Volleyball posters who we know could hammer out a much better tournament (unless they kill each other first), especially if I was on it? |
|
I'd put Ohio State & Michigan State in before Duke 
I'd put Ohio State & Michigan State in before Duke 
c'mon. Va Tech??
c'mon. Va Tech??
