|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 11:59:19 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. No, you first, I've already posted comparison of Big-10, Pac-12. But first you have to be very specific about the reasons for saying the WCC is not better than the ACC. Because I know from history if I post my Big-10 vs. Pac-12, it'll immediately degrade into a dissecting of my analysis (which I KNOW is not perfect). Please enlighten the world on why the ACC is better than the WCC, even though the WCC kicked the ACC's arse this year. If we were talking football, and the Big-10 beat the SEC like the WCC beat the ACC, the media would be proclaiming the 'death' of SEC dominance.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 12:09:26 GMT -5
Great analysis, and great seeding. Long Beach State would have played Florida State, and the brackets would have Fullerton, CSU, San Diego, Long Beach play different opponents they typically would not play
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 28, 2011 12:20:47 GMT -5
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. This is the problem with your argument in this thread, you just switched the 'tool' with the 'plan' as if they were the self same thing, which they are not. That's like complaining that a Craftsman hammer sucks because the house it was used to build was not put together correctly by the people using it, or in some instances (using RPI as a predictor) that the hammer sucks because the screws you put into the wall with it didn't hold well.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 28, 2011 12:26:27 GMT -5
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 why Bofa and I have been fairly careful with our language (and there was a huge thread about it last year) We're just saying RPI doesn't do the things people seem to think it does, and that it's not always used properly.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 13:07:11 GMT -5
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. This is the problem with your argument in this thread, you just switched the 'tool' with the 'plan' as if they were the self same thing, which they are not. That's like complaining that a Craftsman hammer sucks because the house it was used to build was not put together correctly by the people using it, or in some instances (using RPI as a predictor) that the hammer sucks because the screws you put into the wall with it didn't hold well. I think you get the point. I guess it would have been better to state the Soviet '5-year planning forecast tool' is the '5-year planning forecast tool'. Can't someone take a little literary latitude on this thread - sheesh. The NCAA can't hit the nail on the head, that's for sure. Or the screw, or with the mallett, or pipe-wrench.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 13:39:13 GMT -5
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. No, you first, I've already posted comparison of Big-10, Pac-12. But first you have to be very specific about the reasons for saying the WCC is not better than the ACC. Because I know from history if I post my Big-10 vs. Pac-12, it'll immediately degrade into a dissecting of my analysis (which I KNOW is not perfect). Please enlighten the world on why the ACC is better than the WCC, even though the WCC kicked the ACC's arse this year. If we were talking football, and the Big-10 beat the SEC like the WCC beat the ACC, the media would be proclaiming the 'death' of SEC dominance. Actually, I will revise. All the CCs (especially caps) can get confusing, and I was on my way to class. I think the WCC is better than the ACC, yes. However, I also think that the ACC should have the higher conference RPI than the WCC, but that is merely a math issue. So let's go back to the Big Ten/Pac 12 comparison. What's your assessment based on your comparison of head to head outcomes for the best teams in the conferences?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 13:40:58 GMT -5
This is the problem with your argument in this thread, you just switched the 'tool' with the 'plan' as if they were the self same thing, which they are not. That's like complaining that a Craftsman hammer sucks because the house it was used to build was not put together correctly by the people using it, or in some instances (using RPI as a predictor) that the hammer sucks because the screws you put into the wall with it didn't hold well. I think you get the point. I guess it would have been better to state the Soviet '5-year planning forecast tool' is the '5-year planning forecast tool'. Can't someone take a little literary latitude on this thread - sheesh. The NCAA can't hit the nail on the head, that's for sure. Or the screw, or with the mallett, or pipe-wrench. So you admit it, it's not RPI that fails. You have derailed this discussion of RPI to bitch about the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 13:42:48 GMT -5
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 why Bofa and I have been fairly careful with our language (and there was a huge thread about it last year) Oh, but ccmanlb has told us that he doesn't care about precise language. He went on a rant when I told him to actually say what he meant instead of obfuscating by using vague terms.
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Oct 28, 2011 14:11:38 GMT -5
For one year in the late 1990's Jeff Sagrin was paid to rate the relative strength of Division 1 volleyball teams. His system produced a very accurate assesment of which team would win if two teams played. As I recall his system predicted the correct outcome of almost every, if not every, NCAA tournament match.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 14:18:56 GMT -5
No, you first, I've already posted comparison of Big-10, Pac-12. But first you have to be very specific about the reasons for saying the WCC is not better than the ACC. Because I know from history if I post my Big-10 vs. Pac-12, it'll immediately degrade into a dissecting of my analysis (which I KNOW is not perfect). Please enlighten the world on why the ACC is better than the WCC, even though the WCC kicked the ACC's arse this year. If we were talking football, and the Big-10 beat the SEC like the WCC beat the ACC, the media would be proclaiming the 'death' of SEC dominance. Actually, I will revise. All the CCs (especially caps) can get confusing, and I was on my way to class. I think the WCC is better than the ACC, yes. However, I also think that the ACC should have the higher conference RPI than the WCC, but that is merely a math issue. So let's go back to the Big Ten/Pac 12 comparison. What's your assessment based on your comparison of head to head outcomes for the best teams in the conferences? OK, here's the small size data, and then how I would rank teams in the conference. PSU tournament: Pac-12 (ore, usc) 2-2 Big-10 (Minny, psu) 2-2 edge to the Pac-12,since on the Big-10 home court Stanford tournament: (not all head-to-head of course) Stanford 2-0 PSU 0-2 edge to the Pac-12 since on the the Pac-12 home court ASU loses to Iowa in Iowa (not a top Big-10 team, lends credence to rock-bottom of Big-10 better than rock-bottom of Pac-12. Refence (calibration) points: Long Beach State vs. Big 10: 1-0 (vs. Ohio State on neutral) Long Beach State vs. Pac-12: 0-3 ( UCLA neutral, Oregon State at Long Beach, UW at Long Beach). edge to the Pac-12 Pepperdine: Pepperdine vs. Pac-12: 1-0 (vs. UCLA at Pepp) Pepperdine vs. Big-10: 0-1 (vs. Michigan in Dayton) edge to Big-10 Cal Poly: 0-1 vs Pac-12: (at Oregon) 0-1 vs. Big-10: (Illinois at neutral). edge: Even BYU: 0-1 vs. Illinois (at BYU) 1-0 vs. Utah (at Utah) edge. Big-10, but not much given Utah at the bottom of Pac-12, and Illinois at top of Big -10. So the limited results indicate the bottom of the Pac-12 sucks relative to the Big-10. Illinois & Nebraska don't have enough info to suggest they are worse than any top Pac-12 team. But once you get past those two, the Pac-12 teams (USC, Cal, UCLA, Stanford in the upper Pac-12, UW, Oregon, Arizona, Oregon State, Wash State) as whole are, IMO, better than the Big-10 (PSU, Purdue, Minny, Ohio State, Michigan, Mich State, Wisky). I would rank them, based on the above and off the top of my head recall of conference results & trends: Nebraska USC Illinois UCLA Cal Stanford Penn State Purdue UW Minnesota Arizona Oregon Michigan (although at the moment could argue being dead last of this group) Oregon State Ohio State Wisconson Michigan State Washington State In particular, with Minnesota & Purdue not beating the top Big-10 teams and Michigan struggling it's hard to say that beyond Illinois & Nebraska that the Big-10 really has the depth of the top 9 that the Pac-12 does, although PSU of late is trending up.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 14:32:26 GMT -5
I think you get the point. I guess it would have been better to state the Soviet '5-year planning forecast tool' is the '5-year planning forecast tool'. Can't someone take a little literary latitude on this thread - sheesh. The NCAA can't hit the nail on the head, that's for sure. Or the screw, or with the mallett, or pipe-wrench. So you admit it, it's not RPI that fails. You have derailed this discussion of RPI to bitch about the NCAA. [/quote I've never said RPI fails, I've indicated it sucks, it fails in it's application by the NCAA, it's overrated (given it's use as a primary tool for selection). I let you worry about All you do is point out what RPI is, .... The class gets it, you get the best grades in the classroom. Whoopee. Now go apply yourself in the real world. Ok, so you don't like to bitch about the NCAA, I get it. I've derailed nothing - it's a Volleytalk thread. Bagging on the NCAA is fair game when the subject is the tool they use to make the tournament. Look, why don't you volunteer to screen all posts and only allow the ones that don't derail threads as you judge them - sheesh. Live a little BOFA, put down the spreadsheet & calculator for a month.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2011 14:36:45 GMT -5
Actually, I will revise. All the CCs (especially caps) can get confusing, and I was on my way to class. I think the WCC is better than the ACC, yes. However, I also think that the ACC should have the higher conference RPI than the WCC, but that is merely a math issue. So let's go back to the Big Ten/Pac 12 comparison. What's your assessment based on your comparison of head to head outcomes for the best teams in the conferences? OK, here's the small size data, and then how I would rank teams in the conference. PSU tournament: Pac-12 (ore, usc) 2-2 Big-10 (Minny, psu) 2-2 edge to the Pac-12,since on the Big-10 home court Stanford tournament: (not all head-to-head of course) Stanford 2-0 PSU 0-2 edge to the Pac-12 since on the the Pac-12 home court ASU loses to Iowa in Iowa (not a top Big-10 team, lends credence to rock-bottom of Big-10 better than rock-bottom of Pac-12. Refence (calibration) points: Long Beach State vs. Big 10: 1-0 (vs. Ohio State on neutral) Long Beach State vs. Pac-12: 0-3 ( UCLA neutral, Oregon State at Long Beach, UW at Long Beach). edge to the Pac-12 Pepperdine: Pepperdine vs. Pac-12: 1-0 (vs. UCLA at Pepp) Pepperdine vs. Big-10: 0-1 (vs. Michigan in Dayton) edge to Big-10 Cal Poly: 0-1 vs Pac-12: (at Oregon) 0-1 vs. Big-10: (Illinois at neutral). edge: Even BYU: 0-1 vs. Illinois (at BYU) 1-0 vs. Utah (at Utah) edge. Big-10, but not much given Utah at the bottom of Pac-12, and Illinois at top of Big -10. So the limited results indicate the bottom of the Pac-12 sucks relative to the Big-10. Illinois & Nebraska don't have enough info to suggest they are worse than any top Pac-12 team. But once you get past those two, the Pac-12 teams (USC, Cal, UCLA, Stanford in the upper Pac-12, UW, Oregon, Arizona, Oregon State, Wash State) as whole are, IMO, better than the Big-10 (PSU, Purdue, Minny, Ohio State, Michigan, Mich State, Wisky). I would rank them, based on the above and off the top of my head recall of conference results & trends: Nebraska USC Illinois UCLA Cal Stanford Penn State Purdue UW Minnesota Arizona Oregon Michigan (although at the moment could argue being dead last of this group) Oregon State Ohio State Wisconson Michigan State Washington State In particular, with Minnesota & Purdue not beating the top Big-10 teams and Michigan struggling it's hard to say that beyond Illinois & Nebraska that the Big-10 really has the depth of the top 9 that the Pac-12 does, although PSU of late is trending up. But which conference is better? That is what you kept going on about for ACC/WCC. Remember, you said that the WCC was 4-1 against the ACC, so that meant the WCC was better. Now use that analysis to determine which of the Big Ten vs Pac 12 is better.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 28, 2011 15:11:34 GMT -5
All you do is point out what RPI is, .... The class gets it, you get the best grades in the classroom. Whoopee. Now go apply yourself in the real world. Ok, so you don't like to bitch about the NCAA, I get it. We keep pointing out what the RPI is because a lot of people don't know, or think they know but continue to show that they do not through their arguments. As far as the NCAA goes, if you review previous year's threads you'll see where we have no problem discussing the criteria that the NCAA has placed on the selection, seeding, and pairings.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 15:11:41 GMT -5
OK, here's the small size data, and then how I would rank teams in the conference. PSU tournament: Pac-12 (ore, usc) 2-2 Big-10 (Minny, psu) 2-2 edge to the Pac-12,since on the Big-10 home court Stanford tournament: (not all head-to-head of course) Stanford 2-0 PSU 0-2 edge to the Pac-12 since on the the Pac-12 home court ASU loses to Iowa in Iowa (not a top Big-10 team, lends credence to rock-bottom of Big-10 better than rock-bottom of Pac-12. Refence (calibration) points: Long Beach State vs. Big 10: 1-0 (vs. Ohio State on neutral) Long Beach State vs. Pac-12: 0-3 ( UCLA neutral, Oregon State at Long Beach, UW at Long Beach). edge to the Pac-12 Pepperdine: Pepperdine vs. Pac-12: 1-0 (vs. UCLA at Pepp) Pepperdine vs. Big-10: 0-1 (vs. Michigan in Dayton) edge to Big-10 Cal Poly: 0-1 vs Pac-12: (at Oregon) 0-1 vs. Big-10: (Illinois at neutral). edge: Even BYU: 0-1 vs. Illinois (at BYU) 1-0 vs. Utah (at Utah) edge. Big-10, but not much given Utah at the bottom of Pac-12, and Illinois at top of Big -10. So the limited results indicate the bottom of the Pac-12 sucks relative to the Big-10. Illinois & Nebraska don't have enough info to suggest they are worse than any top Pac-12 team. But once you get past those two, the Pac-12 teams (USC, Cal, UCLA, Stanford in the upper Pac-12, UW, Oregon, Arizona, Oregon State, Wash State) as whole are, IMO, better than the Big-10 (PSU, Purdue, Minny, Ohio State, Michigan, Mich State, Wisky). I would rank them, based on the above and off the top of my head recall of conference results & trends: Nebraska USC Illinois UCLA Cal Stanford Penn State Purdue UW Minnesota Arizona Oregon Michigan (although at the moment could argue being dead last of this group) Oregon State Ohio State Wisconson Michigan State Washington State In particular, with Minnesota & Purdue not beating the top Big-10 teams and Michigan struggling it's hard to say that beyond Illinois & Nebraska that the Big-10 really has the depth of the top 9 that the Pac-12 does, although PSU of late is trending up. But which conference is better? That is what you kept going on about for ACC/WCC. Remember, you said that the WCC was 4-1 against the ACC, so that meant the WCC was better. Now use that analysis to determine which of the Big Ten vs Pac 12 is better. I would say the Pac-12 is slightly better, but it's not as clear cut as the WCC-ACC where the head-to-head which involved top teams is definitive, and because we don't have Illinois/Nebraska vs. Pac-12 to help us out. From the data I presented, the Pac-12 middle-upper teams were better than the Big-10 middle-upper teams, but the bottom of the Big-10 is better. Based on that, I say the Pac-12 is slightly better. Look, we all know you've got reams of data. Forget what conclusions I draw, we all get it's small sample size. They are neck-and-neck. Do you think the Pac-12 is better than the Big-10? and why?
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2011 15:29:09 GMT -5
All you do is point out what RPI is, .... The class gets it, you get the best grades in the classroom. Whoopee. Now go apply yourself in the real world. Ok, so you don't like to bitch about the NCAA, I get it. We keep pointing out what the RPI is because a lot of people don't know, or think they know but continue to show that they do not through their arguments. As far as the NCAA goes, if you review previous year's threads you'll see where we have no problem discussing the criteria that the NCAA has placed on the selection, seeding, and pairings. I wouldn't say a lot of people don't know. I think people are generally pretty smart and do get it, even if their arguments suck (unlike mine). How do you know what someone thinks? that's a great skill. Do you know what I think?
|
|