|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 29, 2011 19:04:13 GMT -5
So after reading many posts about the RPI and what is is supposed to do and how it is supposed to or not supposed to be used, I guess in the end the original post should have been "The Selection Committee's use of the RPI is overrated" What does that mean, "overrated"? It's not like there is this overwhelming support for the NCAA's use of RPI in the volleyball community. In fact, plenty of high-profile folks are actively working with the NCAA to try to get them to STOP using RPI. Hard to call that "overrated" Well until it is no longer being used as the primary tool then it will be overrated. Do you want the formal definition of overrated to understand what I mean? My point is that if you are going to use a tool to select the most important tournament of the year for all of these young women who have put in so much hard work then I would expect that tool to be a bit more precise. I understand they do have other things that they use, but when the selection committee explicitly points out that the RPI is the main tool in selecting teams, well then it darn well better be the most accurate tool. Not fair to many talented teams to be left out or mis-seeded because of an inaccurate tool.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 29, 2011 19:28:01 GMT -5
Get ready for UNI to be one of the four #1 seeds again. They're 22-1 (#4 RPI and #12 AVCA), with wins at Iowa State (#3 RPI and #14 AVCA) and over Florida State (#9 RPI and #19 AVCA) at a neutral site. In their only other game against a team in the AVCA Top 25, they lost to Minnesota (#6 RPI and #15 AVCA) in five on a neutral site.
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Oct 29, 2011 20:10:43 GMT -5
UNI's loss to Minnesota was at UNI.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2011 20:31:51 GMT -5
What does that mean, "overrated"? It's not like there is this overwhelming support for the NCAA's use of RPI in the volleyball community. In fact, plenty of high-profile folks are actively working with the NCAA to try to get them to STOP using RPI. Hard to call that "overrated" Well until it is no longer being used as the primary tool then it will be overrated. Do you want the formal definition of overrated to understand what I mean? I know what "overrated" means, I just have no idea what you are referring to when you use it. To say something is overrated implies that someone is rating it highly. As I said, the only ones who seem to rate RPI highly in the volleyball world is the NCAA. No one else thinks it is all that great. Hard to call that "overrated" as a tool by the volleyball community. If you mean something else, you better bloody say it instead of making everyone guess what you are talking about. Then again, as I also said, given the significance placed upon by the NCAA it is almost impossible to overrate the importance of RPI as a volleyball fan in terms of the NCAA tournament. Now, that addresses your initial question. Your followup, "is the use of RPI by the committee overrated" is completely incoherent. How can the use of something be overrated? Moreover, as before, it begs the question of overrated by whom? If you want to ask, "Is RPI the best thing they could be using?" then ask that question. Why screw around with vaguarities?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2011 20:33:09 GMT -5
Get ready for UNI to be one of the four #1 seeds again. They're 22-1 (#4 RPI and #12 AVCA), with wins at Iowa State (#3 RPI and #14 AVCA) and over Florida State (#9 RPI and #19 AVCA) at a neutral site. In their only other game against a team in the AVCA Top 25, they lost to Minnesota (#6 RPI and #15 AVCA) in five on a neutral site. Well, they still have to win out (any updates on tonight?), but if they do, you darn right they will be a top seed. They have everything the committee loves to see.
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Oct 29, 2011 20:38:24 GMT -5
...which will mess with the new rule about seeds and hosting the first and second rounds. If UNI, ISU and MN are all seeded, there's no way all three teams can host first and second rounds. Heck, usually, the NCAA would want to send them all to the same location.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Oct 29, 2011 20:42:03 GMT -5
No... there's no way that they'll all be able to host and have geographic travel restrictions take a front seat priority.
But I seem to recall that the revised rule said that the NCAA felt that there was enough money available now to ease up on the travel rule.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2011 20:46:49 GMT -5
Think about the semantics of what you say here: RPI "favors" one region by not giving greater representation to another. That is not most people's definition of favoritism. Your opinion is that one region deserves more representation than another. I agree that it is well reasoned and carefully considered, but it is still bias. No, this is BS. I don't think ANY _region_ "deserves" anything. I think the best teams in the country deserve to make the tournament, and the teams in the west are largely among the best teams in the country. The reason I say RPI "favors" teams in the east is because it rates those teams higher than they should be rated based on their quality. Well, if you are just going to make %*$# up, this is going to get pretty boring. In order to justify that assertion, you would have to be able to show that the NCAA acknowledges that RPI is regionally biased. Got anything to back it up? I've not seen anything that would indicate that. In fact, all indications are that the NCAA thinks RPI is a fairly realistic estimate of absolute team strength throughout the country. And with good reason - in most sports, that seems to be the case. Volleyball is unusual in that respect. Moreover, as far as these regional bias claims go, how would the NCAA even know? Do you think the NCAA administration is reading volleytalk? Because as far as I know, that is where most of the evidence regarding the problems with RPI in volleyball has been presented. And even in that regard, it's only been in the last couple of years that it has really come to light. The NCAA has been using RPI for a lot longer than that. It's crazy to think that they chose to use RPI for volleyball because they believe that RPI at least reflects the "best in the region." Sure, people have bitched about the rankings all the time, but the NCAA is used to that. That does not mean that they admit that the RPI is regionally biased.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 29, 2011 20:48:56 GMT -5
Get ready for UNI to be one of the four #1 seeds again. They're 22-1 (#4 RPI and #12 AVCA), with wins at Iowa State (#3 RPI and #14 AVCA) and over Florida State (#9 RPI and #19 AVCA) at a neutral site. In their only other game against a team in the AVCA Top 25, they lost to Minnesota (#6 RPI and #15 AVCA) in five on a neutral site. Well, they still have to win out (any updates on tonight?), but if they do, you darn right they will be a top seed. They have everything the committee loves to see.Yep, two quality wins and one quality loss, total. Minnesota sweeping Illinois will could cement it. They did drop their first two sets at Missouri State, before pulling it out in five. They still have to play at Wichita State (tonight) and at South Dakota State, which both pushed them to five earlier at home.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2011 20:49:52 GMT -5
Well, they still have to win out (any updates on tonight?), but if they do, you darn right they will be a top seed. They have everything the committee loves to see.Yep, two quality wins and one quality loss, total. Minnesota sweeping Illinois will could cement it. They did drop their first two sets at Missouri State, before pulling it out in five. They still have to play at Wichita State Um,, that is like going on as we speak... Note that the NCAA does not concern itself with 3, 4, or 5 sets. Sweeps matter not, only wins. BTW, what do you mean "two quality wins"? Right now they are 4 - 1 against the RPI top 25, and 7 - 0 against 26 - 50. Moreover, they have the 5th most difficult non-conference schedule of any team in the country, which the committee LOVES to see for teams from mid-majors. Contrast them with someone like Hawaii, who, before this weekend, was 3 - 1 vs teams in the top 25, and 5 - 0 against 26 - 50, with the 8th toughest non-conference schedule. Since they don't actually play anyone else in the top 50 (unless NMSU breaks that), that isn't going to change. So it's pretty clear, if UNI wins out (they would add a couple more top 50 wins to their record), they would be head and shoulders above Hawaii in the eyes of the committee, at the very least. So figure out where you want Hawaii, and put UNI somewhere in the front. BTW, UNI swept Wichita St tonight on the road.
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Oct 29, 2011 22:01:31 GMT -5
Think about the semantics of what you say here: RPI "favors" one region by not giving greater representation to another. That is not most people's definition of favoritism. Your opinion is that one region deserves more representation than another. I agree that it is well reasoned and carefully considered, but it is still bias. No, this is BS. I don't think ANY _region_ "deserves" anything. I think the best teams in the country deserve to make the tournament, and the teams in the west are largely among the best teams in the country. The reason I say RPI "favors" teams in the east is because it rates those teams higher than they should be rated based on their quality. Well, if you are just going to make %*$# up, this is going to get pretty boring. In order to justify that assertion, you would have to be able to show that the NCAA acknowledges that RPI is regionally biased. Got anything to back it up? I've not seen anything that would indicate that. In fact, all indications are that the NCAA thinks RPI is a fairly realistic estimate of absolute team strength throughout the country. And with good reason - in most sports, that seems to be the case. Volleyball is unusual in that respect. Moreover, as far as these regional bias claims go, how would the NCAA even know? Do you think the NCAA administration is reading volleytalk? Because as far as I know, that is where most of the evidence regarding the problems with RPI in volleyball has been presented. And even in that regard, it's only been in the last couple of years that it has really come to light. The NCAA has been using RPI for a lot longer than that. It's crazy to think that they chose to use RPI for volleyball because they believe that RPI at least reflects the "best in the region." Sure, people have bitched about the rankings all the time, but the NCAA is used to that. That does not mean that they admit that the RPI is regionally biased. You're still missing my point.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Oct 29, 2011 22:43:17 GMT -5
They still have to play at Wichita State (tonight) and at South Dakota State, which both pushed them to five earlier at home. No, NORTH Dakota State (pablo 39) pushed them to five sets earlier at UNI. they play SOUTH Dakota State (pablo 183) next week. UNI's toughest remaining (regular season) match is a home match versus Creighton (pablo 89, has a historical tendancy of giving UNI challenging matches, and is actually the last MVC team to have beaten the Panthers, back in 2008). Then UNI will have two matches in the MVC conference tourney (most likely against Creighton or Mo State or Wichita State), but UNI is hosting that tournament again this year.
|
|
|
Post by NebraskaVBfan on Oct 30, 2011 1:57:41 GMT -5
That would be ridiculous if UNI ended up with a number 1 seed in the tourney. They may have played a good non-conference but the MVC is NOT a tough conference to play in, especially compared to the B1G and the Pac-12. IMO, teams who actually play in tough conferences like the B1G and the Pac-12 should get the top seeds over teams like UNI.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 30, 2011 7:35:10 GMT -5
That would be ridiculous if UNI ended up with a number 1 seed in the tourney. They may have played a good non-conference but the MVC is NOT a tough conference to play in, especially compared to the B1G and the Pac-12. IMO, teams who actually play in tough conferences like the B1G and the Pac-12 should get the top seeds over teams like UNI. You better resolve yourself to it now because there is a darn good chance its going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 30, 2011 10:02:51 GMT -5
That would be ridiculous if UNI ended up with a number 1 seed in the tourney. They may have played a good non-conference but the MVC is NOT a tough conference to play in, especially compared to the B1G and the Pac-12. IMO, teams who actually play in tough conferences like the B1G and the Pac-12 should get the top seeds over teams like UNI. You better resolve yourself to it now because there is a darn good chance its going to happen. Either you had some sort of impact in creating the RPI or you are in love with UNI; or both. Nearly everyone on here has stated that there should be other rankings besides the RPI; while you stand firmly behind it. Even a UNI fan has come on here to say they are a solid team, but more of a #10 type team in their opinion; yet you want to love on their "tough schedule". You also apparently don't understand common English that well either, because you are asking way too many questions about easy concepts. "What does overrated mean?" "What does quality win mean?" "I need help understanding because you didn't explain yourself and I don't like having to interpret on my own, can anyone help?" (obviously that wasn't one of your real questions, just thought I should point that out before you asked a question about when you said that).
|
|