|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 22, 2014 16:38:33 GMT -5
Pablo was designed as a "predictive" model. I think it's premised on the idea that 5 game matches suggest the two teams are quite even in terms of figuring out who might win the next time they play or how teams who play both might do. Thanks! I saw PSU go five at home last year and it felt much more like a top prize fighter going the distance yet still dominating the fInal round leaving no doubt who the better team was, than it felt like a draw. How then does Pablo justify having USC 10 places higher in 6th, losses At home must somehow be better than draws? Pablo only has USC about 200 points higher than FSU. All the teams are very close right now.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 22, 2014 17:07:18 GMT -5
Guess which voter? Week 2 - Purdue #7 Week 3 - Purdue #8 (after losing to WKU) Week 4 - Purdue #9 (after losing to SLU) 2 more losses to unranked teams and they'll be out of the Top 10! I think a several of the "big name" schools would not be in the top 25 if they had to rely on their non-conference performance to get into the poll like many of the "mid-major" schools or the schools without a name. I know Purdue is really good but if they didn't start with such a high preseason rank and have the reputation, would their schedule get them in the top 25? If we were talking about a school like Ohio, Western Kentucky, or App. State - would a 10-2 record with a win over San Diego and losses to two unranked teams get them into the top 25? We would all be asking who have they beaten to deserve to be in the top 25. Agreed. My point is more about that individual voter's actions above and relation to Purdue. We already had the board's intrepid Ballot Integrity Monitor start a thread to call out Elliott for votes that are much more sensible than those above, so I thought this should be pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 22, 2014 17:47:37 GMT -5
Guess which voter? Week 2 - Purdue #7 Week 3 - Purdue #8 (after losing to WKU) Week 4 - Purdue #9 (after losing to SLU) 2 more losses to unranked teams and they'll be out of the Top 10! I think a several of the "big name" schools would not be in the top 25 if they had to rely on their non-conference performance to get into the poll like many of the "mid-major" schools or the schools without a name. I know Purdue is really good but if they didn't start with such a high preseason rank and have the reputation, would their schedule get them in the top 25? If we were talking about a school like Ohio, Western Kentucky, or App. State - would a 10-2 record with a win over San Diego and losses to two unranked teams get them into the top 25? We would all be asking who have they beaten to deserve to be in the top 25. This is always the case. The preseason poll is still the biggest factor in polls weeks later, months, really....
|
|
|
Post by Upfrontvb on Sept 22, 2014 19:33:31 GMT -5
My financial advisor always uses this line: Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results. It is like USC is an underperforming DOW stock and everyone is "onboard" because they expect the stock to go higher soon. Well, I'd be in that boat too, I think USC will eventually be a very good team, once they learn how to pass, set, block, Nwanebu gets healthy and the use her just on the RS, front row, and they stop running their offense through Gillis , but the poll shouldn't be about future prospects, it should be about current ability, and there is NOTHING in the last two weeks that says that there are only 8 teams better than USC right now. I agree with you USC will be a good team, next year. And based on their current ability, USC should be ranked around 20.
|
|
|
Post by pointhuskies on Sept 22, 2014 21:24:39 GMT -5
Jim has said before (maybe on Volleyblog Seattle?) that he does not vote in the poll because he does not have the time to do it properly. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy to do things on a minimum of data.
|
|
|
Post by herdmentality on Sept 23, 2014 0:59:41 GMT -5
Jim has said before (maybe on Volleyblog Seattle?) that he does not vote in the poll because he does not have the time to do it properly. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy to do things on a minimum of data. I thought it was cause they didn't let him use his colored pens.
|
|
|
Post by dcvolleyball on Sept 23, 2014 4:33:45 GMT -5
Of all the coaches polls for college athletics, the AVCA poll has become the biggest joke.
If you look at even the college football poll, when teams lose (even if coaches know they are really good) they fall the appropriate amount of spots. Example is Michigan State losing at Oregon. They fell to 13th even though they are thought to be much better.
The AVCA poll is really a poll of which programs coaches respect, and that is limiting our sport.
Florida is an amazing volleyball program, with an amazing coach, but they SHOULD NOT BE RANKED in the top 10. How can coaches justify leaving Marquette out of the poll when they beat Florida at Florida, yet Florida remains a top ten team. Florida and other teams are always given the benefit of the doubt because of history, their coach etc.
End Rant.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 23, 2014 5:04:53 GMT -5
"Limiting our sport"? Seriously? How can it be "limiting our sport"? You think if the AVCA poll were different then somehow it would spark popularity of volleyball?
|
|