bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 5, 2015 19:49:25 GMT -5
RPI Futures is a projected season ending RPI based on the win probabilities for the remaining games on the schedule using the current Pablo rating. This includes projected adjustments on matches completed.
Projected RPI rank. (Last Week's Rank) School (Projected Overall Record, Proj. Conf. Record) (RPI SOS Rank) - Projected RPI before adjustments
1. (2) Texas (25-2, 15-1) (14) - 1 2. (3) USC (31-1, 19-1) (37) - 2 3. (4) Kansas (26-2, 14-2) (36) - 4 4. (1) Florida (23-5, 14-4) (2) - 3 5. (9) Minnesota (24-6, 16-4) (8) - 5 6. (5) Penn State (27-4, 16-4) (38) - 7 7. (11) Arizona State (26-5, 15-5) (30) - 6 8. (14) Ohio State (25-7, 14-6) (16) - 9 9. (8) Nebraska (25-5, 16-4) (27) - 8 10. (15) BYU (26-3, 16-2) (59) - 11 11. (6) UCLA (22-8, 13-7) (9) - 12 12. (13) Washington (27-3, 17-3) (54) - 10 13. (24) Wisconsin (21-9, 13-7) (7) - 18 14. (10) Kentucky (22-8, 15-3) (15) - 15 15. (12) Arkansas State (24-2, 15-1) (86) - 13 16. (18) Missouri (26-5, 14-4) (49) - 14 17. (7) Illinois (22-9, 13-7) (12) - 20 18. (16) Western Kentucky (28-3, 15-1) (83) - 16 19. (17) Louisville (24-6, 18-2) (44) - 19 20. (19) Arkansas (26-4, 16-2) (61) - 17 21. (20) Stanford (20-8, 14-6) (23) - 21 22. (21) Creighton (22-9, 16-2) (22) - 22 23. (23) Florida State (25-6, 18-2) (58) - 23 24. (33) Texas A&M (18-11, 11-7) (4) - 26 25. (30) Missouri State (25-6, 16-2) (65) - 24 26. (22) SMU (28-4, 18-2) (107) - 25 27. (26) Marquette (22-9, 13-5) (40) - 29 28. (37) Iowa State (17-11, 10-6) (5) - 28 29. (25) Hawaii (26-1, 16-0) (171) - 27 30. (29) Ohio (27-3, 16-0) (138) - 31 31. (27) Michigan (19-12, 9-11) (13) - 30 32. (38) Northwestern (16-15, 8-12) (1) - 37 33. (39) Pacific (21-9, 12-6) (55) - 34 34. (32) Baylor (18-12, 6-10) (11) - 32 35. (36) Arizona (20-12, 10-10) (28) - 33 36. (42) Dayton (22-8, 12-2) (66) - 35 37. (35) San Diego (19-11, 12-6) (31) - 36 38. (47) North Carolina (18-11, 15-5) (26) - 45 39. (34) Wichita State (23-9, 14-4) (75) - 42 40. (28) Wyoming (24-6, 14-4) (122) - 43 41. (55) Villanova (23-8, 13-5) (85) - 38 42. (51) Colorado State (24-5, 16-2) (126) - 39 43. (48) Santa Clara (21-9, 12-6) (51) - 41 44. (31) Rice (23-7, 13-3) (84) - 40 45. (41) Purdue (21-10, 12-8) (50) - 47 46. (45) Idaho State (22-8, 14-2) (78) - 44 47. (44) Miami-FL (20-10, 13-7) (46) - 46 48. (49) Saint Louis (23-7, 12-2) (108) - 48 49. (50) Iowa (17-16, 7-13) (10) - 51 50. (69) Virginia (21-10, 13-7) (63) - 49 51. (46) Kansas State (16-12, 8-8) (25) - 52 52. (53) San Francisco (22-9, 9-9) (81) - 50 53. (60) Temple (26-6, 17-3) (146) - 53 54. (40) Pittsburgh (23-9, 13-7) (90) - 55 55. (57) Northern Arizona (23-6, 13-3) (137) - 54 56. (43) Gonzaga (18-13, 9-9) (35) - 58 57. (63) Boise State (21-9, 13-5) (100) - 57 58. (59) TCU (18-10, 8-8) (73) - 56 59. (58) Lipscomb (20-9, 12-2) (96) - 59 60. (76) Illinois State (22-9, 12-6) (113) - 60 61. (71) James Madison (23-6, 13-3) (162) - 61 62. (65) Michigan State (17-14, 9-11) (29) - 63 63. (61) Chattanooga (25-4, 14-2) (245) - 62 64. (79) Oklahoma (12-16, 6-10) (3) - 65 65. (66) Sacramento State (26-5, 13-3) (218) - 64 66. (56) Southern Illinois (19-12, 10-8) (71) - 67 67. (62) Texas-San Antonio (22-8, 13-3) (139) - 66 68. (67) Loyola Marymount (15-15, 6-12) (24) - 70 69. (75) Towson (26-5, 12-4) (236) - 68 70. (72) Murray State (26-1, 16-0) (294) - 69 71. (86) Furman (20-6, 14-2) (166) - 71 72. (68) Syracuse (21-10, 12-8) (115) - 72 73. (80) Appalachian State (21-6, 14-2) (179) - 73 74. (70) Pepperdine (16-15, 7-11) (33) - 76 75. (84) Long Beach State (23-8, 12-4) (164) - 77 76. (92) Florida Atlantic (18-10, 10-6) (97) - 74 77. (64) Xavier (16-13, 12-6) (53) - 78 78. (89) Texas-Arlington (21-7, 12-4) (153) - 79 79. (54) Oregon (13-16, 7-13) (18) - 75 80. (52) UNC Wilmington (21-7, 12-4) (158) - 80 81. (93) New Mexico State (25-6, 13-1) (231) - 83 82. (99) North Texas (19-12, 11-5) (76) - 84 83. (97) Denver (26-6, 14-2) (229) - 86 84. (77) Cleveland State (24-6, 13-3) (223) - 88 85. (87) Coastal Carolina (22-4, 14-0) (244) - 81 86. (82) Rhode Island (20-7, 10-4) (156) - 82 87. (73) Auburn (16-14, 8-10) (42) - 85 88. (83) Virginia Tech (19-13, 10-10) (77) - 87 89. (90) American (25-6, 16-0) (228) - 89 90. (74) Northern Iowa (15-16, 9-9) (43) - 92 91. (78) Loyola-Chicago (21-9, 11-7) (135) - 90 92. (91) Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (26-6, 14-2) (253) - 91 93. (81) St. Johns (21-12, 11-7) (109) - 93 94. (94) Tennessee (23-10, 9-9) (155) - 94 95. (100) Washington State (17-15, 6-14) (72) - 95 96. (107) Cal Poly (21-6, 13-3) (224) - 96 97. (117) Colorado (15-17, 7-13) (41) - 97 98. (85) North Dakota State (19-11, 10-6) (134) - 98 99. (98) LSU (11-18, 7-11) (17) - 100 100. (102) New Mexico (18-13, 11-7) (92) - 101 101. (95) UCF (17-15, 11-9) (79) - 99 102. (96) IUPUI (22-8, 13-3) (220) - 105 103. (105) Miami-OH (21-8, 13-3) (202) - 102 104. (121) Ole Miss (20-13, 6-12) (121) - 103 105. (103) George Washington (21-9, 10-4) (178) - 104 106. (133) Oakland (17-13, 11-5) (105) - 106 107. (137) Houston (22-10, 12-8) (211) - 110 108. (114) Duke (14-16, 9-11) (52) - 107 109. (119) Army (21-8, 13-3) (230) - 108 110. (123) Texas State (17-12, 12-4) (129) - 114 111. (109) Florida Gulf Coast (19-12, 9-5) (144) - 111 112. (112) Indiana (14-18, 4-16) (45) - 112 113. (116) Georgia Tech (18-14, 9-11) (114) - 113 114. (120) UNF (24-7, 10-4) (258) - 109 115. (108) Northern Illinois (16-12, 12-4) (127) - 123 116. (159) Hofstra (20-11, 11-5) (189) - 115 117. (88) Cincinnati (18-13, 10-10) (116) - 117 118. (104) Arkansas-Little Rock (14-12, 10-6) (94) - 118 119. (111) Indiana State (19-14, 8-10) (117) - 119 120. (118) Portland (16-15, 5-13) (87) - 120 121. (130) Delaware (16-13, 8-8) (123) - 121 122. (101) Yale (18-6, 12-2) (260) - 122 123. (106) Kennesaw State (17-8, 9-5) (199) - 116 124. (139) North Dakota (22-11, 10-6) (201) - 126 125. (143) Oral Roberts (18-11, 12-4) (188) - 131
|
|
|
Post by rampageripster on Oct 5, 2015 19:55:38 GMT -5
Are you saying we would be safely a seed?? Someone get the fainting couch
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 5, 2015 19:59:07 GMT -5
So could be 9, maybe 10 from B1G make it if Purdue and maybe Iowa squeezes in. That sounds about right. That said, I didn't realize MSU was in such a hole in terms of RPI. They have to do substantially better than 9-11 in conference to get in according to this, and probably have to hope one of the extra wins comes against a high ranking opponent.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 5, 2015 20:04:33 GMT -5
So RPI adjustments are things like wins against top 25 etc, correct? So those are based on the projected rankings of opponents so far, or throughout the season?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 5, 2015 20:19:26 GMT -5
So could be 9, maybe 10 from B1G make it if Purdue and maybe Iowa squeezes in. That sounds about right. That said, I didn't realize MSU was in such a hole in terms of RPI. They have to do substantially better than 9-11 in conference to get in according to this, and probably have to hope one of the extra wins comes against a high ranking opponent. Iowa has to win 7 more matches to be tournament eligible. They only have 4 against Maryland (2), Rutgers, and Indiana...I'm interested to see where those 3 other wins come from. Northwestern has to win 6 more matches, with only two against Indiana and Maryland....again, interested to see where those 4 other wins come from. MSU can be in the same boat. MSU needs 7 more wins just to be RPI bubble, with 4 matches against Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana. Assuming all these teams win against the aforementioned teams, if they all end up beating up on each other, with no wins from the teams that can afford losses (PSU, Nebraska, Ohio State, Minnesota, Illinos, Wisconsin, maybe Michigan), they might just beat themselves into being ineligible. I think 9 is a good bet for the Big 10 this year. I'm not convinced 10 will even be tournament eligible.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 5, 2015 20:30:28 GMT -5
So could be 9, maybe 10 from B1G make it if Purdue and maybe Iowa squeezes in. That sounds about right. That said, I didn't realize MSU was in such a hole in terms of RPI. They have to do substantially better than 9-11 in conference to get in according to this, and probably have to hope one of the extra wins comes against a high ranking opponent. Iowa has to win 7 more matches to be tournament eligible. They only have 4 against Maryland (2), Rutgers, and Indiana...I'm interested to see where those 3 other wins come from. Northwestern has to win 6 more matches, with only two against Indiana and Maryland....again, interested to see where those 4 other wins come from. MSU can be in the same boat. MSU needs 7 more wins just to be RPI bubble, with 4 matches against Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana. Assuming all these teams win against the aforementioned teams, if they all end up beating up on each other, with no wins from the teams that can afford losses (PSU, Nebraska, Ohio State, Minnesota, Illinos, Wisconsin, maybe Michigan), they might just beat themselves into being ineligible. I think 9 is a good bet for the Big 10 this year. I'm not convinced 10 will even be tournament eligible. This sounds like my post from the other thread! I'd agree, except that the futures listed here are predicting more from Iowa than I would have guessed, and from Northwestern too for that matter. My guess is the Iowa wins comes from home wins against teams with similar Pablo rankings. I don't have access to the whole Pablo list beyond what is shown on Rich Kern so I can't say who those would be. What really surprised me is the hole MSU is in.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 5, 2015 20:35:57 GMT -5
Iowa has to win 7 more matches to be tournament eligible. They only have 4 against Maryland (2), Rutgers, and Indiana...I'm interested to see where those 3 other wins come from. Northwestern has to win 6 more matches, with only two against Indiana and Maryland....again, interested to see where those 4 other wins come from. MSU can be in the same boat. MSU needs 7 more wins just to be RPI bubble, with 4 matches against Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana. Assuming all these teams win against the aforementioned teams, if they all end up beating up on each other, with no wins from the teams that can afford losses (PSU, Nebraska, Ohio State, Minnesota, Illinos, Wisconsin, maybe Michigan), they might just beat themselves into being ineligible. I think 9 is a good bet for the Big 10 this year. I'm not convinced 10 will even be tournament eligible. This sounds like my post from the other thread! I'd agree, except that the futures listed here are predicting more from Iowa than I would have guessed, and from Northwestern too for that matter. My guess is the Iowa wins comes from home wins against teams with similar Pablo rankings. I don't have access to the whole Pablo list beyond what is shown on Rich Kern so I can't say who those would be. What really surprised me is the hole MSU is in. I bluepenguin he is using partial wins based on match odds. So if Iowa has 10 matches that they have 10% to win, they'd be projected to go 1-9 in those games.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Oct 5, 2015 20:36:05 GMT -5
Florida prediction projection to lose only 1 more match....5 losses and a top 4 seed?
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 5, 2015 20:45:07 GMT -5
This sounds like my post from the other thread! I'd agree, except that the futures listed here are predicting more from Iowa than I would have guessed, and from Northwestern too for that matter. My guess is the Iowa wins comes from home wins against teams with similar Pablo rankings. I don't have access to the whole Pablo list beyond what is shown on Rich Kern so I can't say who those would be. What really surprised me is the hole MSU is in. I bluepenguin he is using partial wins based on match odds. So if Iowa has 10 matches that they have 10% to win, they'd be projected to go 1-9 in those games. Right...I remember now, the number of X matches won that yields the highest joint probability across the remaining matches.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 5, 2015 21:02:57 GMT -5
So RPI adjustments are things like wins against top 25 etc, correct? So those are based on the projected rankings of opponents so far, or throughout the season? Correct.
There is a bonus for scheduling more than 1/2 your games against teams in the top 75. Then a similar bonus for each win against a team in the top 25 (unadjusted RPI) and a bonus equal to 1/2 for a win against a team 26-50 (unadjusted RPI). This is how I understand how it works - and is reflected here. I will use Wisconsin as an example.
Wisconsin has/had 10 non conference matches - and according to RPI futures 6 of them will have an RPI under 75 - so Wisconsin gets a two place adjustment for scheduling. They then have 3 wins so far against teams projected to finish in the top 25 (Louisville, Creighton, & Illinois) - good for eight place adjustment and 2 more wins against teams projected to finish 26-50 (North Carolina and Northwestern) for two more place adjustment. These win adjustments are for games already won and the using the season ending projected RPI of the opponent. (one place adjustment is not a literal move of one spot in the RPI ranking, but a mathematical adjustment to the RPI score)
Teams from the Big 10 will continue to have many opportunities to gain top 25 and 50 wins as conference schedule continues.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 5, 2015 21:10:06 GMT -5
This sounds like my post from the other thread! I'd agree, except that the futures listed here are predicting more from Iowa than I would have guessed, and from Northwestern too for that matter. My guess is the Iowa wins comes from home wins against teams with similar Pablo rankings. I don't have access to the whole Pablo list beyond what is shown on Rich Kern so I can't say who those would be. What really surprised me is the hole MSU is in. I bluepenguin he is using partial wins based on match odds. So if Iowa has 10 matches that they have 10% to win, they'd be projected to go 1-9 in those games. I know HOW these results are derived, but if they pan out as Pablo projects, I would be interested to see who lost to whom. While I do think Pablo is the best tool we have for Team comparison, it's by no means fool proof, case in point, (yes it's an extreme end) Pablo going 5 for 25 in this past weeks PTW
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 5, 2015 21:20:09 GMT -5
Sorry, just noticed a slight formula error in calculating scheduling bonuses - so I have posted the corrected RPI futures. Not much different...
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 5, 2015 21:28:08 GMT -5
So could be 9, maybe 10 from B1G make it if Purdue and maybe Iowa squeezes in. That sounds about right. That said, I didn't realize MSU was in such a hole in terms of RPI. They have to do substantially better than 9-11 in conference to get in according to this, and probably have to hope one of the extra wins comes against a high ranking opponent. Iowa has to win 7 more matches to be tournament eligible. They only have 4 against Maryland (2), Rutgers, and Indiana...I'm interested to see where those 3 other wins come from. Northwestern has to win 6 more matches, with only two against Indiana and Maryland....again, interested to see where those 4 other wins come from. MSU can be in the same boat. MSU needs 7 more wins just to be RPI bubble, with 4 matches against Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana. Assuming all these teams win against the aforementioned teams, if they all end up beating up on each other, with no wins from the teams that can afford losses (PSU, Nebraska, Ohio State, Minnesota, Illinos, Wisconsin, maybe Michigan), they might just beat themselves into being ineligible. I think 9 is a good bet for the Big 10 this year. I'm not convinced 10 will even be tournament eligible. Iowa is favored to win in just 6 more matches (Michigan State, Maryland, Rutgers, @indiana, Northwestern, and @ Maryland) - but because many of these are far from guaranteed they have a WP (win probability) of 4.7 wins out of these 6 matches. The other 10 matches in which they are not favored they have a WP of 2.3 wins. That is where the 7 more wins are coming from for this projection.
And these are just projections - not absolutes. A couple of well placed 5 set wins can greatly alter these projections (or many other things).
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 5, 2015 21:32:11 GMT -5
Why is there a "Selection Show" for NCAA tournament play if everything is determined by the RPI. Is this exactly how men's and women's basketball determine their seeding? I am far from an expert on how NCAA tournament selections are done - I am familiar with Men's basketball and Women's volleyball. Men's basketball does not follow RPI nearly as close as Volleyball (a pretty big understatement). I think this has to do with greater interest in basketball - they spend more time and money looking at other factors. I get the feeling that for Volleyball - they spend some time on seeds and will deviate from RPI, but for the rest of the selection they just don't spend the time to deviate from RPI much.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 5, 2015 21:32:53 GMT -5
Another thought, why does Penguin use Pablo to predict wins instead of the RPI if RPI is what NCAA utilizes? That makes no sense. Pablo is a far more accurate predictor of future results. RPI is what the committee will use to select the field. Makes sense to me.
|
|