|
|
Post by flvoldad on Nov 26, 2015 19:03:42 GMT -5
I believe it's reasonable to flexible on all the aspects of choosing seeding...but one has to remember it is a popularity contest. There is different criteria of choosing...which conference is stronger..which teams are stronger..they haven't all played each other so it's all subjective. But we all have to remember one thing. Coaches know which coaches are truly competitive and others game the system. So they will express this in the seeding
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2015 19:40:23 GMT -5
Coaches know which coaches are truly competitive and others game the system. So they will express this in the seeding Coaches don't do the seeding... Administrators do. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 26, 2015 20:07:20 GMT -5
Sure, but that original post claimed that the Pac had the two best teams after admitting a down year for the conference. Given that their resumes are primarily built on conference play, that would suggest that their records are inflated. I'm certainly not arguing that USC and Washington are the two "best" teams - I don't think anyone knows at this point. The coaches think they are, although they could be wrong. Pablo thinks they are, although that's just an algorithm. The B1G, of course, skips as many as four matches, which can help both win-loss records and RPI. The Pac only skips two. I'd put USC, Washington, Stanford, and UCLA up against Minnesota, Nebraska, Penn State, and Wisconsin, and I think they'd come out pretty well. If not for Gardner's injury, ASU would be right in there. USC is certainly better than last year, and Washington might be, even without Vansant and Nelson. The only way to really tell who is best is to have everyone play round-robin. |
|
|
|
Post by 1ezspike on Nov 26, 2015 21:09:19 GMT -5
I love this. The first paragraph you say you're not calling USC and Washington the best teams, then the very next paragraph you start bragging about how good the Pac is compared to the B1G. Recent history shows that the Pac hasn't done well against the B1G in the NCAA. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 26, 2015 21:29:53 GMT -5
I love this. The first paragraph you say you're not calling USC and Washington the best teams, then the very next paragraph you start bragging about how good the Pac is compared to the B1G. Recent history shows that the Pac hasn't done well against the B1G in the NCAA. Sorry. Then you're misreading me. I said I'd put the top of the Pac-12 up against the top of the B1G, and that I thought they'd come out pretty well. Whether that would be 3-5, 4-4, or 5-3, I really don't know. I don't think either would come out ahead 6-2. I said that USC was better than last year. That's a fact. I said that Washington might be better than last year. That's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 27, 2015 0:35:03 GMT -5
"Time will tell who has fell, and who's been left behind." - Bob Dylan said that. While I do think that who is the best team usually comes out in the wash, the seeding and brackets (the draws) can make it less likely that the best two teams will survive to the Final, which has often proved to be anticlimactic. The best battles tend to be in the Regionals (or in "stacked" subregionals). A 1 and done tournament doesn't determine who is the best team, it determines who wins 6 matches in a row. Every team this year has lost multiple matches, some just recently. If PSU wins this year, does that mean a loss to Michigan just didnt happen? Sure, but that original post claimed that the Pac had the two best teams after admitting a down year for the conference. Given that their resumes are primarily built on conference play, that would suggest that their records are inflated. I understand the high variance of the tourney due to draw and single-elimination format, but historically, it's hard to argue that the cream usually rises to the top. Sure, some excellent teams are upset, but usually the champion is a consensus favorite (i.e. among the top 2-3) going into the tournament. Therefore, if both Washington and USC are truly the top two teams it's not unfair to expect one of them in the final (and the favorite to win the title) and probably both teams in the final four. Both getting knocked out prior to the final four, or one making it but then getting bounced in the semis, is a decent indicator that they weren't the best two teams. It's a stronger argument than just arguing variance/that they werw unlucky outliers. We'll just have to see how both perform. In regards to pac 12 resumes being built on conference strength, the same thing can be said of a number of big 10 teams even your own tea, Nebraska, do they have a preseason win against an AVCA or Pablo top 25? No.... Purdue? No. Plenty of big 10 teams best win out of conference is against Louisville (Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin), and, if that's what your wanna stake your claim to, more power to you. I still think the big 10 is distinctly better this year but those in glass houses.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 3:53:46 GMT -5
Why do you think that the committee will give Washington a top 4 seed, four spots above their projected future RPI, and bump Wisconsin down? Well, I think that 4 seed will be close. But if you are asking why any given team will be bumped down versus up, I don't think that needs any credible explanation because it frequently happens. Just last year FSU went from #3 rpi to #6 seed and PSU went from #9 rpi to #5 seed. FSU also had a better overall record, more wins against rpi top 25 and top 50, so explain that. In 2012 Oregon was bumped 5 spots to the 5 seed, USC was bumped 7 spots to #6. My point is that if the committee's actions were all uniformly justifiable, we really wouldn't NEED a committee, would we? It's just a prediction, as I think Washington's 2 loss season versus the other contenders 5+ loss season is going to give the committee a puzzle to solve, however I do not recall the last time a #8, possibly #7 RPI team made into the top 4. These are the things given to the committee to evaluate: Regional advisory committee rankings- Slight edge Washington (I think UW will top their region, Wisconsin will not) ● Division I record- Big advantage Washington ● Overall RPI- Advantage Wisconsin ● Non-conference record- Advantage Washington ● Non-conference RPI- Big Advantage Wisconsin ● Conference record- Advantage Washington ● Conference RPI- Advantage Wisconsin ● Road record- Eh.... ● Record in last 10 games- Eh.... ● Record against teams ranked 1-50 by RPI- Advantage Washington ● Record against teams ranked 51-100 by RPI- Slight Advantage Washington (Because of Wisconsin's loss to Arkansas) ● Record against teams ranked 101-200 by RPI- Eh.... ● Record against teams ranked below 200 by RPI- Eh.... ● Record against other teams under consideration- Eh.... ● Head-to-head- Eh.... ● Significant wins and losses- Wisconsin has 1 more significant wins but they also have a sub top 50 loss ● Results against common opponents- Eh.... ● Results against teams already receiving at-large bids- Advantage Washington ● Site of match- Eh.... ● Other circumstances that could affect results (e.g. injuries) Obviously Wisconsin will be a fine choice for #4, and it very well may happen, but, IMO, if you did this same comparison of PSU and FSU, FSU wins most of them, and yet, like I said before, they got dropped while PSU gained 4 spots. I just wanted to know why YOU thought they'd be the #4 seed. I'm clear on the criteria used by the committee. I just wondered what your reasoning was. Are you using the committee's criteria to form your opinions? |
|
|
|
Post by coloradokidd on Nov 27, 2015 8:31:31 GMT -5
7 hours ago ay2013 said: "Nebraska, do they have a preseason win against an AVCA or Pablo top 25? No.. Info: NE won over a then AVCA #11 Oregon on Sept 5 * I can understand all of the UW fan's consternation - With the current RPI (non-committee adjusted), they would be on the same side of the bracket as Minn., Wisc., and NE.  |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 27, 2015 11:42:33 GMT -5
7 hours ago ay2013 said: "Nebraska, do they have a preseason win against an AVCA or Pablo top 25? No.. Info: NE won over a then AVCA #11 Oregon on Sept 5 * I can understand all of the UW fan's consternation - With the current RPI (non-committee adjusted), they would be on the same side of the bracket as Minn., Wisc., and NE. Ay doesn't care about that. He is annoying but he's a realist. Oregon is no longer ranked so he is right. I don't see why any Washington fan would be concerned with being in the same side of the bracket as Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska. Regionals are tough and the Huskies wouldn't have to beat all 3 of those teams. The bigger concern would be potentially having to beat Hawaii in a subregional to get there. |
|
|
|
Post by machura on Nov 27, 2015 12:22:56 GMT -5
7 hours ago ay2013 said: "Nebraska, do they have a preseason win against an AVCA or Pablo top 25? No.. Info: NE won over a then AVCA #11 Oregon on Sept 5 * I can understand all of the UW fan's consternation - With the current RPI (non-committee adjusted), they would be on the same side of the bracket as Minn., Wisc., and NE. Ay doesn't care about that. He is annoying but he's a realist. Oregon is no longer ranked so he is right. I don't see why any Washington fan would be concerned with being in the same side of the bracket as Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska. Regionals are tough and the Huskies wouldn't have to beat all 3 of those teams. The bigger concern would be potentially having to beat Hawaii in a subregional to get there. This is my sentiment exactly. If UW gets past Hawaii or they don't meet them in the regional, then the Huskies are in the final four. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 27, 2015 12:40:45 GMT -5
7 hours ago ay2013 said: "Nebraska, do they have a preseason win against an AVCA or Pablo top 25? No.. Info: NE won over a then AVCA #11 Oregon on Sept 5 * I can understand all of the UW fan's consternation - With the current RPI (non-committee adjusted), they would be on the same side of the bracket as Minn., Wisc., and NE. As bik said, it's clear that Oregon was not and is not the #11 team in the country. And I'm not saying Nebraska, in particular, is overrated, I actually think they are a great team, but I was responding to a post that said that pac 12 teams resumes were based on conference play, and I was just pointing out that a number of big 10 teams didn't have some big win in the preseason either, Nebraska included. Also I have absolutely no idea what your last comments regarding uw fans rpi issues or whatever is coming from. That has nothing to do with my response. It's almost like you are talking out your ass on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Nov 27, 2015 12:58:49 GMT -5
Sure, but that original post claimed that the Pac had the two best teams after admitting a down year for the conference. Given that their resumes are primarily built on conference play, that would suggest that their records are inflated. I understand the high variance of the tourney due to draw and single-elimination format, but historically, it's hard to argue that the cream usually rises to the top. Sure, some excellent teams are upset, but usually the champion is a consensus favorite (i.e. among the top 2-3) going into the tournament. Therefore, if both Washington and USC are truly the top two teams it's not unfair to expect one of them in the final (and the favorite to win the title) and probably both teams in the final four. Both getting knocked out prior to the final four, or one making it but then getting bounced in the semis, is a decent indicator that they weren't the best two teams. It's a stronger argument than just arguing variance/that they werw unlucky outliers. We'll just have to see how both perform. In regards to pac 12 resumes being built on conference strength, the same thing can be said of a number of big 10 teams even your own tea, Nebraska, do they have a preseason win against an AVCA or Pablo top 25? No.... Purdue? No. Plenty of big 10 teams best win out of conference is against Louisville (Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin), and, if that's what your wanna stake your claim to, more power to you. I still think the big 10 is distinctly better this year but those in glass houses.... I agree, but keep in mind I never resolutely said the Big Ten had the two best teams. I would even say Washington probably is top 2 as of today. I'm much higher on them than USC. |
|
|
|
Post by octonion on Nov 27, 2015 13:25:38 GMT -5
My updated regional seeds are 1 Minnesota 8 Penn State 9 Florida 16 Louisville 2 USC 7 Texas A&M 10 Stanford 15 Missouri 3 Texas 6 Nebraska 11 Kansas 14 Ohio State 4 Washington 5 Wisconsin 12 UCLA 13 BYU Using these as the seeds and running a sim, I get the following national championship probabilities: Washington 49.6% Southern California 24.6% Penn St. 12.8% Nebraska 3.4% Minnesota 3.3% Texas 2.4% Kansas 1.1% Florida 0.9% BYU 0.7% Stanford 0.6% Wisconsin 0.4% UCLA 0.2% Louisville 0% Texas A&M 0% Missouri 0% Ohio St. 0% github.com/octonion/volleyball-w/blob/master/ncaa_pbp/tournament/champion_p.csv |
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Nov 27, 2015 13:35:54 GMT -5
My updated regional seeds are 1 Minnesota 8 Penn State 9 Florida 16 Louisville 2 USC 7 Texas A&M 10 Stanford 15 Missouri 3 Texas 6 Nebraska 11 Kansas 14 Ohio State 4 Washington 5 Wisconsin 12 UCLA 13 BYU Using these as the seeds and running a sim, I get the following national championship probabilities: Washington 49.6% Southern California 24.6% Penn St. 12.8% Nebraska 3.4% Minnesota 3.3% Texas 2.4% Kansas 1.1% Florida 0.9% BYU 0.7% Stanford 0.6% Wisconsin 0.4% UCLA 0.2% Louisville 0% Texas A&M 0% Missouri 0% Ohio St. 0% github.com/octonion/volleyball-w/blob/master/ncaa_pbp/tournament/champion_p.csvWhat's the algorithm? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 14:33:36 GMT -5
With these probabilities, The algorithm might include darts |
|
