|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 29, 2015 12:33:49 GMT -5
"Long Beach State- Poor Beach. Poor Hudson. Terrific setter. But Long Beach State hasn't done enough to be an NCAA team. If anything, Colorado deserves a bid over Long Beach State. But still, Long Beach State guessed wrong on the RPI game and it severely hurt their strength of schedule. Their SOS is pretty horrible, and of course a lot of that is due to the Big West. When you consider that Arkansas State and Hawaii both only have one loss but Arkansas State is above Hawaii in RPI, you get the picture. Anyway, Long Beach is out.. " Trojan, you are significantly undervaluing LB's OOC record - and penalizing them for playing in the Big West OOC: (RPI at that) Top 25: 0-1 Top 50: 2-1 Top 100: 7-2 you are severely penalizing LB for being in the Big West this year - I realize you can't ignore conference opponents - but in terms of OOC SOS, it's very relevant for LB they are 3-1 vs. the WCC (3rd best conference), and 3-0 against the the top 5 in that conference only one 'bad' loss vs. St. Mary's all year long - 3rd match of the season hopefully the committee has a little more sophistication - especially the last 10 matches OOC SOS, road record, etc. in LB's case Read more: volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/60907/finalized-bracketology-11-includes-aqs?page=29#ixzz3su0MMnmP |
|
|
|
Post by redincolorado on Nov 29, 2015 12:34:07 GMT -5
I'm thinking Minnesota should get the Des Moines regional. I'm thinking Nebraska will have to go through TexASS in the Gregory or get shipped out to Seattle to play Washington in the venerable ole Hec Ed to get to Omaha. Oooooops-----no regional in seattle  |
|
|
|
Post by redincolorado on Nov 29, 2015 12:43:55 GMT -5
Knowing how numbnuts the selection committee can be, I could also see them sending both Minnesota and Nebraska to Des Moines so one of the B1G teams takes out the other to help avoid the possibility of an all B1G finals.
Personally I'd love to see an all B1G FINAL FOUR.
|
|
|
|
Post by bballnut90 on Nov 29, 2015 12:59:47 GMT -5
Projected Sixteen Seeds:
(1) Minnesota
(2) Texas
(3) USC
(4) Texas A&M
(5) Wisconsin
(6) Nebraska
(7) Washington
(8) Penn State
(9) Kansas
(10) Florida
(11) Stanford
(12) UCLA
(13) Ohio State
(14) BYU
(15) Missouri
(16) Louisville
First off, a huge thanks for putting this together.
If this was the projected bracket, my guess for results (assuming all 16 make the regionals) would be:
Regional Semis:
Minnesota over Louisville
Penn State over Kansas
Texas over Missouri
Washington over Florida
USC over BYU
Nebraska over Stanford
Ohio State over A&M
Wisconsin over UCLA
Regional Finals:
Penn State over Minnesota
Washington over Texas
USC over Nebraska
Wisconsin over Ohio STate
Semis:
Wisconsin over Penn State
Washington over USC
Finals:
Wisconsin over Washington
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 29, 2015 13:12:28 GMT -5
Trojan, you are significantly undervaluing LB's OOC record - and penalizing them for playing in the Big West OOC: (RPI at that) Top 25: 0-1 Top 50: 2-1 Top 100: 7-2 you are severely penalizing LB for being in the Big West this year - I realize you can't ignore conference opponents - but in terms of OOC SOS, it's very relevant for LB Long Beach's non-conference Strength of Schedule ranked 121st going into this week. Playing Pacific and Denver this week helped that number, but not by a ton. rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats%20Library/VB%20Team%20Sheets%20thru%20Nov%2022%202015.pdfthey are 3-1 vs. the WCC (3rd best conference), and 3-0 against the the top 5 in that conference Teams play matches against teams, not against conferences. Record against the WCC is irrelevant. Good wins against #28 San Diego and #29 Loyola Marymount. Those will definitely help them, but their standing in the WCC and the WCC's rank don't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 29, 2015 13:30:06 GMT -5
Trojan, you are significantly undervaluing LB's OOC record - and penalizing them for playing in the Big West OOC: (RPI at that) Top 25: 0-1 Top 50: 2-1 Top 100: 7-2 you are severely penalizing LB for being in the Big West this year - I realize you can't ignore conference opponents - but in terms of OOC SOS, it's very relevant for LB Long Beach's non-conference Strength of Schedule ranked 121st going into this week. Playing Pacific and Denver this week helped that number, but not by a ton. rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats%20Library/VB%20Team%20Sheets%20thru%20Nov%2022%202015.pdfthey are 3-1 vs. the WCC (3rd best conference), and 3-0 against the the top 5 in that conference Teams play matches against teams, not against conferences. Record against the WCC is irrelevant. Good wins against #28 San Diego and #29 Loyola Marymount. Those will definitely help them, but their standing in the WCC and the WCC's rank don't matter. I don't necessarily disagree with that - but when comparing teams from the best & BCS conferences against mid-majors - it is difficult to gauge the strength of teams that end up with larger disparities in matches played against top 50/100 teams - winning % in those matches should be much more relevant - otherwise you are rewarding teams just for being in better conferences - another sad by-product of RPI |
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Nov 29, 2015 13:37:47 GMT -5
Projected Sixteen Seeds:(1) Minnesota (2) Texas (3) USC (4) Texas A&M (5) Wisconsin (6) Nebraska (7) Washington (8) Penn State (9) Kansas (10) Florida (11) Stanford (12) UCLA (13) Ohio State (14) BYU (15) Missouri (16) Louisville First off, a huge thanks for putting this together. If this was the projected bracket, my guess for results (assuming all 16 make the regionals) would be: Regional Semis: Minnesota over Louisville Penn State over Kansas Texas over Missouri Washington over Florida USC over BYU Nebraska over Stanford Ohio State over A&M Wisconsin over UCLA Regional Finals: Penn State over Minnesota Washington over Texas USC over Nebraska Wisconsin over Ohio STate Semis: Wisconsin over Penn State Washington over USC Finals: Wisconsin over Washington If Minnesota is indeed the number one seed, I'm still not getting why the committee wouldn't follow its criteria and send them to the nearest regional, Des Moines (or why they'd send A&M, which would have to fly, there, instead). |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 29, 2015 13:39:16 GMT -5
BTW. - those of you not sold on Texas A&M, you heard it here first when they get a great seed. They beat Minnesota and have 6 other top 25 wins. More than Washington. And a better RPI than UW. I think A&M gets seeded above Wisconsin. I see A&M no lower than 6 Oh I agree 100% that given the committee criteria they are a higher seed, I just hope the Committee subjectively chooses otherwise, like last year with FSU. Per the criteria, no way PSU should have been seeded above FSU, but it happened. |
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Nov 29, 2015 13:44:47 GMT -5
BTW. - those of you not sold on Texas A&M, you heard it here first when they get a great seed. They beat Minnesota and have 6 other top 25 wins. More than Washington. And a better RPI than UW. I think A&M gets seeded above Wisconsin. I see A&M no lower than 6 Maybe they should be seeded that high, but perception/historical inertia makes me skeptical that the committee will follow through. I think #7 is their ceiling. Good on the committee if they rank them higher. I wouldn't mind seeing them in a 4/5 match-up with Nebraska. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,293 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 29, 2015 13:55:29 GMT -5
BTW. - those of you not sold on Texas A&M, you heard it here first when they get a great seed. They beat Minnesota and have 6 other top 25 wins. More than Washington. And a better RPI than UW. I think A&M gets seeded above Wisconsin. I see A&M no lower than 6 I agree. If you look at results instead of wishful thinking, they belong there. I will be shocked if Texas A&M gets seeded better than 6, I will be surprised if better than 7 (which probably means I am completely wrong).
Wisconsin and Nebraska will have a better RPI then Texas A&M. Nebraska with a 26-4 overall record - 2nd place in the Big 10 compared to a 23-6 team from the SEC. Possible that they get a better seed then Wisconsin - but still, Wisconsin will have the better record and better RPI. And then Washington - A&M does have the better RPI - but is the PAC 12 champion with only 2 losses going to have a worse seed than a team from the SEC with 4 more losses - I am not buying it.
I still think the ceiling for A&M is #7.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2015 14:00:27 GMT -5
I agree. If you look at results instead of wishful thinking, they belong there. I will be shocked if Texas A&M gets seeded better than 6, I will be surprised if better than 7 (which probably means I am completely wrong).
Wisconsin and Nebraska will have a better RPI then Texas A&M. Nebraska with a 26-4 overall record - 2nd place in the Big 10 compared to a 23-6 team from the SEC. Possible that they get a better seed then Wisconsin - but still, Wisconsin will have the better record and better RPI. And then Washington - A&M does have the better RPI - but is the PAC 12 champion with only 2 losses going to have a worse seed than a team from the SEC with 4 more losses - I am not buying it.
I still think the ceiling for A&M is #7.
Lots of it irrelevancy here. 2nd place vs SEc? Who cares. Look at the overall record according to NCAA criteria, not wishful thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 29, 2015 14:08:46 GMT -5
BTW. - those of you not sold on Texas A&M, you heard it here first when they get a great seed. They beat Minnesota and have 6 other top 25 wins. More than Washington. And a better RPI than UW. I think A&M gets seeded above Wisconsin. I see A&M no lower than 6 Maybe they should be seeded that high, but perception/historical inertia makes me skeptical that the committee will follow through. I think #7 is their ceiling. Good on the committee if they rank them higher. I wouldn't mind seeing them in a 4/5 match-up with Nebraska. Of course you wouldn't, A&M would be a dream regional final match up considering how subjectively weak they are (pablo, avca). |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 29, 2015 14:11:43 GMT -5
I agree. If you look at results instead of wishful thinking, they belong there. I will be shocked if Texas A&M gets seeded better than 6, I will be surprised if better than 7 (which probably means I am completely wrong).
Wisconsin and Nebraska will have a better RPI then Texas A&M. Nebraska with a 26-4 overall record - 2nd place in the Big 10 compared to a 23-6 team from the SEC. Possible that they get a better seed then Wisconsin - but still, Wisconsin will have the better record and better RPI. And then Washington - A&M does have the better RPI - but is the PAC 12 champion with only 2 losses going to have a worse seed than a team from the SEC with 4 more losses - I am not buying it.
I still think the ceiling for A&M is #7.
Take a look at the 2011 bracket. The Pac 12 champion with minimal loses has been seeded as low as 7. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,293
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 29, 2015 14:12:36 GMT -5
I will be shocked if Texas A&M gets seeded better than 6, I will be surprised if better than 7 (which probably means I am completely wrong).
Wisconsin and Nebraska will have a better RPI then Texas A&M. Nebraska with a 26-4 overall record - 2nd place in the Big 10 compared to a 23-6 team from the SEC. Possible that they get a better seed then Wisconsin - but still, Wisconsin will have the better record and better RPI. And then Washington - A&M does have the better RPI - but is the PAC 12 champion with only 2 losses going to have a worse seed than a team from the SEC with 4 more losses - I am not buying it.
I still think the ceiling for A&M is #7.
Lots of it irrelevancy here. 2nd place vs SEc? Who cares. Look at the overall record according to NCAA criteria, not wishful thinking. Hey - I did say I was probably wrong. 
This may also be irrelevant - but when was the last time a team from the Big 10 was seeded worse than their RPI to a team that wasn't a B1G, PAC + Texas? History shows that Big 10 and Pac 12 teams consistently get better seeds than teams from other conferences (at least from my limited memory). I am sure that this is mostly due to the details - but I would still take the Wisconsin/Nebraska resume over Texas A&M (even in terms of opponent's RPI).
To me, that leaves Washington as the question - for which given the precedent last year with PSU - I think the committee with go with Washington over Texas A&M. Another question - last time a 2 loss team from the B1G and Pac 10 not to get a seed 6 or better?
Either way, should provide another data point for how the committee thinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 29, 2015 14:26:31 GMT -5
Lots of it irrelevancy here. 2nd place vs SEc? Who cares. Look at the overall record according to NCAA criteria, not wishful thinking. Hey - I did say I was probably wrong.
This may also be irrelevant - but when was the last time a team from the Big 10 was seeded worse than their RPI to a team that wasn't a B1G, PAC + Texas? History shows that Big 10 and Pac 12 teams consistently get better seeds than teams from other conferences (at least from my limited memory). I am sure that this is mostly due to the details - but I would still take the Wisconsin/Nebraska resume over Texas A&M (even in terms of opponent's RPI).
To me, that leaves Washington as the question - for which given the precedent last year with PSU - I think the committee with go with Washington over Texas A&M. Another question - last time a 2 loss team from the B1G and Pac 10 not to get a seed 6 or better?
Either way, should provide another data point for how the committee thinks.
Perhaps, but the committee isn't always the same, and a lot are from 2nd rate schools and are administrators, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was no reason to what they did. |
|
