|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 26, 2015 4:29:23 GMT -5
I have a very hard time seeing the committee rewarding Washington for putting together a joke of a non-conference schedule. If they reward them it'll be primarily for being Pac-12 Co-Champions - the rest is frosting. Their pre-conference would have been stronger if Wisconsin hadn't backed out. Ultimately, whether one UW is #4 and the other UW is #5 really shouldn't matter much. Under AY's scenario, BYU and UCLA are close to toss-ups.
|
|
|
Post by flvoldad on Nov 26, 2015 6:41:16 GMT -5
Missouri will not host...they have absolutely no outside of conference scheduale...RPI is one of the factors..not the only one...all of there strength is based on them beating the SEC teams at home..if you think it is exclusive to RPI..then Florida is a top 4 seed..and that won't happen...the committee will use other factors..mostly balance..that's why AVCA rankings are somewhat 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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2015 9:00:44 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 I mostly like this - which means it probably will not happen. What would they do with Kentucky? They couldn't go to Ohio State - since Ohio State is in the Austin Region. If Kentucky goes to Louisville - then that would require Minnesota to be in the Lexington region - would they do that? Otherwise, they would have to fly Kentucky somewhere. I will say that there is a way to fly Kentucky and not increase the # of teams that are being flown (so flying Kentucky is a possibility).
It shouldn't matter between #4 and #5 - other than they should keep Washington and UCLA from playing in round 3 (easy to do). Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Washington have strong claims for the next three after MN, TX, USC.
I think Florida could now see a much worse seed. When they were top 4, how far can you drop - but now at #6 or 7 and they can easily be dropped into the teens.
In my mind, there is no real good choice for the last team. Missouri will likely pass Western Kentucky in RPI if they win their last match. There is no geographic advantage for Western Kentucky (or Kentucky) over Missouri. The only geographic advantage from the bottom seeded teams is replacing BYU - and that would be a terrible choice. Too bad Hawaii's RPI stinks - again a more expensive choice.
|
|
|
Post by coloradokidd on Nov 26, 2015 9:20:57 GMT -5
So - with bluepenquin's updated RPI through the Wednesday matches:
Des Moines 1. Minnesota 8. Washington 9. Kansas 16. Western Kentucky Missouri <- my change
Austin 2. Texas 7. Florida 10. UCLA 15. Louisville
San Diego 3. USC 6. Texas A&M 11. Penn State 14. Ohio State
Lexington 4. Wisconsin 5. Nebraska 12. Stanford 13. BYU
RPI 11/25 1. Minnesota 2. Texas 3. USC 4. Wisconsin 5. Nebraska 6. Texas A&M 7. Florida 8. Washington 9. Kansas 10. UCLA 11. Penn State 12. Stanford 13. BYU 14. Ohio State 15. Louisville 16. Western Kentucky -------------------- 17. Missouri
|
|
|
Post by flvoldad on Nov 26, 2015 9:24:03 GMT -5
Why do people analyzing continue just to look at ranking as opposed to looking at entire scheduale...I believe the top eight seeds are obvious...the next eight are not and will hold some surprises...look for regional teams driving in to be at the height point when considering seeds 14,15,16....Kentucky will not be seeded under any circumstance...
|
|
|
Post by cyclonepower on Nov 26, 2015 9:42:43 GMT -5
Someone needs to be the 16th host. While I struggle to find good reasons to support Mizzou for that spot, they deserve it a lot more than WKU (who has one good win over Wisconsin the first match of the year when the Badgers were more or less playing a totally new team), Arkansas State (whose best wins are against MVC teams) or Kentucky (who lost to Mizzou in their only meeting a couple weeks ago).
WKU can drive to Mizzou, send them there and have them prove they can win. The Toppers are not one of the 16 best teams in the country and/or they do not have one of the 16 best tournament resumes.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2015 10:02:34 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 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.
|
|
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: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2015 10:47:47 GMT -5
Texas A&M will end up with a better RPI than Florida if they win their last match against Arkansas. Have to think A&M will now also get a better seed? Washington and Florida will be very close for #7/8. Nebraska moves up to #5 - I can see a Wisconsin/Nebraska ending up 4/5 seeds (possibly @ Des Moines). Missouri and Western Kentucky will be very close for #16/17. Isn't the rule that the highest nearby seed (ie Minnesota) gets the close regional (ie Des Moines)? Does anyone know if this is a true statement?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2015 10:57:03 GMT -5
Isn't the rule that the highest nearby seed (ie Minnesota) gets the close regional (ie Des Moines)? Does anyone know if this is a true statement? It is a bracketing principle that they try to adhere to. But they are also required to place regional hosts within their region. If those two situation conflict, I'm not sure what they do. Specifically, #1 goes to the regional closest to their home. Then they send #2 to the closest of the remaining three, etc.
|
|
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: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2015 11:03:27 GMT -5
Someone needs to be the 16th host. While I struggle to find good reasons to support Mizzou for that spot, they deserve it a lot more than WKU (who has one good win over Wisconsin the first match of the year when the Badgers were more or less playing a totally new team), Arkansas State (whose best wins are against MVC teams) or Kentucky (who lost to Mizzou in their only meeting a couple weeks ago). WKU can drive to Mizzou, send them there and have them prove they can win. The Toppers are not one of the 16 best teams in the country and/or they do not have one of the 16 best tournament resumes. I think this is spot on - unfortunately, WKU is 405 miles from Columbia, MO - Western Kentucky and Missouri being in the same subregional is probably not going to be an option.
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Nov 26, 2015 11:13:04 GMT -5
Wow, the confident absolutes that are declared here never cease to amaze and entertain me.
Once, long ago, I kept a little list of them and then reposted the Monday after the brackets came out, 'twas entertaining (for me anyway). Now, I am older, kinder and more easily entertained - I just giggle thinking about what I would post, without actually doing it.
Sunday will Fun Day!
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Nov 26, 2015 11:28:14 GMT -5
Does anyone know if this is a true statement? It is a bracketing principle that they try to adhere to. But they are also required to place regional hosts within their region. If those two situation conflict, I'm not sure what they do. Specifically, #1 goes to the regional closest to their home. Then they send #2 to the closest of the remaining three, etc. Right. So, if we agree the top three seeds are some order of Minnesota, Texas and USC, seems pretty clear they go to Des Moines, Austin and San Diego, respectively
|
|
|
Post by flvoldad on Nov 26, 2015 11:32:18 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.
|
|
|
Post by flvoldad on Nov 26, 2015 11:38:11 GMT -5
I agree that is why we have a committee ..so in that respect, The way Missouri scheduales their out of conference games and the fact Western Kentucy is in Conference USA...neither will be a host..my guess is that they will do something with seeds 14,15,16. That will cause some controversy ...oh well maybe Missouri should play a Pac team or a Big or even an ACC team then they might get some respect..Remember a few years ago...the coaches in the AVCA were reluctant to give them any credit and it was justified..the minute they entered the tournament..played Purdue in the second round...they were out..eliminated...
|
|
|
Post by cyclonepower on Nov 26, 2015 11:41:42 GMT -5
Someone needs to be the 16th host. While I struggle to find good reasons to support Mizzou for that spot, they deserve it a lot more than WKU (who has one good win over Wisconsin the first match of the year when the Badgers were more or less playing a totally new team), Arkansas State (whose best wins are against MVC teams) or Kentucky (who lost to Mizzou in their only meeting a couple weeks ago). WKU can drive to Mizzou, send them there and have them prove they can win. The Toppers are not one of the 16 best teams in the country and/or they do not have one of the 16 best tournament resumes. I think this is spot on - unfortunately, WKU is 405 miles from Columbia, MO - Western Kentucky and Missouri being in the same subregional is probably not going to be an option. Five miles?!?!?! Does the NCAA do rounding? Oh well, geography has never been a strong suit of mine!
|
|