|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 26, 2015 14:34:08 GMT -5
I have enjoyed reading a thousand times people saying the PAC-12 is having a down year. I absolutely agree. But the PAC-12 is the only conference that can have the top 2 teams in the country and still be having a down year.
|
|
|
Post by Dakota on Nov 26, 2015 14:48:51 GMT -5
They've done a lot dumber things in the past. I just don't see a case outside of RPI and this is the year - supposedly - that more factors will play a role. This was also supposed to be the year the Cubs won the World Series, how did that work out? Illinois might have a better resume than Mizzou, the place they are probably getting sent. Their worst loss is either at Purdue or at Arizona State when Gardiner was healthy. Yes, their best wins were all in non-con and their best B1G win is probably Michigan, but that is still way better than the teams on the bubble. Go look at a bubble team like Baylor's resume and say they should get in before Illinois ... ASU is certainly the worst loss, but 0 wins against Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue, and Ohio State in 7 tries isn't good for proving you belong somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2015 15:26:31 GMT -5
This was also supposed to be the year the Cubs won the World Series, how did that work out? Illinois might have a better resume than Mizzou, the place they are probably getting sent. Their worst loss is either at Purdue or at Arizona State when Gardiner was healthy. Yes, their best wins were all in non-con and their best B1G win is probably Michigan, but that is still way better than the teams on the bubble. Go look at a bubble team like Baylor's resume and say they should get in before Illinois ... ASU is certainly the worst loss, but 0 wins against Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue, and Ohio State in 7 tries isn't good for proving you belong somewhere. Listing a team's losses is never going to prove anything about how good they are. Wins over Louisville, Creighton, Colorado, Kentucky, Wichita State, Michigan, and Michigan State certainly prove they're one of the best 25 teams in the country to me.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 26, 2015 15:45:20 GMT -5
ASU is certainly the worst loss, but 0 wins against Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue, and Ohio State in 7 tries isn't good for proving you belong somewhere. Listing a team's losses is never going to prove anything about how good they are. Wins over Louisville, Creighton, Colorado, Kentucky, Wichita State, Michigan, and Michigan State certainly prove they're one of the best 25 teams in the country to me. A team's losses definitely help define how good (or bad) it is. What if a team loses all its matches. Are you saying you can't tell how good they are (aren't) from that? As for your case, Illinois, I have not watched enough of their matches to say how good they are. They are a surprise for me, for I thought they were going to be one of the elite teams this year. So I won't say that they are good or bad. But it is certainly a reach to use wins over Louisville, Creighton and Wichita State to prove they are a top 25 team.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 26, 2015 16:17:59 GMT -5
Listing a team's losses is never going to prove anything about how good they are. Wins over Louisville, Creighton, Colorado, Kentucky, Wichita State, Michigan, and Michigan State certainly prove they're one of the best 25 teams in the country to me. A team's losses definitely help define how good (or bad) it is. Helps, but is only part of the story. You focused solely on their losses, without considering their wins. If you want to get an idea of "how good (or bad)" a team is, there are a lot of things you need to consider. Who they beat, who they lose to, where they played the matches, and even the scores of those matches (margin of victory is absolutely an indicator of quality). All of these factors put together would support the contention that Illinois is within the top 20 teams in the country. Taking into account all those losses you listed. Apparently, those losses aren't such a problem after all.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 26, 2015 16:19:13 GMT -5
But it is certainly a reach to use wins over Louisville, Creighton and Wichita State to prove they are a top 25 team. BTW, a win over Louisville is a DARN good win this year. They are a really good team.
|
|
|
Post by isaacspaceman on Nov 26, 2015 16:29:30 GMT -5
Not to inject evidence in here, but I think people are overestimating the influence of the RPI on the Committee in seeding within the top 16 teams (not necessarily in deciding who those top 16 teams are). Using just the top 8 as an example, only two teams received the same seed as their RPI rankings: Stanford (the consensus #1 in the country and #1 in RPI) and Texas (#6 AVCA, #2 RPI). Of the other top 8, 3 were seeded better than their RPI (Washington #3 seed/RPI #4/AVCA #3; Wisconsin #4 seed/RPI #5/AVCA #2; PSU #5 seed/RPI #10/AVCA #4). The three whose seeds were lower than their RPI were 6-8 seeds FSU (RPI #3/AVCA #8), NC (RPI #6/AVCA#7), and Florida (RPI #7, AVCA #5).
I joked in a prior thread that this showed bias in favor of the two power conferences (and that went over predictably poorly), but in all honesty I think it shows that the Committee knows that RPI is terrible at making fine distinctions among the top teams in the country and will be ignored in favor of other things. For one thing, I think the Committee either tends to agree with or defer to the judgment of the coaches about who is really good. Seeding PSU 5 (5 slots higher than its RPI, but only 1 lower than its AVCA) is a good example of that.
And what about Texas, who was seeded the same as its RPI but 4 higher than its AVCA ranking? My guess is it was likely the recommendation of the regional committee, maybe combined with some other things that it won't speculate about.
In any event, some people in this thread seem to be adamant, or at least assuming, that Washington will not get a top-4 seed. I don't know where that confidence comes from. Washington seems to be the best analogue this year to PSU last year - ranked by coaches far above its RPI. I can't really see the Committee seeding the likely #1 or maybe #2 AVCA team in the 6-8 range, even with a #8 RPI. That's especially true if it would leave the tournament without a western top seed (depending on what you think the Committee will do with USC).
Of course, I could be wrong. We'll find out in a few days.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Nov 26, 2015 16:43:22 GMT -5
I have enjoyed reading a thousand times people saying the PAC-12 is having a down year. I absolutely agree. But the PAC-12 is the only conference that can have the top 2 teams in the country and still be having a down year. I think the tourney will show they don't have the top 2 teams (although I like Washington's squad).
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 26, 2015 17:06:45 GMT -5
I have enjoyed reading a thousand times people saying the PAC-12 is having a down year. I absolutely agree. But the PAC-12 is the only conference that can have the top 2 teams in the country and still be having a down year. I think the tourney will show they don't have the top 2 teams (although I like Washington's squad). "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).
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 26, 2015 17:11:49 GMT -5
I have enjoyed reading a thousand times people saying the PAC-12 is having a down year. I absolutely agree. But the PAC-12 is the only conference that can have the top 2 teams in the country and still be having a down year. The problem is that the quality of a conference, particularly the Pac 12, is not defined by the top 1 or 2 teams. The B1G is not an elite conference because Penn St wins championships. It is more due to the fact that 6 - 7 teams make the sweet 16 and things like that.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2015 17:43:23 GMT -5
I have enjoyed reading a thousand times people saying the PAC-12 is having a down year. I absolutely agree. But the PAC-12 is the only conference that can have the top 2 teams in the country and still be having a down year. I think the tourney will show they don't have the top 2 teams (although I like Washington's squad). 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?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2015 17:43:54 GMT -5
Not to inject evidence in here, but I think people are overestimating the influence of the RPI on the Committee in seeding within the top 16 teams (not necessarily in deciding who those top 16 teams are). Using just the top 8 as an example, only two teams received the same seed as their RPI rankings: Stanford (the consensus #1 in the country and #1 in RPI) and Texas (#6 AVCA, #2 RPI). Of the other top 8, 3 were seeded better than their RPI (Washington #3 seed/RPI #4/AVCA #3; Wisconsin #4 seed/RPI #5/AVCA #2; PSU #5 seed/RPI #10/AVCA #4). The three whose seeds were lower than their RPI were 6-8 seeds FSU (RPI #3/AVCA #8), NC (RPI #6/AVCA#7), and Florida (RPI #7, AVCA #5). I joked in a prior thread that this showed bias in favor of the two power conferences (and that went over predictably poorly), but in all honesty I think it shows that the Committee knows that RPI is terrible at making fine distinctions among the top teams in the country and will be ignored in favor of other things. For one thing, I think the Committee either tends to agree with or defer to the judgment of the coaches about who is really good. Seeding PSU 5 (5 slots higher than its RPI, but only 1 lower than its AVCA) is a good example of that. And what about Texas, who was seeded the same as its RPI but 4 higher than its AVCA ranking? My guess is it was likely the recommendation of the regional committee, maybe combined with some other things that it won't speculate about. In any event, some people in this thread seem to be adamant, or at least assuming, that Washington will not get a top-4 seed. I don't know where that confidence comes from. Washington seems to be the best analogue this year to PSU last year - ranked by coaches far above its RPI. I can't really see the Committee seeding the likely #1 or maybe #2 AVCA team in the 6-8 range, even with a #8 RPI. That's especially true if it would leave the tournament without a western top seed (depending on what you think the Committee will do with USC). Of course, I could be wrong. We'll find out in a few days. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Nov 26, 2015 18:36:38 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... A whole lotta people were suspicious of both Missouri and Florida's seeds that year and, as you say, they were right to be
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2015 18:51:28 GMT -5
Oddly enough, the Stanford/UCLA match will determine the auto-bid winner. It goes record, head to head, record against #3, #4, #5 etc. (until the tie is broken). UW and USC both have identical records, and they are 1-1 against each other. The rub is who finishes 3rd in conference. If it's Stanford then I think USC gets the auto-bid, if it's UCLA, then I think UW gets the auto-bid. The winner of the Stanford/UCLA will determine who technically finished 3rd in the conference. An additional wrinkle is the unbalanced schedule. USC went 1-0 against Stanford whereas UW went 1-1, but USC only played Stanford once. I don't think the unbalanced schedule will matter as they will still award USC the auto bid, but it's still something to consider. if UCLA wins against Stanford, they finish 3rd, and UW wins the auto-bid having a 2-0 record against UCLA whereas USC is 1-1. ay, are you sure about that? I am pretty sure head-to-head goes to games as the second tie-breaker and UW is 4-3 in games against USC this year. I know that came up a few years ago as a tie-breaker, but maybe that was further down the list. Edit: I looked up the rules on the PAC-12 website. For some reason cut-and-paste is just giving gobbledygook but the second criteria (after a season sweep of head-to-head) is "If both teams have won an equal number of matches in head-to-head Conference competition, the team having won the most games in the Conference matches between the two teams shall be declared the automatic qualifier." Ah, Thanks
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Nov 26, 2015 19:00:07 GMT -5
I think the tourney will show they don't have the top 2 teams (although I like Washington's squad). "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). I think the tourney will show they don't have the top 2 teams (although I like Washington's squad). 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.
|
|