|
|
Post by kingvball on Nov 29, 2015 14:29:01 GMT -5
The updated original post here marks several schools as T* indicating that they have to fly. Among those Fairfield is under 400 miles from Penn State and could be assigned there just as easily as American or Howard. Robert Morris and Pitt are all within 400 miles of Penn State, Ohio State and Louisville. Obviously Pitt won't go to Louisville... But Michigan could go to Louisville and put Purdue on a flight, or Purdue goes to Missouri again and Illinois gets a flight. And Miami is less than 400 miles from Gainesville, so they could go to Florida just as easily as FSU. For mileage the NCAA uses this tool. web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/milesMaybe the wording isn't great. Several teams that are traveling could not have to travel, and vice verca. You could create a bunch of different scenarios for Ohio State, Louisville, etc which figstats should we be looking at? With bonuses there are differences In top 25/top 50 wins. For example, Pittsburgh has 2 top 25 wins in the list with bonuses and is 1-2 in the unmodified list. Which does the committee look at? |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2015 14:35:19 GMT -5
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. And you'd be completely wrong. The committee is extremely consistent, if you actually pay attention to what they do, instead of what you think they should do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2015 14:39:57 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.
THIS Committee thinks, however. It's never the same Committee. |
|
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: 13,302 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 29, 2015 14:49:32 GMT -5
Maybe the wording isn't great. Several teams that are traveling could not have to travel, and vice verca. You could create a bunch of different scenarios for Ohio State, Louisville, etc which figstats should we be looking at? With bonuses there are differences In top 25/top 50 wins. For example, Pittsburgh has 2 top 25 wins in the list with bonuses and is 1-2 in the unmodified list. Which does the committee look at? I believe with experimental bonuses is the one that is supposed to match the actual one. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2015 15:02:48 GMT -5
THIS Committee thinks, however. It's never the same Committee. But this is why the NCAA had formalized the process as it has -to minimize the influence of the committee makeup on the outcome. Haven't you figured this out yet? Every year, you butch about the same things, because each year the committee does the same thing. Despite the fact that members turnover all the time. Everyone was outraged when Oregon was left out a few years back. They got so mad and insisted that a rep from Oregon get on the committee. And what changed? NOTHING! The committee does the same thing year after year, irrespective of who is on it. Why do you think that is? Because it's by design. And, to be honest, it's good. You don't want a committee that runs off all over the place based on a whim. You want straightforward criteria for the committee to apply. And that's what they have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2015 15:09:22 GMT -5
By "you bitch" I assume you aren't referring to me. I'm not bitching at all.
And I do wish you wouldn't take a comment I made about a specific comment and imply that it applies to a much broader context. We were talking about TAMU and UW.
It's great you think the Committee is consistent no matter the makeup. You're delusional, but it's still great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2015 15:10:03 GMT -5
The committee does the same thing year after year, irrespective of who is on it. Why do you think that is? Because it's by design. Demonstrably untrue, like a lot of stuff you insist on posting as truth. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 29, 2015 15:13:51 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.
Yeah, I can't think that the Committee is going to not give Washington credit for being the Pac-12 Co-Champions and automatic qualifier. How much credit is the question. I would think they would put them anywhere from #3 to #6 (just my wild guess). Wildcard: Will they seed the automatic qualifier below an at-large (non-conference tourney winner) from the same conference? |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 29, 2015 15:18:23 GMT -5
My sense is that specific seeding can be a bit unpredictable, but I don't know. What is the evidence that the committee has or hasn't seeded predictably? I know the RPI is the primary guide, but are the "secondary factors" weighted the same from year to year? I didn't get the sense that the relative weighting was that clear. And if this process is so predictable, why do they even have a bracket announcement. You should just be able to calculate the positions ahead of time, right? Why all the suspense?
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 29, 2015 15:21:58 GMT -5
I think
1.USC
2.Minnesota
3.Texas
4.Wash
5.Neb
6.TA&M
7.Wisc
8.Kansas (not sure on that one)
9.Stanford
11..too complicated!
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyl0ver on Nov 29, 2015 15:29:38 GMT -5
Hoping for a TX vs TxAM regional match  |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2015 15:39:49 GMT -5
The committee does the same thing year after year, irrespective of who is on it. Why do you think that is? Because it's by design. Demonstrably untrue, like a lot of stuff you insist on posting as truth. It's not untrue. Have you actually looked over the results over years to compare results for teams left out, teams included, teams seeded, teams not seeded? In terms of the criteria that they consider, as opposed to things you think they should use? If you do that, you will find that it isn't untrue at all. Do it, Ruffda. Do that analysis of all teams. Don't rely on impressions, look up the data. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2015 15:41:13 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.
Yeah, I can't think that the Committee is going to not give Washington credit for being the Pac-12 Co-Champions and automatic qualifier. How much credit is the question. I would think they would put them anywhere from #3 to #6 (just my wild guess). Wildcard: Will they seed the automatic qualifier below an at-large (non-conference tourney winner) from the same conference? Sure, why not? Conference place is not a consideration. Look at their whole record. That's what the committee does. That's what we should do if we want to project the committee. |
|
|
|
Post by msrsv on Nov 29, 2015 15:47:33 GMT -5
The committee does the same thing year after year, irrespective of who is on it. Why do you think that is? Because it's by design. Demonstrably untrue, like a lot of stuff you insist on posting as truth. How? When I look at selections vs RPI/RKPI, the selections have been uber consistent 7 out of the last 10 years. Do you mean more with seeds, not selections? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2015 15:47:44 GMT -5
bofa, I also see my comment ended up being separated by about 10 posts. My bad. No one would know what the hell I was talking about.
|
|
