|
|
Post by trollhunter on Nov 18, 2015 13:11:03 GMT -5
Not sure what any of your post has to do with anything. Your being registered on this board for 10 years does not give you ANY further credibility. "This scenario is the direct result of the Committee's over reliance on a faulty ratings system." - Your desire to rely on AVCA rankings instead of current system is a travesty. That you think AVCA is better is laughable. AVCA does SIGNIFICANTLY better than RPI in Pick-The-Winner and is almost as good as Pablo this year, so not sure why it's laughable to think they are better? Well we could start a thread about the faults of AVCA poll and how it is/could be abused. However, they are pretty much covered in the existing AVCA threads. If you want to start an "AVCA is a valid ratings system thread" I will be happy to participate. Here are a couple of contributions: 1. Not an objective measurement. 2. Biased against smaller, lesser known teams/conferences due to media exposure. 3. Every week there are some ridiculously biased picks, either elevating own team / own conference, or omitting / lowering competitors. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 18, 2015 14:20:45 GMT -5
AVCA does SIGNIFICANTLY better than RPI in Pick-The-Winner and is almost as good as Pablo this year, so not sure why it's laughable to think they are better? Well we could start a thread about the faults of AVCA poll and how it is/could be abused. However, they are pretty much covered in the existing AVCA threads. If you want to start an "AVCA is a valid ratings system thread" I will be happy to participate. Here are a couple of contributions: 1. Not an objective measurement. 2. Biased against smaller, lesser known teams/conferences due to media exposure. 3. Every week there are some ridiculously biased picks, either elevating own team / own conference, or omitting / lowering competitors. Do I think the AVCA poll is the best rating system? No. But to say it's not better than RPI is way off base. 1. RPI is objectively measuring the wrong things. 2. How are Hawaii and CSU ranked so much higher in the AVCA than any other rating system if they are biased against? 3. Those ridiculously biased picks are at the very least balanced by being only 1/60th of the total |
|
|
|
Post by s0uthie on Nov 18, 2015 14:30:05 GMT -5
RPI measures what it measures. It has one excellent side-effect: it incentivizes the best teams to play good mid-majors. Without RPI, Power 5 would only ever play other Power 5 teams or total cupcakes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 14:49:42 GMT -5
You don't think there's money to be made in hosting a sub-regional? I know the NCAA takes some of it, but still ... Besides that, I'd have to think ALL schools are better off with home tournaments, no matter how much they make (or lose). Doesn't seem to stop other schools from going on the road. At some point, you need to do what is best for your VB program, even if it costs some $$. If anyone can afford it, you'd think it'd be UH. No, not nearly the type of money that is made from a pre conference tournament. Concession revenue alone from a non conference tourney would blow away anything that could be brought in hosting a post season match at home. Well. If true, then we know where UH's priorities lie. |
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 18, 2015 14:58:25 GMT -5
No, not nearly the type of money that is made from a pre conference tournament. Concession revenue alone from a non conference tourney would blow away anything that could be brought in hosting a post season match at home. Well. If true, then we know where UH's priorities lie. Exactly, Hawaii's WORST pre-conference crowd was bigger than any Pac-12 home crowd so far this season. And they don't have to split the revenue with NCAA or close their gift shop so that NCAA can sell their over-priced tournament programs and 'championship' souvenirs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 15:13:07 GMT -5
The best RPI scheduling this year had to be Barnes at Baylor. They beat nobody and was inside the top 40 most of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Nov 18, 2015 15:26:11 GMT -5
Well we could start a thread about the faults of AVCA poll and how it is/could be abused. However, they are pretty much covered in the existing AVCA threads. If you want to start an "AVCA is a valid ratings system thread" I will be happy to participate. Here are a couple of contributions: 1. Not an objective measurement. 2. Biased against smaller, lesser known teams/conferences due to media exposure. 3. Every week there are some ridiculously biased picks, either elevating own team / own conference, or omitting / lowering competitors. Do I think the AVCA poll is the best rating system? No. But to say it's not better than RPI is way off base. 1. RPI is objectively measuring the wrong things. 2. How are Hawaii and CSU ranked so much higher in the AVCA than any other rating system if they are biased against? 3. Those ridiculously biased picks are at the very least balanced by being only 1/60th of the total Was hoping to do this in another thread - so this will be my last post on this subject on this thread. 0. I compared AVCA to "current ranking system" not just RPI - current system includes SOS, head to head, common opponents, etc. 1. RPI could definitely be tweaked to measure more and/or better. But it does mostly measure right things Wins and Losses of individual teams and opponents. You could add in sets won/loss or points scored as Pablo, but ultimately winning matches is what mostly counts. 2. Would not call Hawaii "smaller or lesser known" in volleyball circles. CSU is different factors of them and AVCA that I will save for the other thread. 3. You are right that the ridiculous AVCA picks are a small factor. But could become a much bigger deal if AVCA poll was used for anything besides conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by skullars on Nov 18, 2015 15:33:03 GMT -5
How does a poster who calls themselves "trollhunter" come to troll other posters on their opinions around selection?
Kudos to trojansc for putting together this impressively detailed and constructed thread. A good read regardless of where you think "your team(s)" may end up or if they end up anywhere or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 18, 2015 16:32:39 GMT -5
RPI measures what it measures. It has one excellent side-effect: it incentivizes the best teams to play good mid-majors. Without RPI, Power 5 would only ever play other Power 5 teams or total cupcakes. Actually it incentivizes playing cupcakes with strong win-loss percentages but weak RPIs (almost exclusively located in the East), while avoiding playing strong mid-majors (see CSU's 2013 schedule) with weak win-loss percentages but strong RPIs. If you look at the Bottom 150 in RPI, only TEN are in the West. Yes, you want to AVOID scheduling those schools, if you can help it, but you DO want to schedule those schools outside of the Top 50 which, year-in and year-out, are feasting on the Bottom 150: Towson, A&M-Corpus Christi, Chattanooga, Murray State, UMES, Coastal Carolina, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by s0uthie on Nov 18, 2015 17:14:20 GMT -5
RPI measures what it measures. It has one excellent side-effect: it incentivizes the best teams to play good mid-majors. Without RPI, Power 5 would only ever play other Power 5 teams or total cupcakes. Actually it incentivizes playing cupcakes with strong win-loss percentages but weak RPIs (almost exclusively located in the East), while avoiding playing strong mid-majors (see CSU's 2013 schedule) with weak win-loss percentages but strong RPIs. If you look at the Bottom 150 in RPI, only TEN are in the West. Yes, you want to AVOID scheduling those schools, if you can help it, but you DO want to schedule those schools outside of the Top 50 which, year-in and year-out, are feasting on the Bottom 150: Towson, A&M-Corpus Christi, Chattanooga, Murray State, UMES, Coastal Carolina, etc. Which "strong" mid-majors have weak W/L %? For the sake of semantics, I wasn't considering anyone in the top 100 "total cupcakes." But yes, those are exactly the teams I'm talking about who now get a shot to play the Power 5 teams, as a result of RPI being used. Teams like Colorado State, Creighton, Lipscomb, Dayton, Wyoming, Utah, Wichita State. These teams are great for RPI because they have strong records every year. But they also get the opportunity to add strong wins to their resume because teams who want to be seeded add those mid-majors to the schedule. The ones you mentioned seem to be more of a gamble, because they fluctuate so heavily year to year. This is Murray State's, what, second year with a good record? If you scheduled Towson in 2013, you got hosed. |
|
|
|
Post by X-Play on Nov 18, 2015 17:38:48 GMT -5
The potential for 2 AVCA top 10 teams to meet in the second round of the tourney is a travesty. This scenario is the direct result of the Committee's over reliance on a faulty ratings system. Shoji knows how the RPI works. He chooses to schedule the way he does knowing that their RPI will be deflated. Even if Pablo was used, I still don't think Hawaii gets a seed. Their actual rating (15th) would get them close, but they only have ONE top 30 win, they played ZERO non-conference road matches (it is clearly spelled out that winning on the road carries more weight), and their best road win will be over #40. I don't see where Hawaii has a big argument (this year) that it's the RPI keeping them out. Of course there are Hawaii fans complaining about the "system." RPI is a faulty system that should not be relied on so heavily by the NCAA in regards to volleyball. It does not rank the best teams and that's the problem. Furthermore, the regionally-shackled tournament system means Hawaii once again will be facing a top ten team in the second round. (I would not be surprised to see a sub-regional with USC, Hawaii and San Diego in it while the vast majority of other sub-regionals will have maybe one ranked team in it.) I know I will ALWAYS complain about that. What rational Hawaii fans (excluding volleyballfan99 and a couple of other crazies) are disapponted in but understand is Hawaii not getting a seed this year. The schedule just doesn't support it and that's the breaks but Hawaii getting sent to a ridiculously stacked sub-regional again isn't fair to the team or the other teams there when compared to the sub-regionals happening in other parts of the country. Yes, Hawaii could have scheduled better so they could host. I think they probably will in the future (which doesn't necessarily mean leaving the island instead of hosting a tournament). I don't see people arguing that they should be seeded this year - just that it's a shame that they are not since, in actuality, they are one of the 16 best teams and would have 10 thousand fans there to support post-season matches. I will, however, always complain about any regionally-based analysis that is unfair to the WCC and teams in the west. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 18, 2015 18:03:34 GMT -5
The best RPI scheduling this year had to be Barnes at Baylor. They beat nobody and was inside the top 40 most of the year. Hmmm... Interesting post which made me want to do some research... Here are the best and worst RPI schedulers among teams that are top 100 by both Pablo and RPI standards. I've also included trojansc's tournament status Best RPI Schedulers (Pablo - RKPI)+33 James Madison (100-67) - OUT+27 Northern Iowa (83-56) - OUT+26 Villanova (71-45) - 'THE SAFER FOUR'+25 Missouri State (67-42) - 'THE SAFER FOUR'+23 Marquette (57-34) - IN+22 Arkansas (69-47) - 'THE SAFER FOUR'+22 Dayton (51-29) - Unsure, Projected A10 Champion +20 Southern Illinois (61-41) - LAST FOUR IN+18 Rice (90-72) - OUT+17 Baylor (63-46) - NEXT FOUR OUT+17 Kentucky (32-15) - IN+17 Missouri (33-16) - #15 SeedWorst RPI Schedulers (Pablo-RKPI)-46 Cal Poly (50-96) - OUT-34 Portland (63-97) - OUT-27 Arizona (24-51) - LAST FOUR IN-25 Sacramento State (55-80) - OUT-24 Northern Illinois (74-98) - OUT-24 Colorado (35-59) - FIRST FOUR OUT-21 Oregon (35-59) - NEXT FOUR OUT-20 Pacific (29-50) - OUT-19 New Mexico St (49-68) - OUT-17 Duke (68-85) - OUT |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 18, 2015 18:13:50 GMT -5
trojansc I see that you generically said they'd be bubble teams, but what is your opinion of the at large resumes of Wichita State, Western Kentucky, Arkansas State and Northern Arizona if they don't win their conference tournaments? Wichita State is a good team. I think they are going to be very dangerous and yet again sent to the Kansas subregional. If they end up on the bubble, they are pretty much in from what I see right now. As long as Wichita State wins two this week, they shouldn't have a reason to worry. Even a loss in the semifinals of the MVC shouldn't hurt too much. If they make it to the championship, win or lose, they are in the tournament. Western Kentucky is an NCAA tournament team and there are NO doubts about it. This is a league where the could be a potential bid-stealer. Northern Arizona's a really interesting case. They are going to have their hands full in the semifinals and championship match of their conference tournament. Sacramento State took down NAU in Sacramento and just recently lost at Flagstaff last week. Sac State is who NAU is likely going to play in the semifinals. I actually DVR'd their most recent match, and even though NAU was better and I'd put money on them, teams really give their all at this time of the season. Especially the teams from mid-majors with nothing to lose. It puts pressure on the really good mid-majors who often at this time of the year have to win literally every game. I think if NAU wins the semifinals, they are in the NCAA tournament win or lose the conference championship (likely against North Dakota or Idaho State). NAU is a good team. I really like their setter (Jensen Barten, I think). I first became a fan when NAU played Hawaii last year or a couple years ago. Arkansas State is another interesting case. There's a chance that if they lose their conference tournament, they could finish with an excellent RPI but literally zero top-50 victories. The reason why I don't think that is likely is because I think Missouri State is going to end up top 50. So, that should be enough to get in. But if we are going on history, Eastern Washington's team who was like 29-2 in 2002 with a top-25 victory did not get in the NCAA's, then neither should Arkansas State if they don't win their conference tournament. But, Arkansas State is pretty much in. I think Texas State could potentially update Arkansas State but don't count on it. And of course, #2 Appalachian State has lost twice to Arkansas State in the past week so, they're going to be hungry to get back at em. Dayton? |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,517 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 18, 2015 18:28:49 GMT -5
Dayton I am not sold on. But Western Kentucky is a top-25 win and if their RPI is in the 30s then Dayton is probably in. Crazy things can happen. I think if they lose two (one in A10 tournament and one to Ohio) they should get pretty nervous. Ohio played itself out of a bid last year. So did CSUN. George Washington, Saint Louis, and Rhode Island are all dangerous teams. Rhode Island lost twice to Dayton in 5
|
|
|
|
Post by hapaguy on Nov 18, 2015 20:22:48 GMT -5
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the RPI system 75% a SOS system? Shouldn't we be trying to seed the best teams and not the teams that have the strongest SOS? My beef is that we have teams that will be hosting that really shouldn't be if we are to seed the best teams. I've watched both Texas A&M and Mizzou (Carly Kan) and both those teams would get swept by Hawaii. Does anyone seriously think that 25th ranked Texas A&M or unranked Mizzou are better teams than Hawaii?
|
|
