|
|
Post by vinnielopes on Mar 21, 2016 15:30:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vinnielopes on Mar 21, 2016 17:30:22 GMT -5
Want to make quick correction. These RPI rankings do not include match results from last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by 5280volleyball on Mar 21, 2016 17:41:56 GMT -5
These rankings are already a mess....I can't wait to see them after this week. There's no way in the world 3 MIVA teams should be in the top 7. None. With BYU and Long Beach losing, it could be even worse.
I completely agree with the top 5. Pepperdine not playing any non conference matches is hurting them, while Hawaii's fast start is keeping them in the mix.
I'm surprised UCLA isn't a little higher, considering the number of quality wins they have in non conference. Vinnie had them at #1 in the last bracketology.
It's a shame that at least one out of BYU, LBSU, UCLA, and Stanford won't be in the tournament. And it could be two of them out if someone not named Ohio State wins the MIVA.
|
|
|
|
Post by ucsdfan on Mar 22, 2016 1:05:07 GMT -5
What may be the craziest thing is that the CC teams are 4-26 against EIVA/MIVA/MPSF teams (beating Charleston twice and St Francis twice), but because they play a ton of D3 teams the illogical RPI formula has Erskine, Barton, and Mt Olive all in the top 15, ahead of CSUN and Lewis (amongst many others).
|
|
|
|
Post by wonderer on Mar 22, 2016 16:57:14 GMT -5
What may be the craziest thing is that the CC teams are 4-26 against EIVA/MIVA/MPSF teams (beating Charleston twice and St Francis twice), but because they play a ton of D3 teams the illogical RPI formula has Erskine, Barton, and Mt Olive all in the top 15, ahead of CSUN and Lewis (amongst many others). a "ton" ? can you name 5 D3 teams these 3 schools have played? can you name 3 ? 2? |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Mar 22, 2016 17:42:30 GMT -5
What may be the craziest thing is that the CC teams are 4-26 against EIVA/MIVA/MPSF teams (beating Charleston twice and St Francis twice), but because they play a ton of D3 teams the illogical RPI formula has Erskine, Barton, and Mt Olive all in the top 15, ahead of CSUN and Lewis (amongst many others). a "ton" ? can you name 5 D3 teams these 3 schools have played? can you name 3 ? 2? Well said. Also, the D3 schools are NOT counted in RPI calculation (unless the higher division teams lose to them). Further, the RPI is a very simple formula that rewards teams that win, and teams that schedule winning teams. Preferably both. Such a shame that fans and college coaches can't figure it out. Lastly, RPI is just one of several criteria that are looked at by the selection committee. And RPI rankings will change significantly by the end of the season. |
|
|
|
Post by ucsdfan on Mar 22, 2016 18:01:11 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess the advanced string theory being applied to come up with a ranking that places Mt Olive above a CSUN team that absolutely demolished them on a neutral court is pretty advanced. The point here is that the forumla is seriously flawed when a CC team with a losing record against the MIVA, EIVA, and MPSF ends up ranked above teams that beat them. There are seven such cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by ucsdfan on Mar 22, 2016 18:18:03 GMT -5
What may be the craziest thing is that the CC teams are 4-26 against EIVA/MIVA/MPSF teams (beating Charleston twice and St Francis twice), but because they play a ton of D3 teams the illogical RPI formula has Erskine, Barton, and Mt Olive all in the top 15, ahead of CSUN and Lewis (amongst many others). a "ton" ? can you name 5 D3 teams these 3 schools have played? can you name 3 ? 2? Alderson Bro has played Barton twice and Erskine once. Erskine played Mt St Joes. But where the CC must have cashed in is by padding the records of the lower teams in their division with gamers against St Andrews, East Mennonite, Bryan, Marymount, Bluefield, Graceland, and Rust. As for whoever claims that records do not include matches against D3 schools, please post the link to this fact. When Belmont Abbey goes 3-0 against some D3s. those 3 wins elevate the RPI of all Belmont Abbey opponents. This system is so utterly flawed, and not just for mens volleyball. Their is no perfect formula, but there are definitely better ones than this. And while people keep saying it only makes up a portion of the committee's criteria, it shouldn't make up any. Erskine 0 Loyola 3 Erskine 0 Lewis 3 Mt Olive 0 PSU 3 Mt Olive 0 Long Beach State 3 Mt Olive 0 CSUN 3 Barton did not step up and play the big boys this season, so they don't have the same 0-3 loses of the others. If those of you defending the RPI can't see how flawed it is when Erskine, Mt Olive, and Barton are top 15, then there's not much hope you'll undertsand anything in terms of statistical validity. |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Mar 22, 2016 19:39:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess the advanced string theory being applied to come up with a ranking that places Mt Olive above a CSUN team that absolutely demolished them on a neutral court is pretty advanced. The point here is that the forumla is seriously flawed when a CC team with a losing record against the MIVA, EIVA, and MPSF ends up ranked above teams that beat them. There are seven such cases. RPI does not compare head-to-head at all, that is a separate criteria that is looked at by the committee. You might want to do a little research to know what RPI actually measures before bashing it. RPI does not measure what team is "better". It is a math formula, just like saying "Erskine has a better winning percentage" than team XYZ. Mathematically do they? Or that Barton has a better "opponents winning percentage" than team XYZ. It is not subjective, it is an objective measure. And RPI is in fact a combination of those two things. Just like saying Loyola/Lewis has a better "head to head" criteria than team XYZ. They either do or don't. |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Mar 22, 2016 19:50:39 GMT -5
a "ton" ? can you name 5 D3 teams these 3 schools have played? can you name 3 ? 2? Alderson Bro has played Barton twice and Erskine once. Erskine played Mt St Joes. But where the CC must have cashed in is by padding the records of the lower teams in their division with gamers against St Andrews, East Mennonite, Bryan, Marymount, Bluefield, Graceland, and Rust. As for whoever claims that records do not include matches against D3 schools, please post the link to this fact. When Belmont Abbey goes 3-0 against some D3s. those 3 wins elevate the RPI of all Belmont Abbey opponents. This system is so utterly flawed, and not just for mens volleyball. Their is no perfect formula, but there are definitely better ones than this. And while people keep saying it only makes up a portion of the committee's criteria, it shouldn't make up any. Erskine 0 Loyola 3 Erskine 0 Lewis 3 Mt Olive 0 PSU 3 Mt Olive 0 Long Beach State 3 Mt Olive 0 CSUN 3 Barton did not step up and play the big boys this season, so they don't have the same 0-3 loses of the others. If those of you defending the RPI can't see how flawed it is when Erskine, Mt Olive, and Barton are top 15, then there's not much hope you'll undertsand anything in terms of statistical validity. You can do a quick Google on "RPI" and "non-DI opponents" to find multiple cites where it is made clear that matches outside the division are not counted in RPI. For Men's Volleyball it is "non-DI or DII" but same principal. IF you won't believe those cites - then YOU provide ONE reference that INCLUDES D3 in RPI calculation for any NCAA DI or DII sport. Alderson Broadus is DII not D3, anyways. Name 2 better ranking systems and why you think they are better? You may not understand that being top 15 in RPI really means that they are top 15 in "winning percentage and opponents winning percentage". RPI is NOT like the coaches poll - it does not mean they are the 15th "best" team in the country. It is a simple math formula - "winning percentage and opponents winning percentage". It can't be "wrong" or flawed, that is exactly what is measures. (Well their opponents opponents win percentage is in there also but negligible). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 9:23:27 GMT -5
I'd like to see the RPI add the records of opponent's opponents to the formula...
|
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Mar 23, 2016 10:27:34 GMT -5
I'd like to see the RPI add the records of opponent's opponents to the formula... It actually does include opponents opponents record (sometimes called opponents SOS). However, it is not weighted very much, and has a narrow range, so it does not influence overall RPI much. Furthermore, teams have almost no control over this via scheduling - so tend not to worry about it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 10:31:18 GMT -5
I'd like to see the RPI add the records of opponent's opponents to the formula... It actually does include opponents opponents record (sometimes called opponents SOS). However, it is not weighted very much, and has a narrow range, so it does not influence overall RPI much. Furthermore, teams have almost no control over this via scheduling - so tend not to worry about it. Oh dag nabbit. I meant opponent's opponent's opponents... |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Mar 24, 2016 9:42:41 GMT -5
That would be interesting, but I'm guessing it would have little overall effect like opponents opponents record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad_Larson on Mar 24, 2016 10:21:20 GMT -5
Everyone should have the same RPI. Teams like OSU and BYU should give points to the less fortunate teams #feelthebern
|
|
