|
|
Post by southie on Nov 25, 2016 11:53:23 GMT -5
Thanks. I don't ever recall having seen that in past years. |
|
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: 13,348 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 25, 2016 12:56:47 GMT -5
Agree - both do good work. Stating the obvious: I would say that 12 teams are now locks to be a seed: Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, Stanford, Texas, Kansas, Florida, Missouri, BYU, & North Carolina. I would suggest that 3 more are very likely to be a seed: UCLA, San Diego, and Michigan State. That leaves the #16 seed??? Kansas State, Creighton, Kentucky, Western Kentucky - a complete wild card? Does anyone know if Creighton or Western Kentucky put in a bid to host? Is it possible that Western Kentucky gets the 16th seed, is not able to host - and the sub-regional goes somewhere else (Penn State). Or they could use Kentucky as the host and WKU the seed. I am also intrigued by which RPI will have the most influence on the seed order (The one on Friday morning, Saturday morning or the final RPI on Saturday night)? It seems to me that once they have decided on the 16 seeds and the 32 at large teams - they can easily change the seed order very late in the process. Also, I wonder if there will be some 'internal' rule to make sure that at least X teams in a region have put a bid to host (say there are 2 or 3 seeds that cannot host a region - would the committee potentially move one of them a spot to make sure they are not in the same regional?). Or, will the committee release the teams that submitted a bid to host a regional after the bracket is announced - or will it be a potential mystery if a top 4 team losses in the 2nd round? I haven't got as good of a feel on the committee for seeding, but I feel like I'm getting better. In 2012 & 2013 I missed two seeds, 2014 all 16 were seeded, but not in order Last year I actually wanted to put Creighton in as a host at the #16 spot, but I opted for Louisville instead and was wrong. I'm really starting to question San Diego down the stretch. They won early in the season. They only have 3 top 50 wins, albeit all three are pretty damn good wins. Yes - San Diego is certainly not a seed lock and I would not be shocked if they are left out. |
|
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: 13,348
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 25, 2016 13:03:27 GMT -5
Trojansc, I love your work but must admit to being confounded by your placement of Florida as the 13th seed in the tournament. What gives? An opening season loss to Nebraska on a neutral court, a home loss to Kentucky and a road loss to Missouri in 5. That constitutes slippage to 13 or the #5 rpi team? Couple that with your positioning Michigan in front of them at 12 makes even less sense. If you'd base it on like-opponents alone the Gators trashing of Sparty at East Lansing far outweighs the Wolverines sweep last night at home against Green and White. Curious for the explanation of this. Keep in mind, as of right now, Florida is #10 in the RPI. Missouri is #11. These RPI numbers include results through today, this is not based on the Monday RPI. That #5 RPI for Florida was a little misleading. Florida's nitty gritty and lack of quality wins are what is concerning. Top 4, Stanford, UNC, UW, Michigan State, Michigan, Kansas State, BYU, and Creighton all have more Top 50 wins than Florida does. bluepenquin can back me up a little bit here. I think he noticed as well that the gap between the #5-#13 was extremely close for such a wide range. extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/16%20VB%20Nitty%20Gritty%20thru%20Nov%2020.pdfLook at the #'s. Florida doesn't stand out in the top 25 record category, and they trail almost everybody in the Record v. 26-50 category. That's not a good look, especially when you aren't even your conference champion! Florida is going to get hurt (RPI) by playing Arkansas on Saturday. Spots 5 through 12 in the RPI are pretty close. It is likely that Florida will end the season in the 9-11 RPI range. A 13 seed for Florida doesn't seem unreasonable to me - although probably on the low end. I don't see them making the top 9 seeds. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclonepower on Nov 25, 2016 15:45:35 GMT -5
Georgia Tech just lost at Florida State in five sets. Tech was up 13-12 in the fifth before losing it 15-13!
|
|
|
|
Post by kstater on Nov 25, 2016 17:54:16 GMT -5
You really think KSU can host?
|
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 25, 2016 18:37:36 GMT -5
You really think KSU can host? If they are being considered for the 16th and final seed, I think it hurts them that KU, Nebraska, and Mizzou are all in close proximity and sure bets to host sub-regionals. Same for Creighton. |
|
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: 13,348
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2016 0:03:34 GMT -5
Some RPI scenarios:
Assume North Carolina, Texas, Creighton, Nebraska, Florida, Missouri, and Kansas State win on Saturday (they are heavy favorites).
Wisconsin will finish #1 in RPI regardless
If Minnesota wins, it will be Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas for 2-4. If Wisconsin wins it will be Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, and Minnesota.
North Carolina will finish #5 if both Kansas and Washington lose. They will finish #6 if only one of Washington or Kansas lose and #7 if they both win.
BYU will finish #6 if both Kansas and Washington lose, #7 if only one of them wins and #8 if both win.
Stanford will finish #7 if both Kansas and Washington lose, #8 if only one of them wins, and #9 if both win.
Washington finishes #5 if they win, #8 if they lose and Kansas loses, and #9 if they lose and Kansas wins.
Kansas will finish #5 if they win and Washington loses, #6 if Kansas wins and Washington wins, and #11 if they lose
Missouri and Florida will finish #10 and #11 if Kansas wins and #9 and #10 if Kansas loses.
UCLA will finish #12 or #13 - not that much on the line against USC.
If Michigan State loses they will drop to #17 and Creighton will be #16. Kansas State will probably end up at #18 and Kentucky #19 regardless.
|
|
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: 31,784
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 26, 2016 0:23:47 GMT -5
Updated through Friday.
No changes to at-larges, seedings, or bracket placements. I guarantee you tomorrow there will be a shakeup, probably in all three of those categories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Courtside5 on Nov 26, 2016 0:49:20 GMT -5
Updated through Friday. No changes to at-larges, seedings, or bracket placements. I guarantee you tomorrow there will be a shakeup, probably in all three of those categories. What's the slim possibility Hawaii gets the 16th seed?? Can no can? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 1:57:28 GMT -5
Some RPI scenarios: Assume North Carolina, Texas, Creighton, Nebraska, Florida, Missouri, and Kansas State win on Saturday (they are heavy favorites). Wisconsin will finish #1 in RPI regardless If Minnesota wins, it will be Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas for 2-4. If Wisconsin wins it will be Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, and Minnesota. North Carolina will finish #5 if both Kansas and Washington lose. They will finish #6 if only one of Washington or Kansas lose and #7 if they both win. BYU will finish #6 if both Kansas and Washington lose, #7 if only one of them wins and #8 if both win. Stanford will finish #7 if both Kansas and Washington lose, #8 if only one of them wins, and #9 if both win. Washington finishes #5 if they win, #8 if they lose and Kansas loses, and #9 if they lose and Kansas wins. Kansas will finish #5 if they win and Washington loses, #6 if Kansas wins and Washington wins, and #11 if they lose Missouri and Florida will finish #10 and #11 if Kansas wins and #9 and #10 if Kansas loses. UCLA will finish #12 or #13 - not that much on the line against USC. If Michigan State loses they will drop to #17 and Creighton will be #16. Kansas State will probably end up at #18 and Kentucky #19 regardless. I admire these analyses, but think that while RPI is highly important in choosing the at larges, it is a great deal less important when it comes to choosing the seeds. Look to Washington for a top 4 seed if it wins tomorror; and as insurance, look to Stanford and UCLA to be in a bracket position to ensure a P12 team in the final four. |
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Nov 26, 2016 7:38:41 GMT -5
You have Michigan State at 14. You think they stay there even if Iowa beats them tonight? I know they still get in and are still seeded, but do they drop to 15 or 16?
I saw that Iowa team Wednesday... they are on a mission.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2016 12:14:02 GMT -5
You have Michigan State at 14. You think they stay there even if Iowa beats them tonight? I know they still get in and are still seeded, but do they drop to 15 or 16? I saw that Iowa team Wednesday... they are on a mission. They (probably) needed to win both matches this week and lost the 4th set 25-7. I don't share your optimism of the Hawkeyes' mindset going into this match . |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2016 12:33:44 GMT -5
Well Washington lost two top 25 wins from its nitty gritty with the Utah implosion this week, so that I'd a net negative for UW. Frankly I think the whole top 25 wins within conference is kinda silly. I mean, had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado, they would sure have a top 25 rpi, but they didn't. The issue is that Washington won TWICE against Arizona and Colorado (and Utah), so it's almost as if UW gets less credit for beating all three of these teams because those teams all beat each other rather than one of them beating the other two.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2016 12:56:34 GMT -5
Well Washington lost two top 25 wins from its nitty gritty with the Utah implosion this week, so that I'd a net negative for UW. Frankly I think the whole top 25 wins within conference is kinda silly. I mean, had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado, they would sure have a top 25 rpi, but they didn't. The issue is that Washington won TWICE against Arizona and Colorado (and Utah), so it's almost as if UW gets less credit for beating all three of these teams because those teams all beat each other rather than one of them beating the other two. I think that's fair though. Wins over elite teams is what sets the top teams apart, not accumulating several against decent teams. For example, it's more difficult to go 3-0 against Wisconsin/Maryland/Rutgers than to go 3-0 against Illinois/Ohio St/Purdue. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2016 13:33:24 GMT -5
Well Washington lost two top 25 wins from its nitty gritty with the Utah implosion this week, so that I'd a net negative for UW. Frankly I think the whole top 25 wins within conference is kinda silly. I mean, had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado, they would sure have a top 25 rpi, but they didn't. The issue is that Washington won TWICE against Arizona and Colorado (and Utah), so it's almost as if UW gets less credit for beating all three of these teams because those teams all beat each other rather than one of them beating the other two. I think that's fair though. Wins over elite teams is what sets the top teams apart, not accumulating several against decent teams. For example, it's more difficult to go 3-0 against Wisconsin/Maryland/Rutgers than to go 3-0 against Illinois/Ohio St/Purdue. You missed my point though. Had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado they WOULD have been a top 25 team rpi team. Well Washington beat those teams, so the relative wins within conference shouldn't (IMO) change based on who those teams win and lose to within conference. What makes an "elite" team over a "decent" team? Wins, obviously. But I think it's kind of a weak argument to suggest that Team A beats Team B, C, and D but that Team A's win over team B IS MORE impressive if Team B also beat team C and D, and LESS impressive if Team B splits or loses to team C and D. Why does it matter if team A beats all them anyway? Using a big 10 example, let's say PSU, OSU, Purdue and the Michigan's ended up in a compete bloodbath with each other and northwestern, Illinois, and Iowa. Because they all lost to each other, none would probably have a top 25 RPI especially if teams from other conferences had less parity. So, if Nebraska won against all those other teams, the essential arguement is that Nebraska's record is less impressive because the teams it won against beat each other up. That it's what other teams do in conference that makes your own record more or less impressive. I think that is some faulty reasoning given the fact all the teams play each other (save the unbalanced schedule quirks). Saying that Washington's record would be more impressive had Utah won against two teams Washington already beat is silly. It would be different it Washington DIDNT play Colorado or Arizona, but they did. |
|
