2016 Bracketology (FINALIZED) 11/27

[rainbowbadger]

Nov 21, 2016 16:29:10 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 21, 2016 14:07:20 GMT -5 bayarea said:

With your projections today, BYU would be looking at a potential second round matchup against Utah, the only team in recent memory to have beaten them on their home court (earlier this season).

To be honest, i think Utah is a better candidate for a seed than Michigan. But I don't think the committee is going to have two hosts in Utah

Of course not. Where would coaches and officials go drinking after the matches?

[bigfan]

Do seeded teams #1-16 always host the first round with the exception of Hawai`i?

[HawaiiVB]

No way Ohio St. gets Hawai'i in the first round.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 21, 2016 13:56:45 GMT -5 big10+4 fan said:

How different would your bracketology look if the committee followed their process from last year where they made sure no seeded teams from the same conference met each other until at earliest the elite eight? Right now the only teams affected by this are Nebraska (Michigan) and Minnesota (Michigan State.

I believe last year was a coincidence and not a committee process or objective.  There is no reason to believe that they will prevent conference matchups in the 3rd round if that is the way their rankings/seeds fall.

[mnsports255]

Nov 21, 2016 13:56:45 GMT -5 big10+4 fan said:

How different would your bracketology look if the committee followed their process from last year where they made sure no seeded teams from the same conference met each other until at earliest the elite eight? Right now the only teams affected by this are Nebraska (Michigan) and Minnesota (Michigan State.

Minnesota and Illinois played each other in the Sweet 16 last year. Non issue.

[big10+4 fan]

Nov 21, 2016 17:30:47 GMT -5 mnsports255 said:

Nov 21, 2016 13:56:45 GMT -5 big10+4 fan said:

How different would your bracketology look if the committee followed their process from last year where they made sure no seeded teams from the same conference met each other until at earliest the elite eight? Right now the only teams affected by this are Nebraska (Michigan) and Minnesota (Michigan State.

Minnesota and Illinois played each other in the Sweet 16 last year. Non issue.

yes they did, but Illinois was not seeded. They upset Louisville who was the seeded team.

[redbeard2008]

Nov 21, 2016 17:16:58 GMT -5 bigfan said:

Do seeded teams #1-16 always host the first round with the exception of Hawai`i?

There is no exception for Hawaii. If they are a top 16 seed, they get to host.

[trojansc]

Nov 21, 2016 17:22:06 GMT -5 HawaiiVB said:

No way Ohio St. gets Hawai'i in the first round.

It is very possible. Hawai'i could get Penn State, Purdue, Illinois, TCU, Baylor as well

[trojansc]

Also, all the RPI numbers are now updated as of today..

Just got the NCAA VB Nitty Gritty - will post the #'s for bubble teams

[mikegarrison]

Nov 21, 2016 18:29:24 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Also, all the RPI numbers are now updated as of today..

Just got the NCAA VB Nitty Gritty - will post the #'s for bubble teams

Today's pablo suggests that it is more likely either UW or Stanford will be the AQ for the PAC than UCLA. Pablo is giving UW a 55% chance to win that match. If they win it and then end up either solo champ or in a tie with UCLA, Washington would be the AQ. Alternately, if Washington wins but ends up in a tie with Stanford or in a 3-way tie, Stanford would be the AQ. The only way UCLA can be the AQ is if they win v. Washington.

[trojansc]

Nov 21, 2016 18:33:49 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

Nov 21, 2016 18:29:24 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Also, all the RPI numbers are now updated as of today..

Just got the NCAA VB Nitty Gritty - will post the #'s for bubble teams

Today's pablo suggests that it is more likely either UW or Stanford will be the AQ for the PAC than UCLA. Pablo is giving UW a 55% chance to win that match. If they win it and then end up either solo champ or in a tie with UCLA, Washington would be the AQ. Alternately, if Washington wins but ends up in a tie with Stanford or in a 3-way tie, Stanford would be the AQ. The only way UCLA can be the AQ is if they win v. Washington.

UCLA beat Stanford (twice!) How, in a 3-way tie, would UCLA lose the tie-breaker? Stanford beat UW twice, but lost to UCLA twice. UW lost to Stanford twice, but (hypothetically) beats UCLA once.

Amongst tied teams: UCLA 2-1, Stan 2-2, UW 1-2.

[mikegarrison]

Nov 21, 2016 18:36:31 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 21, 2016 18:33:49 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

Today's pablo suggests that it is more likely either UW or Stanford will be the AQ for the PAC than UCLA. Pablo is giving UW a 55% chance to win that match. If they win it and then end up either solo champ or in a tie with UCLA, Washington would be the AQ. Alternately, if Washington wins but ends up in a tie with Stanford or in a 3-way tie, Stanford would be the AQ. The only way UCLA can be the AQ is if they win v. Washington.

UCLA beat Stanford (twice!) How, in a 3-way tie, would UCLA lose the tie-breaker? Stanford beat UW twice, but lost to UCLA twice. UW lost to Stanford twice, but (hypothetically) beats UCLA once.

Amongst tied teams: UCLA 2-1, Stan 2-2, UW 1-2.

A 3-way tie is broken by games won, not matches won. Stanford has won 9 (6 against UW, 3 against UCLA). UCLA has won 6 (against Stanford). In order to get to 9, they would need 3 against UW -- ie. they would need to win.

So if UCLA loses but everybody ends up in a 3-way tie, Stanford wins the AQ.

If UCLA wins and then everybody ends up in a 3-way tie, both UCLA and Stanford would have 9 games won, and it would move to the next tie-breaker (point ratios). I don't know who would win on point ratios.

If UCLA wins and it ends up in a 2-way tie, UCLA has the tiebreaker over either Stanford or UW.

So UCLA has to win on Wednesday in order to be the AQ.

[mikegarrison]

(The rule pre-dates the uneven scheduling. It probably presumes that each of the teams plays the same number of matches against the other tied teams. Otherwise it might go by "set ratio" instead of "games won".)

[trojansc]

Nov 21, 2016 18:48:38 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

(The rule pre-dates the uneven scheduling. It probably presumes that each of the teams plays the same number of matches against the other tied teams. Otherwise it might go by "set ratio" instead of "games won".)

Understood - and I disagree with P12 tie breaker scenarios.

Either way, for the purpose of this edition, I have UCLA winning out. If UW does, they could switch spots with UCLA in seeds.

[big10volleyballfan]

How is it that Texas ends up as a #7 seed when they have an RPI of 2? Is my interpretation of the project brackets incorrect? Perhaps that is a #7 ranking?