bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,559
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 17, 2016 22:16:03 GMT -5
You have San Diego projected for 25-3 but they'll be playing 29 matches. What happened there? Manual keypunch error - should be 25-4. I copy and paste the calculated record which was 25.28792 wins and 3.712085 losses. I then manually sort and hard code the wins and losses so that I can upload here otherwise it would look something like: 6. (11) San Diego (25.2879150000001-3.71208499999986) - 40 I then have a check to make sure my wins and losses add up - but forgot to look at this tonight, thus the error. No impact on the rank.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 17, 2016 22:23:49 GMT -5
You have San Diego projected for 25-3 but they'll be playing 29 matches. What happened there? Manual keypunch error - should be 25-4. I copy and paste the calculated record which was 25.28792 wins and 3.712085 losses. I then manually sort and hard code the wins and losses so that I can upload here otherwise it would look something like: 6. (11) San Diego (25.2879150000001-3.71208499999986) - 40 I then have a check to make sure my wins and losses add up - but forgot to look at this tonight, thus the error. No impact on the rank. I recommend using the ROUND() function.
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Oct 18, 2016 11:33:48 GMT -5
RPI Futures is a season ending projected RPI ranking based on the win probability of each scheduled future match using the Pablo rating. RPI Future Rank. (Last Week Rank) Team (Projected Wins - Losses) - RPI SOS 1. (1) Wisconsin (23-6) - 2 2. (2) Nebraska (26-3) - 8 3. (3) Texas (22-4) - 3 ... My own list based off this is coming along nicely. I started with the week 6 (10/2) list, took the top 50, alphabetized it. Then adding to it each week new ones to get within 50. With week 7 (10/9) I added 3: Cal Poly Cleveland State Hofstra With week 8 (10/16), only 1 new one to add: Northern Iowa Here's my current top 50+ (54) Arizona Baylor Boise State BYU Cal Poly Cincinnati Cleveland State Coastal Carolina Colorado Colorado State Creighton Dayton Florida Florida State Georgia Tech Hawaii Hofstra Illinois Iowa State Kansas Kansas State Kentucky Loyola Marymount Marquette Miami-OH Michigan Michigan State Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Carolina Northern Iowa Notre Dame Ohio State Oregon Penn State Pittsburgh Purdue San Diego SMU Stanford TCU Texas Texas A&M Tulsa UCLA UNLV USC Utah Washington Washington State Western Kentucky Wichita State Wisconsin I still keep the 2 short lists separate, even though they're already merged in, as I need to know they were added (and when) and not in the original set of 50. It funny; I wanted to have estimate of final 64, then came to see I might ought to be interested in final 32. Depending on how it grows each week, it may end up closer to the 64. But I am aware that AQs can totally throu it off. It's interesting to me to notice that most top 50 members float around WITHIN the top 50. I guess that's merely a small part of the idea that most teams float around wherever they are, barring some radical change for the better or the worse.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Oct 18, 2016 21:14:45 GMT -5
It will be very interesting how the committee evaluates the top 4 this year. I can't imagine a 6 loss team earning a seed even with a higher strength of schedule. The teams on the outside looking in are Florida and San Diego who are projected with so few losses that I can go see why they wouldn't get it. Not to mention Stanford who if they can right the ship and finish with less than 6 losses has the SOS to possibly steal a top 4 seed and have a win over Minnesota, who seems to be the last of the four.
It is so important this season to secure one of those top 4 because then you host your regional making the path to the Final Four jut a little easier. HCA will be huge this year with so little seperating teams.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 18, 2016 21:33:16 GMT -5
It will be very interesting how the committee evaluates the top 4 this year. I can't imagine a 6 loss team earning a seed even with a higher strength of schedule. The teams on the outside looking in are Florida and San Diego who are projected with so few losses that I can go see why they wouldn't get it. Not to mention Stanford who if they can right the ship and finish with less than 6 losses has the SOS to possibly steal a top 4 seed and have a win over Minnesota, who seems to be the last of the four. It is so important this season to secure one of those top 4 because then you host your regional making the path to the Final Four jut a little easier. HCA will be huge this year with so little seperating teams. We'll also never REALLY know the answer but I bet there's pressure to give a West coast team a top four seed. With no Pac-12 team separating themselves atop the conference, it really opens up the door for San Diego if they can finish strong. There's always an 11pm (or 1130?) Eastern regional final scheduled on ESPNU. It wouldn't be ideal to have that be in Texas, Nebraska or Minnesota.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,559
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 18, 2016 22:02:06 GMT -5
It will be very interesting how the committee evaluates the top 4 this year. I can't imagine a 6 loss team earning a seed even with a higher strength of schedule. The teams on the outside looking in are Florida and San Diego who are projected with so few losses that I can go see why they wouldn't get it. Not to mention Stanford who if they can right the ship and finish with less than 6 losses has the SOS to possibly steal a top 4 seed and have a win over Minnesota, who seems to be the last of the four. It is so important this season to secure one of those top 4 because then you host your regional making the path to the Final Four jut a little easier. HCA will be huge this year with so little seperating teams. We'll also never REALLY know the answer but I bet there's pressure to give a West coast team a top four seed. With no Pac-12 team separating themselves atop the conference, it really opens up the door for San Diego if they can finish strong. There's always an 11pm (or 1130?) Eastern regional final scheduled on ESPNU. It wouldn't be ideal to have that be in Texas, Nebraska or Minnesota. I guess we could know this year if the highest RPI western team is #7 or 8 this year and they get a top 4 seed. The two things I think I know about: 1) The committee has never looked at geography when setting the seeds 2) The committee has never had to deal with selecting regional hosts from their seeding. I think this will be the year when we find out if #1 is impacted by #2.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 18, 2016 22:36:38 GMT -5
We'll also never REALLY know the answer but I bet there's pressure to give a West coast team a top four seed. With no Pac-12 team separating themselves atop the conference, it really opens up the door for San Diego if they can finish strong. There's always an 11pm (or 1130?) Eastern regional final scheduled on ESPNU. It wouldn't be ideal to have that be in Texas, Nebraska or Minnesota. I guess we could know this year if the highest RPI western team is #7 or 8 this year and they get a top 4 seed. The two things I think I know about: 1) The committee has never looked at geography when setting the seeds 2) The committee has never had to deal with selecting regional hosts from their seeding. I think this will be the year when we find out if #1 is impacted by #2. I do think the committee has looked at geography before. Or at least, conference alignment. They do seem to give some weighting to winning a major conference.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoach06 on Oct 19, 2016 1:18:02 GMT -5
Anyone interested in listing the biggest jumps in RPI this season?? Would be interesting to see what programs have made the biggest jumps. UNLV finished last season at 157 and currently sits at 17.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,559
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 19, 2016 9:15:57 GMT -5
I guess we could know this year if the highest RPI western team is #7 or 8 this year and they get a top 4 seed. The two things I think I know about: 1) The committee has never looked at geography when setting the seeds 2) The committee has never had to deal with selecting regional hosts from their seeding. I think this will be the year when we find out if #1 is impacted by #2. I do think the committee has looked at geography before. Or at least, conference alignment. They do seem to give some weighting to winning a major conference. My history only goes back about 5 years - so it is a short sample and is missing a large history of the sport. From the 5 years as I can tell - geography has not had an impact other than determining the top teams regional or when regional host team was involved. Conference placing does matter - as I think they look at more than just RPI in terms of how they define team quality (not geography). There is a general preference to the Big Ten and Pac because those conferences are tougher and winning those conferences is generally going to produce more Top 25 and Top 50 wins than winners of other conferences. Just my theory.
I don't have access to the exact RPI prior to the tournament selection (which would be very helpful), but from what I remember;
2015: Geography was not an issue as USC, Minnesota, and Texas were the top 3 in RPI and the top 3 seeds. I believe Nebraska was the #4 RPI - and I think/assume they had them as the #4 team. Washington was seeded ahead of Florida and Texas A&M despite an inferior RPI - but I think there were other factors that led to that decision. Really nothing much to tell from this one as the top 4 teams were the top 4 in RPI and it was reasonably geographically balanced.
2014: Stanford, Texas, Washington, and Florida State were the top 4 RPI. Wisconsin won the Big Ten and Penn State was a little farther down in the RPI but was subjectively considered one of the best teams in the country. The committee seeded both Wisconsin (#4) and Penn State (#5) ahead of Florida State (#6). I don't see this having anything to do with geography - as Florida State would have been more geographically balanced than Wisconsin (in terms of time zones). I think the committee felt Wisconsin and Penn State were better than Florida State based on volleyball factors other than just RPI and nothing to do with geography.
2013: I am pretty sure Texas and Penn State were #1 and 2 in RPI and were also seeded 1 and 2. Washington, Missouri, and Florida were the next three. Missouri was undefeated, won the SEC and beat Florida twice - and I cannot remember if Florida was still ahead of Missouri in RPI. Anyway - Missouri was the #4 seed and Florida #5. USC and Stanford were the 6th and 7th seeds. I think a lot of people feel geography was a part of this seeding decision - but I don't see it. I don't think there was a compelling reason in the committees view to seed USC or Stanford ahead of ahead of Missouri that year. Still, this may be one where there is some suspicion for geography mattering?
2012: The top 4 RPI teams were Penn State, Stanford, Texas, and Nebraska and this is how the committee seeded them. Already geographically balanced, so this doesn't tell us much.
2011: I didn't really follow this section (before my time) - but this is one where no western team was seeded in the top 4. I believe the top 4 RPI's were the same as the top 4 seeds: Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, and Iowa State (very little geographical balance). USC was the highest PAC seed at #7 and UCLA at #9. This must have been a really controversial bracket? Iowa State was a #4 seed, Northern Iowa was #6. Purdue #5 (all 6 in the Midwest). Anyway - seems like if geography was going to be a factor, the committee would have found a way for a PAC team to be seeded #4 this year, but they didn't.
I really believe (at least in my 5 year history of following) that the committee places their seeds in the exact order they rank the teams. RPI is the biggest factor, but they also look at other volleyball inputs (and not geography or conference balance). Exception being regional host teams back when regional hosts were pre-determined.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Oct 19, 2016 9:29:52 GMT -5
Anyone confirm whether Florida has the facility to host a regional? Granted, they can still receive a Top 4 national seed, but am curious to know if their interim facility meets the seating capacity and media requirements to host a regional.
Would be very interesting if UF does manage a Top 4 seed, but is unable to host. That would mean the next highest team in that part of bracket to advance past the first weekend of the tourney would be in line to host the regional; committee could tweak things a bit to maybe place a regional in a time zone which ESPNU would like . . .
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 19, 2016 11:07:43 GMT -5
Anyone confirm whether Florida has the facility to host a regional? Granted, they can still receive a Top 4 national seed, but am curious to know if their interim facility meets the seating capacity and media requirements to host a regional. Would be very interesting if UF does manage a Top 4 seed, but is unable to host. That would mean the next highest team in that part of bracket to advance past the first weekend of the tourney would be in line to host the regional; committee could tweak things a bit to maybe place a regional in a time zone which ESPNU would like . . . Florida's basketball teams are playing some December games in Jacksonville and Tampa. I'd think that if the volleyball program wanted to submit those venues as their host facility, the NCAA would be fine with it. The question is if the school wants to pay to rent those facilities.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Oct 19, 2016 12:20:45 GMT -5
Anyone confirm whether Florida has the facility to host a regional? Granted, they can still receive a Top 4 national seed, but am curious to know if their interim facility meets the seating capacity and media requirements to host a regional. Would be very interesting if UF does manage a Top 4 seed, but is unable to host. That would mean the next highest team in that part of bracket to advance past the first weekend of the tourney would be in line to host the regional; committee could tweak things a bit to maybe place a regional in a time zone which ESPNU would like . . . Florida's basketball teams are playing some December games in Jacksonville and Tampa. I'd think that if the volleyball program wanted to submit those venues as their host facility, the NCAA would be fine with it. The question is if the school wants to pay to rent those facilities. I guess that could be an option (if NCAA will allow off campus venues to host); but, can't imagine UF would pay for those facilities (assuming they aren't already hosting events that weekend). Seems complicated.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 19, 2016 12:40:03 GMT -5
We'll also never REALLY know the answer but I bet there's pressure to give a West coast team a top four seed. With no Pac-12 team separating themselves atop the conference, it really opens up the door for San Diego if they can finish strong. There's always an 11pm (or 1130?) Eastern regional final scheduled on ESPNU. It wouldn't be ideal to have that be in Texas, Nebraska or Minnesota. One Pac-12 team has separated itself, slightly - Washington. If that gap widens significantly, it'll be an interesting choice.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 19, 2016 13:17:47 GMT -5
We'll also never REALLY know the answer but I bet there's pressure to give a West coast team a top four seed. With no Pac-12 team separating themselves atop the conference, it really opens up the door for San Diego if they can finish strong. There's always an 11pm (or 1130?) Eastern regional final scheduled on ESPNU. It wouldn't be ideal to have that be in Texas, Nebraska or Minnesota. One Pac-12 team has separated itself, slightly - Washington. If that gap widens significantly, it'll be an interesting choice. 6-2 versus 5-3 is not very significant, especially given that they lost at home to two of the 5-3 teams that they will still have to play on the road.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 19, 2016 14:17:20 GMT -5
One Pac-12 team has separated itself, slightly - Washington. If that gap widens significantly, it'll be an interesting choice. 6-2 versus 5-3 is not very significant, especially given that they lost at home to two of the 5-3 teams that they will still have to play on the road. I said "slightly" and "If" - right now, they aren't the same team that lost at home to the Tree and Wazzu. They are now leading the Pac-12 in hitting percentage for conference-only matches, for instance. Not saying they will finish with only one more loss, which is what would be needed, I think, to be in the Regional Host conversation, but I also think it is premature to say they can't do it.
|
|