|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 17, 2017 15:30:31 GMT -5
Great discussion. Last season, the committee seemed to put more weight on RPI than conference championships; that was the first time they have done that, if my memory is correct. So, Stanford and Texas were the beneficiaries above Washington and Kansas, respectively. Who's to say this year's committee will do the same thing? I actually do; I think a precedent was set and they will follow it again this year. While a conference championship is great, if you don't play a strong non-conference schedule, then you should not be rewarded over teams who did. I agree that only 7 teams are in position to make a case for a Top 4 national seed at the moment. It will come down to who wins out, and who suffers a loss or two down the stretch. Not sure of the breakdown the committee uses: wins against Top 5 RPI ,Top 10 RPI, Top 15, Top 25 RPI, Top 50 RPI, etc. Different schools can make different arguments depending on the metric. I think we'd have to get more of the historic tournament resume data to make that determination. It may just be that the conference champion usually always had the better rpi. Stanford over UW pretty clearly came down to H2H and big wins. UW's resume was very thin at the top end, while Stanford had UW x2 plus Minnesota and several others. I'm still not 100% convinced Kansas wouldn't have been #4 if their facility was available, but Texas and Kansas did split, Texas did have 2 more T25 wins, and Kansas scheduled atrociously OOC. |
|
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: 13,308 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 17, 2017 15:41:24 GMT -5
I think we'd have to get more of the historic tournament resume data to make that determination. It may just be that the conference champion usually always had the better rpi. Stanford over UW pretty clearly came down to H2H and big wins. UW's resume was very thin at the top end, while Stanford had UW x2 plus Minnesota and several others. I'm still not 100% convinced Kansas wouldn't have been #4 if their facility was available, but Texas and Kansas did split, Texas did have 2 more T25 wins, and Kansas scheduled atrociously OOC. Yes - I don't think we can rely on just what the committee did last year as it related to conference championships. Kansas spilt with Texas H2H, but won fewer sets. The RPI in terms of rank was close (Texas #4 and Kansas was somewhere around #5), but the real difference in RPI was rather large. If memory serves - Kansas was closer to #16 than they were to #4. The committee specifically commented on Kansas OOC RPI (which is a dumb metric) as being a difference. Essentially, the only thing Kansas had over Texas last year was the conference championship.
The facility is interesting - from what I understand through the press - Kansas submitted a bid to host a regional, but the qualifications from Kansas attached with the bid probably made it not possible for the NCAA to accept. Publically, Kansas said they received no feedback on their bid from the NCAA... The NCAA could have been 'cute' and given Kansas the #4 seed, but Texas host. Or they could have decided not to take a position on Kansas's unusual bid requirements. I kind of think they chose Texas ahead of Kansas w/o consideration for facility.
|
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Oct 17, 2017 15:45:26 GMT -5
I think we'd have to get more of the historic tournament resume data to make that determination. It may just be that the conference champion usually always had the better rpi. Stanford over UW pretty clearly came down to H2H and big wins. UW's resume was very thin at the top end, while Stanford had UW x2 plus Minnesota and several others. I'm still not 100% convinced Kansas wouldn't have been #4 if their facility was available, but Texas and Kansas did split, Texas did have 2 more T25 wins, and Kansas scheduled atrociously OOC. I'm not sure where it fits in the discussion, but it also can't hurt that the way the committee seeded them was vindicated. KU wasn't able to get out of their sub regional while serving as a host (that's not an attack, that match against Creighton was outstanding - KU just fell short that day), and Stanford ended up being the only team to end a regional host's bid to the Final Four. And then both teams ended up in the national championship after finishing off two more B1G representatives. The way it worked out, even if KU had been the #4 seed and Texas was #5, Texas would have been the regional host. If it had gone the other way - KU ended up losing in the regional final to Texas while playing in Austin, or beating Texas on their home gym, or Washington ended up winning the national championship after beating Nebraska in Lincoln, while Stanford fell to the Badgers in Madison - then it might cause the committee to rethink their approach. It's all speculation, but that would be a part of my approach in their shoes. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 17, 2017 15:48:50 GMT -5
Stanford over UW pretty clearly came down to H2H and big wins. UW's resume was very thin at the top end, while Stanford had UW x2 plus Minnesota and several others. I'm still not 100% convinced Kansas wouldn't have been #4 if their facility was available, but Texas and Kansas did split, Texas did have 2 more T25 wins, and Kansas scheduled atrociously OOC. Yes - I don't think we can rely on just what the committee did last year as it related to conference championships. Kansas spilt with Texas H2H, but won fewer sets. The RPI in terms of rank was close (Texas #4 and Kansas was somewhere around #5), but the real difference in RPI was rather large. If memory serves - Kansas was closer to #16 than they were to #4. The committee specifically commented on Kansas OOC RPI (which is a dumb metric) as being a difference. Essentially, the only thing Kansas had over Texas last year was the conference championship.
The facility is interesting - from what I understand through the press - Kansas submitted a bid to host a regional, but the qualifications from Kansas attached with the bid probably made it not possible for the NCAA to accept. Publically, Kansas said they received no feedback on their bid from the NCAA... The NCAA could have been 'cute' and given Kansas the #4 seed, but Texas host. Or they could have decided not to take a position on Kansas's unusual bid requirements. I kind of think they chose Texas ahead of Kansas w/o consideration for facility.
Yes but there was an odd quote for a Committee member regarding "being able to host" being an important consideration. I remember because it was so weird and jumped out at me. I'm not saying it's 100% certain Texas wouldn't have gotten the 4. The OOC always seemed pretextual to me - it surely didn't make a difference for Penn St., who had an even worse OOC RPI but got a 10-spot boost in seeding (though I've shared my thoughts on that pretty widely). |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 17, 2017 16:05:43 GMT -5
No conference tournament for Wichita in the American. And because of that, outside of Conference USA, no chance of bid thieves this year, which means the tournament will be heavily tilted toward the P5 and upper mid-major conferences that traditionally get multiple bids. No chance, eh? Creighton and Marquette both looked VERY vulnerable to BE tourney upsets this past weekend... |
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Oct 17, 2017 20:43:10 GMT -5
This is my favorite thread other than the Jobs Thread every year. You do such great work here. Thanks. I agree. Tremendous work. But the RPI is not the only measuring stick the committee looks at: There is also Pablo: Pablo Ranking for Week of Oct 16 Rank School Points 1 Penn State 7860 2 Stanford 7710 3 Nebraska 7680 4 Minnesota 7540 5 Texas 7465 6 Wisconsin 7370 7 Michigan State 7225 8 Florida 7170 9 UCLA 7095 10 Washington 7070 11 Kentucky 7060 12 BYU 7020 13 Cal Poly 6985 14 Utah 6970 15 Oregon 6955 16 Illinois 6885 17 Baylor 6850 18 San Diego 6830 19 Western Kentucky 6780 20 USC 6760 21 Purdue 6755 22 Wichita State 6745 23 Oregon State 6730 24 Kansas 6725 25 Creighton 6665 26 Marquette 6640 27 Louisville 6545 28 Iowa State 6535 29 Colorado 6530 30 Pittsburgh 6505 31 Michigan 6360 32 Iowa 6345 33 NC State 6320 34 Hawaii 6310 34 Notre Dame 6310 36 Colorado State 6300 37 Missouri State 6295 38 Washington State 6275 39 Ohio State 6240 40 Northern Iowa 6205 |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 17, 2017 20:51:30 GMT -5
This is my favorite thread other than the Jobs Thread every year. You do such great work here. Thanks. I agree. Tremendous work. But the RPI is not the only measuring stick the committee looks at: There is also Pablo: Pablo Ranking for Week of Oct 16 What evidence do you have indicating the committee has ever actually used Pablo in making decisions about the field, seeds, etc.? |
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Oct 17, 2017 21:18:17 GMT -5
Other than conversations with members of the committee?
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 17, 2017 21:46:05 GMT -5
Other than conversations with members of the committee? I hope The Bofa on the Sofa sees this and offers his perspective. |
|
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: 31,631
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 17, 2017 23:23:29 GMT -5
Other than conversations with members of the committee? I hope The Bofa on the Sofa sees this and offers his perspective. I've never taken Pablo into consideration. And i've missed just twice on at-large bids in 5 years of doing this. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 17, 2017 23:30:38 GMT -5
The Big West sure would like Pablo to be taken in to consideration
RPI sucks, especially when it gets misused twice when they double down and use it for the quality W-L as well (that's the worst part)
Poly might have a legit shot at hosting if they win out, IF the committee takes a hard look at them playing the entire non-conference on the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Oct 17, 2017 23:52:48 GMT -5
Pablo considers where matches were played: at home or on the road. RPI for vb does not. RPI only considers wins or loses. 3-0 is the same as 3-2. It is not a very good tool IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 17, 2017 23:59:41 GMT -5
Pablo considers where matches were played: at home or on the road. RPI for vb does not. which leads to the 3rd strike against RPI 1) RPI is flawed 2) RPI flaws compounded by then using them for quality W-L records - this really penalizes the west 3) not considering Home-Loss factor unbelievable advantage for BCS schools who make it tough to schedule them at mid-majors - but that's the NCAA for you |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 18, 2017 0:05:15 GMT -5
Pablo considers where matches were played: at home or on the road. RPI for vb does not. which leads to the 3rd strike against RPI 1) RPI is flawed 2) RPI flaws compounded by then using them for quality W-L records - this really penalizes the west 3) not considering Home-Loss factor unbelievable advantage for BCS schools who make it tough to schedule them at mid-majors - but that's the NCAA for you Regardless of the role of RPI, what difference does it make in the NCAA tournament. Does anyone think that Cal Poly is remotely close to being a Final Four team? |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 18, 2017 0:09:52 GMT -5
which leads to the 3rd strike against RPI 1) RPI is flawed 2) RPI flaws compounded by then using them for quality W-L records - this really penalizes the west 3) not considering Home-Loss factor unbelievable advantage for BCS schools who make it tough to schedule them at mid-majors - but that's the NCAA for you Regardless of the role of RPI, what difference does it make in the NCAA tournament. Does anyone think that Cal Poly is remotely close to being a Final Four team? uh, Pablo has them #12, which makes them a realistic final 8 team, so it's not likely, but can't dismiss it either they have weaknesses, but they also create some match-up issues for their opponents |
|
