|
Post by vbprisoner on Nov 6, 2018 11:28:53 GMT -5
I believe if you took #4 through #11 in VT poll and played an 8 team bracket 4 different times you would get 4 different winners. All 8 of those programs have similar ceilings and it would come down to which team is on that day.
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on Nov 6, 2018 12:25:23 GMT -5
The perception in general is that if a ranked Power 5 school loses to an unranked or lower Power5 school , the unranked school was better than they thought. This is especially true in the BIG. If a ranked Mid major loses at all the are penalized disproportionately. Consider how many unranked schools and lower ranked schools Wisconsin lost to and Pitt lost 1 and Cal Poly lost one.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 6, 2018 12:26:29 GMT -5
Do these voters even pay attention to who actually wins and loses matches? Washington and Arizona are both 7-7 in the Pac 12, Washington is 2-0 vs Arizona, and yet Arizona is about 4 spots ahead of Washington, by about 60 points. That's why I like the AVCA poll better. Hey, wait a second... Not all of us look at just raw numbers. We look at who these teams beat and who they lost too. A LOT of us watch the actual matches and ask questions like, "How are they improving? Are they improving? Was it a competitive match? How would Team A do against Team B in the tournament? Is this loss due to injuries or lack of depth/coaching?" It's not so cut and dry for me. I don't do black and white. I have to analyze tangibles because the teams with the best records don't always end up being the teams to win it all in the end. But you're entitled to like the AVCA Coach's Poll. You're entitled to ignore this weekly thread all together if you're against what it represents. It's not a mandatory click. THE AVCA POLL HONORS TRADITION MUCH MORE THAN THE VTALK POLL, SO TEAMS LIKE UW AND UCLA GET A BUMP. FOR THE COLD HONEST TRUTH YOUR GOTO POLL IS THIS ONE.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 6, 2018 14:07:53 GMT -5
Not all of us look at just raw numbers. We look at who these teams beat and who they lost too. A LOT of us watch the actual matches and ask questions like, "How are they improving? Are they improving? Was it a competitive match? How would Team A do against Team B in the tournament? Is this loss due to injuries or lack of depth/coaching?" It's not so cut and dry for me. I don't do black and white. I have to analyze tangibles because the teams with the best records don't always end up being the teams to win it all in the end. But you're entitled to like the AVCA Coach's Poll. You're entitled to ignore this weekly thread all together if you're against what it represents. It's not a mandatory click. THE AVCA POLL HONORS TRADITION MUCH MORE THAN THE VTALK POLL, SO TEAMS LIKE UW AND UCLA GET A BUMP. FOR THE COLD HONEST TRUTH YOUR GOTO POLL IS THIS ONE. Wow, hammer with the all caps. Election day has got you pumped up, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Nov 6, 2018 14:17:43 GMT -5
The perception in general is that if a ranked Power 5 school loses to an unranked or lower Power5 school , the unranked school was better than they thought. This is especially true in the BIG. If a ranked Mid major loses at all the are penalized disproportionately. Consider how many unranked schools and lower ranked schools Wisconsin lost to and Pitt lost 1 and Cal Poly lost one. This isn't a "perception." It's a system that also values big wins. Sure, Wisconsin lost to Iowa. They've also beat Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, and Purdue. Pitt has wins over Washington and Cal Poly. Cal Poly's only significant win is UCLA (x2). Both lost to bubble teams and when you don't have as much weight on the "big win" side of the equation to balance out your "embarrassing losses," of course you're going to slide further than a team that has proven it can beat Top 10 teams.
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on Nov 6, 2018 14:48:26 GMT -5
The perception in general is that if a ranked Power 5 school loses to an unranked or lower Power5 school , the unranked school was better than they thought. This is especially true in the BIG. If a ranked Mid major loses at all the are penalized disproportionately. Consider how many unranked schools and lower ranked schools Wisconsin lost to and Pitt lost 1 and Cal Poly lost one. This isn't a "perception." It's a system that also values big wins. Sure, Wisconsin lost to Iowa. They've also beat Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, and Purdue. Pitt has wins over Washington and Cal Poly. Cal Poly's only significant win is UCLA (x2). Both lost to bubble teams and when you don't have as much weight on the "big win" side of the equation to balance out your "embarrassing losses," of course you're going to slide further than a team that has proven it can beat Top 10 teams. Beating those teams got them into the top ten....losing to the unranked should penalize the same as it does to the Pitts and Cal Polys of the world.....5-7spots
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Nov 6, 2018 14:52:02 GMT -5
The perception in general is that if a ranked Power 5 school loses to an unranked or lower Power5 school , the unranked school was better than they thought. This is especially true in the BIG. If a ranked Mid major loses at all the are penalized disproportionately. Consider how many unranked schools and lower ranked schools Wisconsin lost to and Pitt lost 1 and Cal Poly lost one. This isn't a "perception." It's a system that also values big wins. Sure, Wisconsin lost to Iowa. They've also beat Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, and Purdue. Pitt has wins over Washington and Cal Poly. Cal Poly's only significant win is UCLA (x2). Both lost to bubble teams and when you don't have as much weight on the "big win" side of the equation to balance out your "embarrassing losses," of course you're going to slide further than a team that has proven it can beat Top 10 teams. Beat me to it. I would also add the Marquette win which gives Wisconsin two Top-20 wins out of conference for a team that plays in the conference with the most elite teams. Wisconsin played five teams that are currently receiving votes during the out of conference season. Pitt played four if you stretch the definition to "receiving a vote" to include Oklahoma and Pepperdine. Cal Poly is basically the same story. I'd love to reward those teams, but I need a basis of something to reward beyond they've only lost <x> times while <insert B1G or Pac-12 team> has lost <x+y> times.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Nov 6, 2018 14:53:27 GMT -5
I believe if you took #4 through #11 in VT poll and played an 8 team bracket 4 different times you would get 4 different winners. All 8 of those programs have similar ceilings and it would come down to which team is on that day. Add BYU to that list. They aren't any better than those teams...just had a great night at home against Stanford early.
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Nov 6, 2018 15:05:17 GMT -5
This isn't a "perception." It's a system that also values big wins. Sure, Wisconsin lost to Iowa. They've also beat Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, and Purdue. Pitt has wins over Washington and Cal Poly. Cal Poly's only significant win is UCLA (x2). Both lost to bubble teams and when you don't have as much weight on the "big win" side of the equation to balance out your "embarrassing losses," of course you're going to slide further than a team that has proven it can beat Top 10 teams. Beating those teams got them into the top ten....losing to the unranked should penalize the same as it does to the Pitts and Cal Polys of the world.....5-7spots If beating those teams got Wisconsin into the top ten, then "being undefeated" got Pitt into the top ten. "Undefeated" is an easy label to lose, three wins against top ten competition is a lot harder to erase.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Nov 6, 2018 15:21:30 GMT -5
Beating those teams got them into the top ten....losing to the unranked should penalize the same as it does to the Pitts and Cal Polys of the world.....5-7spots If beating those teams got Wisconsin into the top ten, then "being undefeated" got Pitt into the top ten. "Undefeated" is an easy label to lose, three wins against top ten competition is a lot harder to erase. I would also add that a "cause-and-effect" view of the rankings is dangerous. I.e. I beat a team ranked higher than me, I move up X spots, I lose to a team lower than me, I move down Y spots. It's naturally self-defeating. 642fiddi , the simplest way I can explain it is using pictures. The top squares are the Pittsburghs and Cal Polys of the NCAA world. The bottom squares are the Wisconsins. Both have 1 yellow square (a loss to an unranked team) and red squares (wins against ranked teams). However, in the top squares, that yellow square is much much much more significant, because there's a lot less individual red squares. That's why Pitt/Cal Poly fall further - their yellow square losses take up a larger % of their overall resume.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Nov 6, 2018 15:22:25 GMT -5
^holy %*$# I'm bored
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 6, 2018 16:57:05 GMT -5
If beating those teams got Wisconsin into the top ten, then "being undefeated" got Pitt into the top ten. "Undefeated" is an easy label to lose, three wins against top ten competition is a lot harder to erase. I would also add that a "cause-and-effect" view of the rankings is dangerous. I.e. I beat a team ranked higher than me, I move up X spots, I lose to a team lower than me, I move down Y spots. It's naturally self-defeating. 642fiddi , the simplest way I can explain it is using pictures. The top squares are the Pittsburghs and Cal Polys of the NCAA world. The bottom squares are the Wisconsins. Both have 1 yellow square (a loss to an unranked team) and red squares (wins against ranked teams). However, in the top squares, that yellow square is much much much more significant, because there's a lot less individual red squares. That's why Pitt/Cal Poly fall further - their yellow square losses take up a larger % of their overall resume. What kind of grad school are you applying to? This post is freaking awesome!
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Nov 6, 2018 18:25:04 GMT -5
I believe if you took #4 through #11 in VT poll and played an 8 team bracket 4 different times you would get 4 different winners. All 8 of those programs have similar ceilings and it would come down to which team is on that day. Add BYU to that list. They aren't any better than those teams...just had a great night at home against Stanford early. I sorta want a scenario where BYU beats Stanford in the tourney, natty match or otherwise, just because it would be the biggest “eat your volleytalk words” moment ever for most people on here haha.
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Nov 6, 2018 18:34:55 GMT -5
I believe if you took #4 through #11 in VT poll and played an 8 team bracket 4 different times you would get 4 different winners. All 8 of those programs have similar ceilings and it would come down to which team is on that day. Add BYU to that list. They aren't any better than those teams...just had a great night at home against Stanford early. Yawn. Same old, same old. BYU has won 18 of their 23 matches by sweeps. Only went 5 once, against Stanford, and won. Only dropped a set to Duke, Marquette, San Diego and San Diego. Night after night, they've had to be on their game against every team trying to knock off #1. They haven't had the kind of wild swings that Wisconsin has had. They have to have "a great night" every match they play. If they had lost to Stanford, it would be a different conversation. But so far, they are the only team in the country to have beaten Stanford, though Colorado came mighty close.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 6, 2018 18:38:05 GMT -5
Agreed. Have to give props to BYU. They are very deserving of Top-4 seed, and are playing like they belong in Final 4. They are definitely one of the few teams that could take it all.
|
|