|
Post by huskerrob on Nov 11, 2019 6:54:07 GMT -5
Generally speaking, you are suppose to learn from history. Betting against Nebraska in Nov & Dec is historically a bad move...doing it twice in the same month...silly Of all the predictions possibilities why ignore trends & tendencies? Silly me, I thought Foecke had graduated. so you thought that just a Foecke thing? And yet they are still winning....Kelly Hunter is still around the program, she never lost to Penn St. So maybe it is a Hunter thing?
|
|
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: 12,896
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 11, 2019 7:04:52 GMT -5
Corrected:
1. Baylor, Stephen F. Austin, Washington State, Prairie View A&M 16. Creighton, Missouri, Iowa State, South Dakota
9. Nebraska, Colorado State, Northern Iowa, Northern Colorado 8. Kentucky, Purdue, Wright State, Morehead State
5. Stanford, UCSB, Pepperdine, Albany 12. Hawaii, USC, Georgia, Princeton
13. Texas A&M, Rice, Oklahoma, New Mexico State 4. Wisconsin, UCLA, Notre Dame, Howard
3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Michigan, Robert Morris 14. Penn State, Villanova, Dayton, Towson
11. Marquette, Louisville, Illinois, Miami-OH 6. Washington, Western Kentucky, Ohio State, Winthrop
7. Minnesota, San Diego, South Carolina, Samford 10. Florida, UCF, Florida State, Florida Gulf Coast
15. BYU, Utah, Cal Poly, American 2. Texas, Cal, Texas State, Fairfield
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 11, 2019 7:54:42 GMT -5
bluepenquinI'm not sure what you corrected, but your revised bracket still has a problem. Pittsburgh and Louisville can't be in the same grouping, since both are members of the ACC.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 11, 2019 8:20:08 GMT -5
You and everyone else in the field (rolls eyes) Hmm, Hawaii has been sent to face the same teams almost every year: Washington, Minnesota, Penn State, USC. I don’t mind them being sent to a new territory. Weren't they sent to Texas A&M a few years ago? With 3 host schools likely in Texas this post-season, I could see them being sent back again.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 11, 2019 8:25:13 GMT -5
I'd probably guess the following seeds as of now: a few caveats: Texas beats Baylor again, Stanford wins out (Plummer is back), Utah beats Washington, at least one of USC/UCLA stays in the top 25, Marquette/Creighton split 1-1, Penn State drops both against Minnesota and Wisconsin, Minnesota beats Wisconsin, Nebraska drops both against Minnesota and Wisconsin, Kentucky/Florida/A&M continue to suck and produce split results: 1- Texas 8- Nebraska 9- Florida 16- Utah 2- Baylor 7- Washington 10- Marquette 15- BYU 3- Stanford 6- Minnesota 11- Kentucky 14- Texas A&M 4- Pitt 5- Wisconsin 12- Hawaii 13- Creighton Generally speaking, you are suppose to learn from history. Betting against Nebraska in Nov & Dec is historically a bad move...doing it twice in the same month...silly Of all the predictions possibilities why ignore trends & tendencies? Which trend? Didn't Nebraska lose to to both Wisconsin and Minnesota on the road last year (or was it the year before)?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 11, 2019 10:00:42 GMT -5
bluepenquinWould it be possible (and easy) for you to add a digit to the projected record going forward? When I try to look and see what a team needs to do to exceed expectations, it makes a big difference if their expectation is 23.6 wins or 24.4.
|
|
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: 12,896
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 11, 2019 10:11:02 GMT -5
bluepenquin I'm not sure what you corrected, but your revised bracket still has a problem. Pittsburgh and Louisville can't be in the same grouping, since both are members of the ACC. Yes - that was what was to be corrected. I made the change - but the formula didn't pick up and just repeated the mistake. I have now updated - swaping Louisville and Cincinnati. The challenge with this set up of teams and these 16 seeds, was finding a suitable 2nd team for Pittsburgh (and Penn State) - and Cincy is pretty much it for Pitt. If Michigan were to move up - I could see them being the #2 with Pittsburgh and Cincy being able to land with Marquette or Kentucky. And then with Louisville falling - that also may open up Cincy going to Marquette - but still leaves the issue with Pitt other than Michigan as a #2. Still better than Villanova with PSU.
|
|
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: 12,896
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 11, 2019 10:15:48 GMT -5
bluepenquin Would it be possible (and easy) for you to add a digit to the projected record going forward? When I try to look and see what a team needs to do to exceed expectations, it makes a big difference if their expectation is 23.6 wins or 24.4. I can add this week - either: Wisconsin (21.76 - 6.24) or; Wisconsin (21.8 - 6.2) It looks cleaner if I only use the # of wins - Wisconsin (21.76) - but with some teams having conference tournament matches included and others not included yet - I would need to note the total # of matches. Could go with: Wisconsin - 21.8 (28) Creighton - 24.71 (30)
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 11, 2019 10:17:47 GMT -5
If Penn State wins at Illinois next week (big if IMO), takes care of the easy teams then loses both to Minny and Wisky, they would probably be 2-6 vs RPI top 25 and add another 4 top 50 wins. Wonder if the committee would consider the fact that all of their losses are to likely top 8 seeds. PSU is pretty clearly one of the best 16 teams in the country but man, they got totally screwed by the BiG schedule this year, getting Purdue, Minny, Nebraska and Michigan only once, while getting the only top team that they can’t beat twice. Add to that the fact that Wichita State and Oregon are so unexpectedly embarrassing this year. Not getting seeded wouldn’t be the end of the world though, I can’t imagine they’d be sent to Pitt so they’d probably get an easier host that they’ll be 50/50 favored against. seriously? 9 out of last 10 go to Huskers & you think the only thing missing for Penn St. to prove they are the better team is a 2nd match because it would be a home match for them? IF there is a team Penn St. CAN'T beat...I would think the record stands for itself and that would be Nebraska, for which you would think it is a good thing they only face Huskers 1 time this year. Wisc just dropped one to Ohio St....I would think that is the team you would want a 2nd chance game with...but what do I know You fail to understand the majority of my post. I’m talking about RPI and you want to take it as an attack against the history of the Nebraska program. PSU took almost 50% of the points in an away 3-2 loss at Nebraska and Pablo would have PSU favored at home, making it a match that PSU wishes it had on its schedule. For the top big ten teams, they would actually like to play all the other top squads home and away but the schedule didn’t work out for that this year and they’ve seen their schedules suffer because there hasn’t been a 5th or 6th top 25 squad. Nebraska was also a little screwed by the fact that they only play Minnesota and Penn State once, the difference is that Nebraska’s non conference worked out better because they played very beatable teams who have turned out to have good records.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Nov 11, 2019 11:33:46 GMT -5
I don't care what regional Hawai'i gets, as long as we get to host the 1st and 2nd rd. Seriously, it seems like forever since Hawaii has just gotten past the first round, at this point I don't care who is in our regional, I just want to get there.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 11, 2019 12:13:16 GMT -5
bluepenquin Would it be possible (and easy) for you to add a digit to the projected record going forward? When I try to look and see what a team needs to do to exceed expectations, it makes a big difference if their expectation is 23.6 wins or 24.4. I can add this week - either: Wisconsin (21.76 - 6.24) or; Wisconsin (21.8 - 6.2) It looks cleaner if I only use the # of wins - Wisconsin (21.76) - but with some teams having conference tournament matches included and others not included yet - I would need to note the total # of matches. Could go with: Wisconsin - 21.8 (28) Creighton - 24.71 (30) 21.8 - 6.2 looks best to me, but all of those work!
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 11, 2019 12:27:09 GMT -5
So you use Pablo rankings of opponent wins and losses to compare teams And fail to mention that Wisconsin is number 1 Pablo and Washington number 8 This is fair and is something in Wisconsin's favor. But 'body of work' to me needs to be in terms of wins and losses and not point differential. Pablo is a great measure for determining the quality of the opponent. Pablo likes Kentucky, but then Kentucky needs (should have) won more matches and for that... Interestingly, the Strength or Record rankings I'm playing around with REALLY dislike Wisconsin. To the point where I had to make sure I didn't have an error in their record or schedule. All the way down at #15. And these are Pablo-based. So it's very interesting that Pablo thinks that they're a top team in the country (I'm guessing they'll drop to #3 this week), yet is so unimpressed with their match record.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 11, 2019 12:53:58 GMT -5
This is fair and is something in Wisconsin's favor. But 'body of work' to me needs to be in terms of wins and losses and not point differential. Pablo is a great measure for determining the quality of the opponent. Pablo likes Kentucky, but then Kentucky needs (should have) won more matches and for that... Interestingly, the Strength or Record rankings I'm playing around with REALLY dislike Wisconsin. To the point where I had to make sure I didn't have an error in their record or schedule. All the way down at #15. And these are Pablo-based. So it's very interesting that Pablo thinks that they're a top team in the country (I'm guessing they'll drop to #3 this week), yet is so unimpressed with their match record. Because it doesn’t make sense as as a metric! I’d imagine Stanford looks pretty bad too under this metric. Any team that is really good doesn’t have the benefit of overachieving and will end up losing games that they shouldn’t lose to. This metric rewards teams for beating squads that are deemed better than them to the point that it puts them ahead of teams that are the very ones that are better than them. I’d love to see the top 16 that you’ve calculated, because I imagine it looks even worse than an RPI seeding and would result in lots of quality teams in bad seeding positions. Do people really not want to see the best of the best compete in December? I do. Not the most fortunately accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 11, 2019 13:06:26 GMT -5
Interestingly, the Strength or Record rankings I'm playing around with REALLY dislike Wisconsin. To the point where I had to make sure I didn't have an error in their record or schedule. All the way down at #15. And these are Pablo-based. So it's very interesting that Pablo thinks that they're a top team in the country (I'm guessing they'll drop to #3 this week), yet is so unimpressed with their match record. Because it doesn’t make sense as as a metric! I’d imagine Stanford looks pretty bad too under this metric. Any team that is really good doesn’t have the benefit of overachieving and will end up losing games that they shouldn’t lose to. This metric rewards teams for beating squads that are deemed better than them to the point that it puts them ahead of teams that are the very ones that are better than them. I’d love to see the top 16 that you’ve calculated, because I imagine it looks even worse than an RPI seeding and would result in lots of quality teams in bad seeding positions. Do people really not want to see the best of the best compete in December? I do. Not the most fortunately accomplished. Many years ago, there was a poster here who insisted that the only "good wins" were wins over teams ranked higher than you. It didn't matter if #1 beat #2, that would not be a "good win." It seemed like a silly notion to me. Then again, it wasn't a rationally thought out position, it was a desperate attempt to not give certain teams credit for their accomplishments, and that's the hole they dug for themself.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 11, 2019 13:13:11 GMT -5
people love to bend statistics to try and match their preconceived notions. diminish or disregard any data that contradicts their own biases, and embellish and focus on any data that reinforces them
|
|