Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2019 15:24:38 GMT -5
Always interesting to watch movements in RPI Futures as results come in. Biggest movers in the RPI Futures Top 25 to start the week (it wasn't what I would have expected). Nebraska dropped 6 spots and Washington, Marquette, and UCLA dropped 3. Kentucky gained 4 spots, and Florida, Texas A&M, Minnesota, and Rice gained 2 spots. Noticeably absent in rank movement - Wisconsin and Creighton. Wisconsin and Creighton lose to below average teams, but don't drop in RPI Futures. Nebraska drops 6 spots because of it despite not playing. Kentucky moves up 4 spots past Nebraska, Washington and Marquette despite 6 losses. Sounds about right. We're a couple more upsets away from Kentucky getting a Top 4 seed with 6 or 7 losses!
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 9, 2019 16:10:52 GMT -5
Always interesting to watch movements in RPI Futures as results come in. Biggest movers in the RPI Futures Top 25 to start the week (it wasn't what I would have expected). Nebraska dropped 6 spots and Washington, Marquette, and UCLA dropped 3. Kentucky gained 4 spots, and Florida, Texas A&M, Minnesota, and Rice gained 2 spots. Noticeably absent in rank movement - Wisconsin and Creighton. Wisconsin and Creighton lose to below average teams, but don't drop in RPI Futures. Nebraska drops 6 spots because of it despite not playing. Kentucky moves up 4 spots past Nebraska, Washington and Marquette despite 6 losses. Sounds about right. We're a couple more upsets away from Kentucky getting a Top 4 seed with 6 or 7 losses! As I mentioned earlier in this thread, if you look at the actual RPI futures numbers (not ranking) from the beginning of this week, you would that the difference is extremely marginal between 6 (Nebraska) and 13 (Rice). To contextualize, the difference between 5 and 6 was nearly three times as large as the difference 6 and 13. So all of those huge fluctuations in ranking that Blue points out happened between 6 and 14 and probably are just marginal shifts in the numbers, though I haven’t seen the updated numbers of course. By the end of the weekend all of those teams could easily shift around some more and will keep shifting until seasons end. But the point difference between 5 and 6 is really too large for most of those teams to make up even if they win out (the exceptions I imagine would be Washington, Nebraska, and Minnota), so you don’t have to worry about a team like Kentucky getting seeded unless we see massive collapses from two or more of the top 5.
|
|
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: 12,903
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 9, 2019 16:27:36 GMT -5
What's the highest RPI Florida can achieve if they win out? Can I ask nicely for a simulation too? Going into the week - 57 out of 1000 times they won out and this was the result (pretty small sample size). 2nd - 3 (5.3%) 3rd - 9 (15.8%) 4th - 14 (24.6%) 5th - 22 (38.6%) 6th - 7 (12.3%) 7th - 1 (1.8%) 8th - (1.8%)
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 9, 2019 16:35:24 GMT -5
so you don’t have to worry about a team like Kentucky getting seeded unless we see massive collapses from two or more of the top 5. There are 16 seeds. You don't think Kentucky will be one of those 16?
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 9, 2019 16:36:33 GMT -5
so you don’t have to worry about a team like Kentucky getting seeded unless we see massive collapses from two or more of the top 5. There are 16 seeds. You don't think Kentucky will be one of those 16? Sorry, meant regional host.
|
|
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: 12,903
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 9, 2019 16:47:12 GMT -5
So, blue, what does OSU have to do to get on the right side of the bubble? I assume their new futures numbers predict a 16-16 finish, so what would 17-15 do for their RPI? 17-15 would involve another upset either at home against Minnesota or Illinois or away against Nebraska or Purdue. They’d also have to take care of their other three matches (NW, Iowa, Indiana). If they do pull off another upset is that enough? Maybe it needs to be against a top 25 team? Going into the week - 17 wins (44 out of 1000): 43rd - 1 (2.3%) 44th - 1 (2.3%) 45th - 6 (13.6%) 46th - 7 (15.9%) 47th - 9 (20.5%) 48th - 7 (15.9%) 49th - 5 (11.4%) 50th - 4 (9.1%) 51st - 2 (4.5%) 52nd - 2 (4.5%) 16 wins (169 out of 1000): 47th - 3 (1.8%) 48th - 1 (0.6%) 49th - 7 (4.1%) 50th - 8 (4.7%) 51st - 11 (6.5%) 52nd - 13 (7.7%) 53rd - 21 (12.4%) 54th - 24 (14.2%) 55th - 18 (10.7%) 56th - 18 (10.7%) 57th - 18 (10.7%) 58th - 7 (4.1%) 59th - 12 (7.1%) 60th - 3 (1.8%) 61st - 2 (1.2%) 62nd - 2 (1.2%) 63rd - 1 (0.6%)
|
|
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: 12,903
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 10, 2019 7:48:22 GMT -5
This isn't RPI related - probably doesn't belong here, but...
Washington (18-5) vs. Wisconsin (17-5)
Washington wins against Pablo rank: 1,1,2,16,17,20,21,21,37,38,38,46,48,59,61,77,101,230 Wisconsin wins against Pablo rank: 5,7,8,20,25,29,38,45,51,64,65,65,70,70,79,79,96
You have to get to win #17 Clemson beating #96 vs. Washington beating #101 before you get a better win by Wisconsin matched up against Washington.
Washington losses: 13,15,22,22,34 Wisconsin losses: 4,9,9,18,54
The big difference between the two before this week was Washington had worse losses - but that gap has closed and Wisconsin now has the worst overall loss.
In terms of wins and losses - and schedule against Pablo rank, I think Washington is clearly more deserving in terms of who has had the better body of work for the year. And that is before considering a H2H 2 game sweep by Washington. Just saying...
|
|
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: 12,903
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 10, 2019 7:58:47 GMT -5
Back to RPI Futures:
14. Hawaii (.6527) 15. BYU (.6430) 16. Creighton (.6425) 17. Penn State (.6386) 18. Utah (.6339) 19. UCF (.6324)
Penn State and Utah have the most upside with their remaining schedule - while BYU and Creighton need to win and hope Penn State and Utah stumble. I wouldn't underestimate UCF's potential. Also, Rice at #11 could take a hit today if they lose to Western Kentucky. BYU and UCF are behind the others in terms of quality wins. Pepperdine getting to #50 could help BYU a lot. Don't assume the quality of Penn State's wins - they aren't much different than Creighton and not all that much better than Rice.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 10, 2019 8:17:29 GMT -5
Thanks for all your posts, bluepenquin . As always, very informative and interesting content.
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on Nov 10, 2019 9:23:50 GMT -5
This isn't RPI related - probably doesn't belong here, but... Washington (18-5) vs. Wisconsin (17-5) Washington wins against Pablo rank: 1,1,2,16,17,20,21,21,37,38,38,46,48,59,61,77,101,230 Wisconsin wins against Pablo rank: 5,7,8,20,25,29,38,45,51,64,65,65,70,70,79,79,96 You have to get to win #17 Clemson beating #96 vs. Washington beating #101 before you get a better win by Wisconsin matched up against Washington. Washington losses: 13,15,22,22,34 Wisconsin losses: 4,9,9,18,54 The big difference between the two before this week was Washington had worse losses - but that gap has closed and Wisconsin now has the worst overall loss. In terms of wins and losses - and schedule against Pablo rank, I think Washington is clearly more deserving in terms of who has had the better body of work for the year. And that is before considering a H2H 2 game sweep by Washington. Just saying... 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
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 10, 2019 10:15:07 GMT -5
This isn't RPI related - probably doesn't belong here, but... Washington (18-5) vs. Wisconsin (17-5) Washington wins against Pablo rank: 1,1,2,16,17,20,21,21,37,38,38,46,48,59,61,77,101,230 Wisconsin wins against Pablo rank: 5,7,8,20,25,29,38,45,51,64,65,65,70,70,79,79,96 You have to get to win #17 Clemson beating #96 vs. Washington beating #101 before you get a better win by Wisconsin matched up against Washington. Washington losses: 13,15,22,22,34 Wisconsin losses: 4,9,9,18,54 The big difference between the two before this week was Washington had worse losses - but that gap has closed and Wisconsin now has the worst overall loss. In terms of wins and losses - and schedule against Pablo rank, I think Washington is clearly more deserving in terms of who has had the better body of work for the year. And that is before considering a H2H 2 game sweep by Washington. Just saying... 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 Right that means Wisconsin’s Pablo rank is mostly due to margin of victory and recent games counting more. Neither of those things are considered by the committee.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 10, 2019 10:41:12 GMT -5
It's a mixed methodology to use Pablo to consider caliber of schedule but not quality of team. At that point you're just evaluating which teams have performed the best relative to their Pablos (i.e. who's winning games that they were outscored in, who's winning close sets to beat teams that they're not better than).
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 10, 2019 10:50:04 GMT -5
Right that means Wisconsin’s Pablo rank is mostly due to margin of victory and recent games counting more. Neither of those things are considered by the committee. Pablo gives more weight to recent games? How so?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 10, 2019 12:18:37 GMT -5
Right that means Wisconsin’s Pablo rank is mostly due to margin of victory and recent games counting more. Neither of those things are considered by the committee. Pablo gives more weight to recent games? How so? www.richkern.com/vb/rankings/PabloFAQ.aspHe makes tweaks every year and I'm not sure that FAQ is up to date, but I'm pretty sure more recent results carry more weight. The Bofa on the Sofa ?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 10, 2019 12:28:29 GMT -5
It's a mixed methodology to use Pablo to consider caliber of schedule but not quality of team. At that point you're just evaluating which teams have performed the best relative to their Pablos (i.e. who's winning games that they were outscored in, who's winning close sets to beat teams that they're not better than). And I think that mixed methodology is the PERFECT way to select teams for the tournament. Use Pablo’s power ratings to truly reflect the difficulty of winning each match. Then look at nothing but match wins and losses (without regard to set/point scores) to select teams for the tournament (or reward them with hosting) In fact, this metric (called Strength of Record) is one of the main criteria for both the NCAA basketball and College Football Playoff selection committees.
|
|