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: 12,572
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 10, 2019 13:03:47 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 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...
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 10, 2019 13:31:58 GMT -5
ah, giving advantage to those teams who have more opportunity to get "quality wins" in conference play, and disadvantage to those who are stuck in a lesser conference. Even if they play a very challenging non-conference schedule and get wins, they are diminished because they aren't recent. Makes me glad that Pablo isn't an established criteria for the selection committee.
|
|
|
Post by raian13 on Nov 10, 2019 13:40:20 GMT -5
So should they start the conference matches early and squeeze in some strong non-conference opponents midway into the season??
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Nov 10, 2019 13:42:03 GMT -5
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. when you apply the eyeball test to this conclusion, it falls apart. So, either vast majority of fans are stupid, or the data is incomplete/corrupt or just not enough data sets to establish the real difference. I can assume most Husker fans would rather host a Hawaii or RICE than a Penn State or Creighton...in fact I would rather host Stanford than Penn State, and considering Huskers have to face Minnie & Wisconsin yet, I don't see anyone desiring to rematch them over playing Marquette or Kentucky. I would think it is a valid and good question on why are these two methods of measurement so far off? As a former Software Engineer, my money is on the fans...I suspect there just isn't enough data to garner where the differences are and how that missing data is needed to better understand how these teams are vastly different, even in a quantified manner.
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on Nov 10, 2019 13:49:59 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... And if you were really paying attention Ohio State isn’t a bad loss. They are finally healthy and playing like a top 15 team They lost at Mn 15-13 And just lost 2 deuce sets to Mn today
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Nov 10, 2019 13:51:34 GMT -5
I guess that's a positive spin, TuesdayGone. I am pretty sure they just lost their regional host status though.
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Nov 10, 2019 13:52:48 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... And if you were really paying attention Ohio State isn’t a bad loss. They are finally healthy and playing like a top 15 team They lost at Mn 15-13 And just lost 2 deuce sets to Mn today I agree that Ohio State is better than that record indicates. But losing to a .500 team certainly isn't a "good" loss.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 10, 2019 13:56:50 GMT -5
So should they start the conference matches early and squeeze in some strong non-conference opponents midway into the season?? conference schedules generally make scheduling non-conference matches later in the year more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Nov 10, 2019 14:45:55 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... And if you were really paying attention Ohio State isn’t a bad loss. They are finally healthy and playing like a top 15 team They lost at Mn 15-13 And just lost 2 deuce sets to Mn today Whatever you wanna think man. Bad look for the badgers.
|
|
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: 12,572
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 10, 2019 14:48:05 GMT -5
Milwaukee comes from behind and wins the 1st set at Northern Kentucky. Milwaukee in the mix for an at-large and a win would help Green Bay/Wright State if they can get in the top 50.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 10, 2019 15:36:54 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. Then Florida should be a top 4 seed considering what they’ve done as a team that’s barely one of the top 25 in the country in Pablo.
|
|
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: 12,572
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 10, 2019 15:37:39 GMT -5
Northern Kentucky wins sets 2 and 3.
|
|
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: 12,572
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 10, 2019 15:40:39 GMT -5
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. Then Florida should be a top 4 seed considering what they’ve done as a team that’s barely one of the top 25 in the country in Pablo. Florida's body of work isn't That good. This method gets them equal or ahead of Kentucky/Texas A&M despite the worse Pablo - but not really close to ~ top 4.
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Nov 10, 2019 15:45:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Nov 10, 2019 18:17:21 GMT -5
Texas A&M will probably fall near to the bottom of the 6 to 13 pack. Rice may fall out of seeding range. Bad day for the 4 Texas seeds hope. If Rice doesn’t end up winning their tourney, I’d imagine they find themselves in College Station.
|
|