|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Nov 23, 2019 16:10:04 GMT -5
In my opinion, which I warn you is very cynical on this subject, the committee members mainly use all those "secondary" criteria to rationalize making decisions they already want to make but can't be justified by the primary criteria. I agree. A means to validate its mapping out the brackets. They then have evidence to present when confronted. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 23, 2019 17:29:50 GMT -5
Perhaps you were exaggerating as well as being brief, since you did write "they never do". I'm sure there have been some instances where they run out of time, overlook something, get lazy, etc. but not often. "by bringing other factors into play (theoretically, they can look at anything, but never do), it would be well and fine." I probably should have said, "but seldom, if ever, do." They could theoretically look at Pablo, for instance, but, in practice, never have (as far as I know). As to "significant wins and losses," those are bonuses for Top-25, Top-50, and Top-75 RPI wins and penalties for Bottom-75 RPI losses, which are baked into adjusted RPI. I don't think significant losses are otherwise individually factored, except in common opponents. A Bottom-75 penalty might sink a "bubble" team, but it is very unlikely to be a factor in seeding. They also look at win-loss records against Top-25, Top-50, and Top-75, but that's in the nitty-gritty, not adjusted RPI. Secondary factors are primarily tie-breakers, I believe. By distinguishing RPI-based vs non-RPI-based factors, I don't mean to imply that the second necessarily follows after the first, but to point to a major deficiency in RPI, that being that RPI is being used to correct RPI. The Committee's basic problem is distinguishing the "real McCoys" from the "pretenders", which can't always be done using RPI alone. On the other hand, they want to avoid unduly discriminating against mid-majors. |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Nov 23, 2019 18:24:54 GMT -5
Perhaps you were exaggerating as well as being brief, since you did write "they never do". I'm sure there have been some instances where they run out of time, overlook something, get lazy, etc. but not often. "by bringing other factors into play (theoretically, they can look at anything, but never do), it would be well and fine." I probably should have said, "but seldom, if ever, do." They could theoretically look at Pablo, for instance, but, in practice, never have (as far as I know). As to "significant wins and losses," those are bonuses for Top-25, Top-50, and Top-75 RPI wins and penalties for Bottom-75 RPI losses, which are baked into adjusted RPI. I don't think significant losses are otherwise individually factored, except in common opponents. A Bottom-75 penalty might sink a "bubble" team, but it is very unlikely to be a factor in seeding. They also look at win-loss records against Top-25, Top-50, and Top-75, but that's in the nitty-gritty, not adjusted RPI. Secondary factors are primarily tie-breakers, I believe. By distinguishing RPI-based vs non-RPI-based factors, I don't mean to imply that the second necessarily follows after the first, but to point to a major deficiency in RPI, that being that RPI is being used to correct RPI. The Committee's basic problem is distinguishing the "real McCoys" from the "pretenders", which can't always be done using RPI alone. On the other hand, they want to avoid unduly discriminating against mid-majors. Ah, I misunderstood you a bit, my mistake. I get the point that RPI is imperfect and its adjustments are circular. Factoring in Pablo, Massey or something else might provide balance. From the initial wording I thought you were saying committee never looks at H2H, CommonOpponent, SigWinLoss, SOS, W/L, that they JUST look at RPI of all the criteria. They definitely look at all the primary criteria categories, especially for seeding/bubbles. They do JUST use RPI for initial rankings/adjustments, where they could easily include another rating method and take the average, for instance. If that is what you meant. P.S. The Significant Wins and Losses category is NOT the RPI bonuses for top25/50/75, bottom 75 and scheduling 50% non-conference versus top/bottom 75 (these are just Bonuses/Penalties within RPI). Significant Wins and Losses is a separate category from RPI - it looks at top 25/50 wins and ANY losses comparatively, not as a number - just like H2H and Common Opponents. I can quote the manual for you if you want - it appears you are confusing two similar things. |
|
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: 13,238 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 23, 2019 19:35:09 GMT -5
Louisville takes down ND and solidifies itself as a top 25 win for Pitt. Not sure this is true. Neither team was in the latest Top 30 coaches poll. LVille was 27th RPI, so maybe with the goofy RPI calculations they crack the Top 25. But "solidifies" might be a bit strong. Current RPI (per Figstats) has Louisville at #25 now. RPI Futures has them at #22 - as it looks at their future games (Miami and Pittsburgh) with an avg w/l% of .701 - which with an expected win probability of 1.04. Louisville is not a lock to be T25 - but just winning at home against Miami tomorrow will make them very likely to be T25 (in RPI as that is the only ranking that matters). And this is very good news for Pittsburgh's quest for a regional seed. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 23, 2019 20:21:46 GMT -5
The Significant Wins and Losses category is NOT the RPI bonuses for top25/50/75, bottom 75 and scheduling 50% non-conference versus top/bottom 75 (these are just Bonuses/Penalties within RPI). Significant Wins and Losses is a separate category from RPI - it looks at top 25/50 wins and ANY losses comparatively, not as a number - just like H2H and Common Opponents. I can quote the manual for you if you want - it appears you are confusing two similar things. Yeah, you're right. My subjective impression, however, is that it is more likely to be used in determining the top four seeds (regional hosts), rather than the full 16 seeds. See: www.espn.com/espnw/sports/story/_/id/21597535/selection-committee-chair-lisa-peterson-explains-controversial-seeding-ncaa-volleyball-bracket |
|
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: 13,238
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 23, 2019 20:44:01 GMT -5
What are the odds the Horizon gets only 1, gets 2, gets 3 or gets 4 in the tournament? If Milwaukee wins tomorrow - they could end up with 4 teams in the T50. W/O looking too hard at the details - I am going to guess 2 is most likely and 3 is more likely than just 1. Green Bay is going to be tough to keep out - and Wright State could be tough to keep out. And then Northern Kentucky has a T25 win which not many on the bubble have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2019 20:53:40 GMT -5
The Significant Wins and Losses category is NOT the RPI bonuses for top25/50/75, bottom 75 and scheduling 50% non-conference versus top/bottom 75 (these are just Bonuses/Penalties within RPI). Significant Wins and Losses is a separate category from RPI - it looks at top 25/50 wins and ANY losses comparatively, not as a number - just like H2H and Common Opponents. I can quote the manual for you if you want - it appears you are confusing two similar things. Yeah, you're right. My subjective impression, however, is that it is more likely to be used in determining the top four seeds (regional hosts), rather than the full 16 seeds. See: www.espn.com/espnw/sports/story/_/id/21597535/selection-committee-chair-lisa-peterson-explains-controversial-seeding-ncaa-volleyball-bracketThat is a good article to re-read a week+ before Selection Sunday. Thanks for posting the link. |
|
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: 13,238
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 23, 2019 21:36:37 GMT -5
Can Cincinnati get a seed? If they beat UCF, their RPI Futures moves up to #16. However, this #16 is based on UCF being #25 in unadjusted RPI giving them 3 T25 bonus points. But the adjusted RPI for UCF goes to 27 taking away 3 T25 wins for seed criteria. They appear to be stuck with no clear path.
Purdue's win over Michigan put them at #25 in Futures which potentially becomes a big deal for Wisconsin and Penn State.
|
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on Nov 23, 2019 22:09:25 GMT -5
Can Cincinnati get a seed? If they beat UCF, their RPI Futures moves up to #16. However, this #16 is based on UCF being #25 in unadjusted RPI giving them 3 T25 bonus points. But the adjusted RPI for UCF goes to 27 taking away 3 T25 wins for seed criteria. They appear to be stuck with no clear path. Purdue's win over Michigan put them at #25 in Futures which potentially becomes a big deal for Wisconsin and Penn State. Not following? Why is it a big deal for Wisconsin and Penn State? |
|
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: 13,238
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 23, 2019 22:14:51 GMT -5
Can Cincinnati get a seed? If they beat UCF, their RPI Futures moves up to #16. However, this #16 is based on UCF being #25 in unadjusted RPI giving them 3 T25 bonus points. But the adjusted RPI for UCF goes to 27 taking away 3 T25 wins for seed criteria. They appear to be stuck with no clear path. Purdue's win over Michigan put them at #25 in Futures which potentially becomes a big deal for Wisconsin and Penn State. Not following? Why is it a big deal for Wisconsin and Penn State? A 26-50 win becomes a 1-25 win. |
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on Nov 23, 2019 22:18:23 GMT -5
Not following? Why is it a big deal for Wisconsin and Penn State? A 26-50 win becomes a 1-25 win. It seems pretty straight forward to me. If Wisconsin goes 19-1 in the BIG Ten, and 6-0 vs PSU, MN, and Nebraska they will get a top 4 seed. If Pitt gets a top 4 seed over Wisconsin in that scenario than just blow up the entire system. If Wisconsin loses a match, then it gets dicey for Wisconsin. |
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Nov 23, 2019 22:25:05 GMT -5
A 26-50 win becomes a 1-25 win. It seems pretty straight forward to me. If Wisconsin goes 19-1 in the BIG Ten, and 6-0 vs PSU, MN, and Nebraska they will get a top 4 seed. If Pitt gets a top 4 seed over Wisconsin in that scenario than just blow up the entire system. If Wisconsin loses a match, then it gets dicey for Wisconsin. If UW runs the table and doesn’t get a top 4 seed it would be criminal. Think about what they would have done the last 6 weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 24, 2019 10:35:01 GMT -5
Could both Utah and BYU be left out of hosting a sub-regional? That would definitely create several more fly-ins.
|
|
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: 13,238
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 24, 2019 10:44:42 GMT -5
Could both Utah and BYU be left out of hosting a sub-regional? That would definitely create several more fly-ins. I think BYU is in a bad place. If it comes down to BYU and Utah for the last spot - then that H2H will help. But their T25/T50 wins are lacking. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 24, 2019 10:51:14 GMT -5
Not following? Why is it a big deal for Wisconsin and Penn State? A 26-50 win becomes a 1-25 win. Honest question: does the committee really view the difference between 25 and 26 to be that significant? To me, it seems that 25 and 26 have a lot more in common with each other than 1 and 25 or 26 and 50, and I have a hard time believing the committee can't make that distinction. |
|
