|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 20, 2019 22:34:10 GMT -5
OK then, what is the purpose of having members of the committee associated with geographic regions? Why even label them as such if they aren't actually geographically located there? The regions are assigned by conference - every team in the conference is placed in the same region for regional awards, rankings, votes, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "rankings" and "votes", but re awards you are probably referring to the AVCA. The Summit league is in the Midwest and North regions for AVCA awards. I'm not aware of any awards the committee hands out by region. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2019 22:54:30 GMT -5
Sorry to side-track this, but with all of the references to the RPI ratings of the various teams, I wanted to ask a question. I have always had a hard time understanding the weighting of the RPI, especially with such wide variances between a team's RPI and their Poll ranking. I know it is a cumulative ranking based on a number of factors, but here is a comparison between two teams, close to my geography, for discussion sake. Missouri and Illinois. Now I understand that I will be referencing RPI rankings as I question the very RPI system, but it was the only ranking that I could find that seemed to include all teams, down to #335.
Missouri is 18-7 and has an RPI of #18. Illinois is 13-12 with an RPI of 45.
Missouri's 18 wins come against opponents whose average (current) RPI rank is 87. (This excludes their win vs Kansas City as I could not find them on the RPI list, but I cannot imagine it would improve the average). Their 7 losses to teams with an average of 17. Total opponent average of about 68 (excluding KC).
Illinois' 13 wins are against an average opponent ranked 85. Their 12 losses on average to a rank of 27. Total opponent average about 57.
Against the RPI Top 25, Missouri is 1-6 (ave rank just under 10). Went 8-20 (28%) in sets.
Illinois went 2-7 vs Top 25 (ave rank just over 8). Went 15-24 (38%) in sets.
If you want to compare looking at the current AVCA Coaches poll, Missouri is 1-5 (ave rank of 14.5) vs Top 25, 0-1 vs Top 10.
Illinois is 2-9 vs Top 25 (ave rank of just over 11), 1-7 vs Top 10.
So based on these figures, Illinois is on par with Missouri, if not better, on the level of teams they have beaten and played. They have a better record vs Top 25 using both RPI and AVCA polls, and have played a more difficult upper portion of the schedule when you look at the number of matches vs Top 25 and Top 10. So how do you look at this comparison, and get RPI ranking that are almost 30 apart? Does overall record, regardless of strength of opponent, carry that much weight? If Illinois could magically replace those 5 extra matches vs Top 25 with 5 against teams in the 50-80 range (and beat them) making them 18-7 with a very similar SOS, would that bump them almost 30 spots in the RPI? Based on RPI, Missouri is on the bubble to host the first two rounds, and Illinois is on the bubble just to make the tournament?
|
|
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: 13,331 
Member is Online
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 20, 2019 23:52:06 GMT -5
I'm wondering something about the RPI scheduling bonus. Does this make a difference for anyone but bubble teams? I notice that two of Nebraska's OOC opponents (Denver and Arizona) are hovering around that top-75 threshold. If both end up outside the top 75, then Nebraska loses the scheduling bonus. (As far as I can tell, they're the only top 10 team that's in danger of missing this bonus.) Realistically, though, even if it costs them a couple spots in the adjusted RPI, would this have an impact on their seeding? Nebraska needs one of Denver, Arizona, High Point, or LMU to be in the top 75 in order to receive the scheduling bonus. Currently, RPI Futures has Denver at #71 and the rest outside of the top 75. I currently have Nebraska at #8 and Washington at #9 - w/o the scheduling bonus, these two teams would flip. It depends on whether the scheduling bonus (if they lose it) would cost them anything in terms of seeding or even if that would matter depending on the 3rd and 4th round matchups. That said - #7 through #13 is pretty close in RPI and it is possible that .0026 could mean several spots. |
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Nov 20, 2019 23:58:48 GMT -5
I'm wondering something about the RPI scheduling bonus. Does this make a difference for anyone but bubble teams? I notice that two of Nebraska's OOC opponents (Denver and Arizona) are hovering around that top-75 threshold. If both end up outside the top 75, then Nebraska loses the scheduling bonus. (As far as I can tell, they're the only top 10 team that's in danger of missing this bonus.) Realistically, though, even if it costs them a couple spots in the adjusted RPI, would this have an impact on their seeding? Nebraska needs one of Denver, Arizona, High Point, or LMU to be in the top 75 in order to receive the scheduling bonus. Currently, RPI Futures has Denver at #71 and the rest outside of the top 75. I currently have Nebraska at #8 and Washington at #9 - w/o the scheduling bonus, these two teams would flip. It depends on whether the scheduling bonus (if they lose it) would cost them anything in terms of seeding or even if that would matter depending on the 3rd and 4th round matchups. That said - #7 through #13 is pretty close in RPI and it is possible that .0026 could mean several spots. Luckily for Nebraska, Denver is hosting the Summit League tournament. They’re also a serious threat to knock off South Dakota. |
|
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: 13,331
Member is Online
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 21, 2019 0:03:53 GMT -5
Sorry to side-track this, but with all of the references to the RPI ratings of the various teams, I wanted to ask a question. I have always had a hard time understanding the weighting of the RPI, especially with such wide variances between a team's RPI and their Poll ranking. I know it is a cumulative ranking based on a number of factors, but here is a comparison between two teams, close to my geography, for discussion sake. Missouri and Illinois. Now I understand that I will be referencing RPI rankings as I question the very RPI system, but it was the only ranking that I could find that seemed to include all teams, down to #335. Missouri is 18-7 and has an RPI of #18. Illinois is 13-12 with an RPI of 45. Missouri's 18 wins come against opponents whose average (current) RPI rank is 87. (This excludes their win vs Kansas City as I could not find them on the RPI list, but I cannot imagine it would improve the average). Their 7 losses to teams with an average of 17. Total opponent average of about 68 (excluding KC). Illinois' 13 wins are against an average opponent ranked 85. Their 12 losses on average to a rank of 27. Total opponent average about 57. Against the RPI Top 25, Missouri is 1-6 (ave rank just under 10). Went 8-20 (28%) in sets. Illinois went 2-7 vs Top 25 (ave rank just over 8). Went 15-24 (38%) in sets. If you want to compare looking at the current AVCA Coaches poll, Missouri is 1-5 (ave rank of 14.5) vs Top 25, 0-1 vs Top 10. Illinois is 2-9 vs Top 25 (ave rank of just over 11), 1-7 vs Top 10. So based on these figures, Illinois is on par with Missouri, if not better, on the level of teams they have beaten and played. They have a better record vs Top 25 using both RPI and AVCA polls, and have played a more difficult upper portion of the schedule when you look at the number of matches vs Top 25 and Top 10. So how do you look at this comparison, and get RPI ranking that are almost 30 apart? Does overall record, regardless of strength of opponent, carry that much weight? If Illinois could magically replace those 5 extra matches vs Top 25 with 5 against teams in the 50-80 range (and beat them) making them 18-7 with a very similar SOS, would that bump them almost 30 spots in the RPI? Based on RPI, Missouri is on the bubble to host the first two rounds, and Illinois is on the bubble just to make the tournament? There are 3 main aspects to RPI. Overall record - which is worth 25%, Opponents record which is worth 50% and opponents opponent record that is worth the remaining 25%. That 1st one is a killer for Illinois - as Missouri is projected for .724 overall record vs. .555 for Illinois. Take that by 25% and that is a .0423 advantage for Missouri. The 2nd one ends up being a slight advantage to Missouri as the average w/l% of their opponents is .6057 compared to .5932 for Illinois. The relevant number for RPI is opponent record, not opponent RPI rank. 50% of this gives Missouri .0062 more than Illinois. The 3rd element is a slight advantage for Illinois - with their opponent opponents w/l% being .568 vs. .552 for Missouri (this part usually doesn't move the needle much). At 25% - this is a .0040 advantage for Illinois. Combine this together and Missouri's unadjusted RPI is .0445 better than Illinois which roughly equates to a 34 places difference between the teams (they are currently 30 spots different). There are also bonus points - for which Missouri gained another .0052 on Illinois. Anyway - that is the math - with the large difference in overall record being the major driver in Missouri having the better RPI. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 21, 2019 0:06:04 GMT -5
Sorry to side-track this, but with all of the references to the RPI ratings of the various teams, I wanted to ask a question. I have always had a hard time understanding the weighting of the RPI, especially with such wide variances between a team's RPI and their Poll ranking. I know it is a cumulative ranking based on a number of factors, . . . [snip] So based on these figures, Illinois is on par with Missouri, if not better, on the level of teams they have beaten and played. They have a better record vs Top 25 using both RPI and AVCA polls, and have played a more difficult upper portion of the schedule when you look at the number of matches vs Top 25 and Top 10. So how do you look at this comparison, and get RPI ranking that are almost 30 apart? Does overall record, regardless of strength of opponent, carry that much weight? If Illinois could magically replace those 5 extra matches vs Top 25 with 5 against teams in the 50-80 range (and beat them) making them 18-7 with a very similar SOS, would that bump them almost 30 spots in the RPI? Based on RPI, Missouri is on the bubble to host the first two rounds, and Illinois is on the bubble just to make the tournament? You may want to start by gaining a better understanding of how RPI is calculated. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_percentage_indexIt's strictly a mathematical formula with the following components: "The current and commonly used formula for determining the RPI of a . . . team at any given time is as follows. RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25) where WP is Winning Percentage, OWP is Opponents' Winning Percentage and OOWP is Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage." There are also bonuses related to scheduling, etc., but they are not all that relevant in a basic RPI discussion. The perceived "strength" of the teams on a schedule does not factor into the RPI of the team playing that schedule. Consider the following two groups of teams (listed RPI's are from 11/18): Group 1: (RPI 19) Southern Cal (15-11); (23) UCLA (14-11); and, (45) Illinois (13-12) Group 2: (RPI 84) Winthrop (22-4); (85) Eastern Tennessee (23-5); and, (131) Fairfield (22-5) Most knowledgeable volleyball fans would agree that the teams in Group 1 are "better" than the teams in Group 2. However, from an RPI standpoint, a team would benefit more from playing the teams in Group 2, rather than the teams in Group 1. Smart RPI scheduling involves playing (and winning) non-conference matches against teams that are likely to dominate their conference and thus end up with an outstanding overall record. |
|
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: 13,331
Member is Online
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 21, 2019 0:07:23 GMT -5
Nebraska needs one of Denver, Arizona, High Point, or LMU to be in the top 75 in order to receive the scheduling bonus. Currently, RPI Futures has Denver at #71 and the rest outside of the top 75. I currently have Nebraska at #8 and Washington at #9 - w/o the scheduling bonus, these two teams would flip. It depends on whether the scheduling bonus (if they lose it) would cost them anything in terms of seeding or even if that would matter depending on the 3rd and 4th round matchups. That said - #7 through #13 is pretty close in RPI and it is possible that .0026 could mean several spots. Luckily for Nebraska, Denver is hosting the Summit League tournament. They’re also a serious threat to knock off South Dakota. Pablo gives Denver a 42% chance of beating South Dakota if they meet in the finals. If Denver loses that match - RPI Futures puts Denver's unadjusted RPI at 72. That isn't a lock for top 75, but a good chance. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 21, 2019 0:17:15 GMT -5
Luckily for Nebraska, Denver is hosting the Summit League tournament. They’re also a serious threat to knock off South Dakota. Pablo gives Denver a 42% chance of beating South Dakota if they meet in the finals. If Denver loses that match - RPI Futures puts Denver's unadjusted RPI at 72. That isn't a lock for top 75, but a good chance. Other than South Dakota, I suspect Omaha would be the team that would have the best chance of beating Denver. However, the way the bracket is set up and with Omaha being the 4 seed, this matchup could only happen in the championship match. (This assumes Omaha beating South Dakota in the semifinal.) This probably increases the chance of Denver staying in the top 75 of RPI, which is good for Nebraska. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 21, 2019 1:12:12 GMT -5
"Top 75" is a thing? Really? Kind of lame, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Nov 21, 2019 5:47:50 GMT -5
They are representing the teams in that NCAA region not the geographical region itself. Maybe you'd prefer they were called "somewhat geographically sorted groupings of conferences." OK, so if they are representing teams in that region, then it's definitely not out of line for ay2013 to expect that they should be familiar with teams in that region. who says that they are not familiar with teams in that region? What evidence is there that these officials are clueless about the teams in their regions? av2013 asserts that because they are not physically residing in that geographical region, they must not be as good as someone who is, but offers no proof. av2013 also asserts because the official lives in a State that has a B1G school in it, that they are corrupted to be in favor of B1G. It is nonsensical drama and conspiracy theory gibberish |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Nov 21, 2019 9:02:47 GMT -5
"Top 75" is a thing? Really? Kind of lame, IMO. It matters for RPI. You get a boost if you have a certain number of t75 matches. |
|
|
|
Post by WildwoodVB on Nov 21, 2019 9:45:28 GMT -5
"Top 75" is a thing? Really? Kind of lame, IMO. It matters for RPI. You get a boost if you have a certain number of t75 matches. It doesn't have an impact on RPI - it uses RPI. It is something the committee supposedly looks at. Wins over T25, T50, T75, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by WildwoodVB on Nov 21, 2019 9:49:20 GMT -5
BASED ON LIKELY OUTCOMES OF REMAINING MATCHES AND RPI/OTHER LISTED SELECTION FACTORS:
(1) Baylor
(16) BYU
(8) Washington
(9) Nebraska
(2) Texas
(15) Purdue
(7) Kentucky
(10) Marquette
(3) Stanford
(14) Utah
(6) Minnesota
(11) Florida
(4) Pitt
(13) Creighton
(5) Wisconsin
(12) Penn State
|
|
|
|
Post by eotexas5 on Nov 21, 2019 9:51:57 GMT -5
BASED ON LIKELY OUTCOMES OF REMAINING MATCHES AND RPI/OTHER LISTED SELECTION FACTORS: (1) Baylor (16) BYU (8) Washington (9) Nebraska (2) Texas (15) Purdue (7) Kentucky (10) Marquette (3) Stanford (14) Utah (6) Minnesota (11) Florida (4) Pitt (13) Creighton (5) Wisconsin (12) Penn State If I was Wisconsin, I wouldn't mind this one bit. Just like Nebraska last year getting sent to Kentucky. Everyone knew that was Nebraska's region. My goodness, this region looks way too easy for Stanford though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2019 10:01:11 GMT -5
BASED ON LIKELY OUTCOMES OF REMAINING MATCHES AND RPI/OTHER LISTED SELECTION FACTORS: (1) Baylor (16) BYU (8) Washington (9) Nebraska (2) Texas (15) Purdue (7) Kentucky (10) Marquette (3) Stanford (14) Utah (6) Minnesota (11) Florida (4) Pitt (13) Creighton (5) Wisconsin (12) Penn State If I was Wisconsin, I wouldn't mind this one bit. Just like Nebraska last year getting sent to Kentucky. Everyone knew that was Nebraska's region. My goodness, this region looks way too easy for Stanford though. Nebraska will have a tough time to get by Washington I wouldn’t look ahead. We also saw what Baylor can do at home last night. Also regarding Stanford. Utah almost beat them at Stanford and Minnesota did beat them. So I wouldn’t make them a safe bet yet either. |
|
