|
|
Post by WildwoodVB on Nov 21, 2019 10:01:21 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. The way it shook out, I think Texas looks to have a simpler walk. |
|
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 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 21, 2019 10:01:57 GMT -5
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. It has an impact on scheduling bonuses used to calculate RPI. It becomes just a yes or no - does 1/2 or more of your nonconference matches come against teams in the unadjusted RPI top 75 - then 'yes', you get a scheduling bonus added to your unadjusted RPI. If 'no' - then you get no bonus. Same thing for the bottom 75 and penalty points to your unadjusted RPI. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2019 10:18:38 GMT -5
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. Minnesota is a bit of a wild card. I would presume their lineup no is what it will be in the tournament. That is a lineup I would think Stanford would be able to get past. But, they could quickly become a top-2 or 3 caliber team playing as a 6 seed if Kylie Miller is able to return, and get back into the groove. |
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Nov 21, 2019 10:23:42 GMT -5
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. The way it shook out, I think Texas looks to have a simpler walk. Shook Texas Nice. |
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Nov 21, 2019 10:51:00 GMT -5
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. What you really mean is Utah couldn't beat Stanford without Plummer. We'll see what happens tomorrow night. |
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Nov 21, 2019 10:52:02 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 Purdue is #27 in Futures... currently #24... why do you think the committee is going to pull them up to a seeed... ? |
|
|
|
Post by haw2991 on Nov 21, 2019 11:09:54 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 Purdue is not a likely outcome to get a seed based on their remaining matches or RPI.... |
|
|
|
Post by Diggin' Water on Nov 21, 2019 11:34:10 GMT -5
Purdue is #27 in Futures... currently #24... why do you think the committee is going to pull them up to a seeed... ? Purdue is currently 21. A future estimate with 3 wins to close (the likely outcome) puts them around 18 or 19. Pull out Hawaii, Rice, or TAMU - that puts them in that grouping. Not a hard sell. You would pull Hawaii out even with a projected RPI of 13? That’s kind of a drastic jump... |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Nov 21, 2019 11:37:22 GMT -5
Purdue is #27 in Futures... currently #24... why do you think the committee is going to pull them up to a seeed... ? Purdue is currently 21. A future estimate with 3 wins to close (the likely outcome) puts them around 18 or 19. Pull out Hawaii, Rice, or TAMU - that puts them in that grouping. Not a hard sell. Don't sleep on Michigan x2. They're spooky enough to pull something out. |
|
|
|
Post by haw2991 on Nov 21, 2019 11:40:45 GMT -5
Purdue is #27 in Futures... currently #24... why do you think the committee is going to pull them up to a seeed... ? Purdue is currently 21. A future estimate with 3 wins to close (the likely outcome) puts them around 18 or 19. Pull out Hawaii, Rice, or TAMU - that puts them in that grouping. Not a hard sell. Purdue is currently at #24 per Figstats; their win against Rutgers last night was definitely not helpful. Their remaining schedule includes Michigan (RPI 33 per figstats, 2x) and Michigan state (RPI 82 per figstats). First, I believe Purdue will split against Michigan which would throw any unlikely seeding considerations out the window. Nonetheless, even if they won all three of their remaining games. They probably would not finish any better than #20. Barring any major upsets; Rice, Texas A&M, and Hawaii would all finish comfortably within the top 16 in RPI. It would be jarring if the committee seeds Purdue over any of those three teams. |
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Nov 21, 2019 11:56:30 GMT -5
Purdue is #27 in Futures... currently #24... why do you think the committee is going to pull them up to a seeed... ? Purdue is currently 21. A future estimate with 3 wins to close (the likely outcome) puts them around 18 or 19. Pull out Hawaii, Rice, or TAMU - that puts them in that grouping. Not a hard sell. Your statement is a fallacy of the converse. Illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by haw2991 on Nov 21, 2019 12:05:32 GMT -5
Also with Creighton losing Kostelac, I wouldn't be surprised if they drop their match against Marquette (who is also dealing w/injuries) and struggle in the BE tournament. They are still good enough to win it all but it will be a lot more difficult without Kostelac and the firepower she brought. Creighton is on the precipice in regards to seeding.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 21, 2019 12:24:51 GMT -5
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. If Stanford loses @ Salt Lake City and @ Pullman and Washington wins out, they would be Pac-12 Co-Champions, but with the head-to-head going to Washington. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2019 17:03:41 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. Thanks for the clarification (both posters that replied). I guess this Group 1 and 2 scenario is why I struggle with this RPI. So Team A could play three matches against Group 1, and Team B plays against Group 2. Team A goes 1-2, but beats UCLA. Team B goes 3-0. Team A has a Top 25 win and has played a much tougher schedule than Team B, who has not played a Top 50 team. Yet Team B gains a significant advantage on 75% of the RPI calculation despite not really playing any team of any caliber. I know that a sample size of 3 matches is small, and I am sure that someone will suggest that over the full schedule, the 3rd component will balance it all out. But this formula rewards teams for scheduling teams that traditionally compete for conference championships in the weaker, one-bid conferences instead a middle of the pack Big10/Pac12/SEC team because they will have an equal to better chance to win and will get a big bump on the 50% portion of the RPI calc. |
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Nov 21, 2019 17:28:37 GMT -5
Usually yes, but you actually want to schedule some non-bottom feeder teams in Power Conferences too, because it connects to those conferences via your opponents' opponents'. It's also good to schedule 1 or 2 games against high end teams from power conferences because it also connects you and pretty much won't harm your RPI even if you lose. (With huge reward if you happen to pull off the win)
If you go to the basketball forums, they have number gurus who have optimized it more, but you want to play a good deal of your opponents who will finish near the top of their conference and not do terribly OOC, and then connect yourself to the power conferences as well for a few games.
Your Group 2 is also why Eastern Schools tend to have overly-inflated RPI's. More conferences = more RPI fodder. There are a lot fewer (horrible) conferences on the West Coast.
|
|
