|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 26, 2019 10:35:48 GMT -5
For the record, this year in the cumulative PTW contests, RPI has out performed all of the others. No explanation why, but fact. Stopped clocks, blind squirrels, etc.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 26, 2019 11:34:46 GMT -5
The Penn State matches have the potential to really swing things for Wisconsin, Pittsburgh, and Texas. For Texas, they are obviously hoping for Penn State to beat Wisconsin, lose to Minnesota. Pittsburgh wants them to beat both (but Wisconsin more so than Minnesota if they go 1-1. The question is what would work out better for Wisconsin for the PSU v Minn match. Minnesota losing bumps Texas down some but Pitt up and the other result does the opposite. Pittsburgh wants/needs Penn State to beat Wisconsin for sure. Penn State winning both along with Utah winning both could be really big for Pitt. I would agree with that. With four teams with essentially the same RPI fighting for three Regional Host spots, the team with the (by far) easiest SOS will be the odd man out. SOS as a tie break for similar RPI has played out innumerable times in football, basketball, etc.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Nov 26, 2019 11:44:06 GMT -5
3. (3) Pittsburgh - Atlantic Coast (28.8 - 1.2) - .6894 - 40 6. (6) Kentucky - Southeastern Conference (22.7 - 6.3) - .6732 - 5 11. (13) Hawaii - Big West (24.0 - 3.0) - .6567 - 48 14. (16) Creighton - Big East (25.2 - 4.8) - .6499 - 43
I actually want this P12/B1G-less regional to happen, lol. I think all 4 teams would be excited about their draw if this were an actual regional.
|
|
|
Post by txnut on Nov 26, 2019 19:27:00 GMT -5
While I believe RPI has had an unduly strong influence in picking the last at larges, I believe it is disregarded a great measure more in determining seedings.I would use the word - small deviations than disregard a great measure more (that may be the same thing?). I think RPI means a Lot for seeding - they will make some small deviations from the RPI. Pittsburgh having an RPI in the 3-5 range has a huge impact on how they will get seeded compared to Washington with an RPI in the 7-9 range. Going on a different tangent - Washington is an interesting case to me. I have them at #5 on my Top 25 ballot and have had them at #4 fairly recently. I clearly have them rated higher than other pollsters or even Pablo. But I really think that if they had an RPI in the 2-5 range - we would be talking about them being very likely to be a regional host. W/O the RPI, no one is talking about them. And the difference for Washington having an RPI 3-4 spots better is just in the scheduling of a couple insignificant matches. I think its dumb that they use Top 25 and Top 50 anyway since they use RPI so strongly. Should really more be like 20 and 40. Teams that are 49 are bubble teams (that may not even get in) but get as much credence as teams firmly in the field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2019 19:50:30 GMT -5
While I believe RPI has had an unduly strong influence in picking the last at larges, I believe it is disregarded a great measure more in determining seedings.I would use the word - small deviations than disregard a great measure more (that may be the same thing?). I think RPI means a Lot for seeding - they will make some small deviations from the RPI. Pittsburgh having an RPI in the 3-5 range has a huge impact on how they will get seeded compared to Washington with an RPI in the 7-9 range. I stand by my statement. The first column number below is the 2018 actual seed. The second column number is the RPI (actually RKPI, which I believe was the same) that the Committee used: 1 _1 Stanford 2 _4 Minnesota 3 _2 Illinois 4 _5 BYU 5 _3 Texas 6 _6 Wisconsin 7 _11 Nebraska 8 _12 Penn State 9 _13 Creighton 10__8 Kentucky 11__9 USC 12__7 Pittsburgh 13_10 UCF 14_15 Marquette 15_19 Oregon 16_14 Washington State Also, note that RPI's 16, 17 and 18 were passed over to select 19 Oregon.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 26, 2019 19:55:38 GMT -5
I would use the word - small deviations than disregard a great measure more (that may be the same thing?). I think RPI means a Lot for seeding - they will make some small deviations from the RPI. Pittsburgh having an RPI in the 3-5 range has a huge impact on how they will get seeded compared to Washington with an RPI in the 7-9 range. I stand by my statement. The first column number below is the 2018 actual seed. The second column number is the RPI (actually RKPI, which I believe was the same) that the Committee used: 1 _1 Stanford 2 _4 Minnesota 3 _2 Illinois 4 _5 BYU 5 _3 Texas 6 _6 Wisconsin 7 _11 Nebraska 8 _12 Penn State 9 _13 Creighton 10__8 Kentucky 11__9 USC 12__7 Pittsburgh 13_10 UCF 14_15 Marquette 15_19 Oregon 16_14 Washington State Also, note that RPI's 16, 17 and 18 were passed over to select 19 Oregon. I bet Minnesota wishes they hadn't slotted Oregon in there like that.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 26, 2019 19:58:50 GMT -5
Also, note that RPI's 16, 17 and 18 were passed over to select 19 Oregon. By any chance did Oregon have a stronger SOS than the three teams that were passed over? I realize SOS is already an important component of RPI, but my suspicion is that the Committee uses it to move teams up or down a few slots from RPI.
|
|
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)
Posts: 12,370
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2019 23:13:51 GMT -5
Also, note that RPI's 16, 17 and 18 were passed over to select 19 Oregon. By any chance did Oregon have a stronger SOS than the three teams that were passed over? I realize SOS is already an important component of RPI, but my suspicion is that the Committee uses it to move teams up or down a few slots from RPI. Not really. Oregon SOS was #15 and they passed over Northern Iowa (#7), Baylor (#11), and Florida (#46). Without running the numbers - I would suggest that RPI and Top 25 wins was the biggest correlation for where a team was seeded. Pittsburgh was #7 RPI but dropped to #12 seed. They had only 2 T25 wins which was less than all teams that passed over them. Kentucky was #8 RPI and dropped to #10 seed. They also only had 2 T25 wins, but had 2 more T50 wins than Pittsburgh. USC was #9 RPI and dropped to #11 seed. They had 7 T25 wins (same as Nebraska) and the #2 SOS. Not sure why they dropped from their RPI? UCF was #10 RPI and dropped to #13 seed. They had 3 T25 wins Nebraska #11 RPI and moved to #7 seed. They had 7 T25 wins - only #18 SOS. Penn State #12 RPI moved up to #8 seed. 6 T25 wins and #21 SOS. Creighton #13 RPI moved up to #9 seed. They had 5 T25 wins more than all teams they passed except USC (which is still the head scratcher). Creighton may have beaten USC - which also was an important factor. #51 SOS was the worse of any seeded team. Oregon had 4 T25 wins and 7 more in the T50 which was more than the teams they passed (UNI - 2, Baylor - 3, Florida -2).
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,099
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 26, 2019 23:18:47 GMT -5
bluepenquin I just realized the discrepancy with Samford. I couldn't understand how they are going to finish T50 in RPI. Their match with LMU was ruled a no contest. I remember watching that match and I couldn't figure out what happened in the 5th set, but it was sketchy. Does anyone have any information on this? This makes a difference in RPI. Samford could finish T50. Maybe WKU could 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)
Posts: 12,370
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2019 23:23:10 GMT -5
As for the regional seeds - there were 5 choices with RPI being 1. Stanford, 2. Illinois, 3. Texas, 4. Minnesota, 5. Baylor.
SOS was Stanford (3), Illinois (5), Texas (1), Minnesota (13), and BYU (35). The team with the best SOS missed getting the seed and the team with the worst one moved up.
Minnesota won the H2H with Illinois along with going 19-1 in conference to Illinois 17-3. It was their SOS that held back their RPI, but other factors that moved them ahead of Illinois.
Texas was undermined by a loss to #48 Kansas, but BYU lost to #57 LMU. BYU beat #1 and common opponent Stanford while Texas lost to them twice.
|
|
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)
Posts: 12,370
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2019 23:24:58 GMT -5
bluepenquin I just realized the discrepancy with Samford. I couldn't understand how they are going to finish T50 in RPI. Their match with LMU was ruled a no contest. I remember watching that match and I couldn't figure out what happened in the 5th set, but it was sketchy. Does anyone have any information on this? This makes a difference in RPI. Samford could finish T50. Maybe WKU could host? Yes - I was tipped to this a couple weeks ago and removed that game from their calculation. Don't know or remember the details.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 28, 2019 10:21:09 GMT -5
Could the winner of the UCLA/USC match vault into the RPI Top 25?
|
|
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)
Posts: 12,370
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 28, 2019 10:40:16 GMT -5
Could the winner of the UCLA/USC match vault into the RPI Top 25? Base Futures says no. Probabilities says something ~ or less than 10% chance.
|
|
|
Post by huskerrob on Nov 28, 2019 11:09:17 GMT -5
Could the winner of the UCLA/USC match vault into the RPI Top 25? Base Futures says no. Probabilities says something ~ or less than 10% chance. UCLA having the greater chance?
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 28, 2019 12:07:50 GMT -5
Could the winner of the UCLA/USC match vault into the RPI Top 25? Base Futures says no. Probabilities says something ~ or less than 10% chance.
That is not very Thanksgivingy . . .
|
|