|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 15, 2021 13:27:21 GMT -5
Seeds based on Pablo are
1) Trinity
2) Juniata
3) CMS
4) Calvin
5) WEC
6) Berry
7) MIT
8) Tufts
The only extreme outlier here is Tufts at 5 ahead of Calvin and Berry. They have their wins over Trinity and JHU, sure, but there are a lot of bad losses that Pablo takes into account that apparently the seeding does not. The rest are all within random variation
|
|
|
|
Post by coachk2 on Nov 15, 2021 14:21:05 GMT -5
Seeds based on Pablo are 1) Trinity 2) Juniata 3) CMS 4) Calvin 5) WEC 6) Berry 7) MIT 8) Tufts The only extreme outlier here is Tufts at 5 ahead of Calvin and Berry. They have their wins over Trinity and JHU, sure, but there are a lot of bad losses that Pablo takes into account that apparently the seeding does not. The rest are all within random variation So based on these Pablo seeds with the actual matches as scheduled, we have a 2 vs 7 and a 3 vs 6 as they should be. 😃 But we have a 5 Eau Claire vs an 8 Tufts at the same time as a 1 Trinity vs a 4 Calvin at the QF round. 😳 Thinking that Thursday Trinity/Calvin match should be the one CK will be sure to see in person. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 15, 2021 14:43:03 GMT -5
Seeds based on Pablo are 1) Trinity 2) Juniata 3) CMS 4) Calvin 5) WEC 6) Berry 7) MIT 8) Tufts The only extreme outlier here is Tufts at 5 ahead of Calvin and Berry. They have their wins over Trinity and JHU, sure, but there are a lot of bad losses that Pablo takes into account that apparently the seeding does not. The rest are all within random variation So based on these Pablo seeds with the actual matches as scheduled, we have a 2 vs 7 and a 3 vs 6 as they should be. 😃 But we have a 5 Eau Claire vs an 8 Tufts at the same time as a 1 Trinity vs a 4 Calvin at the QF round. 😳 Thinking that Thursday Trinity/Calvin match should be the one CK will be sure to see in person. 👍 That's what Pablo would say for Round 1. Trinity/Calvin is interesting. I should add, considering the actual rankings. #1 Trinity vs #4 Calvin (not just seeds) Others 2 Juniata 3 CMS 9 WEC 11 Berry 28 MIT 35 Tufts |
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Nov 15, 2021 17:15:12 GMT -5
I am not sad about the seeding. Go Eagles!
|
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Nov 15, 2021 17:31:55 GMT -5
Interesting note... all 8 of the remaining schools are in the top 10 in RPI...the other 2 in the top 10 are Hope and Hopkins Shows how accurate the RPI was this year, at least at the top Any chance you could post this secret D3 RPI(which is not a criteria but fine) here so we can consider how it effected things? I realize this is a big ask and you might be excommunicated, but it would be for the greater good.  |
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Nov 15, 2021 17:47:22 GMT -5
Why can't some simple common sense be used to do the elite 8 seeding? To compare these teams in terms of win% and SOS at this point is a joke. They are all great teams, a quick look at each teams schedule and results gets you to a decent seed that is way better than this mistake. Let's start by dividing them in half. That takes all of 2 seconds. you have Eau Claire, Calvin, CMS, Trinity(TX). And you have Berry, Juniata, MIT, Tufts. Having at least done this it would hard to be too wrong. First, Tufts is #7 and MIT is #8. Does anybody really disagree with that? Yes, Tufts has wins over Trinity and knocked off JHU. But their overall season long body of work is clearly not at the level of the other schools. Maybe you might put them at #6 and Berry at #7 but that is it. To me, the bigger mistake is Juniata at #1. They played a solid, but low key schedule, likely not wanting to get too far from home in this strange season, that is fine. But the price is you do not get seeded higher than the schools(Eau Claire, Trinity(TX), Calvin) who were successful against tougher schedules. Juniata's SOS is 6th in the country, which is higher than any of the final 8....this is the criteria that the committee is going off...not other ranking sites...No brainer that Juniata is 1 seed...have to look at the approved metrics, not the "eye" test or which schedule looks tougher because it has traditional big names on it...you can certainly curse the system....don't hate the player, hate the game No hating the players, Juniata is a flagship D3 program. Using the "selection criteria" to seed the elite 8 is intentionally obtuse. If you are going to do it that way, there is no point in doing it at all. Emory will survive if we go back to the old way of seeding the regionals in the bracket design. Juniata in this case makes an excellent example of why not to do it this way, since SOS and ranked win % are biased criteria. Juniata plays in the mid Atlantic region. They have many pretty good, to good, schools to pick from when building a schedule. these schools will have strong win %, and they want to play Juniata for one of their big matches. The west schools do not have this luxury. The midwest schools do not have this advantage, they have to beat each other up to a much higher degree. Look, I know I am tilting at windmills but it just bugs me. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 15, 2021 18:27:32 GMT -5
Juniata's SOS is 6th in the country, which is higher than any of the final 8....this is the criteria that the committee is going off...not other ranking sites...No brainer that Juniata is 1 seed...have to look at the approved metrics, not the "eye" test or which schedule looks tougher because it has traditional big names on it...you can certainly curse the system....don't hate the player, hate the game No hating the players, Juniata is a flagship D3 program. Using the "selection criteria" to seed the elite 8 is intentionally obtuse. If you are going to do it that way, there is no point in doing it at all. Emory will survive if we go back to the old way of seeding the regionals in the bracket design. Juniata in this case makes an excellent example of why not to do it this way, since SOS and ranked win % are biased criteria. Juniata plays in the mid Atlantic region. They have many pretty good, to good, schools to pick from when building a schedule. these schools will have strong win %, and they want to play Juniata for one of their big matches. Then again, Juniata has to win those matches. That's the problem with playing better teams, you have a better chance to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Nov 15, 2021 18:42:01 GMT -5
So who's gonna win the whole ball of wax?
|
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Nov 15, 2021 19:27:26 GMT -5
Juniata's SOS is 6th in the country, which is higher than any of the final 8....this is the criteria that the committee is going off...not other ranking sites...No brainer that Juniata is 1 seed...have to look at the approved metrics, not the "eye" test or which schedule looks tougher because it has traditional big names on it...you can certainly curse the system....don't hate the player, hate the game No hating the players, Juniata is a flagship D3 program. Using the "selection criteria" to seed the elite 8 is intentionally obtuse. If you are going to do it that way, there is no point in doing it at all. Emory will survive if we go back to the old way of seeding the regionals in the bracket design. Juniata in this case makes an excellent example of why not to do it this way, since SOS and ranked win % are biased criteria. Juniata plays in the mid Atlantic region. They have many pretty good, to good, schools to pick from when building a schedule. these schools will have strong win %, and they want to play Juniata for one of their big matches. The west schools do not have this luxury. The midwest schools do not have this advantage, they have to beat each other up to a much higher degree. Look, I know I am tilting at windmills but it just bugs me. I don't disagree with you at all....D3 is too big and budgets aren't big enough for it not to be regionalized....teams that know how to work the schedule (i.e. Juniata) are good at positioning themselves....and in non-pandemic years, generally they go out and play a big out of region tournament or two Even if you zoom in regionally, a ranked win versus an 8th ranked team is worth the same as a win against a 1st ranked team...ranked win is a ranked win (unless there is a tie and committees need to zoom in on quality wins, but ranked results superficially is a primary criteria)....savvy coaches are able to load their schedule with these lower ranked teams...low risk, high reward schedules = regional rankings |
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Nov 15, 2021 19:38:50 GMT -5
Interesting note... all 8 of the remaining schools are in the top 10 in RPI...the other 2 in the top 10 are Hope and Hopkins Shows how accurate the RPI was this year, at least at the top Any chance you could post this secret D3 RPI(which is not a criteria but fine) here so we can consider how it effected things? I realize this is a big ask and you might be excommunicated, but it would be for the greater good. Baha I keep on forgetting that it is not public for D3...I've said too much already  I will say that the 1 seed is 1 in RPI and the rest do not match up with their order in RPI |
|
|
|
Post by tmb on Nov 16, 2021 5:40:42 GMT -5
So who's gonna win the whole ball of wax? I honestly think D3 is winning right now! As a long time d3 coach the depth and competitiveness of the field is exciting. 15 years ago I felt like it was a pool of 3-5 teams that could win it 99% of the time. Now I really feel like you need to show up that weekend and being playing great team volleyball. Some of my thoughts are... Juniata / MIT - I've seen 90 minutes of Juniata ball and plenty of MIT. I think Juniata is the favorite but this could go either way. Juniata defeated Wesleyan in 3 to get here but in the round before that, went five with Babson from MIT's conference. I think both are pretty methodical with strong left side attacks and whichever can get consistent production from them and a little more offense from the other positions wins. Eau Claire / Tufts - I don't know much about Eau Claire and haven't seen even highlights but am sure they're playing good ball and you don't knock off Hope in a regional final without being very good. Tufts has now defeated the #2 and #1 team on the last AVCA poll in the past month or so. They are balanced and have 3 head coaches on their bench and are enjoying their ride. CMS / Berry shapes up to be a battle. Berry coming out of the south and knocking off Emory looks good and CMS has had a terrific season. Being down 0-2 in their regional final and having the ability to reverse sweep their way into the elite 8 was impressive for CMS. Trinity / Calvin seems like the two teams who have the most "been there and done that" to them. Great staffs and schedules to prepare for this weekend. It'll be exciting and I'm looking forward to Thursday afternoon/evening! |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Nov 16, 2021 10:29:46 GMT -5
So who's gonna win the whole ball of wax? I honestly think D3 is winning right now! As a long time d3 coach the depth and competitiveness of the field is exciting. 15 years ago I felt like it was a pool of 3-5 teams that could win it 99% of the time. Now I really feel like you need to show up that weekend and being playing great team volleyball. Some of my thoughts are... Eau Claire / Tufts - I don't know much about Eau Claire and haven't seen even highlights but am sure they're playing good ball and you don't knock off Hope in a regional final without being very good. Tufts has now defeated the #2 and #1 team on the last AVCA poll in the past month or so. They are balanced and have 3 head coaches on their bench and are enjoying their ride. Trinity / Calvin seems like the two teams who have the most "been there and done that" to them. Great staffs and schedules to prepare for this weekend. It'll be exciting and I'm looking forward to Thursday afternoon/evening! Talking to people, it sounds like Tuft's is pretty good at keeping it's opponents out of system. Eau Claire's MVP is their middle which typically requires you to be in-system. I don't know either team very well but that sounds like a battle for first contact. Calvin probably needs Kellogg at this point. Do we know if she's coming back? If this is all up to Westra, there has to be a limit to how far she can take them, right? |
|
|
|
Post by d3follower on Nov 16, 2021 17:25:08 GMT -5
No hating the players, Juniata is a flagship D3 program. Using the "selection criteria" to seed the elite 8 is intentionally obtuse. If you are going to do it that way, there is no point in doing it at all. Emory will survive if we go back to the old way of seeding the regionals in the bracket design. Juniata in this case makes an excellent example of why not to do it this way, since SOS and ranked win % are biased criteria. Juniata plays in the mid Atlantic region. They have many pretty good, to good, schools to pick from when building a schedule. these schools will have strong win %, and they want to play Juniata for one of their big matches. The west schools do not have this luxury. The midwest schools do not have this advantage, they have to beat each other up to a much higher degree. Look, I know I am tilting at windmills but it just bugs me. I don't disagree with you at all....D3 is too big and budgets aren't big enough for it not to be regionalized....teams that know how to work the schedule (i.e. Juniata) are good at positioning themselves....and in non-pandemic years, generally they go out and play a big out of region tournament or two Even if you zoom in regionally, a ranked win versus an 8th ranked team is worth the same as a win against a 1st ranked team...ranked win is a ranked win (unless there is a tie and committees need to zoom in on quality wins, but ranked results superficially is a primary criteria)....savvy coaches are able to load their schedule with these lower ranked teams...low risk, high reward schedules = regional rankings That is expressly untrue and a mistake in parsing the criteria if that is how the volleyball committee views and applies the results versus ranked opponents criterion. Not one other national committee I know of treats all ranked results equally. If volleyball does/did, then that is a travesty and rather embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Nov 16, 2021 22:41:33 GMT -5
I don't disagree with you at all....D3 is too big and budgets aren't big enough for it not to be regionalized....teams that know how to work the schedule (i.e. Juniata) are good at positioning themselves....and in non-pandemic years, generally they go out and play a big out of region tournament or two Even if you zoom in regionally, a ranked win versus an 8th ranked team is worth the same as a win against a 1st ranked team...ranked win is a ranked win (unless there is a tie and committees need to zoom in on quality wins, but ranked results superficially is a primary criteria)....savvy coaches are able to load their schedule with these lower ranked teams...low risk, high reward schedules = regional rankings That is expressly untrue and a mistake in parsing the criteria if that is how the volleyball committee views and applies the results versus ranked opponents criterion. Not one other national committee I know of treats all ranked results equally. If volleyball does/did, then that is a travesty and rather embarrassing. I cannot speak for the national committee....what I am saying is the ranked results are a primary criterion for regional rankings, along with Win pct, weighted SOS, common opponent w/l, and head to head....when comparing two teams, 7-2 versus ranked teams will generally beat out say 3-5 versus ranked teams if all else is equal....this is why we have ranking committees and not just algorithms, to look into these close calls and dig into ranked wins when necessary |
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Nov 17, 2021 5:36:20 GMT -5
|
|
