|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 15, 2021 13:29:30 GMT -5
There's a reason why the two sports where post-season outcomes actually have financial impacts (FB and MBB) don't rely on RPI for post-season selection, even though the RPI was expressly created to do so for the latter.
|
|
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: 12,896
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 15, 2021 13:37:50 GMT -5
This happens every year, though, trojansc . Pablo isn't really a prediction, either. The point is still that all of this is simply to give a more accurate snapshot of what the final RPI could look like. Being critical of the numbers because of some notion that it's doing something else - like predicting win-loss records - is completely missing the purpose. This happens in a different perspective this year because of last year’s incomplete season. Pablo is used in this instance to predict W/L records, and is a predictive measurement of probabilities. The purpose is not missed. It was simply laughing at the W-L record. In some ways - I think Pablo is more 'accurate' this year early in the season than usual because there was considerably less player turnover among teams than usual. We just happen to see too glaring high profile issues where we all felt we knew more (Stanford and Missouri). The misses on Stanford and Missouri aren't unusual - we just were better able to know it from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 15, 2021 13:43:15 GMT -5
The RPI really isn't that bad. Is there another easily-replicable formula out there that is better? I think that level of transparency is important. It really is though, particularly at the margins that matter for NCAA tourney selection (Top 5, Top 16/20, Top 50). There's a big fallacy that a ranking system is good because stats geeks look at it and see it mostly puts 300-odd teams in the right decile, but that's not what we're asking the system to do. Pablo is just as transparent, so is Massey. They at least provide better outcomes. I'm sure if NCAA hates those, they could create an ELO-based formula that would also be superior. Yeah, I don't think the RPI is really fixable. It should be abandoned like it was in basketball in favor of a better metric like the NET.
|
|
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: 12,896
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 15, 2021 13:43:30 GMT -5
I have said this before - the major issue with RPI in places where it usually matters - is the penalty for beating a bad (team with a bad record). In a vacuum - why should beating a bad team cost you more points than not playing them to begin with. This doesn't make sense.
If you don't play enough good/quality teams, that would be something different - but RPI places a huge penalty on beating bad teams.
This wouldn't solve everything - but it is an issue.
|
|
|
Post by pbmu on Sept 15, 2021 19:43:48 GMT -5
Stanfords RPI is juicy and silly. Just for fun - if we think that Stanford is the same as Washington (per Pablo) and better than everyone else in the conference. Then their RPI Futures would #12. Stanford has the most RPI upside in the conference because of their schedule. USC has upside - and Utah's downside doesn't drop real fast because they have good schedules. Oregon and Colorado don't have very good schedules - which will hurt their chances for a seed. Washington is a complete and utter disaster. There is almost no upside for them short of 18+ conference wins. Iowa, Portland, and Ohio are RPI killers. Most teams try and avoid one RPI killer in the non conference - Washington has 3 of them. Then throw in Utah/Colorado are the two teams they don't play twice - among the top projected w/l% in conference. Yikes. well looks like Portland cancelled
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 15, 2021 20:08:14 GMT -5
RPI futures wants to know why Volleytalkers haven't yet backed Miami in their weekly poll.
Can't you see destiny, when it's right before your eyes? Stop wasting votes on Stanford. They'll never amount to anything.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 15, 2021 20:52:20 GMT -5
Just for fun - if we think that Stanford is the same as Washington (per Pablo) and better than everyone else in the conference. Then their RPI Futures would #12. Stanford has the most RPI upside in the conference because of their schedule. USC has upside - and Utah's downside doesn't drop real fast because they have good schedules. Oregon and Colorado don't have very good schedules - which will hurt their chances for a seed. Washington is a complete and utter disaster. There is almost no upside for them short of 18+ conference wins. Iowa, Portland, and Ohio are RPI killers. Most teams try and avoid one RPI killer in the non conference - Washington has 3 of them. Then throw in Utah/Colorado are the two teams they don't play twice - among the top projected w/l% in conference. Yikes. well looks like Portland cancelled Thank god. Washington should just cancel the entire weekend..... Big RPI bonus by not playing at all!
|
|
|
Post by Logan Tom Fan on Sept 16, 2021 15:47:14 GMT -5
RPI futures wants to know why Volleytalkers haven't yet backed Miami in their weekly poll. Can't you see destiny, when it's right before your eyes? Stop wasting votes on Stanford. They'll never amount to anything. LOL!!! Well I guess the thing here that would answer this would be tradition. Miami is not known for women's volleyball. Stanford is. But we'll see how Miami's season turns out haha
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 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: 30,290
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 17, 2021 13:57:06 GMT -5
At what point can we actually worry about the C-USA NOT getting an at large bid/being a two-bid conference?
Rice has played a lot of good teams, but lost all of the important matches. What is going to be a T50 win for them? WKU actually might have a T50 win, but over a team with a sub .500 record (Notre Dame). UTEP is the best chance for Rice unless they beat Texas (lol, the irony). UTEP was swept by Texas State today and I'm not convinced they'll be T50.
The thing is, even if Rice/WKU go to the Conf. Championship, the winner of that match gets the auto-bid, so the loser will be assured to have the weaker resume pretty much.
The committee explicitly said with South Dakota that they did not get in the tournament because they could not get past 0 T50 wins. The only strange part about this was the High Point decision 2 years prior -- a different committee. In the rally scoring era, no team besides HPU got an at-large bid with 0 T50 wins. It will be very interesting to follow the C-USA.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Sept 17, 2021 14:04:51 GMT -5
At what point can we actually worry about the C-USA NOT getting an at large bid/being a two-bid conference? Rice has played a lot of good teams, but lost all of the important matches. What is going to be a T50 win for them? WKU actually might have a T50 win, but over a team with a sub .500 record (Notre Dame). UTEP is the best chance for Rice unless they beat Texas (lol, the irony). UTEP was swept by Texas State today and I'm not convinced they'll be T50. The thing is, even if Rice/WKU go to the Conf. Championship, the winner of that match gets the auto-bid, so the loser will be assured to have the weaker resume pretty much. The committee explicitly said with South Dakota that they did not get in the tournament because they could not get past 0 T50 wins. The only strange part about this was the High Point decision 2 years prior -- a different committee. In the rally scoring era, no team besides HPU got an at-large bid with 0 T50 wins. It will be very interesting to follow the C-USA. Is three years in a row irony?
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 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: 30,290
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 17, 2021 14:08:52 GMT -5
Is three years in a row irony? The irony is that last year, Rice was not going to the tournament *unless they beat Texas*. They did not win their conference. Rice had no significant wins -- they did not play WKU regular season and lost twice to SMU and once to Houston (three losses to non-tournament teams). So, this year, it could be again, that Rice does not get an at-large bid unless they beat Texas yet again. Their last chance to get a significant win for an at-large is against a team they have a good history against. They could beat WKU/win C-USA, but that's irrelevant to an at-large bid because they would be an AQ in that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2021 14:09:02 GMT -5
At what point can we actually worry about the C-USA NOT getting an at large bid/being a two-bid conference? Rice has played a lot of good teams, but lost all of the important matches. What is going to be a T50 win for them? WKU actually might have a T50 win, but over a team with a sub .500 record (Notre Dame). UTEP is the best chance for Rice unless they beat Texas (lol, the irony). UTEP was swept by Texas State today and I'm not convinced they'll be T50. The thing is, even if Rice/WKU go to the Conf. Championship, the winner of that match gets the auto-bid, so the loser will be assured to have the weaker resume pretty much. The committee explicitly said with South Dakota that they did not get in the tournament because they could not get past 0 T50 wins. The only strange part about this was the High Point decision 2 years prior -- a different committee. In the rally scoring era, no team besides HPU got an at-large bid with 0 T50 wins. It will be very interesting to follow the C-USA. What about that year with UNLV?
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 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: 30,290
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 17, 2021 14:14:34 GMT -5
What about that year with UNLV? UNLV (#33) RPI had a win over #32 Boise State. Miami-FL was also close - in 2014 they had an RPI of #28 but *barely* squeezed in a Top-50 win. It was like #49 Virginia Tech or Pittsburgh - I can't remember exactly who. But no, besides High Point, it never happened. And there were many teams that have been T50 but left out. Colorado State-UNLV were like a package deal, kind of similar to LSU-High Point. If you leave out UNLV, Colorado State had NO significant wins. If you leave out High Point, LSU had no significant wins. Both committees decided to give them both bids.
|
|