|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Oct 31, 2021 22:29:05 GMT -5
Got all 10 right in the poll.
Are top 10 RPI wins a criteria?
|
|
|
|
Post by vbstan123 on Oct 31, 2021 22:54:25 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why Baylor is top 10? Genuine question, I thought this season hasn't been great for them despite having a lot of firepower.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 31, 2021 22:58:49 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why Baylor is top 10? Genuine question, I thought this season hasn't been great for them despite having a lot of firepower. No. 5 in RPI, wins over Minnesota, Rice and Florida x2. Three losses are to RPI top 15 teams, and the other is still in the top 50. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 31, 2021 23:00:49 GMT -5
Even that Arizona State loss isn't that bad anymore. The Sun Devils could well be a tournament team. From article on NCAA site (I bolded that last odd part!): (https://www.ncaa.com/news/volleyball-women/article/2021-10-31/louisville-leads-di-womens-volleyball-committees-top-10-rankings) For UCLA, Brantley noted that the Bruins are a strong team that has been under the radar. They've got a top-10 win against Georgia Tech, who is also in their top 10, and they have four top-25 wins and seven top-50 wins. One significant loss came against Arizona State, but Brantley noted the Sun Devils are 8-2 in the last 10 matches and are playing well. Another aspect that went into putting UCLA in the top 10 was that they are out-hitting, out-digging and out-blocking their opponents. Regarding your bolded section, since when does the committee look at team stats (e.g. blocking and digging) when determining seeds? I don't have a problem with UCLA being in the top 10, but it's pretty suspect if that's the justification that they're using. That sounds pretty close to the "eye test." |
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Oct 31, 2021 23:19:40 GMT -5
I spent five minutes looking at the Top 10 first look and that was about three minutes too long. My bad.
|
|
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 1, 2021 7:31:10 GMT -5
I think people are way underestimating how useless this list is. There is no way to tell how this committee will evaluate teams based on a list done on 10/31. I would have had Nebraska at #6 before Saturday. Obviously not now. Things change a lot between now and the end of the season - things change the last couple days of the season. Criticisms of past brackets for bias is fair game - criticisms of a top 10 in the midst of constant change is a useless endeavor. 'If the season ended today' makes no sense - it doesn't end today. I'm curious how you'd justify Nebraska at #6 before this weekend as opposed to Georgia Tech. Tech had a much higher RPI, just as many top 25 wins, fewer losses, and better SOS. Given what the committee says is higher priority, those are some pretty big pluses in GT's column for Nebraska to overtake them. Just curious your reasoning if you were on the committee. No shade , I know you come at it from an objective position. In part - I fell into the same trap most people fall into when they start using subjective criteria. Things like; I have watched them play and they are as good as every other team, they are a dramatically different team now that Strivens is playing and they have settled on their lineup. They were 10-0 in the Big Ten which is proof that they are among the 6 best teams in the country - just losing to a Wisconsin the best team in the country - they are hot. All this is doing is confirming preconceived beliefs. Shame on me, I know better. The other part - I never look at current RPI, I only look at RPI Futures. I didn't know that Nebraska's RPI was in the mid 20's - I knew that their RPI Futures was around 10. This coupled with the idea that anything between #5 and #14 was/is so close - that I ultimately relied on stuff in the first part above. I did have Georgia Tech #8 and UCLA #7. I would be totally shocked if the committee doing this today would have Nebraska ahead of UCLA and Georgia Tech (I wouldn't). |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Nov 1, 2021 19:30:33 GMT -5
Makes you lose a bit of hope that the committee would have docked Nebraska after this weekend :/
UCLA at 7 though!
|
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Nov 1, 2021 19:52:10 GMT -5
Makes you lose a bit of hope that the committee would have docked Nebraska after this weekend :/ UCLA at 7 though! Not sure why lol her opinion is irrelevant |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Nov 1, 2021 19:55:46 GMT -5
Makes you lose a bit of hope that the committee would have docked Nebraska after this weekend :/ UCLA at 7 though! Not sure why lol her opinion is irrelevant Thank you, very aware of that. Don't think it's a leap to imagine that some committee members think like Chester, especially when both are evidencing Nebraska bias! [This was also mostly a dig at Chester... and, well, Nebraska bias. Just felt relevant for this thread.] |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 1, 2021 23:18:25 GMT -5
Makes you lose a bit of hope that the committee would have docked Nebraska after this weekend :/ UCLA at 7 though! I like the excuses she was making for Nebraska. "If they hadn't dropped three games earlier in the season in the midst of lineup changes, they would have had just two losses." Yes, Michaela, that's true. If they had won matches that they actually lost, their record would be better. I also liked that her explanation for ranking Texas ahead of Louisville, despite the Cardinals' obviously superior resume, is that, "They're Texas." Also, regarding Wisconsin, "The loss to Purdue shows how good the Big Ten is." This was actually a fairly entertaining video, even if it was primarily due to unintentional comedy. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 1, 2021 23:53:16 GMT -5
Makes you lose a bit of hope that the committee would have docked Nebraska after this weekend :/ UCLA at 7 though! I like the excuses she was making for Nebraska. "If they hadn't dropped three games earlier in the season in the midst of lineup changes, they would have had just two losses." Yes, Michaela, that's true. If they had won matches that they actually lost, their record would be better. I also liked that her explanation for ranking Texas ahead of Louisville, despite the Cardinals' obviously superior resume, is that, "They're Texas." Also, regarding Wisconsin, "The loss to Purdue shows how good the Big Ten is." This was actually a fairly entertaining video, even if it was primarily due to unintentional comedy. Chester is a known Big 10 loving idiot. It comes as no surprise that she’d make excuses for Nebraska’s losses. Fwiw, I do agree that Nebraska is a better team NOW than they were earlier this year (many teams are). That’s not to say that I think they’d have won the matches they lost, but just that lineup changes did hamper their consistency. The difference is that this kind of subjective opinion is NOT part of the primary criteria for the selection committee. It’s very easy to say that coming into last week Nebraska was the 6th best team in the country and at the same time say that the selection criteria does not support Nebraska as the 6 seed. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 2, 2021 0:05:02 GMT -5
I like the excuses she was making for Nebraska. "If they hadn't dropped three games earlier in the season in the midst of lineup changes, they would have had just two losses." Yes, Michaela, that's true. If they had won matches that they actually lost, their record would be better. I also liked that her explanation for ranking Texas ahead of Louisville, despite the Cardinals' obviously superior resume, is that, "They're Texas." Also, regarding Wisconsin, "The loss to Purdue shows how good the Big Ten is." This was actually a fairly entertaining video, even if it was primarily due to unintentional comedy. Chester is a known Big 10 loving idiot. It comes as no surprise that she’d make excuses for Nebraska’s losses. Fwiw, I do agree that Nebraska is a better team NOW than they were earlier this year (many teams are). That’s not to say that I think they’d have won the matches they lost, but just that lineup changes did hamper their consistency. The difference is that this kind of subjective opinion is NOT part of the primary criteria for the selection committee. It’s very easy to say that coming into last week Nebraska was the 6th best team in the country and at the same time say that the selection criteria does not support Nebraska as the 6 seed. Yeah, I agree with all of that. It was just very noticeable which teams she was making excuses for and which ones she wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Nov 2, 2021 0:41:14 GMT -5
It Makes NO sense to release a "Top 10 Reveal" without all the weeks' matches completed. Literally, why do it "as of Wednesday" or "as of noon Sunday." Finish matches for the week. It just makes sense. Rarely, if ever, is there VB on Monday or Tuesday - but there is every other day of the week. The rankings (AVCA, VT) and ratings (RPI) are weekly, ending on Sunday. Just by history and tradition, the rankings turn over after Sunday's matches are done. So, don't release until after the Sunday matches. If need be, the committee members can have a rough estimate of what the Top 10 might look like earlier in the week and make adjustments as matches are completed for the week.
This looks so stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 2, 2021 1:10:03 GMT -5
It Makes NO sense to not release a "Top 10 Reveal" without all the weeks' matches completed. Literally, why do it "as of Wednesday" or "as of noon Sunday." Finish matches for the week. It just makes sense. Rarely, if ever, is there VB on Monday or Tuesday - but there is every other day of the week. The rankings (AVCA, VT) and ratings (RPI) are weekly, ending on Sunday. Just by history and tradition, the rankings turn over after Sunday's matches are done. So, don't release until after the Sunday matches. If need be, the committee members can have a rough estimate of what the Top 10 might look like earlier in the week and make adjustments as matches are completed for the week. This looks so stupid. I think I have to agree. They dramatically increased the likelihood that their rankings would be immediately out of date by doing it this way. |
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 2, 2021 11:17:23 GMT -5
It Makes NO sense to not release a "Top 10 Reveal" without all the weeks' matches completed. Literally, why do it "as of Wednesday" or "as of noon Sunday." Finish matches for the week. It just makes sense. Rarely, if ever, is there VB on Monday or Tuesday - but there is every other day of the week. The rankings (AVCA, VT) and ratings (RPI) are weekly, ending on Sunday. Just by history and tradition, the rankings turn over after Sunday's matches are done. So, don't release until after the Sunday matches. If need be, the committee members can have a rough estimate of what the Top 10 might look like earlier in the week and make adjustments as matches are completed for the week. This looks so stupid. I think I have to agree. They dramatically increased the likelihood that their rankings would be immediately out of date by doing it this way. They wanted to do it on a national broadcast of a match that was billed as a "blockbuster." They could wait and do their reveal on a Monday or Tuesday, but they wouldn't have the platform. I get that they're trying to leverage the best vehicle to promote the sport. That's good. But it needs some work. |
|
