|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 17, 2022 13:35:15 GMT -5
Hawaii’s performance in the tourney in 2018 proved the committee’s decision to pick them as an at-large was the right decision. Their match with Baylor was one of the best first round matches in that tournament. That’s not how that works. They had 1 Top 50 win, at home. It was a great match though. Was the committee wrong? |
|
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: 31,810 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 17, 2022 14:00:45 GMT -5
Hawaii’s performance in the tourney in 2018 proved the committee’s decision to pick them as an at-large was the right decision. Their match with Baylor was one of the best first round matches in that tournament. That, and K.State had been underwhelming in conf (5-11), had struggled with injuries, and weren't improving at the end. Basically they'd peaked way early and the rest of their season were inconsistent at best. They'd blown in and out of Hawaii, riding the chaos caused by Hurricane Lane, and done little else after. Weather luck canceled them out of facing UCLA and gave them an extra back-to-back match with a highly distracted and fanless UH squad. Later, they had a match with Minnesota canceled (weather again?). OTOH, Hawai'i started out poorly but finished very well. Brand Bias at work? A bit, maybe, but a bias well earned. And, as BiK points out, Hawai'i went on to nearly upset Baylor, a team that K.State had lost 0-3 to just weeks before. Bottom line, is that the advisory and selection committees exist to make the judgement calls that correct for the inherent failings/weakness of the current criteria and rating algo. Sometimes I'd prefer doing away with that human 'feature' of the process and have everyone just rely on weighted and ranked criteria, and let the chips fall where they may. But, that's not what 'wiser' heads have decided. That’s not how that works. They had 1 Top 50 win, at home. It was a great match though. And? Was the committee wrong? I'll respond to both of these at once, and start with 'earned brand bias' is not a great thing to admit to. Anyway. Also, playing a competitive match with Baylor, who K-State swept on the road but got swept at home, going even on the season against, I'm not sure is evidence that Hawaii should have gotten in over that specific team, even if you use results... Anyway, yes I think the committee was wrong in my opinion. But before I get into why - I should preface that I would have taken Hawaii and K-State both over Denver, who did get an at-large too, so, it's not always about Team A vs. Team B, but I saw K-State with the advantage. Some criteria: Hawaii - 1 Top 25 win (23 Cal Poly), 1 Top 50 win (Best road win: at 78 UC Irvine) (Best non-conf win: vs. #133 Idaho) K State - 1 Top 25 win (17 Baylor) , 5 Top 50 wins (Best road win: at 17 Baylor) (Best non-conf win: at 46 Hawaii(x2), 62 Western Kentucky) (and since I brought them up... Denver): 1 Top 50 win (#43 Saint Mary's, also best non-conf win) (Best road win: 110 South Dakota) And they had an RPI of 40. Winning one match against a 40-level team shouldn't be good enough to earn an at-large bid.. In terms of wins, non-conf performance, and performance away from home, which the committee does stress is important (but what criteria they prioritize always varies) I think I'd clearly take K-State. What WAS in Hawaii's favor was their RPI was slightly better (46 Hawaii, 51 K-State) and the secondary criteria of last 10 matches. We know if Hawaii went on the road and swept another team twice and they were very close to that team, had more/better wins/non-conf/road wins and got left out of the tournament.... there would have been uproar. |
|
|
|
Post by roy on Nov 17, 2022 14:08:55 GMT -5
Losing matches against good W/L is not going to hurt your RPI (At least significantly). You can often lose a match and stay at the same rank. You can play a match against a Rutgers/UC Riverside and *drop* in RPI, significantly! I actually think in 2018 Hawaii probably shouldn't have gotten into the tournament, despite Kansas State being on the bubble and winning TWICE at Hawaii, they took the Wahine instead (maybe name brand bias?) A conference tournament could have helped Hawaii if they beat Cal Poly. A loss to Cal Poly wouldn't have had a big effect on their RPI anyways. Agreed. Hawaii losing an additional match to Cal Poly in 2018 would not have hurt their RPI given that Cal Poly was 25-2. Frankly, it might have even helped. However, if it were a top 4 team tournament, it also assumes that Hawaii gets by a 16-12 UCI team. Hawaii beat them pretty handily in the last week of the season at home, but UCI took Hawaii to 5 at UCI earlier in the season. Certainly a semi-final loss against UCI would have hurt Hawaii's RPI. In the other 2 cases, Hawaii lost to CSUN in 2014 on the road (with a 4 set win in Hawaii) and would have faced them in the semi-finals. In 2017, Hawaii would have faced UCI in the semi-finals and Hawaii won both of those matches. 2019 is a good example of a year where a tournament wouldn't have pushed out any at large contenders despite a semi-final loss. But going back to 2013, UCSB would have been the top seed by virtue of tie break. They would have faced a Long Beach team that beat them twice in the regular season. |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 17, 2022 14:21:35 GMT -5
That, and K.State had been underwhelming in conf (5-11), had struggled with injuries, and weren't improving at the end. Basically they'd peaked way early and the rest of their season were inconsistent at best. They'd blown in and out of Hawaii, riding the chaos caused by Hurricane Lane, and done little else after. Weather luck canceled them out of facing UCLA and gave them an extra back-to-back match with a highly distracted and fanless UH squad. Later, they had a match with Minnesota canceled (weather again?). OTOH, Hawai'i started out poorly but finished very well. Brand Bias at work? A bit, maybe, but a bias well earned. And, as BiK points out, Hawai'i went on to nearly upset Baylor, a team that K.State had lost 0-3 to just weeks before. Bottom line, is that the advisory and selection committees exist to make the judgement calls that correct for the inherent failings/weakness of the current criteria and rating algo. Sometimes I'd prefer doing away with that human 'feature' of the process and have everyone just rely on weighted and ranked criteria, and let the chips fall where they may. But, that's not what 'wiser' heads have decided. And? Was the committee wrong? I'll respond to both of these at once, and start with 'earned brand bias' is not a great thing to admit to. Anyway. Also, playing a competitive match with Baylor, who K-State swept on the road but got swept at home, going even on the season against, I'm not sure is evidence that Hawaii should have gotten in over that specific team, even if you use results... Anyway, yes I think the committee was wrong in my opinion. But before I get into why - I should preface that I would have taken Hawaii and K-State both over Denver, who did get an at-large too, so, it's not always about Team A vs. Team B, but I saw K-State with the advantage. Some criteria: Hawaii - 1 Top 25 win (23 Cal Poly), 1 Top 50 win (Best road win: at 78 UC Irvine) (Best non-conf win: vs. #133 Idaho) K State - 1 Top 25 win (17 Baylor) , 5 Top 50 wins (Best road win: at 17 Baylor) (Best non-conf win: at 46 Hawaii(x2), 62 Western Kentucky) (and since I brought them up... Denver): 1 Top 50 win (#43 Saint Mary's, also best non-conf win) (Best road win: 110 South Dakota) And they had an RPI of 40. Winning one match against a 40-level team shouldn't be good enough to earn an at-large bid.. In terms of wins, non-conf performance, and performance away from home, which the committee does stress is important (but what criteria they prioritize always varies) I think I'd clearly take K-State. What WAS in Hawaii's favor was their RPI was slightly better (46 Hawaii, 51 K-State) and the secondary criteria of last 10 matches. We know if Hawaii went on the road and swept another team twice and they were very close to that team, had more/better wins/non-conf/road wins and got left out of the tournament.... there would have been uproar. All those top wins mumble jumble is overrated. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 17, 2022 14:49:44 GMT -5
That, and K.State had been underwhelming in conf (5-11), had struggled with injuries, and weren't improving at the end. Basically they'd peaked way early and the rest of their season were inconsistent at best. They'd blown in and out of Hawaii, riding the chaos caused by Hurricane Lane, and done little else after. Weather luck canceled them out of facing UCLA and gave them an extra back-to-back match with a highly distracted and fanless UH squad. Later, they had a match with Minnesota canceled (weather again?). OTOH, Hawai'i started out poorly but finished very well. Brand Bias at work? A bit, maybe, but a bias well earned. And, as BiK points out, Hawai'i went on to nearly upset Baylor, a team that K.State had lost 0-3 to just weeks before. Bottom line, is that the advisory and selection committees exist to make the judgement calls that correct for the inherent failings/weakness of the current criteria and rating algo. Sometimes I'd prefer doing away with that human 'feature' of the process and have everyone just rely on weighted and ranked criteria, and let the chips fall where they may. But, that's not what 'wiser' heads have decided. And? Was the committee wrong? I'll respond to both of these at once, and start with 'earned brand bias' is not a great thing to admit to. Anyway. Also, playing a competitive match with Baylor, who K-State swept on the road but got swept at home, going even on the season against, I'm not sure is evidence that Hawaii should have gotten in over that specific team, even if you use results... Anyway, yes I think the committee was wrong in my opinion. But before I get into why - I should preface that I would have taken Hawaii and K-State both over Denver, who did get an at-large too, so, it's not always about Team A vs. Team B, but I saw K-State with the advantage. Some criteria: Hawaii - 1 Top 25 win (23 Cal Poly), 1 Top 50 win (Best road win: at 78 UC Irvine) (Best non-conf win: vs. #133 Idaho) K State - 1 Top 25 win (17 Baylor) , 5 Top 50 wins (Best road win: at 17 Baylor) (Best non-conf win: at 46 Hawaii(x2), 62 Western Kentucky) (and since I brought them up... Denver): 1 Top 50 win (#43 Saint Mary's, also best non-conf win) (Best road win: 110 South Dakota) And they had an RPI of 40. Winning one match against a 40-level team shouldn't be good enough to earn an at-large bid.. In terms of wins, non-conf performance, and performance away from home, which the committee does stress is important (but what criteria they prioritize always varies) I think I'd clearly take K-State. What WAS in Hawaii's favor was their RPI was slightly better (46 Hawaii, 51 K-State) and the secondary criteria of last 10 matches. We know if Hawaii went on the road and swept another team twice and they were very close to that team, had more/better wins/non-conf/road wins and got left out of the tournament.... there would have been uproar. Earned bias is not a great thing to admit to, agreed. But I acknowledge it exists, and, that it comes into play with advisory and selection committees. Is that considered a feature of these committees or a bug? Arguably, 'wiser' heads must deem it a 'feature'. Why? Because the pre-championship manual selection criteria and rating algo (RPI) have inherent flaws, don't capture every consideration, and in some ways may be systemically biased. Also not a great thing to admit to. Which is why we have human input from advisory and selection committees. O/w, it could all be done by computer IAW properly weighted and ranked criteria which are supremely fair and account for every consideration, har har. Re if the 2018 selection committee 'got it wrong', well, hindsight being 20/20 they did a great job with their Hawaii pick (RPI 46) almost upseting Baylor (RPI 17). A Baylor team which had shellacked K.State just weeks before (-18, -17, -11). A K.State team going no-where at the end of its season, having turned in a dismal conference season of 5-11, with a way outside the bubble RPI of 51. Honestly, wasn't even that close a call to ignore the early H2H criteria and go with RPI and last 10. As to whether or not you'd have found Hawaii fans who'd bitched if the shoe had been on the other foot, well, that's a bit of whine in of itself. Heard all the time. Yes, not a great thing to admit to, but the Hawaii fanbase can be rabid and biased. But is that a feature or a bug of a broad and large fanbase? |
|
|
|
Post by 2left on Nov 17, 2022 15:23:58 GMT -5
It’s a conspiracy theory, but I think the selection committee has been throwing Robyn and Hawaii a bone after screwing Hawaii over under Shoji for so many years. Maybe they think a robust Hawaii program is good for college volleyball?
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 17, 2022 15:25:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Nov 17, 2022 15:27:26 GMT -5
It’s a conspiracy theory, but I think the selection committee has been throwing Robyn and Hawaii a bone after screwing Hawaii over under Shoji for so many years. Maybe they think a robust Hawaii program is good for college volleyball? 2018 was the only year they were in any real danger and it’s not like them getting in was totally unheard of. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyaudience on Nov 17, 2022 16:18:51 GMT -5
It’s a conspiracy theory, but I think the selection committee has been throwing Robyn and Hawaii a bone after screwing Hawaii over under Shoji for so many years. Maybe they think a robust Hawaii program is good for college volleyball? I would think there would be near universal belief that a more robust Hawaii program would be very good for volleyball. |
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Nov 17, 2022 17:15:48 GMT -5
A factor that most do not look at , is the familiarity factor. In most sports, if you play a team regularly, the odds for beating them goes up exponentially. In-conference teams are more likely to beat each other than a non conference opponent. There is nothing more valuable then experience with your opponent. Sure there is the scouting aspect, but knowing the program on a regular basis provide intangible benefits during a match. I think coaches and players are more relaxed and less anxious in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by raian13 on Nov 17, 2022 17:28:15 GMT -5
You know whose team gets the brand bias? Michigan and Illinois.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbowcard on Nov 17, 2022 22:38:07 GMT -5
UC Davis wins set 1 against UCSB
UCSB wins set 2
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbowcard on Nov 18, 2022 0:01:42 GMT -5
34 to 34 in set 3, honestly though UC Davis should have had this set long ago but they let it go
|
|
vballfreak808
Hawaiian Ohana 
2020 All-VolleyTalk 1st Team, All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2023, 2022, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk HM (2021, 2019, 2018), 2017 Fantasy League 1st Runner-up, 2016 Fantasy League Champion
#GoBows
Posts: 13,775
|
Post by vballfreak808 on Nov 18, 2022 0:09:27 GMT -5
This UC Davis-UCSB game is intense.
Davis should have won 30-28 on a back row setter but Connors couldn't challenge that call.
UCSB challenges a touch on but UC Davis takes it 40-38!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by gr8lakes on Nov 18, 2022 0:09:57 GMT -5
Is that score right did UC Davis win 40 to 38 wow
|
|
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/W34E6WUZKNAYPJECX7XWMXTMRM.JPG)
