|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Aug 17, 2022 15:49:41 GMT -5
that surprised me too but Jerritt knows how to play the RPI/SOS game really well High Point and Denver in particular are RPI juggernauts. Last year the whole Big 12 played the RPI game really well, which helped all the schools collectively. Once conference play starts it becomes a closed loop, so whatever the conference does to set their conference RPI has to be done in the preseason, and that’s dependent on scheduling a bunch of teams that tend to dominate their conference. High Point and Denver intrigue me this year. High Point returns almost their entire roster from last year. (can we talk about their non-con... wth Wisconsin, Pitt, Houston, Texas, JMU, and Marquette) Denver is even more interesting, with how many transfers they have this year. Im not sure how helpful they'll be in the RPI |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 17, 2022 15:50:25 GMT -5
What are probably the 4 toughest matches on the Texas schedule are mirrored on the Nebraska schedule. Somehow the Texas SOS is #10 while the Huskers are #12 even with the B1G schedule. I'm outraged! that surprised me too but Jerritt knows how to play the RPI/SOS game really well The Big 12 impact can't be overlooked. Big 12 teams will almost ALWAYS get a SOS boost because they have a higher percentage of non-conference to conference matches on their schedule. Granted the Big 10 isn't in a true round robin, but Texas' SOS is benefited by having only 16 matches against teams that all play each other (Default to .500), whereas Nebraska has to play 20 matches against teams that all play each other (.500...ish). If Texas had to include 4 more matches against teams that would put a .500 win percentage into their opponent record, that opponent record, this their SOS, would drop. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 17, 2022 15:54:41 GMT -5
Last year the whole Big 12 played the RPI game really well, which helped all the schools collectively. Once conference play starts it becomes a closed loop, so whatever the conference does to set their conference RPI has to be done in the preseason, and that’s dependent on scheduling a bunch of teams that tend to dominate their conference. same with this season 2 in the top 10, 6 in the top 50 in terms of RPI preds. K-State on the bubble too. It’s one of those things that really pays dividends when the whole conference does it. You see teams take big hits RPI wise simply because a few conference mates chose their non conference foes poorly, and like an infectious disease every conference member takes on that same RPI hit every time they play them. Frankly, it’s really wonky this plays such a pivotal role in the tournament. There are much better mathematical tools out there than RPI, butit benefits Texas because Elliotts’s RPI-fu is high level, so my complaints regarding the system are muted. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 17, 2022 16:00:40 GMT -5
this doesn't even make sense to post and call it Futures, because it's not Futures....sorry not trying to be a downer, but it's all based on last years data, & futures requires current year data to actually project Futures in the current season, and the starting point is flawed because....it's last years data so for now it's 2021!!!. a better starting point unfortunately would be polls. it should be called Pastures or Bygones....to be more accurate....Futures in the Future It’s just a placeholder. It doesn’t even start to make sense until a few weeks into the season, and still it ends up frustrating people. Happens every year, mostly because people want to get upset at the results it provides. The real issue is such a strong reliance on RPI. But given the priority the committee has given RPI in the past it’s particularly instructive in terms of top 4, top 16, and especially top 64. Then you have the top 32 being seeded this year for the first time. I read somewhere the committee is going to rely less on RPI, but I don’t know what that means or when they start doing that. so why not make a placeholder for 2023? both 2022 and 2023 have the same amount of valid data! ahhh, so it's a teaser! |
|
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: 13,039 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 17, 2022 16:11:31 GMT -5
It’s just a placeholder. It doesn’t even start to make sense until a few weeks into the season, and still it ends up frustrating people. Happens every year, mostly because people want to get upset at the results it provides. The real issue is such a strong reliance on RPI. But given the priority the committee has given RPI in the past it’s particularly instructive in terms of top 4, top 16, and especially top 64. Then you have the top 32 being seeded this year for the first time. I read somewhere the committee is going to rely less on RPI, but I don’t know what that means or when they start doing that. so why not make a placeholder for 2023? both 2022 and 2023 have the same amount of valid data! ahhh, so it's a teaser! RPI Futures before the season has be taken with a giant grain of salt (everyone understand this). RPI Futures becomes very accurate after the 3rd and especially the 4th week of the season. And their is a decent correlation between starting Pablo rating and ending Pablo rating - it isn't like we are starting from the scratch. Let me be clear on this - the 'accuracy' of RPI Futures is showing at a very early part of the season approximately how many wins a team needs in order to get a desired ending RPI rank. It does give a general projection on where a team will finish in RPI (that is subject to a wide margin of error) - but the real strength is showing how many wins does Stanford (team X) need, to finish in the top 16 in RPI. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 17, 2022 16:19:11 GMT -5
vbfallfan17 is setting up the entire schedule in advance, so he can plug in the data each week as Pablo updates. Pablo’s data is going to be terrible until matches are played, and even then it takes time for it to become truly relevant.
The reason 2023 isn’t being done is because the schedule isn’t done. Not to mention there’s no payoff for a year. I know you’re being silly but you’re also missing the point. This isn’t meant to have any relevancy right now. The fun for me is watching the numbers develop and the data become more robust as actual games are played. Once conference season starts it becomes a fun indicator - for me at least - regarding what teams need to do in terms of playing above expectations as predicted by Pablo to obtain an RPI that puts them in a different tier (4/16/64).
That’s not fun for everyone, but it is for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 17, 2022 16:25:04 GMT -5
Pablo’s data is going to be terrible until matches are played It's not "terrible". There is a lot of continuity in terms of last year's teams and this year's teams. The early pablo won't reflect changes. Like, it won't "know" that Pukis is setting for Oregon this year instead of WSU. But it won't exactly be just throwing darts at a board of random numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Aug 17, 2022 16:25:07 GMT -5
I had to do some manipulation regarding the 5 new D1 teams since they don't have Pablo ratings yet, but that'll work itself out once the season begins. Also, there's a Louisville tourney where the matchups still seem undetermined, so I will make adjustments on those schedules later. Thanks for taking this on! Who are the 5 new D1 teams? Yeah, I saw that Lipscomb/Xavier wildcard in the Louisville tourney. Purdue is the other team affected. Hopefully there won't be too many COVID cancellations this year. |
|
|
|
Post by vballfan17 on Aug 17, 2022 16:27:16 GMT -5
I had to do some manipulation regarding the 5 new D1 teams since they don't have Pablo ratings yet, but that'll work itself out once the season begins. Also, there's a Louisville tourney where the matchups still seem undetermined, so I will make adjustments on those schedules later. Thanks for taking this on! Who are the 5 new D1 teams? Yeah, I saw that Lipscomb/Xavier wildcard in the Louisville tourney. Purdue is the other team affected. Hopefully there won't be too many COVID cancellations this year. New teams: Queens (ASUN), Lindenwood (OVC), Southern Indiana (OVC), Stonehill (NEC) and Texas A&M-Commerce (SLC) |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 17, 2022 16:28:27 GMT -5
vbfallfan17 is setting up the entire schedule in advance, so he can plug in the data each week as Pablo updates. Pablo’s data is going to be terrible until matches are played, and even then it takes time for it to become truly relevant. The reason 2023 isn’t being done is because the schedule isn’t done. Not to mention there’s no payoff for a year. I know you’re being silly but you’re also missing the point. This isn’t meant to have any relevancy right now. The fun for me is watching the numbers develop and the data become more robust as actual games are played. Once conference season starts it becomes a fun indicator - for me at least - regarding what teams need to do in terms of playing above expectations as predicted by Pablo to obtain an RPI that puts them in a different tier (4/16/64). That’s not fun for everyone, but it is for me. lol, so why not post it when it actually means something. posting meaningless data is silly just post "Hey guys, and gals, in 3 weeks I'll be posting RPI futures, so talk about it now and I'm not going to post a bunch of meaningless data!!"  |
|
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: 13,039
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 17, 2022 16:30:06 GMT -5
The Big 12 was the only conference in D1 last year to have all teams in the Top 100 in Pablo. Going into tournament selection - they had 5 of 9 teams with a Pablo in the Top 40 - and this doesn't include Kansas who ended up making the sweet 16. This % of T40 teams was similar to the B1G and PAC and way better than all the rest of the conferences. I believe they had the 2nd best out of conference w/l% - if I remember.
The Big 12 did well with RPI because they were a good conference last year.
As for doing an especially good job in playing the RPI game - no, this didn't really happen. They did well despite TCU and Oklahoma scheduling badly for the rest of the conference. Here was the Non Conference records for the B12 last year:
Baylor 6-3
Iowa State 8-3
Kansas 8-3
Kansas State 9-2
Oklahoma 6-5
TCU 6-4
Texas 9-0
Texas Tech 10-3
West Virginia 11-1
The ACC was a conference that took full advantage in how their worst teams scheduled - and received the RPI dividends.
|
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 17, 2022 16:36:22 GMT -5
vbfallfan17 is setting up the entire schedule in advance, so he can plug in the data each week as Pablo updates. Pablo’s data is going to be terrible until matches are played, and even then it takes time for it to become truly relevant. The reason 2023 isn’t being done is because the schedule isn’t done. Not to mention there’s no payoff for a year. I know you’re being silly but you’re also missing the point. This isn’t meant to have any relevancy right now. The fun for me is watching the numbers develop and the data become more robust as actual games are played. Once conference season starts it becomes a fun indicator - for me at least - regarding what teams need to do in terms of playing above expectations as predicted by Pablo to obtain an RPI that puts them in a different tier (4/16/64). That’s not fun for everyone, but it is for me. lol, so why not post it when it actually means something. posting meaningless data is silly just post "Hey guys, and gals, in 3 weeks I'll be posting RPI futures, so talk about it now and I'm not going to post a bunch of meaningless data!!" Because maybe this thread wasn’t meant for you? I enjoy watching the data take shape. Maybe that’s not entertainubg for you. You’re welcome to say so - like you’re doing here - but we all don’t see things the same way. There are a LOT of threads I never click on on this board. The subject matter isn’t interesting to me. Maybe you’ve found one of those for yourself here. |
|
|
|
Post by raian13 on Aug 17, 2022 16:47:42 GMT -5
San Diego at 51? Gotta put more trust on this team. They are legit.
|
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 17, 2022 16:51:05 GMT -5
San Diego at 51? Gotta put more trust on this team. They are legit. There’s no 2022 data to go off of. Pablo will become better regarding where it ranks teams once those teams have actually started playing. It’s not meant to be an actual preseason ranking. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 17, 2022 16:54:43 GMT -5
The Big 12 was the only conference in D1 last year to have all teams in the Top 100 in Pablo. Going into tournament selection - they had 5 of 9 teams with a Pablo in the Top 40 - and this doesn't include Kansas who ended up making the sweet 16. This % of T40 teams was similar to the B1G and PAC and way better than all the rest of the conferences. I believe they had the 2nd best out of conference w/l% - if I remember. The Big 12 did well with RPI because they were a good conference last year. As for doing an especially good job in playing the RPI game - no, this didn't really happen. They did well despite TCU and Oklahoma scheduling badly for the rest of the conference. Here was the Non Conference records for the B12 last year: Baylor 6-3 Iowa State 8-3 Kansas 8-3 Kansas State 9-2 Oklahoma 6-5 TCU 6-4 Texas 9-0 Texas Tech 10-3 West Virginia 11-1 The ACC was a conference that took full advantage in how their worst teams scheduled - and received the RPI dividends. I think the four new Big 12 schools probably were top 100 as well. BYU and UCF definitely. Houston and Cincinnati probably, though I'm not 100% sure. |
|
