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: 13,262 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 28, 2022 9:03:17 GMT -5
Actually did you listen to Terry Pettit's podcast interview with the Committee Chair? IIRC, she pretty much confirmed the theory that the bracket is largely formed before the final week, and they just look at the final week matches to make minor adjustments. The committee has a big job to do in less than 24 hrs. I would assume that as much work as possible would have to be done beforehand to have any chance to do a thorough job. IMO, if the committee needs more time to complete the job it should be done, even if that means ending the regular season earlier.
They really shouldn't need more time - this isn't that hard. MBB doesn't have any more time. |
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Nov 28, 2022 9:26:04 GMT -5
Translation: "lady for in" = last 4 in "first there out" = first 3 out Thanks. Combination of lack of sleep, fat fingers, and autocorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Nov 28, 2022 9:42:42 GMT -5
Thanks for the thread and comparison. I'd love to see Tennessee comparison too. They have a good SOS but not much else. Went 3-10 vs top 50 teams while TX State went 2-3. Also, I'll lobby to add EWU to your list of wronged teams, even though it was not on your watch. Worst ever. I wonder if there has been some type of shift in the committee process re: how it looks at bad losses, non-conference scheduling, non-conference wins, and winning away from home. All of those have seemed to have been de-emphasized really. Also, two years in a row we have had a very-high (mid-50's) RPI team from the SEC get an at-large without being the last-4 in, and they both dropped in RPI (Tennessee dropped A LOT) the last week. I think that's an important question to get the committee chair to answer too. How diligent are they in keeping up with RPI changes in the last week, or has the bracket already been built and most changes don't affect it? I doubt they'd be bold enough to say it. It appears record against common opponents is the definitive nitty gritty this committee cared about. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 28, 2022 10:09:20 GMT -5
It's become pretty obvious that a lot of what takes place in the last week around the bubble group gets ignored. Knowing how committees work, not surprised. As deadlines are approached, it becomes more difficult for committees to revisit old work and decisions, and they'll tend to skate by on whatever they feel they can. Typically for WVB, that means they'll focus their energy and remaining time on hosts and seeds, at the expense of the bubble group. Should the bubble group be a squishy mess, 'Que sera, sera'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2022 11:12:36 GMT -5
The committee has a big job to do in less than 24 hrs. I would assume that as much work as possible would have to be done beforehand to have any chance to do a thorough job. IMO, if the committee needs more time to complete the job it should be done, even if that means ending the regular season earlier.
They really shouldn't need more time - this isn't that hard. MBB doesn't have any more time. MBB actually has less time because there are conference tournament championship games ON Selection Sunday and they still usually do a much better/more thorough job of putting together a competent bracket and then are also able to back up their decisions with sound reasoning...not the babbling that we get from the volleyball committee. Our sport deserves better. The teams that got left out because it doesn't seem like the criteria was consistent across the board when evaluating teams, deserve better. |
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 28, 2022 11:19:17 GMT -5
They really shouldn't need more time - this isn't that hard. MBB doesn't have any more time. MBB actually has less time because there are conference tournament championship games ON Selection Sunday and they still usually do a much better/more thorough job of putting together a competent bracket and then are also able to back up their decisions with sound reasoning...not the babbling that we get from the volleyball committee. Our sport deserves better. The teams that got left out because it doesn't seem like the criteria was consistent across the board when evaluating teams, deserve better. BB doesn't have RPI as its primary criterion. I think a lot of problems ( e.g., trying to get around obvious problems caused by RPI) faced by the wvb committee don't crop up for the MBB committee |
|
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: 13,262
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 28, 2022 11:28:39 GMT -5
MBB actually has less time because there are conference tournament championship games ON Selection Sunday and they still usually do a much better/more thorough job of putting together a competent bracket and then are also able to back up their decisions with sound reasoning...not the babbling that we get from the volleyball committee. Our sport deserves better. The teams that got left out because it doesn't seem like the criteria was consistent across the board when evaluating teams, deserve better. BB doesn't have RPI as its primary criterion. I think a lot of problems ( e.g., trying to get around obvious problems caused by RPI) faced by the wvb committee don't crop up for the MBB committee This actually can work both ways. MBB has more leaway/discretion in making up their bracket - while WVB is more easily defined by criteria. This should make WVB easier. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:30:19 GMT -5
BB doesn't have RPI as its primary criterion. I think a lot of problems ( e.g., trying to get around obvious problems caused by RPI) faced by the wvb committee don't crop up for the MBB committee This actually can work both ways. MBB has more leaway/discretion in making up their bracket - while WVB is more easily defined by criteria. This should make WVB easier. It's ridiculous that they're claiming this is the result of 4 days of "hard" work. How can they explain, that after four days of deliberation and checking, they promoted High Point to a 3 line in a subregional? What other than the sterling credential of being located within 400 miles of Columbus, Ohio? "Bracket integrity" my a$$. What's worse is the Committee got a smooth talker to do a PR blitz, so everyone's eating it up. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,262
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 28, 2022 11:49:14 GMT -5
This actually can work both ways. MBB has more leaway/discretion in making up their bracket - while WVB is more easily defined by criteria. This should make WVB easier. It's ridiculous that they're claiming this is the result of 4 days of "hard" work. How can they explain, that after four days of deliberation and checking, they promoted High Point to a 3 line in a subregional? What other than the sterling credential of being located within 400 miles of Columbus, Ohio? "Bracket integrity" my a$$. What's worse is the Committee got a smooth talker to do a PR blitz, so everyone's eating it up. I thought 3 and 4 lines were to be 100% geographically based like prior years. Didn't know if that ended up being true or they followed up with this? But High Point getting the 3 line over Tennessee State would be consistent. Didn't get to hear the committee chair - I was on the road - but yes, they should be challenged as to why they made the decisions they made. |
|
|
|
Post by jomama on Nov 28, 2022 11:49:29 GMT -5
This actually can work both ways. MBB has more leaway/discretion in making up their bracket - while WVB is more easily defined by criteria. This should make WVB easier. It's ridiculous that they're claiming this is the result of 4 days of "hard" work. How can they explain, that after four days of deliberation and checking, they promoted High Point to a 3 line in a subregional? What other than the sterling credential of being located within 400 miles of Columbus, Ohio? "Bracket integrity" my a$$. What's worse is the Committee got a smooth talker to do a PR blitz, so everyone's eating it up. Hey, High Point won a set in Texas. Not against UT, but still a set in Austin is impressive - I think. And took a set off Pitt. Best losses: Texas (swept in Austin), Wisconsin (swept in Madison), Pitt (1-3 at home), Marquette (1-3 in Madison), Houston (1-3 in Austin), JMU (swept at home), Campbell (twice in conference play), and Kennesaw St (swept in Kennesaw). So 9 losses on season against some good non-conference competition is the formula, but isn't that what a mid-major should do? I do agree that their ability to avoid a seeded team is a bit of a quandary. If they had lost their conference tournament final, there is little to no chance they are in the tournament; however, by winning their tournament (at home) they are able to avoid being in the bottom quarter of teams in the tournament? |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:52:25 GMT -5
It's ridiculous that they're claiming this is the result of 4 days of "hard" work. How can they explain, that after four days of deliberation and checking, they promoted High Point to a 3 line in a subregional? What other than the sterling credential of being located within 400 miles of Columbus, Ohio? "Bracket integrity" my a$$. What's worse is the Committee got a smooth talker to do a PR blitz, so everyone's eating it up. Hey, High Point won a set in Texas. Not against UT, but still a set in Austin is impressive - I think. And took a set off Pitt. Best losses: Texas (swept in Austin), Wisconsin (swept in Madison), Pitt (1-3 at home), Marquette (1-3 in Madison), Houston (1-3 in Austin), JMU (swept at home), Campbell (twice in conference play), and Kennesaw St (swept in Kennesaw). So 9 losses on season against some good non-conference competition is the formula, but isn't that what a mid-major should do? I do agree that their ability to avoid a seeded team is a bit of a quandary. If they had lost their conference tournament final, there is little to no chance they are in the tournament; however, by winning their tournament (at home) they are able to avoid being in the bottom quarter of teams in the tournament? They have 1 Top 100 win (against #70 Liberty). Their best road win is #188 Winthrop. They have TWO SUB-200 losses (not sub-100, sub-200). And the Committee took their RPI and pushed it above LMU, Pepperdine, and Auburn. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:54:39 GMT -5
It's ridiculous that they're claiming this is the result of 4 days of "hard" work. How can they explain, that after four days of deliberation and checking, they promoted High Point to a 3 line in a subregional? What other than the sterling credential of being located within 400 miles of Columbus, Ohio? "Bracket integrity" my a$$. What's worse is the Committee got a smooth talker to do a PR blitz, so everyone's eating it up. I thought 3 and 4 lines were to be 100% geographically based like prior years. Didn't know if that ended up being true or they followed up with this? But High Point getting the 3 line over Tennessee State would be consistent. Didn't get to hear the committee chair - I was on the road - but yes, they should be challenged as to why they made the decisions they made. On the pre-bracket chat with Michella Chester, Committee chair was very clear they did 1/2/3/4 in subregionals. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:55:28 GMT -5
What were they on Monday? #39 on Monday #47 on Friday #56 on Saturday after all matches completed Maybe you're right. Except, Ball State was #56 last Monday. So no, it's not incompetence (using a week-old RPI) - it's conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 28, 2022 12:01:19 GMT -5
BB doesn't have RPI as its primary criterion. I think a lot of problems ( e.g., trying to get around obvious problems caused by RPI) faced by the wvb committee don't crop up for the MBB committee This actually can work both ways. MBB has more leaway/discretion in making up their bracket - while WVB is more easily defined by criteria. This should make WVB easier. I disagree that it's easier, assuming that the wvb committee wants to deviate from RPI. If they simply followed it and only deviated in a few compelling cases that were justified by things like H2H and common opponents, then I think wvb would be easier, esp if all the committee members agreed that this year, H2H > common opponents> top 25 wins. (I think the latter is extremely unlikely bc different committee members are going to favor different criteria and most probably won't apply them consistently, instead using them to justify their preferred outcome.) If they want to deviate further, they theoretically need to justify it, at least to other committee members. That can entail long discussions with ppl trying to twist their preferred outcome into justifications within the criteria (and its hierarchy) that would be much more straightforward if they had more leeway like they do in MBB.
The wvb committee could go with straight RPI and, to the extent they do, that would be easier than the MBB committee. But to the extent that they go with straight RPI, they're also superfluous.
`
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 28, 2022 12:06:05 GMT -5
So she says that Ball State had "a top 50 win and five more in the 51-100" and "it's just hard to get 24 wins" (24-8).
And then she says that "only 5" of Texas State's wins were against anyone better than 100. WTF? She's knocking Texas State for the exact same thing she is praising Ball State for. And Texas State was 24-7.
With Pepperdine she says "whole body of work" and early wins despite finishing poorly, but with LMU and Colorado State (one in and one out) she talks about the play in the last 10 being super important.
And then we have UCLA. 3 wins in the top 50 and 5 in the top 100. With Ball State is got them in to have 1 win in the top 50 and 6 in the top 100, but for UCLA is was "only 3 and 5".
So there you have it. 6 total wins in the top 100 (1 in the top 50) is just much more impressive than 5 total wins in the top 100 (3 in the top 50).
|
|
