|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 12:06:33 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. 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.
`
This is a bizarre take. MBB has those same long discussions, but they're longer because they have more inputs. There is obviously a lot to do in putting together a bracket, but it's not rocket science. If you have 10 or so people spending 4 days on this, it should be better. |
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Nov 28, 2022 12:08:58 GMT -5
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.
`
This is a bizarre take. MBB has those same long discussions, but they're longer because they have more inputs. It's fine that you disagree. I agree that MBB also probably has long discussions. But they have better inputs that they can use to make decisions and IMO it's much easier to make committee decisions with good inputs and criteria. YMMV |
|
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 12:19:41 GMT -5
Sports writers for college basketball will sit in a room with others and see how the process works - and will come away with a completely different understanding of how it works than the rest of us. A group of equals with totally different opinions coming together with a single bracket will have some inconsistencies in application of criteria. This is going to be less consistent than a single person making the bracket.
|
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Nov 28, 2022 12:21:47 GMT -5
There is obviously a lot to do in putting together a bracket, but it's not rocket science. If you have 10 or so people spending 4 days on this, it should be better. I think they'd be better off with 1-2 experts putting together a bracket (or a computer program) Too many people = arguing about too many silly things. Instead of 10 part timers who are tasked to "follow" the sport and give input. Hire a volleyball nut expert (it can rotate) to do the bracket as their actual job. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 12:23:42 GMT -5
There is obviously a lot to do in putting together a bracket, but it's not rocket science. If you have 10 or so people spending 4 days on this, it should be better. I think they'd be better off with 1-2 experts putting together a bracket (or a computer program) Too many people = arguing about too many silly things. Instead of 10 part timers who are tasked to "follow" the sport and give input. Hire a volleyball nut expert (it can rotate) to do the bracket as their actual job. Especially when the Bubble Teams and Bubble Seeds who get favorably treated (mysteriously so, often) are represented on the Committee or the Regional Advisory Committees. |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 28, 2022 12:27:54 GMT -5
I think they'd be better off with 1-2 experts putting together a bracket (or a computer program) Too many people = arguing about too many silly things. Instead of 10 part timers who are tasked to "follow" the sport and give input. Hire a volleyball nut expert (it can rotate) to do the bracket as their actual job. Especially when the Bubble Teams and Bubble Seeds who get favorably treated (mysteriously so, often) are represented on the Committee or the Regional Advisory Committees. Yes, it’s blatantly obvious that having representation on the championship committee (or RAC) is beneficial for bubble teams. It’s a bad look for the committee but I doubt they care. They think we’re all fools. |
|
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: 31,334
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 28, 2022 12:31:44 GMT -5
Sports writers for college basketball will sit in a room with others and see how the process works - and will come away with a completely different understanding of how it works than the rest of us. A group of equals with totally different opinions coming together with a single bracket will have some inconsistencies in application of criteria. This is going to be less consistent than a single person making the bracket. A basketball committee would NEVER admit a 2018 High Point, 2019 VCU, and 2022 Ball State (even if under different criteria). It just wouldn't happen. I'm also gonna say a softball committee would never either as I've been following them decently close, though not as much as volleyball over the past 10 years. You can argue that 2018 High Point was because of our RPI system - but you cannot do that for VCU and Ball State. It was very easy to exclude those inferior teams. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 12:36:12 GMT -5
Especially when the Bubble Teams and Bubble Seeds who get favorably treated (mysteriously so, often) are represented on the Committee or the Regional Advisory Committees. Yes, it’s blatantly obvious that having Representation on the championship committee (or RAC) is beneficial for bubble teams. It’s a bad look for the committee but I doubt they care. They think we’re all fools. Sadly, the Volleyball community is doing nothing to disabuse them of the notion that we are fools. Just look at the VB Mag thread on the Zoom. Feinswog and Ehman pandering to them and then the casuals lapping it up. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Nov 28, 2022 12:46:57 GMT -5
Yes, it’s blatantly obvious that having Representation on the championship committee (or RAC) is beneficial for bubble teams. It’s a bad look for the committee but I doubt they care. They think we’re all fools. Right here I find myself wildly agreeing with BiK. What's up with that? Scary. |
|
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: 31,334
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 28, 2022 13:22:28 GMT -5
I finally got a chance to listen to it. I do wish there was follow-up and at least pushback but Lee also prefaced this by not trying to 'grill her', but I'm not sure how much Lee and Emily are aware of RPI, team sheet, selection, conference grouping, etc. I come from a different place re: grilling. If I'm the Committee Chair, I'm ready to be grilled. I have to defend these decisions. I do understand there was a 15 minute limit. I guess I need to be grateful we got what we got. Anyways, it's practically everything mikegarrison pointed out: It was almost comical how blatant, hypocritical some of the rationale was. Ball State had 24 wins - "that's so hard" in her words. OK, Texas State got 24 wins, with a better RPI, and they lost one less game! She criticized Texas State's top 100 wins while rewarding Ball State's (despite them being essentially the same). She had no mention of Texas State's top 25 win. She also glossed over the fact that Ball State had "A" Top-50 win. She downplayed UCLA's three top-50 wins, mentioned UCLA taking so many losses in the Top 50, but didn't mention that they didn't lose any outside the Top 100, she also didn't mention Ball State losing THREE times outside the Top 100. She mentioned non-conference to knock down Texas State. Texas State actually had a Top 50 win in the non-conference at TCU. Ball State didn't do anything in the non-conference. That was ironic. She DID mention Colorado State's 3 very high RPI losses that outweighed their wins. What about Ball State's 3, who didn't have the wins to match up? IMO, you have to pick a metric where Ball State is better. It boils down to again, what mikegarrison said. Winning once in the Top 50 is OK, and it's better than winning 3 to 4 times against Top 50 teams because you had more wins in the 51-100 category, despite losing in 100+.. WTF is that? |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 28, 2022 13:28:13 GMT -5
Yes, it’s blatantly obvious that having Representation on the championship committee (or RAC) is beneficial for bubble teams. It’s a bad look for the committee but I doubt they care. They think we’re all fools. Right here I find myself wildly agreeing with BiK. What's up with that? Scary. I think we all want the Championship Committee to do better. As a Hawaii fan, I really haven't had much complaints over Hawaii's placement in the tourney for a few years now but I don't want to see teams left out in favor of other teams who maybe should have been left out. Texas State really should have gotten in with their RPI. UCLA should have gotten in over Ball State as well. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 28, 2022 13:29:35 GMT -5
Bottom line, is there anyone on the committee who would bet $100 on Ball State beating UCLA? Pretty sure not a single one of them would take that bet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2022 13:38:43 GMT -5
Bottom line, is there anyone on the committee who would bet $100 on Ball State beating UCLA? Pretty sure not a single one of them would take that bet. Almost like WVB should adopt the first 4 model. It’s a win win, they don’t have to deal with making the decision and ideally the “better” teams right on the cut off get in the tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 14:01:30 GMT -5
I finally got a chance to listen to it. I do wish there was follow-up and at least pushback but Lee also prefaced this by not trying to 'grill her', but I'm not sure how much Lee and Emily are aware of RPI, team sheet, selection, conference grouping, etc. I come from a different place re: grilling. If I'm the Committee Chair, I'm ready to be grilled. I have to defend these decisions. I do understand there was a 15 minute limit. I guess I need to be grateful we got what we got. Anyways, it's practically everything mikegarrison pointed out: It was almost comical how blatant, hypocritical some of the rationale was. Ball State had 24 wins - "that's so hard" in her words. OK, Texas State got 24 wins, with a better RPI, and they lost one less game! She criticized Texas State's top 100 wins while rewarding Ball State's (despite them being essentially the same). She had no mention of Texas State's top 25 win. She also glossed over the fact that Ball State had "A" Top-50 win. She downplayed UCLA's three top-50 wins, mentioned UCLA taking so many losses in the Top 50, but didn't mention that they didn't lose any outside the Top 100, she also didn't mention Ball State losing THREE times outside the Top 100. She mentioned non-conference to knock down Texas State. Texas State actually had a Top 50 win in the non-conference at TCU. Ball State didn't do anything in the non-conference. That was ironic. She DID mention Colorado State's 3 very high RPI losses that outweighed their wins. What about Ball State's 3, who didn't have the wins to match up? IMO, you have to pick a metric where Ball State is better. It boils down to again, what mikegarrison said. Winning once in the Top 50 is OK, and it's better than winning 3 to 4 times against Top 50 teams because you had more wins in the 51-100 category, despite losing in 100+.. WTF is that? Important metrics for Ball St. that you didn't cover here: Members on Regional Advisory Committee: 1 UCLA/CSU/Texas St.: 0 Ball St.'s sole Top 50 win was also over a team represented on the Selection Committee (and is a conference mate), so I'm sure that #40 RPI win was given extra credit. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan1566 on Nov 28, 2022 14:09:56 GMT -5
I finally got a chance to listen to it. I do wish there was follow-up and at least pushback but Lee also prefaced this by not trying to 'grill her', but I'm not sure how much Lee and Emily are aware of RPI, team sheet, selection, conference grouping, etc. I come from a different place re: grilling. If I'm the Committee Chair, I'm ready to be grilled. I have to defend these decisions. I do understand there was a 15 minute limit. I guess I need to be grateful we got what we got. Anyways, it's practically everything mikegarrison pointed out: It was almost comical how blatant, hypocritical some of the rationale was. Ball State had 24 wins - "that's so hard" in her words. OK, Texas State got 24 wins, with a better RPI, and they lost one less game! She criticized Texas State's top 100 wins while rewarding Ball State's (despite them being essentially the same). She had no mention of Texas State's top 25 win. She also glossed over the fact that Ball State had "A" Top-50 win. She downplayed UCLA's three top-50 wins, mentioned UCLA taking so many losses in the Top 50, but didn't mention that they didn't lose any outside the Top 100, she also didn't mention Ball State losing THREE times outside the Top 100. She mentioned non-conference to knock down Texas State. Texas State actually had a Top 50 win in the non-conference at TCU. Ball State didn't do anything in the non-conference. That was ironic. She DID mention Colorado State's 3 very high RPI losses that outweighed their wins. What about Ball State's 3, who didn't have the wins to match up? IMO, you have to pick a metric where Ball State is better. It boils down to again, what mikegarrison said. Winning once in the Top 50 is OK, and it's better than winning 3 to 4 times against Top 50 teams because you had more wins in the 51-100 category, despite losing in 100+.. WTF is that? Important metrics for Ball St. that you didn't cover here: Members on Regional Advisory Committee: 1 UCLA/CSU/Texas St.: 0 Ball St.'s sole Top 50 win was also over a team represented on the Selection Committee (and is a conference mate), so I'm sure that #40 RPI win was given extra credit. Texas State was robbed |
|
