Latest Victim(s) of the NCAA Selection Committee (injustice)

[bbg95]

Nov 28, 2022 11:19:17 GMT -5 baytree said:

Nov 28, 2022 11:12:36 GMT -5 @nvvball said:

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

Right, and there's a lot more scrutiny on men's basketball, and I guarantee that a lot more resources are being used on that bracket.

[bbg95]

Nov 28, 2022 12:08:58 GMT -5 baytree said:

Nov 28, 2022 12:06:33 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

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

I think you're right that it's easier to make a good bracket with good inputs. It's harder to make a good bracket with bad inputs. Now, if they don't care about making a good bracket, then women's volleyball would be easier because they could basically just go straight RPI with some deviations.

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2022 13:29:35 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

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.

UCLA just won at Pullman. I'll take them. UCLA also beat Texas State decisively.

But Texas State-Ball State is interesting.

I also wonder if Ball State's win over Michigan last year in the NCAA played any part of RAC/committee member shenanigans. Yes, I know they 'have to leave the room'. I also know how things work in the real world.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 28, 2022 14:24:29 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Nov 28, 2022 12:08:58 GMT -5 baytree said:

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

I think you're right that it's easier to make a good bracket with good inputs. It's harder to make a good bracket with bad inputs. Now, if they don't care about making a good bracket, then women's volleyball would be easier because they could basically just go straight RPI with some deviations.

Back to the original idea - whether WVB is harder or easier than MBB (I think it is easier, especially when conference tournament games are being played on Sunday for MBB) - there is plenty of time to get this right.

[bbg95]

Nov 28, 2022 13:29:35 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

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.

That's not really what the criteria is supposed to be. There have been plenty of talented teams that have been left out of tournaments in all sports because they didn't do enough during the season to earn it. Granted, it sounds like Ball State doesn't really deserve to be in based on the criteria either, but still.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 28, 2022 13:29:35 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

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.

But that isn't the standard they are supposed to use - and I believe it would be a terrible standard to use.

If I was forced to put $100 on a neutral site match between Nebraska and Louisville - I am taking Nebraska.  But I don't believe Nebraska deserved to be seeded higher than Louisville.  

[trojansc]

This is also 3 years in a row that a PAC bubble team has been on the wrong side of a borderline decision (i'm skipping COVID year, so, '19-'21-'22. Two years it was for a 1 Top 50 win mid-major team, the other it was for a not-worthy Kansas State team and mid-50's RPI Ole Miss team. Another mid-50's SEC team gets in this year too, though at least you can argue UCLA's RPI in the 50's unlike Cal/USC in the years prior.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 28, 2022 12:36:12 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Nov 28, 2022 12:27:54 GMT -5 Barefoot In Kailua said:

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.

I would think that the coaches would have the best pull on changing committee behavior than VB fans and media?

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 28, 2022 14:37:15 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Nov 28, 2022 12:36:12 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

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.

I would think that the coaches would have the best pull on changing committee behavior than VB fans and media?

The problem is 2/3 of D-I VB coaches are completely agnostic to this - what the Committee does is entirely irrelevant to the bottom 200 or so programs.

Of those that care, more have potential benefit from this system than those who are hurt.

[noblesol]

Nov 28, 2022 14:42:17 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Nov 28, 2022 14:37:15 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

I would think that the coaches would have the best pull on changing committee behavior than VB fans and media?

The problem is 2/3 of D-I VB coaches are completely agnostic to this - what the Committee does is entirely irrelevant to the bottom 200 or so programs.

Of those that care, more have potential benefit from this system than those who are hurt.

345 DIV-1 teams, with a six or seven standard deviation spread in relative strength across the field, is a root problem. 

[noblesol]

Changing committee behaiviors under the current system, its critera and process, maybe the fool's errand.

Time might be better spent on developing weighted criteria, algorithmically applied, that outputs a bracket. It could be backtested against previous year's brackets to determine suitability. Then, incorporate into the Pre-Champ Manual to make it the job of the RACs and Selection Committee to review the computed bracket output, with RACs advising the SC on any suggested deviations. Then the SC votes on accepting the output with deviations. All deviations would be required to be fully documented and explained. Computed bracket ouput, RAC input, SC votes, and explanations for approved deviations would be published for the record, and released to the public with the Final bracket.

Post-tournament, make it a separate committee's work to review the criteria, the weightings, the algorithm, the computed bracket and final bracket output, the RACs advisory opinions, and the SC votes and explanations, and tournament results, and any region/conference/team feedback with suggested changes. Backtest suggested changes to the criteria and algorithm, and bracket selection process, before providing them for incorporation into the next Pre-Champ manual. All work to be published and transparent to the public.

[eazy]

Nov 28, 2022 0:37:26 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Anyways, here is the story criteria wise:

Texas State had the better RPI by 8 spots. They had a T25 win (JMU). They had a non-conference Top 50 win at TCU (Ball State did not). Texas State had 2 sub-100 losses, Ball State had 3. Both were 8-2 in their last 10 matches.

The only real criteria in favor of Ball State is the common opponent result of Alabama (Texas State lost, Ball State won). I'm not sure how that outweighs all of the above. It is historically unprecedented to see this RPI jump from a sub-par team. You could also argue S.O.S is in Ball State's favor, but it's extremely close and shouldn't be considered really at #98 vs. #102....

Honorable mention:

The UCLA Bruins.

UCLA was also unfortunately also left out over Ball State. You could argue UCLA should be in over Texas State - but Ball State deserved nothing over these teams. UCLA beat Texas State, won AT Hawaii, and won AT Washington State. They were closer in RPI to Ball State than Ball State was to Texas State

I'm going to give a novice opinion on this..
After doing the eye test at the results from Ball St, Texas St, and UCLA I would have ranked them UCLA -> Ball St -> Texas St. 
UCLA was 2-12 against tournament teams. Common opponents 2-0
Ball St  was 1-2 against tournament teams. Common opponents 2-0
Texas St was 2-2 against tournament teams. Common opponents 2-4
Common opponents: Alabama, South Alabama, Hawaii, UCLA/Texas St.
Texas St's 'Top 25' win that keeps getting brought up is over JMU. I've never seen JMU mentioned as receiving votes in any VT/AVCA poll. JMU's signature win is over.. Florida AM? JMU is 2-3 against tournament teams.

I am admittedly a Ball St & Charitie Luper/Matti McKissock fan, but I just don't see the case for Texas St. 
No need to spend too much time tearing my argument apart because I know it is brief, shallow, and uneducated. RPI Who?

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 28, 2022 16:11:38 GMT -5 eazy said:

Nov 28, 2022 0:37:26 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Anyways, here is the story criteria wise:

Texas State had the better RPI by 8 spots. They had a T25 win (JMU). They had a non-conference Top 50 win at TCU (Ball State did not). Texas State had 2 sub-100 losses, Ball State had 3. Both were 8-2 in their last 10 matches.

The only real criteria in favor of Ball State is the common opponent result of Alabama (Texas State lost, Ball State won). I'm not sure how that outweighs all of the above. It is historically unprecedented to see this RPI jump from a sub-par team. You could also argue S.O.S is in Ball State's favor, but it's extremely close and shouldn't be considered really at #98 vs. #102....

Honorable mention:

The UCLA Bruins.

UCLA was also unfortunately also left out over Ball State. You could argue UCLA should be in over Texas State - but Ball State deserved nothing over these teams. UCLA beat Texas State, won AT Hawaii, and won AT Washington State. They were closer in RPI to Ball State than Ball State was to Texas State

I'm going to give a novice opinion on this..
After doing the eye test at the results from Ball St, Texas St, and UCLA I would have ranked them UCLA -> Ball St -> Texas St. 
UCLA was 2-12 against tournament teams. Common opponents 2-0
Ball St  was 1-2 against tournament teams. Common opponents 2-0
Texas St was 2-2 against tournament teams. Common opponents 2-4
Common opponents: Alabama, South Alabama, Hawaii, UCLA/Texas St.
Texas St's 'Top 25' win that keeps getting brought up is over JMU. I've never seen JMU mentioned as receiving votes in any VT/AVCA poll. JMU's signature win is over.. Florida AM? JMU is 2-3 against tournament teams.

I am admittedly a Ball St & Charitie Luper/Matti McKissock fan, but I just don't see the case for Texas St. 
No need to spend too much time tearing my argument apart because I know it is brief, shallow, and uneducated. RPI Who?

Now do losses to non-tourney teams!

[kurtinatlanta]

Two more teams for your older list:
2019 South Dakota - 38 RPI, 27-2
2019 Georgia Tech - 56 RPI (weaker than expected non-conf), 21-8, 2nd in the ACC. #1, #3, #4, and #5 got bids.

Both teams accepted NIVC bids and faced each other in the finals.

[trollhunter]

Nov 28, 2022 15:34:18 GMT -5 noblesol said:

Changing committee behaiviors under the current system, its critera and process, maybe the fool's errand.

Time might be better spent on developing weighted criteria, algorithmically applied, that outputs a bracket. It could be backtested against previous year's brackets to determine suitability. Then, incorporate into the Pre-Champ Manual to make it the job of the RACs and Selection Committee to review the computed bracket output, with RACs advising the SC on any suggested deviations. Then the SC votes on accepting the output with deviations. All deviations would be required to be fully documented and explained. Computed bracket ouput, RAC input, SC votes, and explanations for approved deviations would be published for the record, and released to the public with the Final bracket.

Post-tournament, make it a separate committee's work to review the criteria, the weightings, the algorithm, the computed bracket and final bracket output, the RACs advisory opinions, and the SC votes and explanations, and tournament results, and any region/conference/team feedback with suggested changes. Backtest suggested changes to the criteria and algorithm, and bracket selection process, before providing them for incorporation into the next Pre-Champ manual. All work to be published and transparent to the public.

D2 used to basically do At-Large bids with a process similar to what you describe. I liked it. They had 5-7 primary criteria on a spreadsheet-like program, and the teams that checked the most boxes in comparisons were automatically listed in order. Committee was used basically to double check and vote to break ties for last teams in. Unfortunately, while the same basic program is used, human comparisons are now done, and each D2 committee emphasizes different things (to get in the teams they want) so it now has the same problems as DI.