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 16:41:05 GMT -5
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? Not gonna tear it apart because I don't think your argument is for what the selection committee should have done. But, if you wanna go the ignore RPI route, let's look at some other rankings/info just for fun. Pablo and Massey Love UCLA - #32 and #29. For other's comparison, Auburn is 52 and Tennessee was 46 in Massey. Ball State #67 and Texas State #72 in Massey. No contest. Massey ratings would also make Ball State's best win over #68 Bowling Green, at least Texas State would still hang on to #49 TCU even though James Madison is also no contest. I actually don't mind the committee de-valuing the JMU win (as you mention, this is a clear disconnect). They should have also docked Florida State's seed for that though too (they didn't). I also think they should have done the same for Ball State over Bowling Green. At least winning at TCU is respectable given TCU put up a legitimate at-large profile. I'd still say Ball State/Texas State is a toss-up when you use other criteria, but neither should really be at-large candidates if we weren't RPI-driven. |
|
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 16:48:22 GMT -5
Two more teams for your older list: 2019 South Dakota - 38 RPI, 27-2 2019 Georgia Tech - 56 RPI (weaker than expected non-conf), 22-8, 2nd in the ACC. #1, #3, #4, and #5 got bids. Both teams accepted NIVC bids and faced each other in the finals. But those are two team where the committee got it right. They shouldn't get at-large bids. South Dakota played 1 top 50 team (#46 Iowa State) and lost. They had 0 top 50 wins. Best win was #64 Wyoming. That's not worthy of a tournament bid. Georgia Tech's problem wasn't just their non-conference being weak, it's that they lost in the non-conference. They had chances against tournament teams, lost to Oklahoma and Georgia. Losses to non-tournament teams Arizona State and Kennesaw State. Best non-conf win was #113 Long Beach State. Georgia Tech also benefitted from a very weak ACC schedule for 2nd-place, so I don't merit conference standings. 0 top 25 wins, 2 top 50 wins with that RPI is yuck. GA Tech split with Notre Dame, but Notre Dame had better wins and a better RPI so that made sense. They did beat FSU head-to-head, but FSU had two top 25 wins and a better RPI. Also, like... California was left out in 2019. That was the real crime - not South Dakota or Georgia Tech. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 28, 2022 16:50:58 GMT -5
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. Which gets back to another root problem, is that the powers that be appear to be ok with the process as is. Suits them fine. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 28, 2022 18:23:50 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. 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. But that isn't the standard they are supposed to use - and I believe it would be a terrible standard to use. It actually is a standard they are making heavy use of. That's what their RACs are doing for them. Every time she said "and the RAC was really high on this team" that's *exactly* the criterion that is being applied. Anyway, I thought the ultimate goal of having at-larges was supposed to be to let the 32 best non-AQ teams into the tournament. If that's not the goal, what is the goal? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 28, 2022 18:29:18 GMT -5
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. Yes, I'm pretty sure this is why RPI continues to be used. It favors more schools than it disfavors, so politicly it is hard to drum up votes to change away from it. You think Ball State wants to change to something like pablo (UCLA #32, Ball State #72)? They would probably never get in unless they won their conference AQ. But this way, they got in and UCLA is sitting at home. Without the pressure from the media (and the huge number of people who bet big money on the MBB tournament), they would probably be doing the exact thing that WVB is doing. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Nov 28, 2022 18:32:14 GMT -5
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. But that isn't the standard they are supposed to use - and I believe it would be a terrible standard to use. It actually is a standard they are making heavy use of. That's what their RACs are doing for them. Every time she said "and the RAC was really high on this team" that's *exactly* the criterion that is being applied. Anyway, I thought the ultimate goal of having at-larges was supposed to be to let the 32 best non-AQ teams into the tournament. If that's not the goal, what is the goal? I think it's more accurate to say "the 32 non-AQ teams that had the best seasons." Which is very different. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Nov 28, 2022 18:35:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 28, 2022 18:38:13 GMT -5
It actually is a standard they are making heavy use of. That's what their RACs are doing for them. Every time she said "and the RAC was really high on this team" that's *exactly* the criterion that is being applied. Anyway, I thought the ultimate goal of having at-larges was supposed to be to let the 32 best non-AQ teams into the tournament. If that's not the goal, what is the goal? I think it's more accurate to say "the 32 non-AQ teams that had the best seasons." Which is very different. That's a different goal. Part of the problem is we are busy talking about the criteria for selecting teams when we haven't agreed on what the goal is. Is the goal to get the best 32 at-larges at the time the tournament is being played? Is the goal to get the 32 teams that "had the best season"? Is the goal to get a selection of Power Conference and Small Conference schools? Is the goal to give more programs the chance to experience play in the NCAA tournament? These are all possible goals, and they could lead to very different selection processes. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Nov 28, 2022 19:00:54 GMT -5
I think it's more accurate to say "the 32 non-AQ teams that had the best seasons." Which is very different. That's a different goal. Part of the problem is we are busy talking about the criteria for selecting teams when we haven't on what the goal is. Is the goal to get the best 32 at-larges at the time the tournament is being played? Is the goal to get the 32 teams that "had the best season"? Is the goal to get a selection of Power Conference and Small Conference schools? Is the goal to give more programs the chance to experience play in the NCAA tournament? These are all possible goals, and they could lead to very different selection processes. Yes, that's a different goal. It was a direct response to your question "If that's not the goal, what is the goal?"
No, I don't think the goal is to get the best 32 at-larges at the time the tournament is being played, otherwise teams with injuries to their star players towards the end of the season likely wouldn't be selected. I also think that's an impossible, highly subjective goal. I think the last two goals you mention are pretty obviously not the main goal.
With the info that's available to us (and setting aside the committee's inability to honestly reach this goal), I think the main goal is to get the 32 teams that played the best season. Secondary goals: conference diversity, winning teams (see: the .500 requirement), etc.
It's a good goal because as we've discussed, there are objective ways to determine who played the best seasons. The committee is just sh*t at reaching said goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 28, 2022 20:19:49 GMT -5
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. But that isn't the standard they are supposed to use - and I believe it would be a terrible standard to use. It actually is a standard they are making heavy use of. That's what their RACs are doing for them. Every time she said "and the RAC was really high on this team" that's *exactly* the criterion that is being applied. Anyway, I thought the ultimate goal of having at-larges was supposed to be to let the 32 best non-AQ teams into the tournament. If that's not the goal, what is the goal? No, the goal is to select the 32 at-large teams that had the best seasons. The RPI sucks, so it gets a bit murky, but we know from basketball that it's still supposed to be about the best seasons, not the "best" teams on paper. The purpose of the NET isn't even to rank teams. It's actually to rank resumes. |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Nov 28, 2022 20:44:11 GMT -5
Hmmmm - that gets me to thinking. What if current VB selection system was used, but they were all blind resumes with a code like trojansc does for bubble teams. I don't see any drawbacks. |
|
|
|
Post by hornshouse23 on Nov 28, 2022 20:52:40 GMT -5
Hmmmm - that gets me to thinking. What if current VB selection system was used, but they were all blind resumes with a code like trojansc does for bubble teams. I don't see any drawbacks. I’ve mentioned this before. I think it’d be a great thing to try and see how it works. Plus we could a live reaction can from the committee as they watch the names on the bracket unfold! |
|
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 29, 2022 9:50:51 GMT -5
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. How did the seeding 32 teams change happen? I assume this was coming from the school AD's through the coaches and not coming from the fans or media? As to the people that care having a majority to keep RPI, then I don't see things changing. Again - I think the pressure has to come from coaches. If the majority of coaches are agnostic and a majority want to keep a 'bad' system or at least doesn't want to improve the system - then that is on them as they are the ultimate gate keepers for the sport and could be creating a disservice. |
|
|
|
Post by boxcariii on Nov 29, 2022 11:38:21 GMT -5
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. How did the seeding 32 teams change happen? I assume this was coming from the school AD's through the coaches and not coming from the fans or media? As to the people that care having a majority to keep RPI, then I don't see things changing. Again - I think the pressure has to come from coaches. If the majority of coaches are agnostic and a majority want to keep a 'bad' system or at least doesn't want to improve the system - then that is on them as they are the ultimate gate keepers for the sport and could be creating a disservice. The RPI is bad, but every system is going to have flaws. It's been argued to death so I'll only add this when MBB "switched" to the NET. Many of the analytics are predictive. Creighton's AD at the time (Bruce Rasmussen) was on the MBB committee. He said one thing that stuck with me when it came to analytics. It was very important to him that results still mattered. As long as results still matter and it's not purely predictive, I don't really care what the system is. Additionally, I think it's very important to remember there's 300+ teams and they don't all play each other (off season what if idea?). |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 29, 2022 11:46:14 GMT -5
How did the seeding 32 teams change happen? I assume this was coming from the school AD's through the coaches and not coming from the fans or media? As to the people that care having a majority to keep RPI, then I don't see things changing. Again - I think the pressure has to come from coaches. If the majority of coaches are agnostic and a majority want to keep a 'bad' system or at least doesn't want to improve the system - then that is on them as they are the ultimate gate keepers for the sport and could be creating a disservice. The RPI is bad, but every system is going to have flaws. It's been argued to death so I'll only add this when MBB "switched" to the NET. Many of the analytics are predictive. Creighton's AD at the time (Bruce Rasmussen) was on the MBB committee. He said one thing that stuck with me when it came to analytics. It was very important to him that results still mattered. As long as results still matter and it's not purely predictive, I don't really care what the system is. Additionally, I think it's very important to remember there's 300+ teams and they don't all play each other (off season what if idea?). I agree with this, and I like the way NET has been implemented. My understanding is that the men's basketball committee doesn't take your own NET into consideration. The purpose of the NET is to figure out how strong your opponents were and how much credit or blame you should take for wins and losses. In other words, it's used as a way to rank each team's resume. I think that women's volleyball would greatly benefit from something similar. |
|
