|
Post by hipsterfilth on Nov 28, 2022 11:05:16 GMT -5
I agree rpi does. I would bet money UCLA would beat Ball State 9 out 10 times if they played. RPI is what held UCLA out of the tournament. But I also get not wanting all of the 32 AQs coming from the P5 conferences even though teams like UCLA would win most mid major tournaments. Watching the MWC tournament I believe UCLA is better than UNLV, Utah State, and CSU. well ucla shouldn’t have lost to utah state in the non con then if they are better lmao that part
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:24:37 GMT -5
It 100% does screw over the mid-level/bottom teams from these two conferences. being in those conferences gives you so many chances to boost your rpi and losing to the top teams doesnf hurt your rpi much at all No, it gives you so many extra losses and you get less RPI credit for playing teams with weaker W-L records because they're playing tougher teams. It's literally math. The effect is real. And since the Committee doesn't even care about significant wins anymore, the "chances" at top teams mean nothing anymore.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:25:33 GMT -5
well ucla shouldn’t have lost to utah state in the non con then if they are better lmao that part Why isn't the onus on Ball St. not to lose to Central Michigan twice, or Dayton? or on Tennessee not to lose to Colgate?
|
|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Nov 28, 2022 11:27:47 GMT -5
being in those conferences gives you so many chances to boost your rpi and losing to the top teams doesnf hurt your rpi much at all No, it gives you so many extra losses This was Pauline's literal exact reasoning why UCLA didnt get it... they had too many "top 50 losses" meanwhile Ball state has played 3 top 50 teams all season... and two of them are bowling green lol
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:34:25 GMT -5
No, it gives you so many extra losses This was Pauline's literal exact reasoning why UCLA didnt get it... they had too many "top 50 losses" meanwhile Ball state has played 3 top 50 teams all season... and two of them are bowling green lol Meanwhile VB Mag is out here praising Pauline for not matching Utah and BYU up again (when BYU isn't hosting and Utah didn't make the tourney).
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:37:40 GMT -5
No, it gives you so many extra losses This was Pauline's literal exact reasoning why UCLA didnt get it... they had too many "top 50 losses" meanwhile Ball state has played 3 top 50 teams all season... and two of them are bowling green lol Also, the PAC is losing two mid-level teams to the B1G. The B1G homers lol'ing now are just gonna keep getting hit harder, while the math is going to be slightly less punitive to the PAC going forward.
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Nov 28, 2022 11:38:50 GMT -5
Why isn't the onus on Ball St. not to lose to Central Michigan twice, or Dayton? or on Tennessee not to lose to Colgate? The poster had said that UCLA would win the MWC tournament and would beat Utah State in doing so, yet lost to Utah State in non-con. that's the current convo I was replying to. I don't feel any type of way about any team having an onus over another one. Every team needs to win the games they should win. Of course Ball St is not better than UCLA, I think we all agree on that. I don't understand their inclusion in this tourney at all, and it's a question that should have been asked of the committee chair directly IMO. Tennessee falls into that same bucket for me. My big question -- if the committee valued the PAC and Stanford's resume enough to make them a Regional host over San Diego, why would they not value UCLA over these other teams? It's puzzling to me.
|
|
|
Post by madden55 on Nov 28, 2022 11:40:16 GMT -5
being in those conferences gives you so many chances to boost your rpi and losing to the top teams doesnf hurt your rpi much at all No, it gives you so many extra losses and you get less RPI credit for playing teams with weaker W-L records because they're playing tougher teams. It's literally math. The effect is real. And since the Committee doesn't even care about significant wins anymore, the "chances" at top teams mean nothing anymore. If you’re good enough to be in the tournament best who you’re supposed to beat in those conferences and use one of your 547 chances at the big dogs and at least win one. The bottom teams of each conference might be screwed over because they aren’t good and lose to everyone but they aren’t making the tournament anyway…
|
|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Nov 28, 2022 11:40:33 GMT -5
Why isn't the onus on Ball St. not to lose to Central Michigan twice, or Dayton? or on Tennessee not to lose to Colgate? The poster had said that UCLA would win the MWC tournament and would beat Utah State in doing so, yet lost to Utah State in non-con. that's the current convo I was replying to. I don't feel any type of way about any team having an onus over another one. Every team needs to win the games they should win. Of course Ball St is not better than UCLA, I think we all agree on that. I don't understand their inclusion in this tourney at all, and it's a question that should have been asked of the committee chair directly IMO. Tennessee falls into that same bucket for me. My big question -- if the committee valued the PAC and Stanford's resume enough to make them a Regional host over San Diego, why would they not value UCLA over these other teams? It's puzzling to me. Because stanford and ball state were on the regional advisory committee
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:41:22 GMT -5
No, it gives you so many extra losses and you get less RPI credit for playing teams with weaker W-L records because they're playing tougher teams. It's literally math. The effect is real. And since the Committee doesn't even care about significant wins anymore, the "chances" at top teams mean nothing anymore. If you’re good enough to be in the tournament best who you’re supposed to beat in those conferences and use one of your 547 chances at the big dogs and at least win one. The bottom teams of each conference might be screwed over because they aren’t good and lose to everyone but they aren’t making the tournament anyway… How you think RPI and tourney selection works is not actually how it works. You post on this board too much to be so uninformed.
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Nov 28, 2022 11:41:39 GMT -5
The poster had said that UCLA would win the MWC tournament and would beat Utah State in doing so, yet lost to Utah State in non-con. that's the current convo I was replying to. I don't feel any type of way about any team having an onus over another one. Every team needs to win the games they should win. Of course Ball St is not better than UCLA, I think we all agree on that. I don't understand their inclusion in this tourney at all, and it's a question that should have been asked of the committee chair directly IMO. Tennessee falls into that same bucket for me. My big question -- if the committee valued the PAC and Stanford's resume enough to make them a Regional host over San Diego, why would they not value UCLA over these other teams? It's puzzling to me. Because stanford and ball state were on the regional advisory committee feels like a shondell inside job to me
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 11:42:04 GMT -5
The poster had said that UCLA would win the MWC tournament and would beat Utah State in doing so, yet lost to Utah State in non-con. that's the current convo I was replying to. I don't feel any type of way about any team having an onus over another one. Every team needs to win the games they should win. Of course Ball St is not better than UCLA, I think we all agree on that. I don't understand their inclusion in this tourney at all, and it's a question that should have been asked of the committee chair directly IMO. Tennessee falls into that same bucket for me. My big question -- if the committee valued the PAC and Stanford's resume enough to make them a Regional host over San Diego, why would they not value UCLA over these other teams? It's puzzling to me. Because stanford and ball state were on the regional advisory committee And don't forget the Tennessee Rep!
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 28, 2022 11:50:29 GMT -5
Without Ahrens they’re not a 45ish ranked team. even so, they took a set off San Diego and were competitive in the match... this is not a subregional four seed (neither is LMU for that matter) this matchup should not be happening in this round. This is why you seed 1-64, so the 400-mile geography rule doesn't screw over a team like Pepperdine.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 28, 2022 11:58:25 GMT -5
being in those conferences gives you so many chances to boost your rpi and losing to the top teams doesnf hurt your rpi much at all No, it gives you so many extra losses and you get less RPI credit for playing teams with weaker W-L records because they're playing tougher teams. It's literally math. The effect is real. And since the Committee doesn't even care about significant wins anymore, the "chances" at top teams mean nothing anymore. It's both. The middle to bottom teams do get more losses, but they also have more opportunities for high-quality wins. Anyway, a model like Pablo or Massey will typically like the middle to bottom teams of the strongest conferences more because it accounts for the quality of the opposition, not just their record.
|
|
|
Post by volleyball303 on Nov 28, 2022 12:07:40 GMT -5
Why isn't the onus on Ball St. not to lose to Central Michigan twice, or Dayton? or on Tennessee not to lose to Colgate? The poster had said that UCLA would win the MWC tournament and would beat Utah State in doing so, yet lost to Utah State in non-con. that's the current convo I was replying to. I don't feel any type of way about any team having an onus over another one. Every team needs to win the games they should win. Of course Ball St is not better than UCLA, I think we all agree on that. I don't understand their inclusion in this tourney at all, and it's a question that should have been asked of the committee chair directly IMO. Tennessee falls into that same bucket for me. My big question -- if the committee valued the PAC and Stanford's resume enough to make them a Regional host over San Diego, why would they not value UCLA over these other teams? It's puzzling to me. I agree UCLA had a very bad start to the season. They should be hit for losing to Utah State. That being said I watched the entire UCLA vs WSU match and 2 Utah State matches this last weekend. From what I saw UCLA deserves to be in the tournament. I am not even convinced had they beat USC it would have mattered. Not a UCLA fan but I can see the last week they were playing at a higher level than Utah State. But UCLA is hurt by a bunch of top 50 losses which is the result of playing in the Pac 12.
|
|