|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 12:10:25 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. 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. Also, the Utah St. match was day 1, @ Utah St. and w/o Luper. And even then, it's still a Top 50 RPI loss. Meanwhile, Ball St., Auburn, Tennessee out here with sub-100 losses and not even minding them. But you're punishing UCLA for this? B.S.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Nov 28, 2022 12:19:04 GMT -5
Also, the Utah St. match was day 1, @ Utah St. and w/o Luper. And even then, it's still a Top 50 RPI loss. Meanwhile, Ball St., Auburn, Tennessee out here with sub-100 losses and not even minding them. But you're punishing UCLA for this? B.S. It feels like a political choice. With UCLA moving to the B1G, there isn't much fondness for them left in the PAC. Why not leave them out in the cold in favor of a small conference team? Their fan base seems to have shrunk, so there seems less bottom-line ill effect for delivering such an injustice to them. Or do I have it wrong? You are an Oregon fan. Do you still care about UCLA's fate?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2022 12:22:28 GMT -5
Also, the Utah St. match was day 1, @ Utah St. and w/o Luper. And even then, it's still a Top 50 RPI loss. Meanwhile, Ball St., Auburn, Tennessee out here with sub-100 losses and not even minding them. But you're punishing UCLA for this? B.S. It feels like a political choice. With UCLA moving to the B1G, there isn't much fondness for them left in the PAC. Why not leave them out in the cold in favor of a small conference team? Their fan base seems to have shrunk, so there seems less bottom-line ill effect for delivering such an injustice to them. Or do I have it wrong? You are an Oregon fan. Do you still care about UCLA's fate? I care about bracket integrity. This job is not that hard. The Committee, even within their crappy criteria, have been doing it poorly for far too long.
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Nov 28, 2022 12:39:08 GMT -5
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. Also, the Utah St. match was day 1, @ Utah St. and w/o Luper. And even then, it's still a Top 50 RPI loss. Meanwhile, Ball St., Auburn, Tennessee out here with sub-100 losses and not even minding them. But you're punishing UCLA for this? B.S. Agreed. For Hawai’i, our first tournament we faced Texas A&M at their home, along with San Diego, and Pitt. And with a limited 15 player roster, we had little experience gelling as a team, with litlle to no team identity and unity. It was a diaster but it provided information on building the team from scratch, this may not be the year, but if everyone remains, next year Hawai’i will be deadly.
|
|
|
Post by horchato on Nov 28, 2022 12:55:21 GMT -5
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. Totally agree - all madden55 does is vulgarly attack people who have any opinion that he does not agree with. Crazy how someone who posts this frequently has such an elementary understanding of RPI/tourney selection The gap between the Penn States and the Illinois/Indiana/Northwesterns are not ~70 spots in rankings. If people think that, they should go watch recent B1G matches - they'll find them compelling and competitive. One overlooked argument to remove RPI is how much strong conference play improves a team. A B1G team in early season is markedly worse than the same team in November, as high level competition enhances all sqauds' gameplay. I've looked through tourament brackets from 2016-2021 - the 2 conferences that overperform the most, especially among unseeded at-large teams, are the Big Ten and PAC-12. That's no coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by horchato on Nov 28, 2022 13:02:48 GMT -5
I'll admit, I'm the most shameless Northwestern fan on this forum, and I do deserve some backlash for how much I advocate for this team.
That being said, why isn't there more weight placed on a team's ability to "cause chaos"? The volleyball world should want to see teams who've won away at the 9th seed, went on a 18-0 run to end a set vs the 14th seed, and almost pulled off an incredible upset against the 8th seed with a backup setter (up 2-1 in sets, 23-21 set 4). A team that had ~5 horrendous games due to a horrible injury crisis drops them off 40 spots in RPI? Instead, we have teams like Ball State instead.
Ultimately, teams that were plagued by injury or teams that found their footing late are playing at a far higher level now than earlier in the season, and for the last couple of at-large bids, the rise in form should absolutely be considered in terms of selection.
In short, this is one dynamic, exciting team, with a sky-high ceiling. To be punished solely due to injury does not reflect well on both the committee and the volleyball community as a whole - it makes us seem remarkably stubborn.
|
|
|
Post by madden55 on Nov 28, 2022 13:03:06 GMT -5
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. Totally agree - all madden55 does is vulgarly attack people who have any opinion that he does not agree with. Crazy how someone who posts this frequently has such an elementary understanding of RPI/tourney selection The gap between the Penn States and the Illinois/Indiana/Northwesterns are not ~70 spots in rankings. If people think that, they should go watch recent B1G matches - they'll find them compelling and competitive. One overlooked argument to remove RPI is how much strong conference play improves a team. A B1G team in early season is markedly worse than the same team in November, as high level competition enhances all sqauds' gameplay. I've looked through tourament brackets from 2016-2021 - the 2 conferences that overperform the most, especially among unseeded at-large teams, are the Big Ten and PAC-12. That's no coincidence. lol
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 28, 2022 13:49:25 GMT -5
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. that is an issue of cost. I also follow Softball, and the 400 mile, or "drive to" rule has always created some imbalances. Cost has been the justification for at least the past 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 28, 2022 13:53:11 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. I From what I saw UCLA deserves to be in the tournament. Not a UCLA fan but I can see the last week they were playing at a higher level than Utah State. Losing to USC on Friday, who had a last day fill-in inexperienced setter, and doing so in a really ugly, messy way, could have been the tipping point for the committee. I am not convinced that subconsciously the UCLA players simply wanted to be done with the season, done with Sealy. If that is the case the committee did them a favor. There is no seeded team in the Show that would not have swept USC under those conditions.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 28, 2022 13:53:17 GMT -5
This is why you seed 1-64, so the 400-mile geography rule doesn't screw over a team like Pepperdine. that is an issue of cost. I also follow Softball, and the 400 mile, or "drive to" rule has always created some imbalances. Cost has been the justification for at least the past 15 years. I understand that, but the only way to prevent things like this from happening is to seed 1-64. At least they're moving in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by davethecoug on Nov 28, 2022 14:21:38 GMT -5
BTW: UCLA is ranked 29 in Massey.
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Nov 28, 2022 14:35:29 GMT -5
What this tells me is that, according to Massey, Stanford got screwed. Only three other seeded teams have a 1st round opponent more difficult than Stanford.
1-seed Stanford vs Pepperdine (Massey 33)
5-seed Rice vs Colorado (Massey 28) 7-seed Miami vs Kansas (Massey 32) 7-seed Washington St vs UNLV (Massey 30)
Oregon also got an unfavorable opponent relative to the other 3-seeds (and 4-seeds). Penn St and USC got favorable opponents relative to their peers.
I would say Pepperdine got screwed more than Stanford. The chance of Pepperdine beating Stanford is barely higher than any of the other three first seeds losing in the first round, but the chance of Pepperdine having been able to beat a 7 or 8 seed would have been reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Nov 28, 2022 14:45:12 GMT -5
that is an issue of cost. I also follow Softball, and the 400 mile, or "drive to" rule has always created some imbalances. Cost has been the justification for at least the past 15 years. I understand that, but the only way to prevent things like this from happening is to seed 1-64. At least they're moving in the right direction. Much more simply, "pool" non-seeded teams into quadrants 3 and 4 and voila! you have prevented it. The poster who argued "ability to cause chaos" as a seeding factor, I'd argue that for the low seeds and unseeded you absolutely want to consider that. Big wins over top teams would be the largest chaos factor - and Pepperdine by their win over Minnesota alone would have then avoided being a quadrant 4 team. For higher seeds, the overall body of work and end-of-year form should be the two biggest factors, and I'm really unconvinced that the committee at all cared about end-of-year form. Last point - the committee should be committed to avoiding repeat matchups in the NCAA Tournament, even if it breaks the driving distance rule. You're doing a team/school no favors by saving them the cost of plane tickets if you're sending them to the Stanford subregional for three straight years.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 28, 2022 14:48:03 GMT -5
What this tells me is that, according to Massey, Stanford got screwed. Only three other seeded teams have a 1st round opponent more difficult than Stanford.
1-seed Stanford vs Pepperdine (Massey 33)
5-seed Rice vs Colorado (Massey 28) 7-seed Miami vs Kansas (Massey 32) 7-seed Washington St vs UNLV (Massey 30)
Oregon also got an unfavorable opponent relative to the other 3-seeds (and 4-seeds). Penn St and USC got favorable opponents relative to their peers.
I would say Pepperdine got screwed more than Stanford. The chance of Pepperdine beating Stanford is barely higher than any of the other three first seeds losing in the first round, but the chance of Pepperdine having been able to beat a 7 or 8 seed would have been reasonable. Yep. They both got screwed to a degree, but it's much worse for Pepperdine than for Stanford.
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Nov 28, 2022 14:49:51 GMT -5
RPI screws over B1G and PAC RPI doesn't have to screw over anyone to suck. It's absolutely horrible without such inherent biases, since it can be gamed, it does a poor job actually predicting a team's strength based on their RPI number, and does weird things like punish teams for winning matches and rewarding them for losing matches (all those results should be zeroed out). The NCAA should be flat-out embarrassed to still be using that metric in 2022. Yet not only do they continue to do so, but they wear it like a badge of honor.
|
|