|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 21, 2023 2:42:26 GMT -5
'What's optimal' for BWCT size? The right answer is balanced between competing goals. - A goal to be realized almost immediately is to try to assist the top teams in the conference with at-large selection, increasing the number of BWC teams in the NCAAT. That goal is best realized by limiting the number of tournament teams to those with sufficiently strong RPI that tournament matches are potentially helpful and at the least not harmful. A benchmark to consider here is that a 'bad loss' on the nitty gritty is to a team w/RPI > 100. Teams in the RPI 50 - 100 range are outside of the at-large bubble but viewed as competitive. Looking back through the Figstats RPI Archive all the way to 2016, the BWC hasn't supported a potential conference tournament field greater than four teams using the no RPI > 100 benchmark. Many years it was just three teams. - Another BWCT goal is to grow program support primarily for the mid to bottom of the conference. The perennials near the conference top didn't need a conference tournament for generating program support. A related goal is to give the mid to bottom program athletes something more to compete for through the conference season, hopefully elevating and sustaining more competitive play which is hoped feeds back into improvement in play in following seasons and non-conference. For these goals, expanding the tournament a bit beyond what would be 'optimal' for getting additional at-large bids was the conference answer. If sustainable program support and play is generated in the longer term from the mid to bottom of the conference, traceable to the holding of the tournament, than expansion beyond the 'optimal' four team format to six teams is more than justified. A 'traceable' result might be if conference strength improves to regularly support five teams in the six-team BWCT all with RPI <= 100, say within the next four years. Plan to be around that long? The tournament isn’t really doing any of that. The tournament adds an extra team to the NCAA post-season only when a team outside of the RPI selection range upsets a team within the selection range (or the conference regular season champion). The number of BW teams in the post season RPI selection range in recent years is almost never more than two. Otherwise, the conference tournament does nothing to improve over-all conference RPI or the total number of RPI eligible teams. It merely shifts (potentially) the team(s) participating in the post-season. A couple of quick points in reply: - Adding the tournament required reducing the regular conference schedule by two matches. In the case of Hawai'i, they played UC Davis and UC Riverside just once each, which mitigated the RPI hit of playing those two teams. So adding the tournament helped Hawai'i RPI before it even got to the tournament. - Hawai'i gains two tournament matches to replace the UC Davis and UC Riverside matches. Potentially they'll face the #3 seed Cal Poly with an RPI ~ 98. Should they win that they'd likely face UCSB or Beach, either of which will have RPI < 100. So again, in this scenario, adding the tournament again helps the Hawai'i RPI. I'm discounting the chance that UC Davis or UC Irvine will face Hawai'i. - Adding the tournament this year gives the BWC a chance, small but a chance, of having two teams in the NCAAT. Where if there weren't a tournament there would be only the AQ and no chance of an at-large. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 21, 2023 3:05:43 GMT -5
The tournament isn’t really doing any of that. The tournament adds an extra team to the NCAA post-season only when a team outside of the RPI selection range upsets a team within the selection range (or the conference regular season champion). The number of BW teams in the post season RPI selection range in recent years is almost never more than two. Otherwise, the conference tournament does nothing to improve over-all conference RPI or the total number of RPI eligible teams. It merely shifts (potentially) the team(s) participating in the post-season. A couple of quick points in reply: - Adding the tournament required reducing the regular conference schedule by two matches. In the case of Hawai'i, they played UC Davis and UC Riverside just once each, which mitigated the RPI hit of playing those two teams. So adding the tournament helped Hawai'i RPI before it even got to the tournament. - Hawai'i gains two tournament matches to replace the UC Davis and UC Riverside matches. Potentially they'll face the #3 seed Cal Poly with an RPI ~ 98. Should they win that they'd likely face UCSB or Beach, either of which will have RPI < 100. So again, in this scenario, adding the tournament again helps the Hawai'i RPI. I'm discounting the chance that UC Davis or UC Irvine will face Hawai'i. - Adding the tournament this year gives the BWC a chance, small but a chance, of having two teams in the NCAAT. Where if there weren't a tournament there would be only the AQ and no chance of an at-large. The RPI effect for Hawai’i is simply a quirk of the scheduling relevant for this year, but not necessarily others, and the effect is uneven throughout the conference. The year end tournament does provide a higher ranked opponent, but also ensures another loss for a team still trying to get into the tournament. Over-all, not a compelling argument in favor of the conference tournament imo. As someone who helped formulate the California conference (with no football) in the years after Hawai’i left for the WAC, I think it’s time for the Big West to take another look at its philosophical underpinnings and look for a way to create an opportunity with what’s left of the PAC 12 to create a mix of a minimum required number of football schools with some non-football schools with strong programs, and shed some of the weak schools. So that could be OSU and WSU, Hawai’i, Cal Poly plus may San Diego State or some others (these are the football schools), plus maybe LB, UCSB, UCSD, Irvine, and shed UCR, Bakersfield, Northridge. That would be my dream solution. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 21, 2023 3:32:41 GMT -5
A couple of quick points in reply: - Adding the tournament required reducing the regular conference schedule by two matches. In the case of Hawai'i, they played UC Davis and UC Riverside just once each, which mitigated the RPI hit of playing those two teams. So adding the tournament helped Hawai'i RPI before it even got to the tournament. - Hawai'i gains two tournament matches to replace the UC Davis and UC Riverside matches. Potentially they'll face the #3 seed Cal Poly with an RPI ~ 98. Should they win that they'd likely face UCSB or Beach, either of which will have RPI < 100. So again, in this scenario, adding the tournament again helps the Hawai'i RPI. I'm discounting the chance that UC Davis or UC Irvine will face Hawai'i. - Adding the tournament this year gives the BWC a chance, small but a chance, of having two teams in the NCAAT. Where if there weren't a tournament there would be only the AQ and no chance of an at-large. The RPI effect for Hawai’i is simply a quirk of the scheduling relevant for this year, but not necessarily others, and the effect is uneven throughout the conference. The year end tournament does provide a higher ranked opponent, but also ensures another loss for a team still trying to get into the tournament. Over-all, not a compelling argument in favor of the conference tournament imo. As someone who helped formulate the California conference (with no football) in the years after Hawai’i left for the WAC, I think it’s time for the Big West to take another look at its philosophical underpinnings and look for a way to create an opportunity with what’s left of the PAC 12 to create a mix of a minimum required number of football schools with some non-football schools with strong programs, and shed some of the weak schools. So that could be OSU and WSU, Hawai’i, Cal Poly plus may San Diego State or some others (these are the football schools), plus maybe LB, UCSB, UCSD, Irvine, and shed UCR, Bakersfield, Northridge. That would be my dream solution. Agreed that the quirks of regular conference scheduling is unbalanced, and who knows how it plays out in following years. Back when the tournament proposal was 'format TBD' I recognized this and suggested that teams finishing in the top half in conference be rewarded the following year by not having to play twice two of the teams in the bottom half. As to your point that the tournament ensures a 'loss' to another team still trying to get into the tournament, one has to view that through the quirks of RPI, the criteria before the selection committee, and the mechanics of AQ and at-large selection. The tournament works this year to give the BW a real shot at an AQ and an at-large if UCSB loses in the BWCT. Because, UCSB would very likely be an at-large with an RPI likely in the mid-30s. Another scenario is UCSB wins the tournament and Hawai'i loses in the final, in which case Hawai'i still has a small chance at an at-large although it's currently looking to be a vanishingly small chance. But, without the tournament, UCSB would already have wrapped up the AQ and that would be it for the Big West. A one bid conference with no shot for more. As to the rest of your wish list... Good Luck. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 21, 2023 11:28:32 GMT -5
it's not an overgeneralization. it was more Hawaii 'group-think' response towards a BWCT along the typical 'the system will screw us' again, sorry but that's what comes across over and over. if it was up to the Hawaii / fans, there'd be no BWCT. as to 4 or 6 teams, it's really not a big difference. and it's not the bottom teams competing. Irvine has been a mid BW team, as have Davis typically. granted yes the more all teams win the better. but people need to get real, there is likely going to continue with 4-5 truly bad teams, that's just reality and those that want an at-large know they have to schedule at least 1-2 top 25/50 teams every weekend in non-conference to have a resume. In hindsight, SB didn't even do a great job in that regard this season. to me those programs are their own problem, not something Beach or Hawaii or whoever can control or even dwell on. and those teams didn't cause Beach to lose to UCLA or NOrthridge, nor Hawaii to Liberty - which is really what damaged those resumes more than anything within the conference as it is with 6 teams, the top 2 teams have an advantage with the bye, another advantage that actually is real, given both Beach/Hawaii were flying over and the 2 has more practice time to prep and rest. IMO, people are overthinking the tournament. the reason isn't solely to have the tournament serve a gaming for RPI for Hawaii or any other team. a big reason is too provide and promote interest, because interest continuing hopefully will be a factor in having lower/mid programs build interest for those programs to grow. The tournament statistically is good for quality matches, which could help get a program an at-large, but will also someday knock out a program on the bubble. so what?. overall, statistically it WILL increase bids, and keeps more teams with interest. I mean, this last weekend, the 2/3/4 and 5/6 seeds were all generating more interest than normally would 6 teams is reasonable, yeah this year IRvine is a not a good RPI opponent, that's gonna happen sometimes. 4 teams would be ok, certainly this year the way things turned out, the top 4 are all relatively close. some years it'll be different. to say 4 is optimal? who knows, some years 3 would, some years 5, it'll all depend and change year to year. and yes, typically only the top 2, 3, or 4 are going to include a at-large bubble teams that the BWCT will have a bubble improve or bubble burst. that's ok, because, it drives for more interest in the conference. Heck, if Hawaii loses to Poly, the BWCT will have been a 'bad' thing, lol. If they win, it's better. 'What's optimal' for BWCT size? The right answer is balanced between competing goals. - A goal to be realized almost immediately is to try to assist the top teams in the conference with at-large selection, increasing the number of BWC teams in the NCAAT. That goal is best realized by limiting the number of tournament teams to those with sufficiently strong RPI that tournament matches are potentially helpful and at the least not harmful. A benchmark to consider here is that a 'bad loss' on the nitty gritty is to a team w/RPI > 100. Teams in the RPI 50 - 100 range are outside of the at-large bubble but viewed as competitive. Looking back through the Figstats RPI Archive all the way to 2016, the BWC hasn't supported a potential conference tournament field greater than four teams using the no RPI > 100 benchmark. Many years it was just three teams. - Another BWCT goal is to grow program support primarily for the mid to bottom of the conference. The perennials near the conference top didn't need a conference tournament for generating program support. A related goal is to give the mid to bottom program athletes something more to compete for through the conference season, hopefully elevating and sustaining more competitive play which is hoped feeds back into improvement in play in following seasons and non-conference. For these goals, expanding the tournament a bit beyond what would be 'optimal' for getting additional at-large bids was the conference answer. If higher and sustainable program support and play is generated in the longer term from the mid to bottom of the conference, traceable to the holding of the tournament, then expansion beyond the 'optimal' four team format to six teams is more than justified. A 'traceable' result might be if conference strength improves to regularly support five teams in the six-team BWCT all with RPI <= 100, say within the next four years. Plan to be around that long? repeating that 4 teams is optimal, fits with this year. If Cal Poly was 10-8, then well, 3 teams is optimal. , if one is going to look at it totally from the vantage of 'helping' the top teams, then the conference should really not have a BWCT, or just base the BWCT on RPI, and not even top 100, top 75 maybe if one wants 'optimization' it should use relegation instead as a strategy the primary purpose is to showcase VB for the conference, and grow the conference. it's not to satisfy 'what's best for Hawaii' or even any other team. frankly, a 3 team tournament is likely best if one wants to maximize RPI, but then why have a tournament it's going to change every year the dynamics of at-large 4 is NOT optimal, it's CONVENIENT to a narrative for this year |
|
|
|
Post by beachgrad on Nov 21, 2023 15:13:37 GMT -5
The tournament had to be approved by the conference members and I do not think the 4 team format would have passed. The tournament gives these teams something to play for and the post season chances are not determined weeks before the close of the regular season. Six teams is a majority of the conference so that number works.
In the BW the bottom four teams seem to always been in the bottom so it would be easy to schedule these teams out for the top teams if there was a reasonable way of doing that. I guess you could add another team, making it 12, and have two 6 team divisions with the A division having the top 6 teams and the B division having the rest. Each division member would play their division mates twice and the other division teams only once. You could do it like they do in European soccer and have something like the top divisions bottom two teams drop down the next season while the top 2 of the B division moves up. Having a conference tournament with 2/3 of the teams coming from the A division and 1/3 from the B. Have to give something to the B division for approval. This is not realistic but I like to think about nonsense sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 21, 2023 15:24:29 GMT -5
'What's optimal' for BWCT size? The right answer is balanced between competing goals. - A goal to be realized almost immediately is to try to assist the top teams in the conference with at-large selection, increasing the number of BWC teams in the NCAAT. That goal is best realized by limiting the number of tournament teams to those with sufficiently strong RPI that tournament matches are potentially helpful and at the least not harmful. A benchmark to consider here is that a 'bad loss' on the nitty gritty is to a team w/RPI > 100. Teams in the RPI 50 - 100 range are outside of the at-large bubble but viewed as competitive. Looking back through the Figstats RPI Archive all the way to 2016, the BWC hasn't supported a potential conference tournament field greater than four teams using the no RPI > 100 benchmark. Many years it was just three teams. - Another BWCT goal is to grow program support primarily for the mid to bottom of the conference. The perennials near the conference top didn't need a conference tournament for generating program support. A related goal is to give the mid to bottom program athletes something more to compete for through the conference season, hopefully elevating and sustaining more competitive play which is hoped feeds back into improvement in play in following seasons and non-conference. For these goals, expanding the tournament a bit beyond what would be 'optimal' for getting additional at-large bids was the conference answer. If higher and sustainable program support and play is generated in the longer term from the mid to bottom of the conference, traceable to the holding of the tournament, then expansion beyond the 'optimal' four team format to six teams is more than justified. A 'traceable' result might be if conference strength improves to regularly support five teams in the six-team BWCT all with RPI <= 100, say within the next four years. Plan to be around that long? repeating that 4 teams is optimal, fits with this year. If Cal Poly was 10-8, then well, 3 teams is optimal. , if one is going to look at it totally from the vantage of 'helping' the top teams, then the conference should really not have a BWCT, or just base the BWCT on RPI, and not even top 100, top 75 maybe if one wants 'optimization' it should use relegation instead as a strategy the primary purpose is to showcase VB for the conference, and grow the conference. it's not to satisfy 'what's best for Hawaii' or even any other team. frankly, a 3 team tournament is likely best if one wants to maximize RPI, but then why have a tournament it's going to change every year the dynamics of at-large 4 is NOT optimal, it's CONVENIENT to a narrative for this year The immediate purpose of the BWCT is to award the AQ, and possibly help and not hurt the conference teams with at-large chance. Longer term purpose for the tournament is 'showcase' and 'grow' BW WVB. Yes, '4' is conveniently optimal for this year as we have four BWC teams < 100 RPI. The RPI 100 benchmark follows NCAA selection committee 'wisdom'. Their nitty gritty, their grouping highlighting losses over 100 RPI. They could have picked RPI 75, but they didn't, possibly they like round numbers. I don't think you'd suggest that we vary the number of teams BWCT eligible each year, and I'd agree. So we need to pick an optimal size for the tournament. And, we don't 'showcase' the BWC by sending the NCAAT non-competitive bid stealers, I think you'd agree. The fan and player interest would quickly become derision. So conventional NCAA 'wisdom' suggests the optimal benchmark cut-off be around RPI 100. Teams with worse RPI being totally non-competitive for the NCAAT 'at-large' and generally 1st round fodder for the top 32 teams. Agree we don't know the future but we do know the past. Going back to 2016 no more than four BWC teams have been < 100 RPI in a season. Besides this year, it last happened in 2016. Hawai'i got the AQ that year and none received an at-large. Without a tournament this year, we'd again have just one AQ and that's it. With the tournament, there is an opportunity for an AQ and an at-large. The odds of that type of outcome increases when the tournament size is minimized to a group sized to those with NCAAT competitiveness. The odds decrease when the tournament is expanded to increase participation to those with RPI beyond that benchmark. Expand it too large and the extra participation invites derision and mockery. The Big West compromised from the optimal four team format that recent BWC historical strength suggested, and decided on a six-team format with the hope that it drives sufficient participation and interest from the mid and bottom of the conference to help them grow their programs. If conference strength improves to regularly support five teams in the six-team BWCT all with RPI <= 100, say within the next four years, then I can agree they optimally sized the tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Nov 21, 2023 15:29:20 GMT -5
Awards came out.
Kate was robbed. I don’t know how you deny 8 X SOW pick a first team/SOY award.
Meyer is good but lang is clearly superior
|
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Nov 21, 2023 15:33:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Nov 21, 2023 15:34:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Nov 21, 2023 15:35:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Nov 21, 2023 15:38:31 GMT -5
Agi was also robbed.
She is statistically better than McKnight in almost every single category
|
|
|
|
Post by raian13 on Nov 21, 2023 16:05:05 GMT -5
Yoooo! whoever voted for these awards must be on crack! 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by practicesafesets on Nov 21, 2023 16:14:18 GMT -5
Kate was robbed, no way Zayna is better than Kate.
|
|
|
|
Post by practicesafesets on Nov 21, 2023 16:15:32 GMT -5
Unfortunate that Caylen went from first team to nil
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 21, 2023 16:19:34 GMT -5
Kate was robbed, no way Zayna is better than Kate. I think a lot of people think Zayna is better than Kate, or at least, that Zayna has more potential than Kate. I don't think Zayna necessarily deserved this award more than Kate, but I understand why coaches would vote that way. |
|
