|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2023 11:16:10 GMT -5
She stated "it's a common misconception that we rely heavily on RPI to determine our rankings". Sounds like BS to me? Maybe. Their only difference between their bracket and yours was we were hoping they'd overlook an EXTREME RPI difference. Is there precedence for an at large jumping a team 23 spots higher? |
|
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: 31,203 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 11:16:10 GMT -5
that is exactly my point, they should! The margins between these teams are so small. They have all of the information, use it. I just want consistency. I hope they lose to Utah State  I don't think it's as inconsistent as you're making it out to be. The starting point has always been RPI. How much to deviate from that ranking will always be subjective. I agree that #36 Stephen F Austin had nothing other than that ranking to lean on. Except this year, a second rating system was added because coaches clamored for it, and SFA was also in the Top 40 of that one. I agree that it was wrong that the committee didn't invite the team ranked 59/49 over the team ranked 36/39. However, I disagree that it is wildly inconsistent. It is inconsistent. The committee has stated in the past strength of schedule is an emphasis and some have stated you actually have to win matches. Also, you have to totally be convinced now the committee does not re-structure brackets and heavily depends on everything besides the last week. The data that the committee cited (yet again) was from old RPI's, not updated ones and their bracket movements make sense with the manual adjustments theory, yet again. |
|
|
|
Post by skolgophers on Nov 27, 2023 11:17:19 GMT -5
im not arguing about Minnesota being in. I just want consistency across the board for the criteria they're giving. I can agree with this. Just not understanding why people are arguing so much for KState to be in instead of MN. There are other teams who should have been out instead of MN. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 27, 2023 11:17:28 GMT -5
I don't think it's as inconsistent as you're making it out to be. The starting point has always been RPI. How much to deviate from that ranking will always be subjective. I agree that #36 Stephen F Austin had nothing other than that ranking to lean on. Except this year, a second rating system was added because coaches clamored for it, and SFA was also in the Top 40 of that one. I agree that it was wrong that the committee didn't invite the team ranked 59/49 over the team ranked 36/39. However, I disagree that it is wildly inconsistent. It is inconsistent. The committee has stated in the past strength of schedule is an emphasis and some have stated you actually have to win matches. Also, you have to totally be convinced now the committee does not re-structure brackets and heavily depends on everything besides the last week. The data that the committee cited (yet again) was from old RPI's, not updated ones and their bracket movements make sense with the manual adjustments theory, yet again. Honestly, if SFA’s conference tournament is this week instead of last, they probably suffer a UCSB/TAMU “overreaction” and end up out of the tournament because they were behind both of those teams. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 27, 2023 11:17:32 GMT -5
TCU's RPI (42) was also a lot higher. I'd have to take a closer look, but I get the sense that this committee relied heavily on RPI. I think RPI is also 100% the reason why Stephen F. Austin got into the tournament while Kansas State is watching from home. RPI can't go away quickly enough. The problem is it's inconsistent year to year. The committee for a stretch kept penalizing teams for their non-conference schedule, then, they reward teams with high RPI's who didn't beat (and in some cases) didn't play anyone. If I'm 2019 South Dakota - I'm pretty pissed right now. They had an RPI of 38 - had a slightly better win (#64 Wyoming) and had a 29-2 record and were left out of the tournament. Doesn't make sense? The committee chair said 'they could not give an at-large bid to a team without top 50 wins'. Which has been historically accurate, even if their RPI was really good. There have been exceptions, and surprisingly they are *more* recent than later. Which n00b mentioned the other day it seemed the committee was straying away from pure RPI, and I'm not sure. High Point, Rice (which was a little unique), and Stephen F. Austin have gotten at-large bids in the past 6 years with no quality wins. That's not good for the sport. You can game the RPI - it is up to committee members to recognize when teams do not earn a bid. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why you have to beat 'someone' to get into the Tournament. I totally agree that it's frustrating and that it changes from year to year depending on the committee. I'm in no way defending the committee on some of these decisions. I'm just trying to figure out why they made these decisions, and I think RPI is the primary culprit this time. It's not quite as bad as the softball committee a couple years ago that just went straight RPI (except for swapping Arizona and Charlotte), but it's pretty bad. This is why volleyball needs something like the NET in basketball. It may not be perfect, but it's so much better than continuing to use RPI as a primary criteria. |
|
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: 31,203
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 11:17:42 GMT -5
She stated "it's a common misconception that we rely heavily on RPI to determine our rankings". Sounds like BS to me? Maybe. Their only difference between their bracket and yours was we were hoping they'd overlook an EXTREME RPI difference. Is there precedence for an at large jumping a team 23 spots higher? That's simply not true. I had several teams above Stephen F. Austin. The committee said KPI = RPI. NC state had a *better* KPI than Stephen F. Austin and had a win over a Top 5 team. Why was NC State not given consideration? For your K-State precedence point, I'll look, but LMU made a really huge jump from the same RPI spot that K-State did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2023 11:18:26 GMT -5
How did SFA even get such a high rpi without playing anyone
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 27, 2023 11:20:53 GMT -5
How did SFA even get such a high rpi without playing anyone I've been wondering this myself. They should be a case study on how to best game the RPI. |
|
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: 31,203
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 11:22:31 GMT -5
Again - the committee is inconsistent. n00b she stated that it wasn't K-State's RPI or KPI that left them out, it was their sub-100 losses. That's inconsistent from last year. Ball State had 3-sub 100 losses and one top 50 win. There were other teams around Ball State that had either a better RPI, better wins with a very close RPI, and less losses (including Texas State who had a better RPI, more wins, AND less losses!) |
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Nov 27, 2023 11:22:57 GMT -5
I know what you’re saying. My point is: I had been following the Bracketology thread and didn’t see this much outrage when MN wasn’t really considered “last 4 in” at that time. Why now? Because KState didn’t get in? Look at others who were also in…. TCU(MN won), SFA(enough said), Baylor(MN won). Idk why MN is the one who didn’t deserve it or only got in because of their name. That’s, frankly, BS. Minnesota's KPI would have had them out of the tournament. I had them in because of H2H wins versus TCU, Baylor, and also the big win over Oregon. That was enough for me - but it wasn't *that* convincing. If they said KPI=RPI, which they did, it doesn't explain why Minnesota wsan't last 4 in. I was skeptical the committee would actually say KPI=RPI, which I didn't factor into Bracketology, I discounted KPI. The committee says they didn't, so, that doesn't exactly make sense in the case of Minnesota. I think your Bracketology explanations were spot on. They established a cut line, then did the close comparisons between those above and below it. Simple and easier for them to get to the 32 at larges. It does seem they didn't really look at KPI much at all, which was clearly beneficial for Minnesota. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2023 11:23:27 GMT -5
The problem is it's inconsistent year to year. The committee for a stretch kept penalizing teams for their non-conference schedule, then, they reward teams with high RPI's who didn't beat (and in some cases) didn't play anyone. If I'm 2019 South Dakota - I'm pretty pissed right now. They had an RPI of 38 - had a slightly better win (#64 Wyoming) and had a 29-2 record and were left out of the tournament. Doesn't make sense? The committee chair said 'they could not give an at-large bid to a team without top 50 wins'. Which has been historically accurate, even if their RPI was really good. There have been exceptions, and surprisingly they are *more* recent than later. Which n00b mentioned the other day it seemed the committee was straying away from pure RPI, and I'm not sure. High Point, Rice (which was a little unique), and Stephen F. Austin have gotten at-large bids in the past 6 years with no quality wins. That's not good for the sport. You can game the RPI - it is up to committee members to recognize when teams do not earn a bid. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why you have to beat 'someone' to get into the Tournament. I totally agree that it's frustrating and that it changes from year to year depending on the committee. I'm in no way defending the committee on some of these decisions. I'm just trying to figure out why they made these decisions, and I think RPI is the primary culprit this time. It's not quite as bad as the softball committee a couple years ago that just went straight RPI (except for swapping Arizona and Charlotte), but it's pretty bad. This is why volleyball needs something like the NET in basketball. It may not be perfect, but it's so much better than continuing to use RPI as a primary criteria. The men's basketball committee doesn't come close to using the actual NET rankings to pick teams. |
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Nov 27, 2023 11:24:03 GMT -5
Why not? Minnesota's going to stop them? Utah State? Or Colgate? Minnesota will lol Oh no! Not the Madden curse. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 27, 2023 11:24:35 GMT -5
I totally agree that it's frustrating and that it changes from year to year depending on the committee. I'm in no way defending the committee on some of these decisions. I'm just trying to figure out why they made these decisions, and I think RPI is the primary culprit this time. It's not quite as bad as the softball committee a couple years ago that just went straight RPI (except for swapping Arizona and Charlotte), but it's pretty bad. This is why volleyball needs something like the NET in basketball. It may not be perfect, but it's so much better than continuing to use RPI as a primary criteria. The men's basketball committee doesn't come close to using the actual NET rankings to pick teams. They're not supposed to. Your own NET ranking doesn't matter. It's the rankings of your opponents that matter. It's used to evaluate resumes. |
|
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: 31,203
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 11:25:58 GMT -5
Can someone provide me an example in another sport with a similar size (NCAA WBB, NCAA WSoc, Softball, etc.) of a team receiving an at-large bid without beating ... anyone? I ask for a similar size because it's probably hard to compare to MVP, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Nov 27, 2023 11:28:00 GMT -5
How did SFA even get such a high rpi without playing anyone I've been wondering this myself. They should be a case study on how to best game the RPI. Id imagine because even if their opponents didnt have good RPI's, they had good records their record was 29-4 ASU: 26-6, Baylor 16-12, South Alabama: 22-8, Grand Canyon x3: 23-7, Cal Poly: 21-11 UTRGV x2: 19-12, UTAx2: 20-10, UNT 17-15, Tulsa: 17-14 |
|
