|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2023 11:28:26 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!) I think you overvalue the quotes of the committee chairs. Eight people subjectively vote and each year the decision isn't quite the same. Sometimes the vote goes 5-3 in favor of the team with a tougher schedule and worse record. Sometimes the vote goes 5-3 in favor of the team with the better record and easier schedule. And when it is in the slimmest of margins, the committee chair will make a statement defending the outcome of the vote. Now, the fact that we typically get a 2 minute interview with no pushback from the host and quotes that make the chair seem utterly incompetent doesn't help. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2023 11:31:19 GMT -5
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. Ok. But what I'm saying is the ranking system isn't what matters. It's the committee's willingness to deviate greatly from the final ranking. A different system doesn't really help that. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 27, 2023 11:32:23 GMT -5
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. I'm researching this, but my early conclusion is that they didn't really use KPI that much. Maybe as a secondary criteria even though it's supposed to be a primary one. For example, you mentioned in another thread that it didn't seem like Arizona State was considered as a subregional host. Their KPI was 15th, so if that was actually a major criteria, they should have been given consideration, especially with their wins over Stanford and Oregon. But their RPI was 23rd. I think the committee probably only looked at say, the top 20 teams in RPI, and then made their selections from that group (Florida was 19th). |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 27, 2023 11:34:23 GMT -5
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. I'm researching this, but my early conclusion is that they didn't really use KPI that much. Maybe as a secondary criteria even though it's supposed to be a primary one. For example, you mentioned in another thread that it didn't seem like Arizona State was considered as a subregional host. Their KPI was 15th, so if that was actually a major criteria, they should have been given consideration, especially with their wins over Stanford and Oregon. But their RPI was 23rd. I think the committee probably only looked at say, the top 20 teams in RPI, and then made their selections from that group (Florida was 19th). both ARizona State and UCLA if KPI was used, they could have made a case to include UCLA in the field. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 27, 2023 11:37:26 GMT -5
I'm researching this, but my early conclusion is that they didn't really use KPI that much. Maybe as a secondary criteria even though it's supposed to be a primary one. For example, you mentioned in another thread that it didn't seem like Arizona State was considered as a subregional host. Their KPI was 15th, so if that was actually a major criteria, they should have been given consideration, especially with their wins over Stanford and Oregon. But their RPI was 23rd. I think the committee probably only looked at say, the top 20 teams in RPI, and then made their selections from that group (Florida was 19th). both ARizona State and UCLA if KPI was used, they could have made a case to include UCLA in the field. Sure. Here are the RPI and KPI of their bubble teams: Last 4 Teams In - RPI (KPI) Texas A&M - 37 (28) UCSB - 38 (27) SFA - 36 (39) Miami - 45 (43) --------------------- Georgia - 47 (36) First 8 Out - RPI (KPI) Drake - 51 (55) Duke - 57 (50) K-State - 58 (49) Loyola Chicago - 54 (68) LMU - 50 (48) NC State - 44 (37) St. John's - 46 (56) UCLA - 55 (42) Georgia wasn't actually listed among the last four in, but I included them because they had the highest RPI among at-large bids. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2023 11:38:16 GMT -5
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. I'm researching this, but my early conclusion is that they didn't really use KPI that much. Maybe as a secondary criteria even though it's supposed to be a primary one. For example, you mentioned in another thread that it didn't seem like Arizona State was considered as a subregional host. Their KPI was 15th, so if that was actually a major criteria, they should have been given consideration, especially with their wins over Stanford and Oregon. But their RPI was 23rd. I think the committee probably only looked at say, the top 20 teams in RPI, and then made their selections from that group (Florida was 19th). Arizona State ended up at #18. Maybe even #17 (Ga Tech would drive into Florida regardless of where they were on the 5 line). I'm sure they were considered. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 27, 2023 11:40:37 GMT -5
I'm researching this, but my early conclusion is that they didn't really use KPI that much. Maybe as a secondary criteria even though it's supposed to be a primary one. For example, you mentioned in another thread that it didn't seem like Arizona State was considered as a subregional host. Their KPI was 15th, so if that was actually a major criteria, they should have been given consideration, especially with their wins over Stanford and Oregon. But their RPI was 23rd. I think the committee probably only looked at say, the top 20 teams in RPI, and then made their selections from that group (Florida was 19th). Arizona State ended up at #18. Maybe even #17 (Ga Tech would drive into Florida regardless of where they were on the 5 line). I'm sure they were considered. You're looking at last week's RPI (the NCAA hasn't updated their website yet). Arizona State is 23rd on Figstats (scroll down to the list in green). |
|
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: 31,210 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 11:42:13 GMT -5
I think you overvalue the quotes of the committee chairs. Eight people subjectively vote and each year the decision isn't quite the same. Sometimes the vote goes 5-3 in favor of the team with a tougher schedule and worse record. Sometimes the vote goes 5-3 in favor of the team with the better record and easier schedule. And when it is in the slimmest of margins, the committee chair will make a statement defending the outcome of the vote. Now, the fact that we typically get a 2 minute interview with no pushback from the host and quotes that make the chair seem utterly incompetent doesn't help. Do you think those votes actually took place for many of those teams? They didn't seem to be thorough with at-large bids. IDK. I watch enough sports and selection shows to see It seems like they cared about the seeds and just used RPI for our at-large bids and said hey.. if Georgia wins we'll give them a bid and kick NC State out. Done? done. If St. John's wins the conference tournament, we'll kick out one of UCSB/Texas A&M/SFA/Miami-FL, but we'll only cross that bridge if we get there. I think they should finalize at-large bids on Sunday when the Final RPI is out. I don't see how that was done when you had 8 teams 'equally' out. They mentioned going back and forth about FLA/GA Tech all weekend. Was there no back and forth about K-State/Miami-FL/NC State/SFA/etc. ? |
|
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: 31,210
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 11:43:01 GMT -5
I'm researching this, but my early conclusion is that they didn't really use KPI that much. Maybe as a secondary criteria even though it's supposed to be a primary one. For example, you mentioned in another thread that it didn't seem like Arizona State was considered as a subregional host. Their KPI was 15th, so if that was actually a major criteria, they should have been given consideration, especially with their wins over Stanford and Oregon. But their RPI was 23rd. I think the committee probably only looked at say, the top 20 teams in RPI, and then made their selections from that group (Florida was 19th). Arizona State ended up at #18. Maybe even #17 (Ga Tech would drive into Florida regardless of where they were on the 5 line). I'm sure they were considered. Arizona State was #22 by Wednesday. The committee saw this. |
|
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: 31,210
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 11:45:00 GMT -5
bbg95 I don't know if I'm believing KPI=RPI either. ASU was #15 (above both GA Tech and Florida) in KPI. How were they not in the discussion is my confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 27, 2023 11:53:13 GMT -5
bbg95 I don't know if I'm believing KPI=RPI either. ASU was #15 (above both GA Tech and Florida) in KPI. How were they not in the discussion is my confusion. Yeah, I think ASU not being considered means they didn't use KPI the way they used RPI. As we've both said, the fact that they were 15th in KPI should have gotten them consideration if KPI was truly used the way RPI was. The bubble discrepancies also support this. My working theory is that they figured out an RPI cutline for each group (regional hosts, subregional hosts and at-large bids) and only seriously considered teams above that cutline. So I think it was probably the top 5/6 for regional hosts, the top 19/20 for subregional hosts and the top 49/50 for at-large bids. I know there are quite a few teams with RPI in the 50s listed among their first eight out, but I'm skeptical that they gave that much consideration to them vs. the ones in the 30s and 40s. |
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Nov 27, 2023 11:54:28 GMT -5
team A: 2 top 25 wins 4 top 50 wins 6-1 vs 50-100 worst loss 203 team B: 3 top 25wins 6 top 50 wins 0-3 vs 50-100 worst loss 158 team C: 0 top 25 wins 0 top 50 wins 3-1 vs 50-100 worst loss 74 Hint, one team did not make it What were the final RPI ranks of those three teams? RPI Team A 41 Team B 68 Team C 31 rpi says don't lose to teams worse than you or you're screwed |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2023 11:55:14 GMT -5
Arizona State ended up at #18. Maybe even #17 (Ga Tech would drive into Florida regardless of where they were on the 5 line). I'm sure they were considered. You're looking at last week's RPI (the NCAA hasn't updated their website yet). Arizona State is 23rd on Figstats (scroll down to the list in green). I meant their ACTUAL overall seed was #18. By true S-Curve it was #16 Florida, #17 Georgia Tech*, #18 Arizona State, #19 Penn State, #20 Dayton. *Georgia Tech might have been moved up to reduce flights |
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Nov 27, 2023 11:55:25 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. Beat teams with a lot of wins. Don't lose to teams that don't have a lot of wins |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 27, 2023 11:58:34 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. Sure. Schedule three Top 50 non-conference opponents and win 29 matches. Good luck to everybody trying to do that. For the record, I'm still not saying SFA should have gotten the last at large. But that formula is not exactly an easy way to game the RPI. |
|
