|
|
Post by comet on Nov 27, 2023 18:29:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Nov 27, 2023 18:30:33 GMT -5
hold on! what did Texas do to get the “beloved”?😭😭 they literally went out of their way to give us a harder first round match up than the literal 3 seed in our own quadrant. it’s one of the things that’s been debated as a biggest mishap! I think she just means they swept Texas, who's definitely a favorite of the national volleyball scene and media (like Nebraska). |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Nov 27, 2023 20:01:12 GMT -5
Kansas state getting left out is legit insane. 3 sweeps over 3 seeded teams and losses to teams with RPIs of 148 and 156 (and 75, 71, 61), giving KState an RPI of 58. while SFA's worst loss was to RPI 76, with their other losses to RPI 32 or better teams, giving SFA an RPI of 36 Not really all that surprising that they got in. They lost 1 match outside the Top 50. Texas A&M was legit. another team that only lost 1 match outside the Top 50: SFA I detest the "don't have bad losses" mantra. That being said, it is absolutely a separator. But honestly, SFA failed to separate themselves with anything, other than a large number of wins over a very mediocre schedule. I just don't get it. I am hoping they get swept out -10 -10 -10 to make the committee look awful. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewwmic on Nov 27, 2023 20:03:20 GMT -5
The beloved is sending me!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fe Gaslay on Nov 27, 2023 20:05:34 GMT -5
Oh mother made the TIME today |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2023 20:05:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by redcard🏐 on Nov 27, 2023 20:05:58 GMT -5
Is this the fewest teams the Big10 has gotten in the tourney since the expansion back in 1998 or have they had less??
|
|
|
|
Post by vup on Nov 27, 2023 20:08:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Nov 27, 2023 20:15:22 GMT -5
If y'all see me in a K-State jersey next year you KNOW whose name will be on the back.
Q-U-E-E-N
|
|
|
|
Post by volleytips101 on Nov 27, 2023 20:35:29 GMT -5
got it. I thought that’s how it would work out, but didn’t know if their RPI would stay around the same, and then the committee wouldn’t see any “bad” losses. In addition - I think the committee would be more favorable with a BYU - 2X, Texas wins and losses to Oklahoma, Cincy, Lipscomb - than switching this. Great wins are more valuable than low end bad losses (I think). It wasn’t the “bad losses”. It was more that they had 4 teams on their pre-season schedule with almost or more than 20 losses. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbyproxy on Nov 27, 2023 20:47:30 GMT -5
Did she stutter? You bet your life she didn’t. |
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Nov 27, 2023 22:27:29 GMT -5
In addition - I think the committee would be more favorable with a BYU - 2X, Texas wins and losses to Oklahoma, Cincy, Lipscomb - than switching this. Great wins are more valuable than low end bad losses (I think). It wasn’t the “bad losses”. It was more that they had 4 teams on their pre-season schedule with almost or more than 20 losses. Yeah, the more I look at the RPI team sheets for SFA and K-State, the more I find myself justifying some things. Five of KSU's non-conference opponents were to teams with an RPI between 188 and 323. They won all 5 of those. They played 3 non-con opponents between 61 and 111, in which they went 1-2. The one team within the top 50 of RPI was #1 Nebraska. In SFA's non-con, they were 11-0 vs teams between 97 and 331. They had 3 matches vs teams ranked 23-32 and lost all 3. During non-conference, KSU was 6-3 with an avg. RPI win of 229 and an average RPI loss of 45. SFA was 11-3, with an avg RPI win of 197 and an avg. RPI loss of 29. The avg. RPI of SFA's non-con opponents was ~160 as compared to ~167 for KSU (take out Nebraska and that drops ta lot). In conference, SFA won all 18 of their matches, against teams with RPIs ranging between 76 and 294. While those numbers aren't exactly impressive (due to their conference), keep in mind that KSU lost to #71, #148 and #156 in conference play, which put them at 4-3 against Big 12 teams within the RPI range that SFA went 18-0 against. Being in the Big 12, KSU had access to top 50 and top 25 wins very late in the season, something that SFA did not have the luxury of. All of their chances at top 50 wins came within the first month of playing. While only losing to 3 top 30 RPI teams before September ended, KSU lost to 3 teams outside of the top 50, including to #156 in that same first month span. All of that makes me think, it isn't SFA we should be comparing K-State to when thinking about them being snubbed (which I do think they were, just not at the hands of SFA). Instead, I would be investigating more into St. Johns, Miami, and even TCU as teams who may have taken KSU's spot. Giving KSU the spot over SFA would be punishing them for being in a weaker conference, when they arguably did better against a tougher non-con schedule than KSU. |
|
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: 31,780 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 23:35:00 GMT -5
Yeah, the more I look at the RPI team sheets for SFA and K-State, the more I find myself justifying some things. Five of KSU's non-conference opponents were to teams with an RPI between 188 and 323. They won all 5 of those. They played 3 non-con opponents between 61 and 111, in which they went 1-2. The one team within the top 50 of RPI was #1 Nebraska. In SFA's non-con, they were 11-0 vs teams between 97 and 331. They had 3 matches vs teams ranked 23-32 and lost all 3. During non-conference, KSU was 6-3 with an avg. RPI win of 229 and an average RPI loss of 45. SFA was 11-3, with an avg RPI win of 197 and an avg. RPI loss of 29. The avg. RPI of SFA's non-con opponents was ~160 as compared to ~167 for KSU (take out Nebraska and that drops ta lot). In conference, SFA won all 18 of their matches, against teams with RPIs ranging between 76 and 294. While those numbers aren't exactly impressive (due to their conference), keep in mind that KSU lost to #71, #148 and #156 in conference play, which put them at 4-3 against Big 12 teams within the RPI range that SFA went 18-0 against. Being in the Big 12, KSU had access to top 50 and top 25 wins very late in the season, something that SFA did not have the luxury of. All of their chances at top 50 wins came within the first month of playing. While only losing to 3 top 30 RPI teams before September ended, KSU lost to 3 teams outside of the top 50, including to #156 in that same first month span. All of that makes me think, it isn't SFA we should be comparing K-State to when thinking about them being snubbed (which I do think they were, just not at the hands of SFA). Instead, I would be investigating more into St. Johns, Miami, and even TCU as teams who may have taken KSU's spot. Giving KSU the spot over SFA would be punishing them for being in a weaker conference, when they arguably did better against a tougher non-con schedule than KSU. St. John's didn't even get into the tournament. TCU wasn't a last 4-in team according to the committee. But what we don't know if Kansas State was being compared to SFA for the last spot - it could have been any of the 7 other 'first-out' teams. They did say A&M, UCSB, and Miami-FL were the other teams in the 'last-in' next to SFA. I also think your posts seems to be going into a 'feeling sorry for SFA' for not having any chances' and punishing them for being in a weaker conference - they didn't win or try to schedule hard enough to get enough chances to win. SMU had a game scheduled in the last week of the season. Hell, TCU scheduled High Point late in the non-conference. SFA is a team that teams would *want* to schedule. SFA historically has had some pretty ridiculous win %'s. They are an RPI gem. Go look at the top teams schedules, like the top 10- they find ways to get RPI gems on there. You'll see a lot of names like FGCU, Wright State, Marquette, Dayton, etc. etc. Think of it like this: SFA chose to schedule 11/14 non-conf opponents at about ~100 RPI or better. This is the part of their schedule they can control. They certainly didn't go head-hunting, and I doubt South Alabama was even expected to be a Top 50 team either (prior to this season). 4 Sun Belt T50 teams is definitely an anomaly. SFA is in for one reason - and it's RPI. Not even necessarily KPI. That's the only historic justification that makes sense, though the committee mostly says 'no' to these type of teams - High Point being the exception. I just don't get how you think comparing K-State to TCU and Miami, who had top quality wins (TCU had 7 top 50 wins.. 7!) Miami who had two T25 wins would be more of a snub than talking about a team who beat Grand Canyon. TCU had some big wins in the non-conference (Florida State, Utah State, Texas A&M). Hell, if you just want to award a small conference team that did better in the non-conference than SFA.. give it to Drake. I find it strange you think K-State deserves it, but somehow there's another team that got in that didnt't, that is worse than SFA? |
|
|
|
Post by maigrey on Nov 27, 2023 23:38:20 GMT -5
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. I disagree. The trojansc creates the bracket for the committee system would eliminate most of this 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 27, 2023 23:39:48 GMT -5
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. I disagree. The trojansc creates the bracket for the committee system would eliminate most of this 🤣 Plus, then the Committee would have more free time for bourbon and blow. A true win-win. |
|
