|
|
Post by maigrey on Nov 27, 2023 23:51:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by maigrey on Nov 27, 2023 23:54:06 GMT -5
lots of athletes in the comments supporting K-State!! Dev Robinson reposting a story about how they were robbed!! NCAA… do better! Kelly Sheffield stated in his presser that he was surprised that k-state didn't get,too. I mean, he then softened it a bit saying he didn't know a specifics of the other at large teams, but he stated that right away. I wanted to see former badger Liz G. play in the tournament again ❤️ |
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Nov 27, 2023 23:55:11 GMT -5
Work sis. I wish she tagged SFA too. I know it’s not the SFA players fault but they should know they have no business being in the tournament with not even a top 50 win |
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Nov 28, 2023 1:01:59 GMT -5
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? Oops, idk why St. John's was on my mind. And I understand that we don't know who was actually being compared for the last spots, but the vast majority of this board has seemed to be going with SFA out and KSU in which is why I focused on comparing the two. While I don't think of it as pity, there is something to be said about the privilege that Power 5 schools get to operate with. Kansas State, knowing they had the Big 12 RPI to rely on, was able to schedule an incredibly weak non-conference schedule to prepare them for it. All of their top 50 matches came in conference play, except for the match against Nebraska. They didn't play another top 25 match until nearly two months after that one. 8 of their 9 matches were against non-tournament teams. 6 of the 9 matches being against teams with an RPI of 111 or worse. They had an incredible easy schedule to prep them for their next top 50 match, but ended up with 3 losses during it. There was lots of talk about lineup tweaks and improvement by KSU throughout the season, so that experience is obviously a benefit. SFA did not have an entire non-conference to prepare them to pick up their top 50 wins. SFA has historically scheduled between 1-3 top 50 schools each season. So while they did not pick up any upsets against teams that were merely better than them, what they could do moving forward was beat all of the teams they were expected to. And they did exactly that, which is why their RPI is where it is. K-State, and many other teams, showed that it's not always easy to maintain a consistent enough level to not pick up any bad losses, and had they been even slightly better at that, they wouldn't have even been in question. Additionally, the same way that Florida values from their early wins despite regressing, KSU gets held back for their early losses. Surely they improved over the course of the season, but they also showed those early losses weren't exactly an anomaly when they lost to UCF, Oklahoma, and Cincinnati. And just as KSU grew throughout the season, the same can be said for SFA. While they weren't able to show that through top 50 wins like KSU was able to do in conference play, they were able to demonstrate it by not dropping any matches to subpar teams. They played 6 conference matches against teams with better RPIs than KSU's worst loss (Cincy) and did not lose any of them. At the same point in the season, SFA was able to do something that KSU had the opportunity to do, but could not. I guess the question is- is it more impressive to be good enough to upset a few teams while getting upset just as often, or to be good enough that you never get upset despite not being able to upset others? We know what RPI and this year's committee thinks. |
|
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: 31,649 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 28, 2023 1:29:28 GMT -5
SFA has historically scheduled between 1-3 top 50 schools each season. So while they did not pick up any upsets against teams that were merely better than them, what they could do moving forward was beat all of the teams they were expected to. And they did exactly that, which is why their RPI is where it is. K-State, and many other teams, showed that it's not always easy to maintain a consistent enough level to not pick up any bad losses, and had they been even slightly better at that, they wouldn't have even been in question. I guess the question is- is it more impressive to be good enough to upset a few teams while getting upset just as often, or to be good enough that you never get upset despite not being able to upset others? We know what RPI and this year's committee thinks. I think it's weird to include UCF as a bad loss. They were better than SFA's best win. And no - SFA did not beat all the teams they were expected to do so moving forward (they lost to Grand Canyon, slightly worse than UCF, and that's why they didn't get automatic qualification to the NCAA Tournament). SFA had to beat 1 top 100 team to win their AQ and didn't do it. SFA's RPI is where it is at partially because of luck. For example, take away #250 Jackson State and say SFA scheduled #236 Tulane twice instead (they played both Jackson State and Tulane and beat both). People who don't understand RPI would think that means SFA would be about the same or even slightly better because Tulane is ranked better than Jackson State. No - SFA's RPI would drop close to ~10 spots around 45-44 just for simply playing and beating Tulane. I also don't know what your question is trying to measure. K-State lost to two teams that were worse than SFA's worst loss. They beat six teams that were better than any SFA win. I mean, that seems pretty convincing to me to out-weigh, when you consider those six teams include 3 against top 16 seeded teams. You say 'We know what RPI' thinks, and I think that's a faulty conclusion. RPI does not treat all of those situations similar that your question poses, which is why I bring up Tulane and Jackson State. RPI doesn't actually concern itself with who you get upset by and who you beat. It's a calculation based on W/L record. K-State could have zero upsets against top 100 teams and still end up with a 59 RPI - depending on who they scheduled. I could run another scenario if you have a question about how that could possibly happen. Look at UMBC. When you look at UMBC's resume - are you not baffled at how they have a Top 50 RPI (better than Kansas State, and UMBC won 0 top 50 matches, and lost more sub-100 games than Kansas State! How does that make sense?) ncaastats.figstats.net/teamsheet.phtml/UMBC |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Nov 28, 2023 3:09:37 GMT -5
SFA has historically scheduled between 1-3 top 50 schools each season. So while they did not pick up any upsets against teams that were merely better than them, what they could do moving forward was beat all of the teams they were expected to. And they did exactly that, which is why their RPI is where it is. K-State, and many other teams, showed that it's not always easy to maintain a consistent enough level to not pick up any bad losses, and had they been even slightly better at that, they wouldn't have even been in question. I guess the question is- is it more impressive to be good enough to upset a few teams while getting upset just as often, or to be good enough that you never get upset despite not being able to upset others? We know what RPI and this year's committee thinks. I think it's weird to include UCF as a bad loss. They were better than SFA's best win. And no - SFA did not beat all the teams they were expected to do so moving forward (they lost to Grand Canyon, slightly worse than UCF, and that's why they didn't get automatic qualification to the NCAA Tournament). SFA had to beat 1 top 100 team to win their AQ and didn't do it. SFA's RPI is where it is at partially because of luck. For example, take away #250 Jackson State and say SFA scheduled #236 Tulane twice instead (they played both Jackson State and Tulane and beat both). People who don't understand RPI would think that means SFA would be about the same or even slightly better because Tulane is ranked better than Jackson State. No - SFA's RPI would drop close to ~10 spots around 45-44 just for simply playing and beating Tulane. I also don't know what your question is trying to measure. K-State lost to two teams that were worse than SFA's worst loss. They beat six teams that were better than any SFA win. I mean, that seems pretty convincing to me to out-weigh, when you consider those six teams include 3 against top 16 seeded teams. You say 'We know what RPI' thinks, and I think that's a faulty conclusion. RPI does not treat all of those situations similar that your question poses, which is why I bring up Tulane and Jackson State. RPI doesn't actually concern itself with who you get upset by and who you beat. It's a calculation based on W/L record. K-State could have zero upsets against top 100 teams and still end up with a 59 RPI - depending on who they scheduled. I could run another scenario if you have a question about how that could possibly happen. Look at UMBC. When you look at UMBC's resume - are you not baffled at how they have a Top 50 RPI (better than Kansas State, and UMBC won 0 top 50 matches, and lost more sub-100 games than Kansas State! How does that make sense?) ncaastats.figstats.net/teamsheet.phtml/UMBCtl;dr RPI is arbitrary and routinely is badly wrong. The fact that the committee stuck to it so slavishly this year makes me want to hurl. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,312
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 28, 2023 9:17:46 GMT -5
Kansas State is certainly a good test case - how many teams have made the tournament as an at-large with an RPI 59+? If they couldn't do it - I don't see how anyone else would be able to do in the future (other than different committee).
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 28, 2023 9:22:43 GMT -5
Kansas State is certainly a good test case - how many teams have made the tournament as an at-large with an RPI 59+? If they couldn't do it - I don't see how anyone else would be able to do in the future (other than different committee). I definitely think Kansas State could get in with a different committee. This one seems to have relied heavily on RPI, and that sunk them. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,312
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 28, 2023 9:26:38 GMT -5
Kansas State is certainly a good test case - how many teams have made the tournament as an at-large with an RPI 59+? If they couldn't do it - I don't see how anyone else would be able to do in the future (other than different committee). I definitely think Kansas State could get in with a different committee. This one seems to have relied heavily on RPI, and that sunk them. I don't have the stats - but I feel like every committee relies heavily on RPI for at-large. My sense has always been - they spend much more time figuring out regional and subregional seeds because it is so many fewer teams to compare and analyze. But when it comes to making the tournament - RPI is the driving force. But also - I don't think there has ever been an at-large with a 59+ RPI before (and maybe there never has been a team with their kind of resume with that RPI before). I do remember Saint Mary's about 10 years ago having a Pablo ranking in the low 20's, but an RPI outside the range to get an at-large. They didn't get in. Don't know if anyone remembers the specifics on that team and situation? |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 28, 2023 9:29:19 GMT -5
I definitely think Kansas State could get in with a different committee. This one seems to have relied heavily on RPI, and that sunk them. I don't have the stats - but I feel like every committee relies heavily on RPI for at-large. My sense has always been - they spend much more time figuring out regional and subregional seeds because it is so many fewer teams to compare and analyze. But when it comes to making the tournament - RPI is the driving force. But also - I don't think there has ever been an at-large with a 59+ RPI before (and maybe there never has been a team with their kind of resume with that RPI before). I do remember Saint Mary's about 10 years ago having a Pablo ranking in the low 20's, but an RPI outside the range to get an at-large. They didn't get in. Don't know if anyone remembers the specifics on that team and situation? For volleyball, you might be right. But I've seen committees in other sports put together brackets that seem to have not relied much on RPI. Even in volleyball, LMU got in the tournament in 2018 with an RPI of 57, which is very close to the RPI that Kansas State had. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,312
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 28, 2023 9:41:19 GMT -5
I don't have the stats - but I feel like every committee relies heavily on RPI for at-large. My sense has always been - they spend much more time figuring out regional and subregional seeds because it is so many fewer teams to compare and analyze. But when it comes to making the tournament - RPI is the driving force. But also - I don't think there has ever been an at-large with a 59+ RPI before (and maybe there never has been a team with their kind of resume with that RPI before). I do remember Saint Mary's about 10 years ago having a Pablo ranking in the low 20's, but an RPI outside the range to get an at-large. They didn't get in. Don't know if anyone remembers the specifics on that team and situation? For volleyball, you might be right. But I've seen committees in other sports put together brackets that seem to have not relied much on RPI. Even in volleyball, LMU got in the tournament in 2018 with an RPI of 57, which is very close to the RPI that Kansas State had. I cannot remember the details on the LMU season - vs. Kansas and Kansas State who had better RPI's. I believe LMU beat Kansas @ Kansas that year. And Kansas swept Kansas State. It was a complete headache on those 3 teams - all with an RPI over 50. LMU won the H2H and common opponents metric vs Kansas and Kansas State. Kansas was frustratingly inconsistent all year and ended the season badly (if memory serves). Frankly - that was a season that didn't have an excess of deserving teams and they were forced to choose from the least worse option. |
|
|
|
Post by eotexas5 on Nov 28, 2023 9:50:49 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! if anyone is beloved, it's probably the team that gets the final four in their backyard once every three years  |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,312
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 28, 2023 9:51:55 GMT -5
Okay - I just looked up Kansas in 2018. They did lose to LMU at home. They split with Kansas State, they didn't sweep them.
The kicker for Kansas - they lost their last 5 matches - including home matches to Kansas State and a loss to Oklahoma on the last day. They beat Texas at home early in the season - which was their marque win. They also beat Baylor at home - but Pressley was injured and didn't play that match.
Kansas State was 5-11 in conference play. I mean - that is horrible for a team wanting an at-large. They swept Hawaii twice in the non-conference - along with beating Western Kentucky. They had games against Minnesota and UCLA cancelled that year - which may have cost them a scheduling bonus. I believe UCLA was unable to make the trip to Hawaii and it was too hot to play at Minnesota w/o an air conditioner?
But then Kansas State lost twice to Oklahoma, once to West Virginia - and then twice to Texas Tech - the last one was at home in the next to last game of the season. They weren't a good team - nor did they have much of a resume.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbstan123 on Nov 28, 2023 9:54:42 GMT -5
Please tell me Carter is using her covid year
|
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Nov 28, 2023 10:29:51 GMT -5
I definitely think Kansas State could get in with a different committee. This one seems to have relied heavily on RPI, and that sunk them. I don't have the stats - but I feel like every committee relies heavily on RPI for at-large. My sense has always been - they spend much more time figuring out regional and subregional seeds because it is so many fewer teams to compare and analyze. But when it comes to making the tournament - RPI is the driving force. But also - I don't think there has ever been an at-large with a 59+ RPI before (and maybe there never has been a team with their kind of resume with that RPI before). I do remember Saint Mary's about 10 years ago having a Pablo ranking in the low 20's, but an RPI outside the range to get an at-large. They didn't get in. Don't know if anyone remembers the specifics on that team and situation? This has also been seen in other tourney selections as well, particularly softball. When looking at top 8 seeds, they put a lot of emphasis on top 10 wins, and top 25 wins for the top 16 seeds. RPI helped shape that conversation, but determining seeds was more complex in the softball tourney. Of course it is different from committee to committee, but this year's is not entirely unprecedented with how they have utilized RPI. But even looking at the other criteria listed out, KSU's KPI is lower than all of the other at-larges, besides Minnesota. They have significant wins, but equally as many significant losses, both are which are stated as criteria. Even when looking at other things such as location of matches, KSU's was 4-7 in road games, with losses to Lipscomb, and Oklahoma. All of their top wins were at home, which is not a bad thing, but doesn't get the boost that big road wins do (in KPI and in personal judgment). Strength of schedule is also a factor, and when looking at KSU's in non-conference, they played 8 of 9 matches against non-tourney teams, 4 with losing records. Then in conference, they lost to two teams with losing records. In a sport where RPI is a known criteria, that non-con schedule and performance dug KSU into a hole that their wins weren't able to get themselves out of. |
|
