2023 NCAA Volleyball Selection Show

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 9:22:43 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Nov 28, 2023 9:17:46 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

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.

100%. They likely get in last year.

Tennessee last year:
#56 RPI
3 Top 50 wins (#38 Georgia, #48 LSUx2)
A bad loss to Alabama in the last week of the season
-Not even listed as Last 4 in!

Kansas State this year:
#59 RPI
3 Top 25 wins
6 Top 50 wins
Two bad losses
-One of the 'first 8 out'

Tennessee's wins weren't even that good last year. They jumped Tennessee FIFTEEN spots with that resume to get into the tournament!

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 9:51:55 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

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.

LMU (2018)

#57 RPI
One Top 25 win (#5 BYU)
Four Top 50 wins (#43 SMCx2, #48 Kansas)
THREE! sub-100 losses (#125 Pacific, #150 Gonzaga x2)

Kansas State is hands down better than the LMU and Tennessee teams that got in with RPI's just a couple spots in front, and they made some jumps themselves.

It was awhile ago, but Clemson got in at 58 or 59 and Kentucky got in at 60.

[bbg95]

Nov 28, 2023 10:52:57 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 28, 2023 9:22:43 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

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.

100%. They likely get in last year.

Tennessee last year:
#56 RPI
3 Top 50 wins (#38 Georgia, #48 LSUx2)
A bad loss to Alabama in the last week of the season
-Not even listed as Last 4 in!

Kansas State this year:
#59 RPI
3 Top 25 wins
6 Top 50 wins
Two bad losses
-One of the 'first 8 out'

Tennessee's wins weren't even that good last year. They jumped Tennessee FIFTEEN spots with that resume to get into the tournament!

I was thinking 2018 LMU, but 2022 Tennessee seems like an even better example. That must be so frustrating for Kansas State. They have three wins that are significantly better than any win Tennessee had the previous year, but Tennessee is safely in while Kansas State is watching from home. Also, that "first eight out" thing is so lazy. It's not too much to ask for the committee to publicly identify the last team in and first team out.

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 28, 2023 10:52:57 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 28, 2023 9:22:43 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

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.

100%. They likely get in last year.

Tennessee last year:
#56 RPI
3 Top 50 wins (#38 Georgia, #48 LSUx2)
A bad loss to Alabama in the last week of the season
-Not even listed as Last 4 in!

Kansas State this year:
#59 RPI
3 Top 25 wins
6 Top 50 wins
Two bad losses
-One of the 'first 8 out'

Tennessee's wins weren't even that good last year. They jumped Tennessee FIFTEEN spots with that resume to get into the tournament!

Pre-Selection Week RPI:
Tennessee 2022 - 39
K-State 2023 - 54

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 11:05:15 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Pre-Selection Week RPI:
Tennessee 2022 - 39
K-State 2023 - 54

I also wonder if Kansas State beating Texas in the last week would have made a difference.

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 28, 2023 11:08:45 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 28, 2023 11:05:15 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Pre-Selection Week RPI:
Tennessee 2022 - 39
K-State 2023 - 54

I also wonder if Kansas State beating Texas in the last week would have made a difference.

100% - see LMU 2018.

[trojansc]

God, I looked at Clemson's resume when they got in with a high-50's RPI. It was pretty bad (Tennessee like). I think they only got in because they wanted Miami-FL too (they beat Miami twice who had a low 40s RPI). I'll look more closely later.

[trojansc]

I also think if Kansas State made these schedule changes, they get in:

-Change #209 San Diego State to #213 Quinnipiac
-Change #253 UT-Martin to #270 Incarnate Word

[houstonbear15]

Nov 28, 2023 1:29:28 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 28, 2023 1:01:59 GMT -5 houstonbear15 said:

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

I mentioned UCF merely on the basis of losing to non-tournament teams. Sure, you can take them out of that sentence, but that doesn't take away losses to Cincinnati (12-16, RPI 156, KPI 132) and Oklahoma (11-17, RPI 148, KPI 129) with the OU loss being just over a month ago.

I do understand how that RPI situation would impact SFA, thank you for pointing that out. I made the mistake of conflating some components of RPI and KPI. But I think I somewhat disagree about RPI not concerning itself with who the opponent is. Doesn't adjusted RPI take into consideration the RPI of opponents in both schedules and actual results? You get bonus points for top 25 and top 50 wins. You can get penalized for bad losses. Same goes with non-conference scheduling. So even with all of the bonuses KSU received for their big wins, they still had a subpar RPI. 

Had SFA lost even just one match to a sub-100 team, we may have seen them out of the tourney. I just disagree with those who say they have nothing going for them, because I think being able to play consistently enough through that stretch is noteworthy. Not losing to teams within RPI ranges that other teams have multiple losses in is something to be considered when comparing teams. SFA had many many chances to slip up against sub-100 teams but they didn't. Which is kinda where my question comes in- if significant losses is listed together with significant wins, then SFA's ability to not be upset (okay besides their conference tourney loss) is something going for them. KSU's ability to upset (6 top 50 wins) was pretty equal to their ability to be upset (5 sub-50 losses). 

I also want to reiterate that KSU's first top 25 win did not come until conference play, and happened a month ago, right after their loss to OU. They then loss two more top 25 matches before beating Texas (all wins at home). There is benefit to how the Big 12 schedule is set up for certain teams, because KSU got to face the same BYU team (meaning there is no real time for personnel adjustments) back to back nights at home. Pointing out again that they had two months to prep themselves to pick up top 50 wins and were able to go through trials and tribulations before doing so. None of KSU's top 50 wins were going to come in the preseason with 8 of 9 of their opponents being outside of that range. SFA had 3 chances at top 50 wins and of course were not successful, but expecting them to have to be so good at the beginning of the season to be able to do that doesn't seem fair when KSU was not good enough at the beginning of the season to do so either. 

[mikegarrison]

And yet, trojansc, in the other thread you still said you prefer a system where a committee makes these decisions rather than just going strictly by the data, despite that you know that every year the committee makes these bad calls.

At least if you go by an objective metric (be it RPI or something better), then teams get in because of the numbers, and that's that. At least it would be explainable.

[houstonbear15]

Nov 28, 2023 10:55:29 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 28, 2023 9:51:55 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

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.

LMU (2018)

#57 RPI
One Top 25 win (#5 BYU)
Four Top 50 wins (#43 SMCx2, #48 Kansas)
THREE! sub-100 losses (#125 Pacific, #150 Gonzaga x2)

Kansas State is hands down better than the LMU and Tennessee teams that got in with RPI's just a couple spots in front, and they made some jumps themselves.

It was awhile ago, but Clemson got in at 58 or 59 and Kentucky got in at 60.

What were the AQ/at-large scenarios that year? It feels like KSU may have also been impacted by a few unexpected teams winning their AQ.

[volleytips101]

In K-State’s scheduling defense, Tenn Martin was 23-12 in 2022 but was 8-20 in 2023. Long Island was 14-13 in 2022 but 13-18 this year. The real questions are Fullerton and San Diego State. Both of those programs have struggled to even close to .500. Maybe Coach Mansfield felt he needed to start out against teams he knew he could beat to develop some early confidence being a first year HC. No one on this board knows for sure but I think going into the tournament you want teams that are playing at a high level which K-State was after a mid-season lineup change. Another question is does a win vs Houston in their last match get them in? They had their chances for sure with Jackson out!

[donut]

houstonbear15 I really don't understand the narrative you keep trying to spin regarding K-State's wins.  It just feels like you're splitting hairs, attempting to diminish 3 top 25, and 6 top 50 wins, just because they were in conference, later in the season, in back-to-back matches, etc.  If you want to do that analysis for everyone, go ahead, but I think it will make your K-State observations less unique and significant.

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 11:49:23 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

And yet, trojansc, in the other thread you still said you prefer a system where a committee makes these decisions rather than just going strictly by the data, despite that you know that every year the committee makes these bad calls.

At least if you go by an objective metric (be it RPI or something better), then teams get in because of the numbers, and that's that. At least it would be explainable.

What is this in contrast to? I think the MBB committee does a fine job using a rating system and analyzing profiles.

[bluepenquin]

I did look up what the impact would have been if Kansas State had just not scheduled Fullerton - vs. just winning one more match. Winning one more match gets them to around 50 in RPI - which is significant. Not playing Fullerton gets them into the mid 50's.

The scheduling turned out to be not good - but it really was not winning just one of those matches that they *should* have won that cost them.

Looking back - it does seem Kansas State belongs on the heels of not only beating Texas and BYU (2X) - but actually going 9-0 in sets in those matches. That is just a different level of good - for which RPI will not properly pick up. This team is way more worthy than the 2018 Kansas State team.