2023 NCAA Volleyball Selection Show

[bbg95]

Nov 28, 2023 12:18:33 GMT -5 trojansc said:

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.

The issue with using an "objective" metric is that it can lead to really stupid things. The computers are the reason why USC football got left out of the BCS national championship game in 2003 despite being No. 1 in both polls. A smart committee is better than strictly using a computer. The problem is when you have a committee that isn't smart. But the solution to me is to improve the quality of the committee's decision making, not replace them with a computer. As you said, I think the men's basketball committee does a pretty good job for the most part with the approach that they currently have.

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 11:47:39 GMT -5 houstonbear15 said:

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). 

The penalties for bad losses are so extremely rare. LBSU’s to CSUN was the rare example. But yeah - adjusted RPI only accounts for T25-T50 wins and bottom losses (280 plus). kansas state could easily be in the tournament if they scheduled the “right” bad teams, instead of Fullerton like blue mentioned. Playing the #200 RPI opponent could be way better than playing the #55 RPI opponent depending on their W/L record.

I also think you’re 6 top 50 wins vs. 5 sub-50 losses isn’t really a “thing”. Losing to the #52 RPI team (who can often be an at large) isn’t really viewed as bad, historically. It’s the sub-100 losses (but as you can see in the past with LMU, Ball State, Tennessee, even recently, those are forgiven). Even High Point who had 0T50 wins and a bad loss was forgiven, simply because of RPI. The committee was moving away from being so dependent on RPI, but this one seemed to step back.

I still maintain SFA didn’t care about scheduling for an at large bid, they chose to not play the last week of the season. They had a completely open week. As an RPI gem, I’m not sure people would turn them down. If SMU and TCU were willing to add late non-conference games, I wonder why SFA didn’t. So i think when you mentioned them not having advantages or opportunities, that is also on them.

[houstonbear15]

Nov 28, 2023 12:08:47 GMT -5 donut said:

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.

Tournament selection is splitting hairs so I am okay with that. Truly I am just channeling my inner DHump and thinking about what a possible argument could have been in those meetings.

When looking at K-State's top wins alone, or in comparison to other teams from RPI loaded conferences (Miami, TCU, Minnesota), there is no need to break things down like I have. But if comparing K-State to SFA, there is obvious benefit to K-State's schedule, and I think it is important to note when thinking about non P5 teams from lower conferences. To exclude SFA for not picking up top 25 or top 50 wins, though having the RPI/KPI to be in, would make a statement towards non P5 schools for sure. When saying KSU deserves to be in over SFA because they have more top 50 wins, it's not hard to identify how their schedule benefitted them in achieving that vs. SFA's schedule. SFA did not have the privilege of not playing their top matches until the end of the season. KSU however, was granted the chance to not drop multiple sub-100 losses. It's pointing out one component of the tourney criteria while completely ignoring their deficits in the other components (RPI, KPI, win-loss record, SOS, significant losses). 

It's just interesting to me when RPI and KPI were both explicitly stated as criteria measures, people are up in arms that they actually used those measures. I am not even arguing that RPI or KPI are good factors or systems to use. I think my opinion changed when people started absolutely bashing the SFA program, when all they did was go 29-1 against the RPI range that K-State went 10-5 against. They played good, consistent volleyball to achieve that. 

[trojansc]

We should have just given a bid to Loyola-Chicago. They went after it and lost a LOT in the non conference but they did pick up good wins.

I’d take that any day over SFA. SFA has a much better historical W/L too, so, it’s not like Loyola has some advantages there.

(That said, I still like K State, UCLA better. NC State/St John’s slightly)

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 14:01:35 GMT -5 houstonbear15 said:

But if comparing K-State to SFA, there is obvious benefit to K-State's schedule, and I think it is important to note when thinking about non P5 teams from lower conferences. To exclude SFA for not picking up top 25 or top 50 wins, though having the RPI/KPI to be in, would make a statement towards non P5 schools for sure. When saying KSU deserves to be in over SFA because they have more top 50 wins, it's not hard to identify how their schedule benefitted them in achieving that vs. SFA's schedule. SFA did not have the privilege of not playing their top matches until the end of the season. KSU however, was granted the chance to not drop multiple sub-100 losses. It's pointing out one component of the tourney criteria while completely ignoring their deficits in the other components (RPI, KPI, win-loss record, SOS, significant losses). 

It's just interesting to me when RPI and KPI were both explicitly stated as criteria measures, people are up in arms that they actually used those measures. I am not even arguing that RPI or KPI are good factors or systems to use. I think my opinion changed when people started absolutely bashing the SFA program, when all they did was go 29-1 against the RPI range that K-State went 10-5 against. They played good, consistent volleyball to achieve that. 

OK, this makes more sense. You have taken a pity take for SFA but not holding them accountable for their own scheduling. 11/14 matches they chose to not play top 75 level competition.

KPI/RPI argument doesn't make sense with NC State. They had a better KPI than SFA - five better wins (including over Louisville, but most of those wins in the 51-100 range are only marginally better than SFA's). And of course, uh, they beat Louisville? They also lost some tough 5-setters that at least showed they were competitive. Yes, they took some bad losses (this actually happens a lot in P5 conferences, how bad are those 'bad' losses is debatable, especially when you look at Pablo/Massey).

29-1 vs. not great teams (10-5 vs. K-State) while  K-State went 6-6 against Top 50 competition that SFA not only went 0-3 against, but let's be real, they pretty much got trounced. While K-State was pretty dominant in some of their big wins. Also, Rice, Lipscomb, and UCF are not bad losses by any means (and I think it's unfair to compare when SFA didn't beat teams ranked higher than Rice, Lipscomb, or UCF.

SFA was outscored by 18 points against South Alabama. (18-25, 16-25, 28-26, 21-25)
SFA was outscored by 30 points against Arizona State. (13-25, 16-25, 16-25)
SFA was outscored by 25 points against Baylor. (14-25, 15-25, 21-25)

I am also pretty sure SFA just got into the NCAA Tournament with the worst, ever resume in terms of wins/top win. That's pretty significant. It's at least the worst in ~13 years.

Lastly, I don't think anyone is bashing the SFA program, it's the selection committee. Let's be real - who is watching SFA volleyball on this board? As a nerd who loves mid-majors, I watch plenty of the mid-major teams, and watched SFA/UTRGV, all GCU matches, and the UVU semifinals, along with snippets of others. I think they are a fine team - they did NOT earn their way into the NCAA tournament by beating quality competition, which is usually a pre-requisite. High RPI = no top 50 wins is usually a death sentence. High Point is the one exception - but the committee the very next year said they specifically did not admit South Dakota for not beating anyone (very similar to SFA, and South Dakota had a better best win than SFA).

[trojansc]

I think one of the most disrespected teams on the board has been South Alabama saying they don't belong.... which is ironic given this situation. I think most of the frustration re: SFA is with the selection committee.

[WahineFan44]

Nov 28, 2023 14:10:05 GMT -5 trojansc said:

We should have just given a bid to Loyola-Chicago. They went after it and lost a LOT in the non conference but they did pick up good wins.

I’d take that any day over SFA. SFA has a much better historical W/L too, so, it’s not like Loyola has some advantages there.

(That said, I still like K State, UCLA better. NC State/St John’s slightly)

Is this the worst error that you think the selection comittee has ever made?

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 14:54:48 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Nov 28, 2023 14:10:05 GMT -5 trojansc said:

We should have just given a bid to Loyola-Chicago. They went after it and lost a LOT in the non conference but they did pick up good wins.

I’d take that any day over SFA. SFA has a much better historical W/L too, so, it’s not like Loyola has some advantages there.

(That said, I still like K State, UCLA better. NC State/St John’s slightly)

Is this the worst error that you think the selection comittee has ever made?

I mean, if the committee comes out and says that they care about RPI only and they take the top rated teams, or detail their process, it's not an 'error'. It depends how you look at it.

But, they said 0, literally, not one word about at-large bids on ESPN. They didn't even give us a last team in or last team out. They gave last four in (no order) and first 8 out (no order). So as far as we know, LMU>Kansas State at this point.

I think the worst is Ball State last year. Ball State had a RPI in the low 50's, three sub-100 losses, and only one top 50 win. That's got to be the worst. Even more than High Point.

[trojansc]

I do think K-State is maybe the worst exclusion. Even with a 50s RPI, we have to recognize how inconsistent that system can be. I already pointed out how K-State scheduling two worse opponents in terms of RPI would have raised them to likely 'in' the tournament, so flawed. Cal's exclusion in 2019 might be the worst too (considering who got in over them).

my other issue is the committee chair saying it's a misconception that RPI plays such a heavy emphasis in selection.

[WahineFan44]

Nov 28, 2023 14:57:17 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 28, 2023 14:54:48 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Is this the worst error that you think the selection comittee has ever made?

I mean, if the committee comes out and says that they care about RPI only and they take the top rated teams, or detail their process, it's not an 'error'. It depends how you look at it.

But, they said 0, literally, not one word about at-large bids on ESPN. They didn't even give us a last team in or last team out. They gave last four in (no order) and first 8 out (no order). So as far as we know, LMU>Kansas State at this point.

I think the worst is Ball State last year. Ball State had a RPI in the low 50's, three sub-100 losses, and only one top 50 win. That's got to be the worst. Even more than High Point.

SFA had no top 50 wins though? Is there no bad losses making it a LITTLE less worse in terms of not belonging in the tourney?

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 15:03:12 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Nov 28, 2023 14:57:17 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I mean, if the committee comes out and says that they care about RPI only and they take the top rated teams, or detail their process, it's not an 'error'. It depends how you look at it.

But, they said 0, literally, not one word about at-large bids on ESPN. They didn't even give us a last team in or last team out. They gave last four in (no order) and first 8 out (no order). So as far as we know, LMU>Kansas State at this point.

I think the worst is Ball State last year. Ball State had a RPI in the low 50's, three sub-100 losses, and only one top 50 win. That's got to be the worst. Even more than High Point.

SFA had no top 50 wins though? Is there no bad losses making it a LITTLE less worse in terms of not belonging in the tourney?

But High Point got in with that. - Then South Dakota didn't. It's inconsistent - and it doesn't make sense. Usually no top 50 wins is a death sentence. I do think there should be examples made. Like, say you have 3 wins right outside top 50, this year, against teams like St. John's, K-State, and Duke AND you have no bad losses. That's a team I'd be willing to entertain.

[WahineFan44]

Nov 28, 2023 15:04:17 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 28, 2023 15:03:12 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

SFA had no top 50 wins though? Is there no bad losses making it a LITTLE less worse in terms of not belonging in the tourney?

But High Point got in with that. - Then South Dakota didn't. It's inconsistent - and it doesn't make sense. Usually no top 50 wins is a death sentence. I do think there should be examples made. Like, say you have 3 wins right outside top 50, this year, against teams like St. John's, K-State, and Duke AND you have no bad losses. That's a team I'd be willing to entertain.

Makes sense. I can say though, ive never seen, at least dont remember, a collective pissed off ness, not just among its own team, but from others in the volleyball world, such as players, coaches, analyst etc, than this year with Kstate. Like people are MAAAD

[trojansc]

Nov 28, 2023 15:05:41 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Nov 28, 2023 15:04:17 GMT -5 trojansc said:

But High Point got in with that. - Then South Dakota didn't. It's inconsistent - and it doesn't make sense. Usually no top 50 wins is a death sentence. I do think there should be examples made. Like, say you have 3 wins right outside top 50, this year, against teams like St. John's, K-State, and Duke AND you have no bad losses. That's a team I'd be willing to entertain.

Makes sense. I can say though, ive never seen, at least dont remember, a collective pissed off ness, not just among its own team, but from others in the volleyball world, such as players, coaches, analyst etc, than this year with Kstate. Like people are MAAAD

I'm still waiting to hear of another sport where a team with dominant wins over Top 5 and Top 15 teams would have been passed over for a team with a win over a team in the 70's - regardless of no bad losses.

There was a recent year where the Softball committee passed over a team in the 20s in RPI because they didn't measure up.

[WahineFan44]

Nov 28, 2023 15:08:25 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 28, 2023 15:05:41 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Makes sense. I can say though, ive never seen, at least dont remember, a collective pissed off ness, not just among its own team, but from others in the volleyball world, such as players, coaches, analyst etc, than this year with Kstate. Like people are MAAAD

I'm still waiting to hear of another sport where a team with dominant wins over Top 5 and Top 15 teams would have been passed over for a team with a win over a team in the 70's - regardless of no bad losses.

There was a recent year where the Softball committee passed over a team in the 20s in RPI because they didn't measure up.

I mean those good wins are enough alone to show a team belongs. You dont beat that many good teams by getting "lucky" or playing the other team on a "bad" day.

KSU was definitely inconsistent, but so was ALOT of teams.



Feel for them and hope they can get in next year

[Deleted]

okay but why did KSU lose some of these matches lmao. Also how did they lose to Houston so badly including a 25-11 set when jackson didn't play.... idk how you sweep texas and BYU but do that lmao