|
|
Post by b1gvb23 on Dec 2, 2023 9:02:17 GMT -5
I still think the reason for changing from RPI is something we already know (we didn't need this tournament to tell us this). But using tournament results scares me. Example: Ball State (MAC) in 2021 beat Michigan in the NCAA Tournament. Could that have played in the committee's decision to make the MAC a 2-bid league in 2022? What about this year - Western Michigan beats Auburn, could that play a role in next year's decision? I truly don't believe it did (and I'm not sure this will either). But still, we know RPI not only isn't predictive, but it doesn't even measure the best teams in terms of pure W/L results as it is. That's fair. But when there are structural biases that lead to persistent over-bids and overseeds, the Committee should understand the RPI ranking system and how those structural biases may present themselves - and then adjust for them. Like, the Committee should understand how a 16-game conference schedule inflates RPI. The Committee should be able to spot a resume with a schedule that is RPI gamed. The RPI is incredibly flawed, as we all know. But I think the biggest flaw in it is how it’s used to compare conferences. It uses matches in August to declare that one conference is better than another when teams grow until November and some teams fall apart. Indiana (I know they weren’t even close but it’s the next best B1Gteam) is a better team and would have put up a better fight than Auburn. I didn’t watch NCSt this year but I’m sure they are too. They are all better than the three extra sunbelt teams the committee put in this year. It’s so frustrating when everyone talks about the parity of college volleyball but the best teams aren’t even in the tournament to show it off. |
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Dec 2, 2023 9:39:36 GMT -5
The Gone Girls
|
|
|
|
Post by Keegan Cuck on Dec 2, 2023 9:42:50 GMT -5
The Done Belt
|
|
|
|
Post by vbfamily on Dec 2, 2023 9:54:00 GMT -5
Only one set won among the four matches...yikes. Although there were three other sets where one of the Sun Belt teams scored 20...
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Dec 2, 2023 10:05:48 GMT -5
anddd the answer is zero. 1-12 in sets. Kansas st, NC state and UCLA would at least have made it more entertaining In response to these and so many other posters - You act like UCLA didn't just go up in flames to Cal a week before selection day. NC State's last game vs a tournament team was 10/20 and they scored 44 points in 3 sets. Their entire case for being in is one match on October 1. Sun Belt teams who are all in the 33-64 range, making their first appearance in the tournament are not supposed to win. I'm not applauding them for going 0-4 but I am questioning the intelligence of the posters who think that THAT means they shouldn't have gotten in. Auburn and Georgia were in the same boat, and they lost but I haven't seen a thread about how that means the SEC should be a 3 bid conference. Some at-large teams lose. Happens in every sport. Move on. |
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Dec 2, 2023 10:25:15 GMT -5
anddd the answer is zero. 1-12 in sets. Kansas st, NC state and UCLA would at least have made it more entertaining In response to these and so many other posters - You act like UCLA didn't just go up in flames to Cal a week before selection day. NC State's last game vs a tournament team was 10/20 and they scored 44 points in 3 sets. Their entire case for being in is one match on October 1. Sun Belt teams who are all in the 33-64 range, making their first appearance in the tournament are not supposed to win. I'm not applauding them for going 0-4 but I am questioning the intelligence of the posters who think that THAT means they shouldn't have gotten in. Auburn and Georgia were in the same boat, and they lost but I haven't seen a thread about how that means the SEC should be a 3 bid conference. Some at-large teams lose. Happens in every sport. Move on. I posted that the teams went 1-12 in sets (a literal fact) and you posted whatever the f all of this is. Sounds like someone needs to move on. |
|
|
|
Post by Keegan Cuck on Dec 2, 2023 10:53:28 GMT -5
If you’re upset that people are making fun of your precious Done Belt going 1-12 in sets in the first round of the tourney…
Perhaps go grab some of that Harrisburg… sun?
☁️🌥️🌧️🌨️🌨️🌩️⛈️
^Harrisburg’s forecast, for reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 2, 2023 11:03:54 GMT -5
In response to these and so many other posters - You act like UCLA didn't just go up in flames to Cal a week before selection day. NC State's last game vs a tournament team was 10/20 and they scored 44 points in 3 sets. Their entire case for being in is one match on October 1. Sun Belt teams who are all in the 33-64 range, making their first appearance in the tournament are not supposed to win. I'm not applauding them for going 0-4 but I am questioning the intelligence of the posters who think that THAT means they shouldn't have gotten in. Auburn and Georgia were in the same boat, and they lost but I haven't seen a thread about how that means the SEC should be a 3 bid conference. Some at-large teams lose. Happens in every sport. Move on. This is ironic. If a Cal loss is disqualifying, kick Texas State out of the tourney too. None of these teams were anywhere near at-large quality under a valid ranking system (Massey, Pablo, etc.), but overreliance on a gamed RPI system got them in. And we can talk about the SEC in that way too! |
|
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: 31,219 
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 2, 2023 11:33:56 GMT -5
Looks like the Sun Belt should win ~1 match by VT predictions. I’m gonna put my money on Coastal for the 1. Then Texas State, then JMU. I just haven’t been thrilled with JMU’s level of play lately. If Soboleski is OK, South Alabama stands a chance. well, this didn't age well... 👀 Huh? I mean, it seems like it aged pretty decently. I think Coastal's performance was the best of any of the Sun Belt Teams. If they were going to win 1 - that looked like the 1. Their offense was decent, but their defense couldn't stop WKU. The first set was a blowout - but the 2nd/3rd sets could have gone either way. I had JMU as the worst, which was correct (imo), but Texas State was probably the worst aged here. As far as South Alabama, no, Soboleski wasn't OK (she didn't play at all) and Capizzi was also out for South Alabama. So, they lost about half of their offense. Maddux went off which was good enough for them to take a set. I thought this post actually described the Sun Belt pretty well. The seeding would have made you think JMU would have made a match with Baylor, while really, Coastal's match with WKU as an underdog was more competitive. |
|
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: 31,219
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 2, 2023 11:38:14 GMT -5
I still think the reason for changing from RPI is something we already know (we didn't need this tournament to tell us this). But using tournament results scares me. Example: Ball State (MAC) in 2021 beat Michigan in the NCAA Tournament. Could that have played in the committee's decision to make the MAC a 2-bid league in 2022? What about this year - Western Michigan beats Auburn, could that play a role in next year's decision? I truly don't believe it did (and I'm not sure this will either). But still, we know RPI not only isn't predictive, but it doesn't even measure the best teams in terms of pure W/L results as it is. Western Michigan/Auburn - instead of focusing on WMU, maybe ask why the SEC received 8 bids? Are you confused by my post? WMU is simply an example team? It's not about WMU - it's about using tournament results to justify future bids. Just because one conference overachieves/underachieves it shouldn't harm them the next year. We know RPI is flawed (and again, we didn't need this tournament to tell us that). I know why the SEC earned 8 bids. Even in other metrics like Massey - the SEC probably gets 7 bids. Why didn't others? ACC - NC State played a horrid non-conference schedule. Duke was kind of sketchy all around, but, I liked them marginally better than NC State. Big Ten? All those bubble teams lost to bubble or non-tournament teams along with not picking up any good non-conference wins. PAC-12? Some sketchy losses, but, I think UCLA had a case. Same with the Big-12 (K-State should have gotten in). But there are other posts in other threads that said the Big 12 would have gotten too many anyways. Of course - RPI helped the Sun Belt for sure and it certainly didn't hurt the SEC - but the SEC teams didn't hurt themselves either with their non-conference performance. |
|
|
|
Post by maigrey on Dec 2, 2023 13:58:30 GMT -5
well, this didn't age well... 👀 Huh? I mean, it seems like it aged pretty decently. I think Coastal's performance was the best of any of the Sun Belt Teams. If they were going to win 1 - that looked like the 1. Their offense was decent, but their defense couldn't stop WKU. The first set was a blowout - but the 2nd/3rd sets could have gone either way. I had JMU as the worst, which was correct (imo), but Texas State was probably the worst aged here. As far as South Alabama, no, Soboleski wasn't OK (she didn't play at all) and Capizzi was also out for South Alabama. So, they lost about half of their offense. Maddux went off which was good enough for them to take a set. I thought this post actually described the Sun Belt pretty well. The seeding would have made you think JMU would have made a match with Baylor, while really, Coastal's match with WKU as an underdog was more competitive. I was just poking fun, sorry! |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Dec 2, 2023 14:36:37 GMT -5
I still think the reason for changing from RPI is something we already know (we didn't need this tournament to tell us this). But using tournament results scares me. Example: Ball State (MAC) in 2021 beat Michigan in the NCAA Tournament. Could that have played in the committee's decision to make the MAC a 2-bid league in 2022? What about this year - Western Michigan beats Auburn, could that play a role in next year's decision? I truly don't believe it did (and I'm not sure this will either). But still, we know RPI not only isn't predictive, but it doesn't even measure the best teams in terms of pure W/L results as it is. I want us to use the same inputs as RPI - Wins, Losses, location of match, and the strength of each opponent based on the same inputs - and get as accurate of a metric as possible. My thinking is to have an unbiased estimator but I don't really understand multivariate statistics so my thinking process is not really informed statistically. But the point I keep making is that we have literally THOUSANDS of people who work for NCAA-affiliated schools who DO understand statistics at a high level and instead we're tasking a bleeping associate AD who is a "numbers guy" to redo RPI. You're basically taking high-school work and turning it into college non-math major work, when literally Ph.D. level work is available. Also, when working out the K-State quandary I realized how badly RPI screwed them, and it's not just their RPI. The reason K-State was held out was their two sub-100 RPI losses, to Oklahoma and Cincinnati (one, as I recall, being an embarrassing home blowout). With those two teams hovering around 150 in the RPI, this looked terrible. But if you look at those two teams, neither of them deserve to be 150 RPI - they both play in a strong conference and have 10+ wins. In fact, Massey has both Oklahoma and Cincy in the top 100, which means that if you look at Massey suddenly K-State has NO sub-100 losses and they are probably in. The point is, not only is a team's own RPI a poor indicator of their resume, comparisons of their opponents by RPI is also a poor indicator. And moreover, since using a good metric which happens to be score-based for opponent's strength is less likely to invite running up the score than for a team's own strength, there is even less excuse to use RPI to define a team's resume than as a point estimator of their strength. But really, all this explanation shouldn't be necessary. All that we should need is the fact that you can schedule Oregon and Pitt away from home and have your RPI significantly boosted by losing those two games to realize that RPI needs to be scuttled. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Dec 2, 2023 20:24:53 GMT -5
overreliance on a gamed RPI system got them in. A) If Texas State with a $33 million budget for their athletic department can game the system, UCLA with a $131 million budget can game it too. B) Any ratings system that is adopted, it's the coaches job to try to game it. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 2, 2023 20:30:53 GMT -5
overreliance on a gamed RPI system got them in. A) If Texas State with a $33 million budget for their athletic department can game the system, UCLA with a $131 million budget can game it too. B) Any ratings system that is adopted, it's the coaches job to try to game it. That would be bad for volleyball. It would make the game worse if the PAC cut down to a 16-game schedule just to game RPI (and this would also require cooperation from other conference schools that UCLA doesn't get). Coaches can try to game the system, the Selection Committee should still try to make it merit-based. |
|
