|
|
Post by vinnielopes on Feb 29, 2024 13:07:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soljah808 on Feb 29, 2024 15:25:18 GMT -5
I know Hawaii is getting ragged on its schedule this year but am I reading this correctly? Is LBSU not in the top 20 for SOS???
|
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Feb 29, 2024 15:49:27 GMT -5
I know Hawaii is getting ragged on its schedule this year but am I reading this correctly? Is LBSU not in the top 20 for SOS??? Agreed. I know LBSU started off the season with a low SOS but I would think that their recent opponents would've vaulted them into at least the top 20. |
|
|
|
Post by wavelength78 on Feb 29, 2024 19:14:10 GMT -5
Im sure there will be a shift after the Outrigger Tournament
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 29, 2024 21:23:08 GMT -5
Beach definitely did not have a great schedule this year
while, as Knipe as stated, they've intentially played teams from all the conferences, it's a bit too much this year. And some of that is noble for his stating of 'growing the game', still growing the game ins't a criteria.
there is always some hindsight.
King has won 2 games, and to magnify it, they played King twice, ouch. then the Central Ohio & Edward Waters weekend, Central hasn't won a match those two weekends essentially hammered the SOS. would have been nice to at least play USC once instead of Kine twice, that alone when the SOS isn't great, would have helped a lot.
not a lot can be done, but does magnify those top 10 matches Beach has to do well in. Especially the Penn State match is a big one. Aside from that top 10, Beach has 4 with Hawaii & Irvine left, plus potentially another in teh Big West tournament. Beach has to go at least 3-2 in those, and would be in a very good position going 4-1 in those vs. 3-2 is a major difference in the selection criteria and how it pans out. No way Beach will get in going 2-3 in those top 10 matches.
similar for Hawaii. THey have 6 top 10 matches left with Beach 2x, GCU, & Irvine 3x. Given Stanford is sliding a bit, Hawaii has to go at least 3-3 in those, but a big difference if they are able to go 4-2 in those top 10 matches. And like Beach vs. PSU is a bit of 'play-in' match, GCU-Hawaii will also be that type of 'play-in' type match.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Mar 1, 2024 0:28:56 GMT -5
Is SOS a binary criteria?
Foe example, if there are 6 teams in contention for the at large bids, does a bad SOS just count against a team for 1 of the 10 or whatever catagories the selection committee considers? Or does it bleed into multiple catagories?
|
|
|
|
Post by vinnielopes on Mar 1, 2024 1:29:54 GMT -5
The only category it bleeds into is RPI.
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Mar 1, 2024 11:34:32 GMT -5
The only category it bleeds into is RPI. SoS is a factor in the KPI algo, according to Copilot AI... Requested: 'explain the NCAA Men's volleyball KPI ranking system' "Copilot: Certainly! The NCAA Men’s Volleyball KPI (Key Performance Indicator) ranking system is a valuable tool used to evaluate and compare men’s college volleyball teams based on their performance throughout the season. Here are the key points about the KPI ranking system: 1. Scoring System: The KPI assigns a score to every match result, ranging from approximately +1.0 (best positive result) to approximately -1.0 (worst possible result). Various factors contribute to the match result score, including: Opponent’s Winning Percentage: Teams receive higher scores for defeating opponents with better records. Opponent Strength of Schedule: The quality of opponents faced impacts the score. Point Differential: The margin of victory or defeat affects the score. Match Location: Home or away games influence the score. 2. Rankings: The KPI rankings are dynamic and change throughout the season based on match outcomes. As of February 28, 2024, the top KPI-ranked men’s volleyball teams include: Grand Canyon UCLA UC Irvine Hawai’i Ohio State Long Beach State Penn State BYU Stanford Pepperdine …and more 3. Selection Criteria: The KPI is now part of the selection criteria used by the NCAA men’s volleyball committee. Along with the KPI, other metrics such as strength of schedule, overall record, head-to-head results, and record against teams under NCAA Tournament consideration are considered when determining at-large bids and the NCAA Tournament field. In summary, the KPI provides a comprehensive assessment of team performance, considering both quality of opponents and match outcomes. Keep an eye on these rankings as the season progresses! 🏐🔥" My assumption from previous NCAA KPI postings is that the intent was to do away with RPI altogether in 2024. However, I haven't seen a 2024 MVB NC pre-champ manual posted yet, so not 100% certain that RPI is no longer a selection criteria consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Mar 1, 2024 12:50:25 GMT -5
the use of RPI, KPI, and SOS would be overkill lol
I mean, SOS (or at least RPI SOS & KPI SOS) already factors into KPI or RPI itself.
Point is all three together would have some duplication built in.
Ultimately, hopefully the committee emphasizes the top 10, and/or top 15 records of the teams - those records will tend to be more ailluminating and not have as much question about rating bias. The fact a team is rated #1 vs #2 or #4 vs. #5 in KPI is almost meaningless in the that abstract rating.
I think that's why when you look at UCLA's current record under a microscope, it compares very well simply due to the number of quality/top 10 opponents.
for instance. a team that is #1 vs. #3 in both RPI & KPI would have two 'better' abstract ranking criteria. yet if #1 has a 3-2 top 10 record, and #3 has a 8-4 top ten record, the latter (at least to me) is far superior to outweigh any abstract rating edge, whatever it may be.
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Mar 1, 2024 14:25:42 GMT -5
SoS in isolation, is the weakest and most potentially misleading of tournament selection criteria. In the extreme, a team could have the highest SoS ranking, and the weakest won/lost record. Since both KPI and RPI more properly address SoS within their performance vs. schedule rating algos, a wiser approach to tournament selection would remove SoS as an independent selection criterion.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Mar 1, 2024 15:04:22 GMT -5
SoS in isolation, is the weakest and most potentially misleading of tournament selection criteria. In the extreme, a team could have the highest SoS ranking, and the weakest won/lost record. Since both KPI and RPI more properly address SoS within their performance vs. schedule rating algos, a wiser approach to tournament selection would remove SoS as an independent selection criterion. agreed, although RPI has bias, so not a fan of RPI to me the top 5, top 10, top 15 W-L records provide the best discriminators KPI, RPI, SOS are simply ratings that are ok for grouping teams, but surely not for say #3 is better than #5 plus the idiotic 'teams in the tourney or under consideration' category, such a willy-nilly comparison and subjective you could be 5-0 vs. teams that 'just missed the cut', a subjective cut at that, compared to a team that went 2-3 vs those same teams, lol or you could be 2-0 vs a conference champion that didn't win their tourney, and meanwhile being compared to a team that beat the conf tournament champion, they get credit, you don't. a deal of being arbitrary or luck involved teams under consideration comparisons should be done away with. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Mar 1, 2024 15:39:09 GMT -5
SoS in isolation, is the weakest and most potentially misleading of tournament selection criteria. In the extreme, a team could have the highest SoS ranking, and the weakest won/lost record. Since both KPI and RPI more properly address SoS within their performance vs. schedule rating algos, a wiser approach to tournament selection would remove SoS as an independent selection criterion. agreed, although RPI has bias, so not a fan of RPI to me the top 5, top 10, top 15 W-L records provide the best discriminators KPI, RPI, SOS are simply ratings that are ok for grouping teams, but surely not for say #3 is better than #5 plus the idiotic 'teams in the tourney or under consideration' category, such a willy-nilly comparison and subjective you could be 5-0 vs. teams that 'just missed the cut', a subjective cut at that, compared to a team that went 2-3 vs those same teams, lol or you could be 2-0 vs a conference champion that didn't win their tourney, and meanwhile being compared to a team that beat the conf tournament champion, they get credit, you don't. a deal of being arbitrary or luck involved teams under consideration comparisons should be done away with. I also see 'teams under consideration' as a weak criterion, but primarily in that previous pre-champ manuals haven't spelled out a selection process, only listed criteria. In what order with what weighting and when in the selection process is a criterion evaluated? Committees have been left to decide on their own, which means the possibility that they create a nonsense usage of the criteria. It makes little sense to equal weight 'teams under consideration' with other criteria. A weak justification for its usage is after the other criteria have narrowed the field and at the point that only a few teams remain under consideration for a final tournament spot. If the remaining teams competing for a spot are essentially equal in the other criteria, the committee could pull out the 'teams under consideration' criteria and use it as a possible tie-breaker. However, that detail in the selection process is not delineated in previous pre-champ manuals, and it's been left to each committee to decide how to process the 'teams under consideration' criterion. |
|
