|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jun 9, 2024 9:19:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by psuvbfan10 on Jun 9, 2024 15:00:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Jun 9, 2024 21:34:30 GMT -5
We knew some of this - their league matches, the CNU/Hopkins opener, Mary Wash at Catholic... but I am excited to see them go to Hope to replay the National Championship match, and more enticing to me is the match with Oshkosh which really should have been the National Championship last year. Then one I hadn't heard about is with Ithaca, at Wesleyan. And in the back of my head, how many of these matches do the coaches really think they can beat Juniata, and how many wouldn't have schedule them if they'd known they weren't getting an SOS bump just for playing them? |
|
|
|
Post by psuvbfan10 on Jun 9, 2024 22:56:02 GMT -5
We knew some of this - their league matches, the CNU/Hopkins opener, Mary Wash at Catholic... but I am excited to see them go to Hope to replay the National Championship match, and more enticing to me is the match with Oshkosh which really should have been the National Championship last year. Then one I hadn't heard about is with Ithaca, at Wesleyan. And in the back of my head, how many of these matches do the coaches really think they can beat Juniata, and how many wouldn't have schedule them if they'd known they weren't getting an SOS bump just for playing them? Yes the Hope tourney should be a good one! I would venture to guess that some schools want to show their players what a top tier program is like to compete against - and yes with little hope to win - just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Jun 10, 2024 6:50:34 GMT -5
We knew some of this - their league matches, the CNU/Hopkins opener, Mary Wash at Catholic... but I am excited to see them go to Hope to replay the National Championship match, and more enticing to me is the match with Oshkosh which really should have been the National Championship last year. Then one I hadn't heard about is with Ithaca, at Wesleyan. And in the back of my head, how many of these matches do the coaches really think they can beat Juniata, and how many wouldn't have schedule them if they'd known they weren't getting an SOS bump just for playing them? Didn't we just learn that NPI is 80% SOS? How do you mean they won't get an SOS bump? |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Jun 10, 2024 10:58:47 GMT -5
We knew some of this - their league matches, the CNU/Hopkins opener, Mary Wash at Catholic... but I am excited to see them go to Hope to replay the National Championship match, and more enticing to me is the match with Oshkosh which really should have been the National Championship last year. Then one I hadn't heard about is with Ithaca, at Wesleyan. And in the back of my head, how many of these matches do the coaches really think they can beat Juniata, and how many wouldn't have schedule them if they'd known they weren't getting an SOS bump just for playing them? Didn't we just learn that NPI is 80% SOS? How do you mean they won't get an SOS bump? This and many other questions have been answered on the d3vbwest.com blog recently. "The big parameter is “Win%/SOS”. The committee decided to go with 20/80. The big thing here is that Strength of Schedule is not a part of NPI at all. The NCAA should really stop using the term. This is the hardest point to get across to coaches when discussing NPI. SOS is not a thing. It’s not. Stop. What this parameter is saying is how much of my opponent’s NPI will count when I play them (win or lose). Your opponent’s NPI is not SOS. It’s NPI. You know how your 3rd grade teacher told you not to use the word you are defining in the definition? That’s the basis of NPI." The author seems to know what they are talking about so my comment was based on his comment. |
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Jun 10, 2024 11:36:35 GMT -5
Didn't we just learn that NPI is 80% SOS? How do you mean they won't get an SOS bump? This and many other questions have been answered on the d3vbwest.com blog recently. "The big parameter is “Win%/SOS”. The committee decided to go with 20/80. The big thing here is that Strength of Schedule is not a part of NPI at all. The NCAA should really stop using the term. This is the hardest point to get across to coaches when discussing NPI. SOS is not a thing. It’s not. Stop. What this parameter is saying is how much of my opponent’s NPI will count when I play them (win or lose). Your opponent’s NPI is not SOS. It’s NPI. You know how your 3rd grade teacher told you not to use the word you are defining in the definition? That’s the basis of NPI." The author seems to know what they are talking about so my comment was based on his comment. I just read his article....I was naive to the fact that not all matches would end up counting and this is where the 10-match minimum comes into play I also only calculated UMHB as 55.3 for NPI and he has them at 61.2....so my math ain't mathing... I give up until the committee presentation haha |
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Jun 11, 2024 5:14:53 GMT -5
I have my NPI program up and running. I recreated the 2021 results getting the same 20 pool C teams as the NCAA video. d3vbwest has done a great job going over this. To mention a few things he get's into: 2021 provided a couple interesting examples of how this will change things. NPI and the committee agreed on 18 of 20 schools. the committee took Ithaca and Springfield. NPI took Plymouth State and Santa Cruz. Ithaca(16-13) played a great schedule and pretty much lost all of the good ones. The weight of all those losses was too much to overcome. They were not even close in NPI, down around the 35th team without an A bid. There was a lot of discussion about them getting that bid, there were better teams to take. This will be a cautionary tale for scheduling for NPI. If you go all in and lose, NPI will punish you. Plymouth state(22-3) played a mediocre NE schedule(even by NE standards!). They played 2 good teams and lost to both, and got upset in their conference tournament. They were ranked 7th in region 1 and were not even an afterthought for pool C. Clearly they did not deserve a bid. They got lucky in their bubble. This example is the NPI nightmare. d3vbwest talks about trying to schedule this way. Seems like it will be tricky, a lot of things have to go as planned. "win%/SOS" my theory on using this name for the "dial"(they call all the parameters dials) is that it is familiar and makes people think they didn't change much  . the dial will be 20/80. Is that good or bad, I have no idea. my definitions. win% - it is a constant. it is the base value (0.20) for the "game" NPI if you win. (Each game has an NPI? Yes.) I guess you can think of it as a % if you say every win is worth 1 point(100% of the match), so you are getting 20% of each win. But it is not your mom's definition of win% since the losses are not part of it. SOS - the weighting(0.80) of the opponents NPI in the game NPI. no OWP. no OOWP. (Plymouth States SOS in 2021 was .539). The old system had many problems. This will solve some, but not all. I like that they are trying it. It will be kind of cool to know each Sunday late in the season who the pool C teams project to be. |
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Jun 11, 2024 7:31:39 GMT -5
I have my NPI program up and running. I recreated the 2021 results getting the same 20 pool C teams as the NCAA video. d3vbwest has done a great job going over this. To mention a few things he get's into: 2021 provided a couple interesting examples of how this will change things. NPI and the committee agreed on 18 of 20 schools. the committee took Ithaca and Springfield. NPI took Plymouth State and Santa Cruz. Ithaca(16-13) played a great schedule and pretty much lost all of the good ones. The weight of all those losses was too much to overcome. They were not even close in NPI, down around the 35th team without an A bid. There was a lot of discussion about them getting that bid, there were better teams to take. This will be a cautionary tale for scheduling for NPI. If you go all in and lose, NPI will punish you. Plymouth state(22-3) played a mediocre NE schedule(even by NE standards!). They played 2 good teams and lost to both, and got upset in their conference tournament. They were ranked 7th in region 1 and were not even an afterthought for pool C. Clearly they did not deserve a bid. They got lucky in their bubble. This example is the NPI nightmare. d3vbwest talks about trying to schedule this way. Seems like it will be tricky, a lot of things have to go as planned. "win%/SOS" my theory on using this name for the "dial"(they call all the parameters dials) is that it is familiar and makes people think they didn't change much . the dial will be 20/80. Is that good or bad, I have no idea. my definitions. win% - it is a constant. it is the base value (0.20) for the "game" NPI if you win. (Each game has an NPI? Yes.) I guess you can think of it as a % if you say ever win is worth 1 point(100% of the match), so you are getting 20% of each win. But it is not your mom's definition of win% since the losses are not part of it. SOS - the weighting(0.80) of the opponents NPI in the game NPI. no OWP. no OOWP. (Plymouth States SOS in 2021 was .539). The old system had many problems. This will solve some, but not all. I like that they are trying it. It will be kind of cool to know each Sunday late in the season who the pool C teams project to be. Will NPI numbers be public knowledge? |
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Jun 11, 2024 7:56:02 GMT -5
Will NPI numbers be public knowledge? I understand the rankings will be published. Schedule? don't know. In theory they should be updated at the end of each days matches (easy enough). Hopefully it will be more than a list of schools with a number. The people who look at the region data sheets know they(NCAA) make mistakes, typically more than a couple. There were some big mistakes last year. Now that they are going to a 100% data based system, the data has to be right. One missing match will have a significant ripple effect. They should make available the match score database they are using so people can confirm it is right. Vey important they only count D3 matches, and, not miss any. Will they do that? I am guessing they will not, the NCAA being the NCAA. The formula is out there so no real reason to be secretive. |
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Jun 11, 2024 8:03:07 GMT -5
Will NPI numbers be public knowledge? I understand the rankings will be published. Schedule? don't know. In theory they should be updated at the end of each days matches (easy enough). Hopefully it will be more than a list of schools with a number. The people who look at the region data sheets know they(NCAA) make mistakes, typically more than a couple. There were some big mistakes last year. Now that they are going to a 100% data based system, the data has to be right. One missing match will have a significant ripple effect. They should make available the match score database they are using so people can confirm it is right. Vey important they only count D3 matches, and, not miss any. Will they do that? I am guessing they will not, the NCAA being the NCAA. The formula is out there so no real reason to be secretive. Yea, my understanding is the RAC's will still exist, basically to make sure the results are correct, so hopefully, that will reduce the number of errors |
|
diiifan
Sophomore
https://d3vbwest.wordpress.com/
Posts: 118 
|
Post by diiifan on Jun 11, 2024 14:46:42 GMT -5
Thanks for the D3VbWest love. I'm trying to nail down the NPI as best I can but I have A LOT of help. My big problem with the formula is that it rewards mediocrity and doesn't reward quality schedules. I think the Plymouth State example and Mary Hardin-Baylor examples should have been test cases that immediately failed the use of it. I think there will be a lot of pain from elite programs this year when they see how losing to the best teams in the nation hurt them and they should have scheduled Union and Earlham instead. The 2025 schedules should be wild. Oh well. Back into my NPI hole. Come see me sometime. www.d3vbwest.com |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Jun 12, 2024 10:03:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the D3VbWest love. I'm trying to nail down the NPI as best I can but I have A LOT of help. My big problem with the formula is that it rewards mediocrity and doesn't reward quality schedules. I think the Plymouth State example and Mary Hardin-Baylor examples should have been test cases that immediately failed the use of it. I think there will be a lot of pain from elite programs this year when they see how losing to the best teams in the nation hurt them and they should have scheduled Union and Earlham instead. The 2025 schedules should be wild. Oh well. Back into my NPI hole. Come see me sometime. www.d3vbwest.com I get the NCAA being sensitive to schools arguing they shouldn't have to spend money to go play teams from every other region to qualify for a Pool C bid (at-large bid). When they looked at different sports and see a Mary Hardin-Baylor going 27-2 with one weekend in a hotel and getting in over Williams who was under .500 in their own conference, I think they probably took that as a sign that this DOES work instead of proving the opposite. Thing is, the data they had was applying the new rules to schedules that were designed to maximize opportunity under the old rules. Looking at the coaches on the committee, MIT has Calvin coming in and is going to play fellow committee member Santa Cruz at NYU, Berry is going to Minnesota to play Northwestern and Whitewater, Haverford is going to play a double header vs Christopher Newport - as I understand the new system, none of these look like great decisions and these are the coaches that knew what was happening. If anybody has an NPI friendly/smart schedule this year, it's probably an accident. So I think they'll point to the first year and be like "see, it works" and then as coaches get smarter about what is in the math and how to exploit it, this will break down more and more until we try something else. Also, it's worth mentioning, I think Wash U was a bubble team in '16 with 10 losses who got hot and made it to the final match against Calvin who was a (1 loss) Pool C that year. But since then, is Trinity '22 the only at-large team to make a final since 2016? And I think they were a pretty safe selection that year. So whatever they do with the selections it shouldn't have too great of an impact on the naming of a champion aspect of the national championship tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Jun 12, 2024 10:25:41 GMT -5
Colorado College's schedule is up cctigers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule and it seems that whoever made that schedule thinks they could be pretty good. Also, between Colorado and Hopkins we are getting a sense for the East/West tournament which will be at Wash U this year with Cal Lutheran, Colorado, Hopkins, Emory, Tufts, et al. |
|
|
|
Post by jammaster on Jun 12, 2024 11:21:55 GMT -5
Thanks for the D3VbWest love. I'm trying to nail down the NPI as best I can but I have A LOT of help. My big problem with the formula is that it rewards mediocrity and doesn't reward quality schedules. I think the Plymouth State example and Mary Hardin-Baylor examples should have been test cases that immediately failed the use of it. I think there will be a lot of pain from elite programs this year when they see how losing to the best teams in the nation hurt them and they should have scheduled Union and Earlham instead. The 2025 schedules should be wild. Oh well. Back into my NPI hole. Come see me sometime. www.d3vbwest.com I get the NCAA being sensitive to schools arguing they shouldn't have to spend money to go play teams from every other region to qualify for a Pool C bid (at-large bid). When they looked at different sports and see a Mary Hardin-Baylor going 27-2 with one weekend in a hotel and getting in over Williams who was under .500 in their own conference, I think they probably took that as a sign that this DOES work instead of proving the opposite. Thing is, the data they had was applying the new rules to schedules that were designed to maximize opportunity under the old rules. Looking at the coaches on the committee, MIT has Calvin coming in and is going to play fellow committee member Santa Cruz at NYU, Berry is going to Minnesota to play Northwestern and Whitewater, Haverford is going to play a double header vs Christopher Newport - as I understand the new system, none of these look like great decisions and these are the coaches that knew what was happening. If anybody has an NPI friendly/smart schedule this year, it's probably an accident. So I think they'll point to the first year and be like "see, it works" and then as coaches get smarter about what is in the math and how to exploit it, this will break down more and more until we try something else. Also, it's worth mentioning, I think Wash U was a bubble team in '16 with 10 losses who got hot and made it to the final match against Calvin who was a (1 loss) Pool C that year. But since then, is Trinity '22 the only at-large team to make a final since 2016? And I think they were a pretty safe selection that year. So whatever they do with the selections it shouldn't have too great of an impact on the naming of a champion aspect of the national championship tournament. There is something to be said that while these decisions by MIT, Berry, Haverford create risk on getting selected, the coaches may feel a strong schedule is required to be ready to get wins in the tournament if they win in/get an at large. |
|
. the dial will be 20/80. Is that good or bad, I have no idea. my definitions.