Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2015 9:58:21 GMT -5
I agree. Even though losses by other top teams will benefit PSU in the ranking, if they can win their games, they'll be a force to reckon with whomever they play rest of the season and even the in the tournament. The last time TCU played Texas earlier in the season, TCU gave them a tough match even though it was a sweep they took Texas to extra points in the 3rd set. TCU only has 5 losses and is ranked 36 in RPI. I still think Texas has the same problem it has had in the past. Hit the ball hard and deep on Texas and keep them out of system and a good team should defeat them. I have also been watching Paulina this year and she still is as inconsistent as she was last couple of years. Here is something: I checked Massey predictions for the Washington vs USC match this weekend and Massey predicts a 3-1 win by Washington with a 25% chance of USC win. I'm really not worried about the AVCA rankings because the don't matter come Dec. Massey is right most of the time from what I have seen in the past when it comes to predicting wins/losses with top teams playing each other. Predicted Penn State's wins (all 6 of them) in the post season last year to include sets won/lost for each match. Is the tourney seeding based only on RPI or a mixture of the 2 polls? I just found the Massey webpage you referenced, very interesting. They have PSU listed #1 in the Power Rating column and # 2 in the Rating Overall Strength column. I personally like looking at these types of analytical algorithms; so I will definitely bookmark this site. It seems they got the Texas game wrong. They had TX sweeping TCU with a 96% prediction accuracy rating. Although I'm sure they get most predictions correct. Also, they have WA winning the rest of their games this season. My prediction was that WA would beat USC this weekend even without the Massey prediction. WA leads the nation in hitting % at .321 and opponent hitting % is #2 in the nation at .132; they play tough at home. Also, USC almost lost to CO in a 5-set thriller. It might do USC some good to lose. One loss can provide a team more insight than a string of close wins. USC would have less pressure come playoff time. I'm not saying this to be critical of USC, because truth be told, I'd really like to see them in the final; I'm simply stating my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Oct 29, 2015 14:19:29 GMT -5
i won't pretend i understand EEF and the other stuff in Massey,.,yet. But i like their prediction for Friday for PSU in 3.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Oct 29, 2015 16:17:42 GMT -5
The last time TCU played Texas earlier in the season, TCU gave them a tough match even though it was a sweep they took Texas to extra points in the 3rd set. TCU only has 5 losses and is ranked 36 in RPI. I still think Texas has the same problem it has had in the past. Hit the ball hard and deep on Texas and keep them out of system and a good team should defeat them. I have also been watching Paulina this year and she still is as inconsistent as she was last couple of years. Here is something: I checked Massey predictions for the Washington vs USC match this weekend and Massey predicts a 3-1 win by Washington with a 25% chance of USC win. I'm really not worried about the AVCA rankings because the don't matter come Dec. Massey is right most of the time from what I have seen in the past when it comes to predicting wins/losses with top teams playing each other. Predicted Penn State's wins (all 6 of them) in the post season last year to include sets won/lost for each match. Is the tourney seeding based only on RPI or a mixture of the 2 polls? I just found the Massey webpage you referenced, very interesting. They have PSU listed #1 in the Power Rating column and # 2 in the Rating Overall Strength column. I personally like looking at these types of analytical algorithms; so I will definitely bookmark this site. It seems they got the Texas game wrong. They had TX sweeping TCU with a 96% prediction accuracy rating. Although I'm sure they get most predictions correct. Also, they have WA winning the rest of their games this season. My prediction was that WA would beat USC this weekend even without the Massey prediction. WA leads the nation in hitting % at .321 and opponent hitting % is #2 in the nation at .132; they play tough at home. Also, USC almost lost to CO in a 5-set thriller. It might do USC some good to lose. One loss can provide a team more insight than a string of close wins. USC would have less pressure come playoff time. I'm not saying this to be critical of USC, because truth be told, I'd really like to see them in the final; I'm simply stating my opinion. 95% of seeding for post season is determined by RPI. The other 5% is determined by other factors like who beat who and who lost to a lower ranking team plus other factors. RPI is not a poll but a rating index based on actual wins/losses. 25% of a teams RPI is their win percentage, 50% is their opponents win percentage and 25% is their opponents opponents win percentage. . AVCA poll has no impact whatsoever on seeding or who get's into tournament! Here is a link that I think will give you more information on selection process. NOTE: There are links you may want to check out in the first paragraph of the article(Appendix H)(Latest RPI). This article is from 2011 but I don't think it's much if any different today. D1 Women's VB Post Season seeding selection
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2015 21:22:42 GMT -5
Is the tourney seeding based only on RPI or a mixture of the 2 polls? 95% of seeding for post season is determined by RPI. The other 5% is determined by other factors like who beat who and who lost to a lower ranking team plus other factors. RPI is not a poll but a rating index based on actual wins/losses. 25% of a teams RPI is their win percentage, 50% is their opponents win percentage and 25% is their opponents opponents win percentage. . AVCA poll has no impact whatsoever on seeding or who get's into tournament! Here is a link that I think will give you more information on selection process. NOTE: There are links you may want to check out in the first paragraph of the article(Appendix H)(Latest RPI). This article is from 2011 but I don't think it's much if any different today. D1 Women's VB Post Season seeding selectionThank you. So, based on that formula, am I correct in stating that teams in stronger conferences (i.e., Big 10 and Pac 12) get railroaded when the tourney rolls around? Also, PSU is currently ranked # 8 nationally in the RPI; Does that mean they will be ranked #2 in one of the Regional brackets?
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Oct 29, 2015 21:58:10 GMT -5
Thank you. So, based on that formula, am I correct in stating that teams in stronger conferences (i.e., Big 10 and Pac 12) get railroaded when the tourney rolls around?Purdue was a prime example from last year of a team that should have been in the NCAA tournament but wasn't. There are 32 Conferences, each with one automatic bid to tournament which either goes to that conference's tournament winner which is held just prior to Dec or if no tournament exists in a particular conference, it is given to the top team in the conference at end of regular season.. The rest(the other 32 teams) are "at large" teams picked mostly by their RPI. Seeding in tournament is basically the top 16 RPI teams but can be small variances based on the other criteria. So figure after the automatic bids, there are only 32 more slots to be placed into tournament. So if a team that wins it's conference in say SWAC(South Western Athletic Conference) whose top team's RPI is only 301 like Alabama State currently is, means they get in to tournament with one of the "automatic bids" thus preventing a team with a much better RPI from getting into tournament. Repeat this a few times with some of the smaller conferences and you will see how some good teams from some of top conferences get left out! Coach Shondell was right not to be happy with NCAA last season!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2015 22:06:53 GMT -5
Thanks for that.
32 conferences? What the...? That's horrible. They should have an RPI floor - no teams with an RPI under say 250 should be allowed to get in. Or at least increase the number of teams to 96 and give the top 32 ranked teams a bye. Unfortunately, not enough money involved to tick people off enough to make some noise. It would be nice to see the bigger conferences pressure the NCAA or bypass them. What an injustice to the kids on good teams in tougher conferences.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Oct 29, 2015 22:13:29 GMT -5
Thanks for that. 32 conferences? What the...? That's horrible. They should have an RPI floor - no teams with an RPI under say 250 should be allowed to get in. Or at least increase the number of teams to 96 and give the top 32 ranked teams a bye. Unfortunately, not enough money involved to tick people off enough to make some noise. It would be nice to see the bigger conferences pressure the NCAA or bypass them. What an injustice to the kids on good teams in tougher conferences. I agree. Here are the 32 conferences and which ones are currently the top teams now. Bracketology as of 28 Oct 2015
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 2:46:38 GMT -5
Here are the predictions from that last link:
4 bids from the ACC 1 bid from America East 1 bid from AAC 1 bid from A-10 1 bid from the A-SUN 10 bids from the Big 10 4 bids from the Big 12 3 bids from the Big East 1 bid from the Big Sky 1 bid from the Big South 2 bids from the Big West 1 bid from the CAA 1 bid from C-USA 1 bid from the Horizon 1 bid from the Ivy League 1 bid from the MAAC 1 bid from the MAC 1 bid from the MEAC 2 bids from the MVC 1 bid from the Mountain West Conference 1 bid from the NEC 1 bid from the OVC 6 bids from the PAC-12 1 bid from the Patriot 5 bids from the SEC, 3 seeded 1 bid from the Southern Conference 1 bid from the Southland 1 bid from the Summit 1 bid from the Sun Belt 1 bid from the SWAC 1 bid from the WAC 4 bids from the WCC
It seems PAC12 and BIG10 are switching places from last year to this year.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Oct 30, 2015 4:12:11 GMT -5
Here are the predictions from that last link: 4 bids from the ACC 1 bid from America East 1 bid from AAC 1 bid from A-10 1 bid from the A-SUN 10 bids from the Big 10 4 bids from the Big 12 3 bids from the Big East 1 bid from the Big Sky 1 bid from the Big South 2 bids from the Big West 1 bid from the CAA 1 bid from C-USA 1 bid from the Horizon 1 bid from the Ivy League 1 bid from the MAAC 1 bid from the MAC 1 bid from the MEAC 2 bids from the MVC 1 bid from the Mountain West Conference 1 bid from the NEC 1 bid from the OVC 6 bids from the PAC-12 1 bid from the Patriot 5 bids from the SEC, 3 seeded 1 bid from the Southern Conference 1 bid from the Southland 1 bid from the Summit 1 bid from the Sun Belt 1 bid from the SWAC 1 bid from the WAC 4 bids from the WCC It seems PAC12 and BIG10 are switching places from last year to this year. The only difference between last year and this year with the PAC12 and BIG 10 numbers getting in is I think what will happen is this year most of those BIG 10 teams will make it past 1st two rounds unlike the 10 teams from PAC12 where half were eliminated in 1st two rounds. Of those 5 PAC12 teams only 1(Stanford) made it to the Regional Final where as 3 BIG 10 teams made it. Two had to play each other in 1 Regional Final(Penn State vs Wisconsin) and before that in the same Regional in a Semi Final - Wisconsin had to play Ohio State. That's two Big 10 teams knocking off two other BIG 10 teams in one Regional!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 5:59:03 GMT -5
That is so true, very good point. You'd think the organizers of the tourney would see that and give a little more weight to the teams in stronger conferences like the BIG10. I know they want the tourney more well represented by other conferences, but they need to keep it competitive as well. What's the point of having all these different conference teams when they cannot compete against event the weakest teams in the BIG10. Do you recall in 2013 when Missouri was 35-0 and got beat by Purdue in the 2nd round 3-1? Purdue was unranked that year and got to the Regional final after sweeping 13th ranked Illinois. Purdue entered the tourney with a 20-11 record that year and got no respect the following year in 2014 when they finished 22-10, how sad for the sport, really. Drives me crazy how politics affect these things.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Oct 30, 2015 6:59:12 GMT -5
That is so true, very good point. You'd think the organizers of the tourney would see that and give a little more weight to the teams in stronger conferences like the BIG10. I know they want the tourney more well represented by other conferences, but they need to keep it competitive as well. What's the point of having all these different conference teams when they cannot compete against event the weakest teams in the BIG10. Do you recall in 2013 when Missouri was 35-0 and got beat by Purdue in the 2nd round 3-1? Purdue was unranked that year and got to the Regional final after sweeping 13th ranked Illinois. Purdue entered the tourney with a 20-11 record that year and got no respect the following year in 2014 when they finished 22-10, how sad for the sport, really. Drives me crazy how politics affect these things. Is it politics or is it a misguided effort to grow the sport (or is that politics by another name?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 7:12:55 GMT -5
By "politics" I mean that the motives for setting up the tourney brackets are not always driven by the desire to have the best teams compete. Rather the need to appease many parties/conferences factors in to the equation of who has the "right" to compete. Sorry, I was a little hasty, but the NCAA is slowly changing the rules for other sports like football (i.e., there is 4-team playoff now) so maybe they'll tweak it for VB as well one day, if enough people take issue with the current format.
|
|
|
Post by Onthebench on Oct 30, 2015 7:28:44 GMT -5
That is so true, very good point. You'd think the organizers of the tourney would see that and give a little more weight to the teams in stronger conferences like the BIG10. I know they want the tourney more well represented by other conferences, but they need to keep it competitive as well. What's the point of having all these different conference teams when they cannot compete against event the weakest teams in the BIG10. Do you recall in 2013 when Missouri was 35-0 and got beat by Purdue in the 2nd round 3-1? Purdue was unranked that year and got to the Regional final after sweeping 13th ranked Illinois. Purdue entered the tourney with a 20-11 record that year and got no respect the following year in 2014 when they finished 22-10, how sad for the sport, really. Drives me crazy how politics affect these things. Is it politics or is it a misguided effort to grow the sport (or is that politics by another name?) Just like the NCAA basketball tournament selection, there's always one or two teams that gets left out from the selection which make us to scratch our heads. That was the case for Purdue last year. i just wish they don't simply rely on the RPI ranking and use some common sense for their selection. Not only which team each team played but how they play should be somewhat considered. If a team loses a 5 setter with two point difference in the 5th set should not have the same effect as if a team loses in 3 straight sets without being competitive in any sets.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Oct 30, 2015 23:57:24 GMT -5
Not really an upset as Massey picked this win in 4 by Washington, but a sweep of USC showed some big weaknesses for USC when out of system. USC had 19 unforced hitting errors in the 3 set match. Now, if USC loses to Washington State on Sunday, then I would consider that an upset! USC just fell apart in set 3!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2015 0:12:31 GMT -5
Not really an upset as Massey picked this win in 4 by Washington, but a sweep of USC showed some big weaknesses for USC when out of system. USC had 19 unforced hitting errors in the 3 set match. Now, if USC loses to Washington State on Sunday, then I would consider that an upset! USC just fell apart in set 3! I didn't expect it to be a sweep but it shows how tough UW is at home. USC is beatable. Would love to see this one in its entirety. Third set was a rout. However, I think this is the best thing for USC. They will come back stronger. Would love to see them in the final. Noticed that UW has best hitting % in the nation and 2nd best opponent hitting %. USC only hit .147 in the match while UW hit .218; not a very dominant offensive match for either team. Lots of hitting errors by USC. I really can't see either team losing again in regular season.
|
|