Hawaii up to No. 6 in poll, 23 in RPI
Wahine up two spots in AVCA poll to No. 6
USC stays at unanimous No. 1 and Texas remains No. 2
Penn State leapfrogs from 5 to 3 and Minnesota big jump from 9 to 4. Washington slips a spot to five, Stanford up four to 7, UCLA up 2 to 10, nebraksa falls from 3 to 9 and previous unbeaten Kansas from 7 to 10.
Ohio State went from 6 to 11.
Long Beach State getting points (22) puts them at 30.
http://www.avca.org/divisions/division-one-women/poll-10-26-2015/
UH up three spots to 23. Florida replaces SC at No. 1
Among UH opponents, UCLA at 5, Wichita State at 38, Long Beach State 47.
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/2015WVBrpi1.html
COMMENTS
Comments are closed.
Wait did I miss something? I thought Texas was having a really bad season after they came here and lost, with several losses in the past month or so? How are they ranked #2?
Great news to start the team’s week! I’m curious what the numbercrunchers have to say about the three-spot RPI climb.
1. Texas only has one loss to Florida & just swept previously undefeated Kansas…but I think they are overrated at #2, though…potential for more movement this week as USC & UCLA both play at Washington…
1. think you’re confusing Texas (18-1) with Florida. (15-4) Gators have moved up into a tie at No. 12
T103 Texas did not come here this year. You may be thinking of Florida who lost to UH in five sets.
As for the RPI of UH’s opponents
1. Florida up from 3, went 2-0 last week
5. UCLA stays put, went 2-0
38. Wichita State up 11, went 2-0
48. Iowa down six, went 0-2
88. American up six, went 2-1
124. Oregon State up 12, went 0-2
147. Eastern Washington, down eight, went 1-1
152. Bakersfield up six, went 2-0
153 San Diego State, down six, went 1-2
192. Idaho down six, went 1-1
Big West
47. Long Beach State up 10, went 2-0
80. Cal Poly up three, went 1-1
127 UCI down five, went 2-0
179. UC Davis down 19, went 1-1
193. UCSB down 21, went 0-2
204. CSUN up eight, went 1-1
239. UC Riverside, down two, went 1-1,
299. Fullerton, down three, went 0-2
Here is my feeble attempt at explaining why everyone’s attempt to get the NCAA to change their RPI ranking falls on deaf ears, and why the NCAA must reform the RPI.
(1) The RPI is their best methodology to use an objective formula to determine the best 16 teams.
(2) They use “team strength” as the basis for their formula which in turn is heavily weighted on one criteria. How a team has fared in past NCAA tournaments. To a lesser extent, some weight is given as to how they have finished in their respective conferences. These two criteria are only things that would make any sense at all in how they arrive at “strength”.
(3) They do not use rankings based on opinions of coaches because it is in their minds, not objectively based.
So the NCAA concludes that their RPI formula is in fact based on how well a team has performed historically. So you do end up with conferences that have more “strength” teams that have fared well in the NCAA tournaments, but saying you have a better chance with RPI because you are in the PAC 12, for example, is at least in theory, irrelevant. The valid question for this approach is, how far back does the NCAA go back in determining their “strength” teams and how often do they revise this?
On to why the NCAA must reform the RPI. Because the RPI is strictly mathematically based on historical data, it can unintentionally result in certain teams being highly rated in RPI. The obvious flaw is that a team could be much stronger or weaker in the current year as opposed to historical performance.
So how to alleviate the frustration of the RPI. First and foremost, the NCAA should be open to discussion on the RPI for obvious reasons and because coachers are in the best position on how to make suggestions on how to improve it. Second, is there a better measure of team “strength”. Is the use of how well a team fares in past NCAA tournaments fair? Finally, the use of geography and resulting economics can obviously conflict with RPI but only if they weight in the results of the first two rounds of tournament play. Thus, the final 16 teams left standing is probably given the heaviest weight in determining “strength”.
The adoption of non-predetermined sites can be a good thing for Hawaii, assuming we have scheduled teams that result, either directly or indirectly, in a high RPI. Duh. So we could potentially host the first two rounds, and the regional as well. For ESPN, the odds that both seeds in a given regional will lose and not make it to the third round are slim to none, so I doubt they need to worry about incurring additional costs of moving to a non pre-determined site. Finally, given Shoji’s respected standing with other coaches and Hawaii’s tradition in volleyball, we should be able to schedule teams that have RPI potential. On the other hand, if you are an RPI strength team, what do you stand to gain by scheduling Hawaii as a non-conference opponent and losing?
So there’s my best feeble attempt at this after reviewing NCAA guidance, etc.
congrads to wahine! stunning 2-spot move for the Wahine despite being idle. Equally shocking to see Ohio State fall out of top 10. Buckeyes are travel partners with Penn State and they both faced foremidable road venues in MICH and MSU. PSU escaped with 2 wins and OSU got nicked in East Lansing and bounced backed against MICH.
77 votes seperates #6 from #10. While 67 votes difference between #1 and #2.
I believe Hawaii is picking up votes from a block of coaches in the “other conferences”.
I should have added that my feeble attempt explains why RPI ratings can be so skewed when it first makes its appearance in October. You play low rated RPI teams and you end up lower on the ratings, in spite of winning the national championship the last year. But then the “strength” concept kicks in. Seems to make sense, at least in my mind.
7,9. I recommend reviewing past threads on this blog or at the very least section 2.2 of the following:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015DIWVB_Prechamps_Manual_20150929.pdf
Your understanding of the RPI is seriously flawed. As an example, only current year results impact the RPI. Also, past tournament performance is irrelevant. There are three main factors that determine RPI plus bonus/penalties that adjust to create the official ranking. And the benefit to scheduling UH, travel cost concerns aside, is in most years, a stellar w-l record that helps boost a team’s RPI score, even if a team loses to UH. Once you gain a better understanding of the RPI, then you can better opine on why the NCAA sticks with the formula, why results may be surprising (as in Arkansas State), etc.
8. don’t think it was that stunning considering the losses of the teams ahead of them. if you have ever voted on polls, and I have, it’s just how things work. Reward a team for winning, drop teams down who lost.
but there’s quite a bit of difference in the points for No. 5 Washington 1306 and No. 6 Hawaii 1177. All well as between No. 11 Ohio State and Nos. 12 Florida & Wisconsin 801.
Nebraska was bound to drop after losing 2 at home, went from 3 to 9. as was Kansas from 7 to 10 and ohio State from 6 to 11. those three teams losing helped Hawaii move up. that Minnesota went from 11 to 4 is a big jump but the Gophers had a big week with the win at Nebraska and a sweep of Iowa.
not sure what you mean by a block of coaches since the votes are sent in individually and independently.
8. Ok Kimo, let’s do the post-mortem on our predictions:
Maverick:
1. USC
2. Texas
3. Penn State
4. Washington
5. Minnesota
6. Hawaii
7. Nebraska
8. Stanford
9. UCLA
10. Ohio State
Kimo:
1. USC
2. Texas
3. Penn State
4. MINN
5. WASH
6. Ohio State
7. UCLA
8. HAW
9. Stanford
10. Nebraska
You called Minnesota at #4 and a bigger drop of Nebraska than I did. I called UH at #6, plus Stanford jumping UCLA. Neither of us predicted Ohio State would fall out of the top 10. As you mentioned, teams 6-10 are separated by only 77 votes, so accurately predicting this week’s poll was very difficult. Also means that UH can easily fall down a spot or two depending on who teams 7-10 beat in the coming weeks.
Minnesota is different, their top 4 high point scorers include 1 outside hitter and 3 middles. Whether by design or chance it has brought them success.
kudos Maverick you were almost spot on!
also, kinda leery w/ being ranked 6th – being hopful though! 🙂
2. My high-level analysis of UH’s RPI rise from 26 to 23 is:
Other than Stanford (up 10 spots, 2-0 last week incl. beating Washington) replacing Northwestern (down 13 spots, 0-2 last week) in the top 21 RPI ranks, the teams in that group remained although positions within the top 21 switched. So let’s focus on RPI ranks below 21:
22. Purdue, 2-0 last week by beating #18 AVCA Illinois and Northwestern, rose 5 spots
23. Hawaii, idle. Helps when a team doesn’t have to play teams with losing records. Up 3 spots, leaping past Creighton, Michigan, and Illinois.
24. San Diego went 3-0 last week. Up 4 spots.
25. Illinois: No change. Split matches against Indiana (W) and Purdue (L).
26. Creighton, fell 3 spots despite going 2-0. However, they beat #116 St. John’s (15-11 record) and #226 Providence (9-15 record), and their combined middling won-loss record depressed Creighton’s SOS.
29. Michigan, fell 5 spots after losing to Penn St. and Ohio State.
Winning is very important, but winning against teams with good records is even more important (see Stanford and Purdue’s rise, Creighton’s fall). But also note that the margin for error is extremely small. #22 Purdue’s adj. RPI score is .63953 while #30 SMU’s score is .63016. So 9 spots are separated by less than .01.
I hope UH stays in the top 8 (meaning UH has to win its remaining matches) as it will make for an interesting discussion / controversy if UH’s RPI ends up in the mid-20s and the team is unseeded. Clearly will be the team no one wants to play in the first couple of rounds. There is precedent for this situation last year, when BYU weren’t seeded but had an AVCA ranking of 12 and an RPI ranking of 17.
Will such a disparity result in changes? Probably not, but the more it happens, the more people who will create an uproar, particularly seeded teams should they lose to unseeded teams like UH and BYU.
Fair warning:
UH’s RPI is likely to fall back into the 30s should they beat Riverside and Fullerton this coming weekend. Their combined 7-35 record will hurt UH’s SOS and OppSOS. The same thing happened earlier this year when UH played those two on the road. Then UH should claw back into the 20s by season’s end by playing Big West teams with better records.
Cindy, “block of coaches” means those who think along the same lines. Not those who huddle before casting a vote. LOL. Voting in the polls comes with the territory and region designated to dailies, it doesnt mean journalists are selected bc of expertise. Further, this is a poll contributed exclusively by coaches (TG). Nothing to do with Journalists. BTW, you made a comment that Casey Castillo injured her knee in club VB prior to summer. Do you know if she is fully healed?
18. Castillo’s injury was a couple of years ago.
Anyone know if the Nikki Taylor interview will be re-broadcast? I missed the posts that said it was on this weekend.
Mahalo! GO BOWS!
20. Here’s the link to the posted version online. Episode 6, about the 13:00 mark:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/category/304674/leahey-n-leahey?utm_source=khnl&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=3×2
Mahalo Maverick. I found a direct link too.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Clip/11947717/leahey-leahey-episode-6
Smooth sailing and turbulent waters.
While Hawaii is cruising the Manoa straits over the weekend bottom fishing for the likes of CSRiverside and CSFullerton, battle flags will be hoisted in the otherwise calm Seattle Sound, In Palo Alto and along the Great Lakes.
Both #1 USC and #8 UCLA, on hot streaks, will face-off with #4 WASH on FRI and SUN.
ASU and Ariz will bring some heat and pull into Maples Pavillon to battle Stanford on WED and FRI and #3 Penn St and #11 Ohio State go home and home WED and FRI to keep pace with #4 MINN in the quest for the coveted BIG TEN title.
Still reeling over Hawaii’s rise to #6.
The top TEN is like a hurricane involving 3-super conferences that are being tossed and turned in the mix…and right in the EYE of all this swirling chaos is Hawaii.
Kool as a Waiholi cucumber. Battered but not broken, taking it easy and enjoying the moment. Hilarious stuff and great for Hawaii fan lore.
#19. Thanks. So, presumably, she is A-OK.
24. Yes, although the injury appears to have set her development back a bit. It has been reported in blogs that Casey had top 10 potential by prepvolleyball.com before her injury, and Cindy has written a couple of times how others thought she was amazing before her injury. But let’s look forward, not back. She still has plenty of time to develop and improve.
Would love to see Castillo get some extended playing time against the “bottom feeders” (per Shoji). The potential is there but it’s hard to gauge her true value to the team unless we get to see her get more reps in hitting, blocking, digs and receive serve. What little PT we’ve seen of her has been mostly positive.
Mav, thanks again. I am looking fwd. That is exactly the tenure of my question, if any lingering, physical set back would prevent her from PT in the last 8-conference games. From what I pulled out of the internet she rehabed OK. From the little I have seen in the matches her vertical skies above the net and her hand angle over the net is on spot. I have watched her close in the pregame warm ups and I didnt notice any bad knee inhibitions. Im just trying to eliminate any Knee issues I was not aware of–Im extremely high on Casey–from day UNO, along with the departed Huff, Mitchem, Koelsch and Baby G.
Maverick, I agree 100% it is based on current results, but isn’t the strength of teams that determine RPI? So, if you play Stanford or Penn State, who have had very good showings in past few years, they are teams that the NCAA would consider “strength” teams for RPI. So when you play them this year, if you win against them, your RPI goes up because essentially, you have beaten a team that has consistently done well in past tournaments. What do you think?
So, if you lose against teams that are not regarded as strength teams, your RPI should drop a bit more than if you lost to an team with a high RPI, assuming of course, you yourself are a higher rated RPI team. In other words, you can apply the formula, but if a team is unbeaten against only low rated RPI teams, doubt you will make any significant jump in RPI, unless there is some correlation somehow along the way linking to some higher rated RPI teams. So, if it were solely based on what a team does in the current year, how do you justify the NCAA rating the teams as they do. I think some teams make it into the RPI because of the inherent flaw as I explained earlier.
Here’s what I said earlier, which is confusing the issue. “Because the RPI is strictly mathematically based on historical data, it can unintentionally result in certain teams being highly rated in RPI”. I need to clarify that point. So for example, if Penn State is highly rated as a strong team for RPI because of their past performances (or in effect, historical data), the NCAA will reward teams for their wins against teams like Penn State, versus wins against a team rated as being a “non-strength” team. Otherwise, why not just schedule a team with a great won-loss record from a weak conference, (or a team that has never made it past the first round, for example) to strengthen your RPI?
I’m skeptical that the move to non-predetermined regional sites is a good thing. Penn State, Nebraska and Florida will end up hosting regionals more than they already do. On the West Coast, we’ll probably see a USC-Stanford-UW rotation. The current regional system at least tries to level the playing field; the new system will make the rich richer.
So, to expand, if you win against what the NCAA considers to be a “strength” team early in the season, and you have say a “mid” RPI, you will see a jump relative to that one win. Obviously, more the better. Then, as the season progresses, and if that team the NCAA thought was a “strength” team does not do well, then that win early on takes on less significance relative to how badly that team you won against earlier does during the season. Again, it depends on whether the “strength” team you beat early lost against a higher rated RPI team, versus one with low RPI. So, the bottom line is, the NCAA must have a basis for determining what teams should be considered strength teams or else unbeaten weaker teams should be at the top of the RPI as the season progresses. Make sense?
Conversely, if that “strength” team does well as the season progresses, particularly against high RPI (or teams the NCAA deems strength teams) teams, your rating goes up as well relative to that one win by that “strength team that you beat early on.
Logic for this also supported by the fact that if you are Penn State and won the national championship last year, and you initially played a cupcake schedule, you are still high on the initial RPI in October. If you are a no name school and played a cupcake schedule, then you are no where to be seen on the initial RPI. There might be some missing pieces to my theory, but think it makes a lot of sense.
28-33. I believe you are genuinely confused about the RPI.
For example, you said, “If you are a no name school and played a cupcake schedule, then you are no where [sic] to be seen on the initial RPI.” So how do you explain Arkansas State, a no-name team who played a cupcake schedule but was #16 in the first RPI rankings? Btw, they are still #16.
You say that RPI is based on current results but then talk about top teams in past tournaments as the definition on team “strength”. If you understand the RPI formula, you wouldn’t have written this statement. SOS and OppSOS have nothing to do with past tournaments/performance.
You also wrote, “So, the bottom line is, the NCAA must have a basis for determining what teams should be considered strength teams or else unbeaten weaker teams should be at the top of the RPI as the season progresses. Make sense?” No, it doesn’t if you understand how SOS and OppSOS are calculated. Unbeaten weaker teams are not at the top of the RPI because (a) there aren’t any undefeated weaker teams this year since the RPI debuted, and (b) the weaker teams with great w-l records play lesser competition, depressing SOS and OppSOS. Arkansas St. is 20-1 and #16 precisely because of this reason.
Also, you wrote, “Logic for this also supported by the fact that if you are Penn State and won the national championship last year, and you initially played a cupcake schedule, you are still high on the initial RPI in October.” Well, Penn State debuted at #6 in the RPI and was 3-1 against teams in the top 12 of the RPI, and 5-1 against teams in the top 50 RPI. Not exactly a cupcake schedule. Plus they won all but one of their matches to that point.
Seriously, I think you should take my advice in post 10 above.
18. thank you for your clarification on ‘block voting.’
I am aware that it is a coaches poll. just saying that if you’ve ever voted on a poll, the mindset is to reward teams for winning and drop them after they lose. so no surprise that UH would move up when teams ahead of them lost.
also never said Castillo was hurt last summer, only that from what I was told prior to her injury she was quite the player.
Ahhh alas, I was completely confused, confused texas for florida. my bad! Well in any case, can’t worry about polls and RPI at this point in time, just the next match ahead and that we keep winning. We gottah do what we gottah do! Go Bows!
nomu, more help with RPI Here:
http://ncaastats.figstats.net/rpi-explanation.phtml
Actually a very good explanation…and succinct.
Just wondering but do the indoor players who play beach ever go to beach practices or conditionings in the fall like they would do vice versa in the spring?
Think I will check to see if there is any correlation between tournament results of past years and compare them to beginning RPIs for those affected years. Maverick thanks for taking time to consider my posts. I’ll report back what I find.
Maverick, I’m not doing a good job of explaining and will also take another look at your references. Thanks again.
nomu, it would be helpful to understand what question you are trying to answer. You are going to do a lot of work that may end up not getting you the answers you are seeking.
BTW……T103 is NOT wrong…..in a way. Texas DID lose to UH in the spring game. That is where T103 go confused but he/she is not wrong about UH beatng Texas this year.
@Kahuna Oh yay! I got validated! But I’ll man up and actually admit and confess that I did mix up texas with Florida who was ranked 2 at that time we beat them right? Or was florida ranked #3?
Anybody else see discussions about RPI and just scroll right past those comments? lol
27….Wow love those comments of those girls you mentioned. I agree exactly on those girls savvy and presence they bring on the court. I thought I needed my eyes reexamined. Thanks for that confirmation
We are fortunate to be rewarded that #6 ranked position in between those bigger power conferences. I can only imagine what would happen due to any type of loss here on out in the BW….Would we go higher than 10th or 15th?
Year in year out they always look for ways to snub us and take any respect from our program. The only thing Hawaii can do is keep winning all the way to the end into the 1st round, 2nd , Sweet 16, Elite 8, and Final 4….then we can all Celebrate and prove the pollsters and RPI council WRONG!!
That’s the only and best way to settle the score!
When UH starts beating the teams in their 1st and 2nd rounds consistently at the opponents home court that will be when the system will be questioned but not changed. If a few teams who are having the same faith as UH and they do the same in the NCAA tournament and win their 1st and 2nd round games that will bring the system under scrutiny and change will definitely be made. There is not enough data for them to change or question this rpi system currently.
Yeah….it was Florida that was ranked #2 when we beat them this year. We did beat Texas in 2013 when they were #1 and beat them in the spring so maybe you thinking about Texas too much. 🙂
38 Maverick, thanks for posting that link to the NCAA explanation of RPI. It’s clearer than what I’d read elsewhere.
One question though. Down near the bottom of that page, there’s a discussion about “adjusted RPI.” It starts with this description: “For the Division 1 Volleyball RPI, an adjustment is made based on a team’s good wins, bad losses, and out of conference scheduling” and then has a bulleted list of bonuses and penalties. The section concludes by saying that after these are applied, the teams are re-ranked using the adjusted RPI. So, my question is, do the weekly RPI lists reflect the adjustment or are they the raw, pre-adjustment version? Thanks.
45. Wawa…YUP (raises both hands high in the air)!!! HAHAHAHA!! It is just a who cares, so what at this point. It is what it is and it’s a headache to try and figure out.
Maverick, thanks for the link.
It is interesting. My take on the ‘RPI is:
The following three RPI adjustment bonuses are what allows teams with, say 7 losses, to have higher RPIs than Hawaii. The system is skewed for wins, not losses as follows:
*Double bonus for wins against RPI teams 1-25
*Single bonus for wins against RPI teams 26-50
*Double bonus for 50% or more of out-of-conference games against RPI teams 1-75
The system is skewed by the bonuses for wins against 1-50. It’s here where the PAC12 and BIG10 have the advantage by virtue of their strong conferences, as they rack-up bonus points during their conference season.
The other key is to secure the double bonuses for 50% or more out-of-conference games against RPI teams 1-75. Hawaii has to make sure it qualifies for these bonuses when scheduling their out-of-conference matches.
As for losses, losses in the RPI adjustment calculations are basically a non-factor since for most top 50 teams, it is highly unlikely they would lose to a team with a RPI of 285 or lower.
50. Yes, adjusted RPI is reported every week. So UH’s rank of 23 is based on adjusted RPI.
52. The bonuses help, but SOS and OppSOS are more significant factors (particularly for high RPI conferences, not limited to Big10 and Pac12).
UH won’t get the out of conference bonus unless it schedules all top 75 RPI teams in the preseason. Big West is so weak that maybe one or two other teams in conference will have a top 75 RPI.
Single bonus is valued at approximately .0014 and double at .oo28 in raw score. UH’s unadjusted RPI raw score is .6320 and adjusted raw score is .6390. The difference of .0070 equates to five bonuses (2 for beating Florida and one bonus each for beating Wichita St., LBSU, and Iowa).
23. Kimo – sorry for regressing, but I thoroughly enjoyed that poetic literation, “As the Volleyball Turns…”, LOL!
I find it strange that Missouri (18-3) is unranked in the coaches’ poll yet No. 13 in RPI.
45. Haleiwacrossfitter, EXACTLY! Seeding for UH is unpredictable and the only thing that is certain is that Hawaii will most likely “get-screwed”. My take on RPI is let’s just get through our schedule with the best possible record and see where we get placed in the bracket. It would be nice to be seeded and host, but if we don’t it’s not uncharted territory. If we get seeded with a fellow top 10 team in the sub-regional, again…not uncharted territory.
Although I guess I would rather have all this boring RPI talk rather than skipping and avoiding the blog completely because of crazy, psychotic, multiple personality posters like last year that would verbally attack players, coaches, other posters. UGH, I avoided the blog in disgust last year & may have even reached out to Cindy in disgust.
All hands on deck for today’s practice including Burns ! (except Annie), per Reardon retweet of Dave S.
After all these RPI talk and hosting or not hosting (and most likely to be on the road for the 1st/2nd round) we all know one thing for sure, traveling to an away court won’t be foreign with two road trips ending with 4 matches in a 7 day stretch. The team will be more well prepared for an away match than any other team in the NCAA tournament.
58. Mauna
Or very tired and weary. It could go both ways. Let’s hope it helps them and not defeats them.
57. had mentioned Burns was cleared to participate last week on a limited basis.
yep all were in the gym this morning, including Mitchem, who still works out with stretches and running. just not hitting drills and being on the court during scrimmage.
With all the talk about RPI and hosting – but first just in case UH should submit a good bid that’s more than acceptable to the committee. Looking at the Manual, the deadline is Nov. 10. And looking at the schedule at the SSC, UH can only schedule the games Dec. 4 & 5. Dec. 3 will be practice day for all the 4 teams. There is basketball on Dec. 2. IMHO, the only way for Hawaii to have a chance is to win all their games because the committee will be looking at the last 10 games of the regular season. Will be a challenge but with the talent they have, the Wahine will prevail!! GO BOWS!!!
61. putting in an acceptable bid is only for a regional, not the first-second rounds, and for whatever reason, UH hasn’t put into host a regional since 2011
That UH could host Dec. 4 and 5 a good thing because it does give teams time to get to Hawaii as well as have the practice in the venue on the 3rd.
Likely moot but one never knows.
kind of tired of the rehashing of the RPI as well. The computer is going to do what the computer does and all the Wahine can control is the outcome of their own matches.
New thread up for Tuesday.
http://hawaiiwarriorworld.com/?p=33950