Tues: Top 25 scores
15) BYU def. Loyola Marymount 22-25, 25-19, 25-21, 25-19
27) Western Kentucky def. Lipscomb 25-22, 25-17, 25-18
of interest
29) San Diego def. Pepperdine 28-26, 21-25, 20-25, 25-21, 15-13
COMMENTS
Comments are closed.
15) BYU def. Loyola Marymount 22-25, 25-19, 25-21, 25-19
27) Western Kentucky def. Lipscomb 25-22, 25-17, 25-18
of interest
29) San Diego def. Pepperdine 28-26, 21-25, 20-25, 25-21, 15-13
Cindy, to answer your question on strength of schedule, I found the below at NCAA.org (note that Strength of schedule only is relevant for the current season; there is no prior year impact):
Strength of Schedule: Take each opponent’s won-lost percentage against other Division I teams excluding the team in question (Team A, e.g.), and then average these percentages. Example: Add together the won-lost percentages of all of Team A’s 25 Division I opponents (again, excluding games against Team A and non-DI opponents). For Team A’s opponents, the sum of their percentage was calculated at 14.7575. Now divide 14.7575 by 25 (the number of Team A’s Division I opponents) to determine the average of .5903, which is also the opponents’ success percentage.
knock knock nobody here?
In case anyone is interested, both wahine games for this week will be broadcast on ESPN3 on Friday @ 4:00 pm and Saturday @ 3:00 pm. ESPN3 can be streamed to your HDTV or watched on your computer, just need to have access provider such as Time Warner (Oceanic).
maverick — thanks for that. that’s been my understanding of ‘strength of schedule’ as well. on its most basic level, it’s really just the “opponents’ winning percentage” portion of the RPI formula.
which is what makes the NCAA committee’s use of RPI so frustrating. because in their other factors for selection and seeding (like looking at strength of schedule), it’s got the RPI embedded in them. so they’re really just looking at RPI over and over again.
Perhaps this is the “bias” that Cindy is hinting at. Not necessarily a bias in the input of the data?
Rather, a bias in how the RPI is used in the criteria for selecting and seeding teams?
From two postings on the VT site, seems like they keep “tweaking” the imperfect RPI “formula”:
2015-2016 Volleyball Pre-championship manual is available at:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015DIWVB_Prechamps_Manual_20150929.pdf
In summary:
Factor IV:
Bonus: For wins against teams ranked 1 through 25 in the original RPI, teams receive a bonus that is approximately two positions in the RPI. For wins against teams ranked 26 through 50 in the original RPI, teams receive a bonus of approximately one position in the RPI.
Bonus: Teams receive a bonus of approximately two positions in the RPI for playing 50 percent of their nonconference schedule against teams ranked 1 through 75 in the original RPI.
Penalty: For losses against teams ranked 285 through 309 in the original RPI, teams receive a penalty of approximately one position in the RPI. For losses against teams ranked 310 through the remainder of the original RPI, and against non-Division I teams, teams receive a penalty of approximately two positions in
the RPI.
Penalty: Teams receive a penalty of approximately two positions in the RPI for playing 50 percent of their nonconference schedule against teams ranked 260 through the remainder of the teams, and against non-NCAA opponents.
To call the formula found by Maverick a “Strength of Schedule” component is a misnomer. Coaches can “game” the RPI by scheduling smart, rather than “tough.” Under Bonus I, teams in the power conferences can accumulate a lot of bonus points, and you gain bonus points by splitting against conference members. Under Bonus II, look to schedule nonconference teams that are in the 60 – 75 RPI range; then avoid the penalties.
And, also:
Reading on, they are recommending that 2016 Regional sites be determined after rounds 1 and 2 are complete based on highest seeded team that goes to Regional.
“Moving to non predetermined regional sites allows for a potential increase in attendance, an enhanced student athlete experience, and competitive rewards (with institutions earning the right to host). Sites would be selected after first and second round competition ‘s completed. The highest seeded team remaining in each quadrant of the bracket would host the regional. The bid process would be conducted in conjunction with the current process for first and second round sites”
They also voted to remove minimum seating requirement at sites for rounds 1 and 2 and also voted to make minimum seating requirement at Regionals to 3,000.
Thanks for the comments although Maverick I don’t remember specifically asking about strength of schedule.
Yes, they did relax the minimum seating requirements which is how USD will be able to use the Craig Pavilion for the regional this year.
A wise sage once said. “Screw the RPI formula, just win baby.”
http://hawaiiathletics.com/documents/2015/9/30//2015_WVB_06.pdf?id=3667
interesting reading for those who are bored from all this RPI talk
Florida about to get taken to 5 by Missouri, they do not look good even with Recek back.
Unfortunately Florida does not look like a top 10 team anymore.
This is a missouri team that got swept by St louis and needed five to beat North Dakota state, FL has fallen off a cliff.
Well the wahine RPI taking a hit, so the just win baby has to continue as #8 emphatically says! Wow Kan was on fire from the front row and the back row.
Saw Karly’s dad in the stands. Guess Dr. Kan is on vacation in Missouri.
http://hawaiiwarriorworld.com/?p=33499
new thread up for Wednesday
will update today’s top 25 scores there