I think it comes down to RPI and Pablo ratings. We have to see how all these W-L statistics pan out and what "special cases" the NCAA committee make about selection. DUN-DUN-DUN. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Saturday and Sunday bring.
Grammy, I love your wise encouragement of the Rainbow Wahines. As for Brian Gimmilaro, he and his team won it for themselves. They played for pride. I don't think they had Hawaii in mind at all. You can show your gratitude to Long Beach next year when the team and their coaches are introduced at our home game by applauding them heartily. I understand how you feel.
Too bad UCI not playing UCSB in their Crawford Court (which is basically just like a high school gym.....like the old Klum Gym)......for a more intimate and intimidating setting......instead of the more spacious Bren Center next door.
Well a lot of people seem to be happy with LBSU beating UCSB, but I hope those people will still be as happy when UCSB beats UCI, who has double the amount of conference losses than wins, and because of which that UCSB loss last night, could have played a pivotal role in the Wahine possibly losing out on a seed this year. (Plus, with a UCSB win tonight, the Wahine will still not win the conference) 😛
The only positive thing is that at least the Big West will likely have three teams in the Tourney this year!!! Hope this will help the conference heading into the future.
Re: 3 CSUN, once a top 25, has seen its RPI rapidly drop. It's a "bubble" team that is at the mercy of the Volleyball [Selection] Committee. For every undeserving BCS team that gets in (e.g. UCLA, which won't), a deserving non-BCS co-champ or runner-up (e.g. Northridge) will have its bubble popped.
it is the REAL RPI. this is the daily track that is sent to Ohio state. Anyone can get this just ask that it is emailed to you. Last week Hawaii was at 11 as was the unmodified RPI listed. You can be negative all you want but know the facts. ITs the unofficial list because it isn't on Monday's date, but this is the RPI as it charts daily. Only when the day of the RPI is released usually on Mondays does it come out as Official...however they use this daily calculations to make the official RPI. Hawai'i will drop again after tonight. Now if they adjust up come Monday we will see. However the commitee already has everyone penciled in with the brackets. They will make adujstments ater tonight's matches if need be. Hopefully UH has finished strong enough for the committee to already penciled them in as a seed therefore as a host for the 1&2 round.
#19 that is just an estimate. The RPI the NCAA uses applies bonuses to wins over top 25 or 50 RPI teams and penalties to losses with teams over 150 I believe. However these exact adjustments have never been made public. If you take the list from the website you posted it did not match exactly the official NCAA RPI posted on Monday.
Rich Kern seems to have reverse engineered the RPI and he projected Hawaii to finish at 15.
21. correct and agree.
hosting is on the bubble and a tad late on 're-peaking' adjustments. have my fingers crossed
that wahine make top 16 and the reversion back to just setting hartong at riverside was a distractor.
McGinn's rpi estimate is very telling. Of the top 14 teams (UH is #14), uh has the lowest opponents w-l record. When combined with unexpected losses in conference, it is not surprising that uh is at risk of falling out of the top 16. Also I predicted uh would fall in the rpi after this weekend because of the weak teams they are playing. The first time uh played riverside and Fullerton, uh has a mutilspot drop in rpi. We will see how things shake out tomorrow.
Re: 14, 19, 22, 24
Everyone knows that the UH's RPI will more than likely dip after playing the BWC's bottom-dwelling teams.
Between the Nov. 25-released RPI (Hawai'i RPI #11) and Nov. 30 (today but not counting today's results), UH non-BWC opponents won 7 times (Texas, Arizona, Creighton in Big East Semis, Wichita St in MVC Semis, Portland St in Big Sky Semis, New Mexico St-twice!) and lost 5 times (Arizona, UCLA-twice!, Northwestern, and UTEP). McGinn's estimate for Hawai'i RPI is #14. Between #13 and #15 sounds right, as playing the last-place BWC team and UCLA losing twice counts far more than NMSU winning twice.
For today (Nov. 30), there are 6 teams in action. See 17 above. If 3 (counting Texas) of these non-BWC opponents win and if Hawai'i wins its BWC match, NO WORRIES!
Of course, RPI standings will also depend on how those teams surrounding UH do (e.g. Penn St takes on Nebraska at Nebraska today).
Go Bows! And don't forget you can still purchase online tickets to today's Warriors vs. Army game at 50% discount. Go Warriors!
rich kern's rkpi is probably the list that has best been able to duplicate what the ncaa does for its rpi. but even rich kern's rkpi will have some differences from the ncaa.
fwiw, rich kern's rkpi estimates that hawaii will end the season at 15 in the rpi. i think that, plus the nitty gritty of their schedule (i.e., 3-1 against the rpi top 25, and 6-2 against the rpi top 50) will be enough to earn a seed for hawaii.
but of course, hawaii has to take care of business today. and after all is said and done, we can't predict exactly what the committee will do.
after hawaii steps off the court today -- hopefully with a win -- their ncaa fate will be outta their hands.
26. Have no idea what you mean by "playing the last-place BWC team and UCLA losing twice counts far more than NMSU winning twice." This is hardly comparable as you are mixing a UH game in one side of the comparision, UCLA's.
If you are saying UCLA losing twice counts far more than MNSU winnning twice, regardless of who UH played last night, then that is clearly wrong from an RPI perspective. Switch UCLA's two losses to wins and NMSU's two wins to losses and UH's RPI is not impacted. UH opponents' collective win-loss totals remain the same.
If you are trying to explain why UH's RPI dropped, then it is clearly related to playing Riverside, with its poor record. Even if UH's non-BWC opponents went 12-0, UH's RPI would have still dropped becuase of Riverside's really atrocious record of 2-26.
Also, we need to distinguish between RPI and RPI ranking. Everything I've said above relates to UH's RPI value. If and how far UH's RPI ranking falls is partly determined by how other teams with RPI rankings near UH do, as you mentioned.
If UH wins and three of its non-BWC opponents win, then UH's opponents w-l for tonight only will be 14-20, or .411, which will lower the second component of UH's RPI value. Not clear what impact this will have on UH's RPI ranking, as the calculations need to be made by the computer. My rough calculation of the marginal impact of tonight's results indicates UH's ranking could drop to 16, and maybe 17--admittedly, I don't have the actual RPI model to run scenarios. I would not say we should be without worry. And I would not be shocked if UH is not selected to host the first two rounds of matches. No slam dunk here.
Marquette beats Creighton for the Big East title. On the one hand slightly negative for Hawaii's RPI, but on the other hand the loss should eliminate Creighton from being a seeded team, so one less team on the seeding bubble Hawaii has to worry about.
We should probably hope Minnesota beats Illinois to eliminate the Illini from hosting too. Minnesota won the first set, and up in the second.
25. Mendoza has been a serve-pass/defensive sub for Olevao, this happened about a month ago, when changes to the line-up were made to allow Nikki Taylor to be a 6-rotation player. It just switched that substitution pattern, for those purposes, from Taylor to Olevao in opening up more transition scoring opportunities with Mendoza's defense and Taylor's offense.
Hi guys...I'm not new to the sport of volleyball, but new to the fact that this year I got really interested in the wahine stats and how them having a good RPI would (hopefully) let UH host a NCAA match.
Is there somewhere that explains all of this and how it works for a curious fan? I assumed that if UH Ranked in the top 5 they would host automatically, I was wrong. My last following of the Rainbow wahine was during the 'Willoughby and Kahumoku" days..... The best years, IMO 😉
Anyway. Where can I get myself caught up?
That is true in some aspects, but UCSB being a higher ranked team, being upset by a lower ranked team last night, will result in moving down in the RPIs (for UCSB), and as a result, the Wahine's RPI will take a hit as well since they have a loss from UCSB.
I'm not saying this will be costly, it might have a minimal impact of being lowered in the RPI poll by only a few spots (heck even one), but I guess my main point is that even being dropped one spot in the RPI is not good for the Wahine, if they want to host, since the NCAA will still have legitimacy in sending them away for the first two rounds, even at #15 in RPIs.
"If you are saying UCLA losing twice counts far more than MNSU winnning twice, regardless of who UH played last night, then that is clearly wrong from an RPI perspective. Switch UCLA's two losses to wins and NMSU's two wins to losses and UH's RPI is not impacted." Impossible, for NMSU could only lose once since it was playing in a tournament where you lose you're out! But even skipping my wise crack, the formulation -- winning percentage of those opponents' opponents -- applies: UCLA's Big Ten opponents weighs far more NMSU's WAC opponents, but I suspect you disagree so there's no point dragging this on. (But one point for me, lol.)
"Even if UH's non-BWC opponents went 12-0, UH's RPI would have still dropped becuase of Riverside's really atrocious record of 2-26." I haven't run the formulation -- team's winning percentage (25%), its opponents' winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%) -- but if all non-BWC opponents won, I suspect it would be wash, and I wouldn't have concluded (like you) with 100% certainty that UH's RPI would automatically drop.
"If and how far UH's RPI ranking falls is partly determined by how other teams with RPI rankings near UH do, as you mentioned." Exactly, and wish more posters would acknowledge this.
"I would not say we should be without worry. And I would not be shocked if UH is not selected to host the first two rounds of matches. No slam dunk here." As it turned out, the majority of UH's non-BWC opponents loss, and I agree when you fate lies in the hands of the Volleyball [Selection] Committee, as the UH's now clearly does, it's no slam dunk or (to keep to volleyball metaphors) it's no service ace.
46. Since you have taken the time to review and think about the RPI formula, which sets you apart from the majority, I will be respectful in my reply.
Whether UCLA & NMSU won or lost, its opponents' winning percentage was going to factor in. And those w-l percentages in total won't change in my scenario because switching wins/losses for UCLA and NMSU would cancel out each other. I am just looking at the marginal impact. Clearly UCLA has a stronger schedule, but I am not comparing schedules, just the marginal impact of switching wins/losses. For me, the key point is that UH's RPI dropped because it played a team with an atrocious w-l record.
On my second point, the RPI would have dropped. I ran the math before posting. For the first two components, UH's RPI would have dropped by .0038. In order for UH's RPI not to drop, then UH's opponents' opponents' W-L record needed to be .783 that night, or roughly a 1650-467 record (for comparison, this figure was .587 in UH's RPI calc before applying the 25% weighting, and on any given night, the cumulative winning percentage of all teams playing is .500). This was highly unlikely to happen, and did not happen, so I stand by my statement (although if you want to feel like you're a winner, I'll set my figure to 99.5% rather than 100% certainty). There is no material difference between the two in my view.
What I did not say is that UH's RPI ranking would have automatically dropped, as we both recognize.
46. In contemplating this a little more, I think I understand where our positions diverge. I make a distinction between scheduling impacts on RPI and performance impacts on RPI. Because UH scheduled UCLA and NMSU, those team's records and their opponents' records are incorporated into UH's RPI. That will happen regardless of whether UCLA or NMSU win or lose a particular weekend. When I suggest switching wins/losses to look at a marginal impact, then that addresses the performance impact on RPI. Because I view the RPI in this manner, I don't really see good or bad wins/losses. If the RPI formula as published in the public domain is truly used, then there are no bad wins/losses. However, if it is true that teams get a bonus for a top 25 win, then there are good wins. A better system would incorporate how well a team beats another team, accounting for general team strengths, to better reflect a team's performance. Right now, 75% of a team's rpi is completely out of its control.