Hawaii drops to 10 in RPI, to 9 in poll
Hawaii’s five-set loss to UC Santa Barbara cost the Rainbow Wahine seven spots in the NCAA’s Ratings Percentage Index released today.
Hawaii was at No. 3 last week in the first RPI of the season. The computer-generated power rankings are used by the NCAA selection committee for seedings and brackets of the postseason tournament.
The RPI measures wins, losses, strength of schedule and opponents’ strength of schedule.
The Wahine (16-2) also dropped four places in the AVCA Coaches Top 25 poll today, falling from No. 5 to No. 9. The top four teams remained unchanged with USC (16-1) staying at No. 1 with 50 first-place votes.
Behind the Women of Troy are Florida (17-1, 5 votes); Texas (12-2, 3 votes) and Penn State (14-2). New No. 5 Michigan State (17-1, 2 votes) moved up two spots followed by Washington (13-1), Stanford (12-3) and Nebraska (12-3).
http://www.avca.org/divisions/division-one-women/poll-10-14-13di/
In the RPI, Texas, which lost to Hawaii in the opening match of the season, remained at No. 1. Rounding out the Top 10 are Penn State, Florida, USC, Stanford, Nebraska, Creighton, Washington and Michigan State.
UC Santa Barbara, which was at 102 last week, jumped to No. 75 after its win over the Wahine.
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/2013WVBrpi1.html
#9 in the AVCA Poll not that the poll matters.
It will be a ugly day for the Wahine but it’s the price you pay for losing to a un- ranked team with a bad RPI
Not that it matters, but UH is #9 in the new AVCA poll.
Mita nominated for BW POW but as I said before I expect Thompson to get it.
1. Actually, for RPI purposes, UCSB’s bad rpi is going to factor in regardless of whether UH won or lost. Any UH loss has an equal impact to its RPI, regardless of how good or bad the foe is. However, with other teams above UH with zero or one loss, this loss was fairly devastating in relative terms. You just have to hope that other teams above UH lose another match or two to mitigate this loss. Still a long season to go.
3. doubt Uiato will get it after a 1-1 week. agree with you that Thompson most likely will. She had a great match.
6. disagree a bit. Until Hawaii played UCSB, there was no basis to put the two into each other’s equations. Now there is. which is why UCSB moved up to No. 75.
What I think is ridiculous is how the MVC is still ranked so high as a conference.
other teams of note in the RPI
13. San Diego. 30 Arizona. 35. UCLA. 49. Wichita State. 51. CSUN. 59. Northwestern. 69. South Dakota. 71. UC Irvine. 75. UCSB. 98. Portland State. 99. Long Beach State. 104. Santa Clara. 114 Cal Poly. 119 CSU Fullerton. 120. New Mexico State. 123. UTEP. 136. UC Davis.
what will continue to drag UH down is UC Riverside at 294.
6. Cindy, UCSB was going to be factored in regardless of a win or loss. You need to separate impact of scheduling versus match result.
With 50% of the RPI being opponents record, Hawaii was going to drop even if they had won against UCSB.
They need to win out (which they are more they capable of doing) to host first two rounds.
ucla is on a steady drop in the rpi. at the moment, they’re playing themselves out of the tournament.
wichita st suffered a loss in conference play over the weekend to illinois st. if they do not win the MVC, their rpi, at the moment, won’t be good enough to make the tournament.
cindy — the rpi has always been oddly favorable to the MVC. that just goes to show, the bias in the rpi isn’t so much in favor of the BCS conferences, but rather, the bias is based largely on regional factors. teams in the midwest and east can schedule from a larger pool of teams, helping them to better put together an rpi-favorable schedule.
8. but until UCSB and UH played each other, they couldn’t be factored into each other’s numbers, correct? Just like CSUN doesn’t count yet? Was under the impression that was the case. If I’m wrong, then I apologize.
10. Cubi, i know, it just doesn’t seem right. my question has always been … the RPI is computer generated but someone had to imput the teams with a starting factor. who does that and what is their bias? have never gotten an answer.
10. Yes that is correct from an overall perspective. However my point is that there is no such thing as a bad loss. A loss is a loss. To put it another way if UH had won they would have still dropped in the rpi rankings but not by as much as they actually did with the loss.
Responding to Cindy at 11
13. agree but my point was that until they played each other, their strength of schedules couldn’t affect each other. now that is part of the equation for both teams. even if UH had won, it would have been a ‘bad win’ and they would have dropped since UCSB was at 102 last week.
Be back later. Have some other work to do.
15. We are in violent agreement 🙂
Hopefully the NCAA committee will be nice enough to send them to an easier 1st and 2nd round site. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if they got sent to somewhere like Washington again or USC.
10. I think UCLA being 1-5 in the Pac-12 at the moment is more telling about playing themselves out of the tournament than their RPI.
With the UCSB loss, all bets are off now on UH hosting a 1st round match. UH will be sent packing their bags to the west coast again. Wahine will have a tough time winning the Big West title outright this season.
i don’t really wanna go check the poll out but Cindy, where is UCLA ranked in the top 25 this week? or did they drop out. Just curious.
20 the link to the poll is in the original post
Cindy — i’m not sure what you mean about what the “starting factor” is when data is inputted into the rpi calculation. there is no starting factor, per se. the only data that is plugged in are wins and losses. the bias is not in the plugging in of the data. it’s just numbers.
the actual rpi used by the ncaa, as i understand it, also includes some kind of bonus or enhancement for a win against either a top 25 or top 50 rpi team. but on this, i haven’t seen any definitive confirmation. the ncaa has kept this adjustment to the rpi formula secret for volleyball. i’ve only seen discussions of it on VTalk, and of course, Rich Kern has tried to mimick the adjustment on his own rpi estimator on his site (the “rkpi”).
Based on data from an independent RPI calculation, I estimate the UH loss to UCSB cost it around three places in the RPI rankings.
Note that this is a marginal analysis that compares a UH loss against UCSB to a UH win against UCSB, all other results being the same. Playing
44. jake:
October 13th, 2013 at 8:04 pm, says:
43. croson played a key role in arizona’s defeat for WSU at WSU. i thought she, if not for her problems,
would have really helped na wahine with their second OH position.
I know that it’s water under the bridge, however, her transfer is a BIG deal *moving forward, even* tho it could’ve provided for, as it turns out, a shoo-in Elite 8/Final 4 finish for this 2013 UH Wahine squad.
They would’ve been VERY strong with:
S-Mita
MB1-Hartong (imho an OH who can’t pass has no business playing outside with a limited skill-set)
MB2-Kalei
OH1-Croson
OH2-Nikki/Mendoza (or simply Kastl)
OPP-Tai Manu (or Kaela/Lelepali)
Lib-Longo
It’s too bad.
—
At some point in the postseason, UH will end up in a matchup with either MO or WS. I’m about .75 certain.
—
& I’ll say it again. UH’s RPI WILL hold steady this entire season; they’ve almost assuredly gauranteed themselves a top 16 RPI spot mainly because of that win over THE Big-12 opponent.
UH, I’m also pretty confident, will still lose another match in the BW. Their AVCA placement will find them at something like 14-17 and this will be their doom for hosting a subregional.
UH will as a result be placed at one of the PAC schools (NOT Stanford, NOT UW, NOT $C)..someone like an OR or an ASU. It’s that subregional that’ll be a MONSTER to have to navigate.
*It’ll be stacked from here to kingdom come.
—
Shoji needs to get ‘his’ girls in order. They’re on scholarship, under his government, tho they’re each their own person.
22. Agreed, there is no starting factor, everyone is at zero. I have not seen any substantiation of the view that ncaa rpi factors in bonus points for beating top 25 teams. There are biases in the rpi, in general, that have been documented, but I won’t go into them here.
#25, Oregon and ASU are at 39 and 43 in the RPI, they’re not going to host no matter what happens the rest of the season. In fact if one of them starts to lose a lot they won’t make the tournament at all.
IMO, the loss was a fluke and they won’t lose again in the regular season. As bad as they played they still almost won that match. UCSB wasn’t exactly lighting it up on offense either they hit less than .200 for the match, as others have said repeatedly Hawaii just made so many unforced errors.
Guess my question is how do they arrive at the first RPI? There has to be some starting values that are imputed by someone.
It does not matter anymore. Wahine lost their chance of hosting a subregional. That lost to UCSB is their ticket to the mainland. The road schedule ahead only becomes tougher.
They will be on the road comes tourney time and with the lack of shot selection, im happy to get pass 1st round in a Hartong centric offense. That ” go to your hot hitter” philisophy can only work so long that weve seen how damaging it can cause.
cindy — the first (official) rpi isn’t released until october. by then there is a month’s worth of data (wins/losses) to “start” with.
29. there is still plenty of matches left so it does still matter
30. i know that but how do they decided that Texas’ schedule was No. 1? they have to base it on some value of the teams they’ve played.
my question is how are the values arrived at in order to rate a team’s strength of schedule.
29. Beauston
I agree. Hartong is among the elite as far as players to come through the Hawaii program, but relying on her all the time can only take the team so far. Especially when the other team knows UH is doing exactly that, they can make their game plan to post two blockers majority of the time on Hartong and we’ve all seen what that can do. In the match against UCSB, it of course didn’t help that UHs offense in general was off so going to someone else besides Hartong wasn’t working either.
BYU-HI is still holding out there in Laie. Have them put in a bid to the governing body and justify why 10 teams…TEN!!..get sent out to Oahu for a fringe sport like vb.
This is the year that maybe Pablo gets his chance with the $0.02 imput. (Although the NCAA will certainly have paid to utilize this dude’s tool.)
Dunno.
I’m almost sure that they’ll be using the Nov. 18th Poll in this year’s braket selection(s).
It used to be that the AVCA would have a prefinal poll–the week of Thanksgiving–up ’till about a year ago…Now, for **NCAA conveniences** that week’s poll has “mysteriously” been done away with.
—
No conspiracies here. Disapear. No dilusions. NOT trying to put fear into any one also.
It’s not…not…not….NOT! personal Hawai’i.
It’s sport.
People roll with the punches.
UH isn’t a victim.
😉
33. no idea what you are talking about.
BYUH is a DII school, what 10 teams?
If UH hosts a first-second round, it is three teams that are sent to Hawaii.
Cindy.
Squim gets 300 days of sunshine. That’s 69 more days than Seattle; more than anywhere else in WA State.
I can see why your family chose ‘it’ for ‘it’ is much like San Diego.
—
I take issue with SD and Mount Soledad. It’s been since 1913; geez!
I know attendance etc is not factored in but…allowing playoffs here (if deserved–don’t know about rpi) but it should be. If UH is playing…attendance will be huge…the tournament may pay for itself…not to mention that the NCAA will profit monetarily as well as through publicity. We have three teams in for every pre season tournament…so…it should be a moneymaker for the NCAA
cindy – when you say SOS (strength of schedule), i think you may be referring to the portion of the RPI that calculates (1) the winning percentage of opponents (comprising 75% of the RPI forumula), and (2) the winning percentage of opponents’ opponents (comprising 25% of the RPI).
‘strength of schedule’ is sometimes used interchangeably with these two portions of the RPI formula. if that’s what you’re referring to, then the value that is calculated on just these two portions of the RPI may be highest for Texas (hence, their being rated #1 for SOS).
also, i think illinois (and not texas) has the #1 rated SOS, based on the calculations described above.
31, 37, 38. Cubi is right, the only data you need to formulate the RPI is the win loss records of teams. Nothing more, nothing less. You can even calculate RPI after the first weekend of games if you want, although the results won’t be very useful as too few games have been played to distinguish teams. I’ve written the formula in this blog before, and here it is again:
(25% x team winning percentage) + (50% x team’s opponents’ winning percentage) + (25% x team’s opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage)
Not complicated and can be modeled as long as you have all the teams’ w-l records and who each team played. SOS is based on the latter two components or 75% of a team’s rpi. Interestingly, a team only has control over the first component, or 25% of its rpi value. Scheduling plays a big role in the 50% component along with opponents’ performance. The last 25% component is difficult to discern without the use of a computer (assuming each team plays 30 matches, the number of data points in this component is 27,000). So I focus on the first two components to determine generally what we as fans should focus on:
1. Hawaii winning as many matches as possible (first component)
2. Hawaii’s non-conference opponents winning as many matches as possible (second component)
3. Hawaii’s conference opponents winning as many non-conference matches as possible (second component). Conference matches not involving UH are essentially a wash for its rpi with regard to which team to root for.
Hope this helps
39. One more point. I have said several times there is no such thing as a bad loss, good loss, good win or bad win with regard to rpi. The reason for this is that if you play a team with a poor record or poor rpi, that team’s record (and those of its opponents) will be included in your team’s rpi. I only look at the marginal impact of a win or loss, as I mentioned above in post #23 and 24. I think the good/bad win/loss is a human/psychological response to UH’s performance not meeting fans’ expectations. We desire to call a loss to UCSB a bad loss because we believed in a high likelihood of UH winning that match.
To further illustrate my point, let’s assume that UH lost to Texas but defeated UCSB. The first two components of UH’s rpi would be exactly the same. Hard to say how the last component would have changed, but on the margin, it is likely to be barely more than a rounding error. So in my example, you can call the UH loss to Texas a “good loss” but at the end of the day, there is no measurable difference between that scenario and what has actually happened.
Only when humans evaluate a team’s record will good/bad wins/losses potentially play a role. However, in the cold, calculated world of a computer, such considerations are irrelevant for rpi. Rather, the good/bad impact is actually related to scheduling of teams, and as concerns UH’s conference opponents, completely out of its control–UH will continue to be penalized for the conference schedule until other Big West team dramatically improve.
35. it’s Sequim, not Squim. and it is nothing like San Diego.
My brother moved there for reasons that have nothing to do with it being in the ‘blue hole’ of Washington.
as for attendance. neer has been a factor in the decision. otherwise Hawaii would have hosted first-second rounds most of the time. Have pointed out the numbers of the first rounds through the years, including the year where Harvard hosted and drew a combined 307 for the first two rounds if I remember correctly.
I WOULD LIKE TO BET 1K BUCKS THAT NCAA NOW HAS THE REASON TO ELIMINATE U.H. AS A CANDIDATE FOR HOSTING A REGIONAL TOURNAMENT. ALL THE OTHER STUFF, LIKE STATS, CAN BE MANIPULATED TO JUSTIFY THEIR CHOICES. PAST HISTORY PREDICTS THE FUTURE.
They don’t hand out championship trophies until they are won on the court, so we really are not worse off than before the San Diego loss or the UCSB loss. The Wahine still have their fate in their own hands. As the Wahine are in the BW, that is rather set and is most affected by losses. As the schedule was set in Summer, that set and mostly done with already. As for opponents wins and losses, out of our hands totally. So,win and stay in the game/race, lose and make it harder on yourself – same as the start of this year. So 75% of RPI is out of your hands. So if you’re giving up the fight already that only speaks to your outlook. I saw a team that came back from a surprising and unexpected loss twice and got back down to business, but that’s also just my way of looking at things. I don’t talk ‘stink’ about young people who take time out of their many important educational pursuits to practice, keep in shape and represent me and my state and school as well as and honorably as they are able, I appreciate and celebrate with and for them. And I don’t waste my time ‘tangling’ or debating with those who disparage and state their negative views, don’t want to waste my time in their negative mindset, life is too short and they are just as entitled to their views as me or anyone else who blogs here. Go Wahine! You show them and prove yourselves worthy, because you are. Edited my comments to RPI article.
44. Allan please turn off your caps.
UH is not hosting a regional; those are pre-determined.
At stake is hosting first and second rounds.
and agree the RPI has been tweaked to justify seedings
i think i got the % wrong for opponents’ win/loss records above. maverick got it right. this part comprises 50% of the RPI, and not 75% (oops!).
allan — if hawaii’s rpi drops to the mid-teens (15 or 16), they will certainly be on the bubble for a seed. and that’s where the loss to ucsb could hurt them and cost them a seed.
but if hawaii’s rpi stays in the top 10, maybe even top 12 or possibly even top 14 … i think hawaii gets seeded no matter. hawaii’s nonconference schedule just might carry them to a seed.
folks have to understand that hawaii’s rpi last year was 17 going into the tournament. that put them on the bubble for a seed, for sure. and hawaii just didn’t have a strong enough record against top 25 and top 50 rpi teams last year to snag one of the seeds.
this year, it’s different. hawaii has a better record against top 25 and top 50 rpi teams. (at least for now, so long as hawaii can avoid more losses in conference.) if hawaii’s rpi drops such that they are on the bubble for a seed, that’s when that loss to ucsb will loom large.
Of course it’s ‘disappear’ also, but intentionality is off the table.
Softening the blow sometimes works, sometimes it doesn’t (How do all of those varying ethnicities relate to one another in Hawai’i nei?).
Pidgin English was first started in the plantation fields of The Big Five’s sugarcane industry for the sole purpose of being relational.
“As for off-hand remarks, (you) get too many of them to try to interpret beyond what it is written.
so down the rabbit hole (you, me, the bad spellers of the world–UNTIE!) we go.”
😉
The “blue hole” is another fun outing for those with little ones (or not).
http://www.olygamefarm.com/
~~ From the WHO CARES Department ~~
It’s not a given but [IMHO] the top 32 RPI teams will be in the 64-field Big Dance. While at one point it appeared that both the Big Ten and the Pac-12 were on track to break their league record in number of bids received, the Pac-12 has faltered.
Here’s the breakdown of the top 32 RPI:
Big Ten : 8 of the Big Ten’s 12 teams are in the Top 32 [2 of the remaining 4 members are on the “bubble” as far as receiving NCAA bids]
Pac-12 : 6 of 12 [5 of the remaining 6 are “bubble”]
SEC/Southeastern : 6 of 13 [2 of the remaining 7 are “bubble”]
Big 12 : 3 of 12 [4 “bubble”]
ACC/Atlantic Coast : 3 of 15 [4 “bubble”]
WCC/West Coast : 2 of 10 [2 “bubble”]
Big East: 2 of 9 [2 “bubble”]
Big West: 1 of 9 [1 “bubble”]
Mountain West: 1 of 11 [1 “bubble”]
As for hosting a subregional, any team in the Top 10 RPI is 99% likely to do so. That leaves teams in the 11 ~ 22 RPI fighting over the remaining 6 subregional positions or teams in the 12 ~ 23 RPI fighting over the remaining 5 subregionals. In short, I would be praying to the volleyball gods for help if Hawai’i falls to 11 or lower in future RPI Mondays.
the cutoff point for teams to make the NCAA tourney has usually been about the mid-40s of the RPI.
I wish fans would be a little more optimistic. Sure, Hawaii has a loss in BWC, but the this year’s preseason was a lot more difficult than last season. Hopefully the strength of this preseason can help hold up the “weakness” of the BWC.
Lets remember, last year Hawaii’s first RPI was pretty low and they had to win to climb up the RPI.
setaone — absolutely, there is still plenty of reason to be optimistic.
we should also realize that the drop in the rpi for hawaii this week is owed, not just to the loss over the weekend, but also because ucsb’s 8-8 record and cal poly’s 8-9 record were calculated into the rpi formula. hawaii has yet to play some of the big west teams with winning records, like northridge and uc davis (although davis is just barely above .500).
plus a number of teams from hawaii’s non-conference schedule are starting to pick up wins in their own respective conference … raising their overall winning percentages. (not all are doing that, of course, like ucla … but the overall strength of hawaii’s non-conference schedule may allow hawaii’s rpi to hold steady.).
53, 54. Also remember that all of the other top 10 teams except Nebraska went undefeated, so UH was bound to drop more dramatically with its loss. Even with a win UH would have dropped because of ucsb and poly’s records. That being said, not all is lost and UH still has a good chance of obtaining a seed…as long as they run the table.
Re: 52 I do not deal with “usually” or “about.” When I make a statement it is a statement of fact; thus, I said “the top 32 teams WILL BE in the 64-field,” I do not make wide statements that the cutoff point USUALLY is ABOUT.
Moreover, I recall a year in which a mid-major team in the mid 30s failed to secure a bid after winning its conference at the end of the season but then losing in the first round of its conference’s championship tournament and thus the NCAA gave the automatic berth to the conference champion but an invite to the runner-up of that tournament (which was a “bubble” team).
Further I disagree with you. Teams in the mid-40s are what I consider to be “bubble teams” and — should they fail to secure their conference title — are left to the mercy of the Selection Committee.
55. I correct myself–North Carolina, #10 last week, also lost.
orbital — why are you being so defensive?
i wasn’t even disagreeing with you! there was nothing in my statement that was in disagreement. i was merely offering an observation to give people an idea where the rpi-cutoff has traditionally fallen. are there exceptions? well, yes, because when it comes down to it, the rpi is not the only factor relied upon by the committee in making their selections. (although sometimes it just feels like they’re only using the rpi.)
you started your post by saying it was from the “who cares department.” … and then you get all defensive when someone tries to add to the conversation? it sounds like “you” care quite a bit… or would you prefer that you be allowed to post your thoughts, but not allow others to add to the discussion? if so, then participating in a blog might be the wrong forum for you … just sayin’ …
orbital — in any case, i will raise one point with you. there may be an exception to your “statement of fact” that the top 32 in the rpi “WILL BE” in the tournament…
illinois is #25 in rpi. but currently have a losing record of 7-9. if they don’t get to .500 or better (which they will be hard-pressed to do competing in the big10), then even if they maintain an rpi in the top 32, they won’t make the tournament.
I agree with Grammy, championships are won on the court. So long as the Wahine have the opportunity to take the court they have a chance. RPI or otherwise, you gotta believe and support this team, losing to UCSB is not the end of the season. It is what it is, you can’t change yesterday’s news, the Wahines’ journey just got a bit more challenging. Sort of like the US Men’s Hockey team that won the Olympic gold metal, what a story. We are witnessing OUR own here. _Go Rainbow-Wahine=+++++
Re: 59 Interesting assumption going on: just because a team is 7-9 and 25 RPI right now, it does not mean that it will maintain its 25 RPI should it finish the rest of the season winning 50% and losing 50% of its matches.
True, you would think a losing W-L record would eliminate the Fighting Illini from an at-large bid — regardless of its RPI.
But I hope Illinois ends the season with a losing record for two reasons: one, it will throw the NCAA into an embarrassing situation as Illinois is one of the predetermined regional sites; and two, it will call back a long forgotten NCAA Championship tournament in which a Big Ten team did receive an at-large bid in spite of its losing overall W-L record.
But really, Who Cares? All sports is LOCAL! As Tako says, Go Rainbow-Wahine!
orbital — in a way, it’s already happened with regard to illinois. they had a losing record last year, which kept them out of the tournament, in spite of an rpi that would have gotten them in. (i believe their rpi last year was #37 … not to far of from your top 32 assessment.) athough, illinois did not host a regional last year.
and no one is assuming anything about whether illinois will retain an rpi that would otherwise merit inclusion in the tourney. which is why i used the words “if” and “may.” just pondering the possibilities, which as last year’s example of illinois proves, could happen again this year.