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.

“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.

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.