NCAA Weekly RPI 2024

Donate To GopherHole
I

Ignatius L Hoops

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
10,543
Reaction score
3,364
Points
113

NCAA Statistics

stats.ncaa.org stats.ncaa.org

Thru matches of 2 October

1 Nebraska
2 Louisville
3 Creighton
4 Pitt
5 Penn State
6 Stanford
7 Texas
8 Kansas
9 Auburn
10 Florida State
11 North Carolina
12 TCU
13 Oregon
14 Baylor
15 SMU
16 Wisconsin

17 Purdue
18 Washington
19 Illinois
21 Southern Cal
22 Minnesota
33 Michigan
41 Indiana
53 UCLA
73 Ohio State
78 Michigan State
104 Iowa
105 Maryland
170 Rutgers
177 Northwestern
Click to expand...
 

Through Matches of 6 October (Sunday)

1 Nebraska
2 Louisville
3 Pitt
4 Penn State
5 Stanford
6 Creighton
7 Texas
8 Wisconsin
9 TCU
10 Kansas
11 SMU
12 Southern Cal
13 Oregon
14 Auburn
15 Baylor
16 Purdue

20 Washington
23 Minnesota
26 Illinois
36 Indiana
37 Michigan
66 UCLA
68 Ohio State
87 Michigan State
94 Iowa
103 Maryland
193 Rutgers
194 Northwestern
Click to expand...
 


Through matches of Sunday 13 October

1 Louisville
2 Nebraska
3 Creighton
4 Pitt
5 Penn State
6 Stanford
7 Texas
8 Oregon
9 SMU
10 Kansas
11 TCU
12 Auburn
13 Utah
14 Southern Cal
15 Purdue
16 Dayton

17 Wisconsin
23 Minnesota
24 Washington
26 Illinois
41 Indiana
48 UCLA
51 Michigan
83 Ohio State
93 Michigan State
107 Maryland
123 Iowa
189 Rutgers
207 Northwestern
Click to expand...
 

Diet Coke and Green Bay tournaments pretty much insured they won't be hosting.
 


Win 2 this weekend, and they're hosting. Settle down.
 

TruthSeeker said:
Win 2 this weekend, and they're hosting. Settle down.
Click to expand...
Rutgers will hurt their RPI, win or lose. And that's the point, their RPI is toast. MAYBE if they win the rest of their matches they could squeak by, but for every Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin, there's a Rutgers, Northwestern, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Ohio State even. It has nothing to do with being unsettled.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-volleyball-rpi for reference. Yikes. It's worse than I thought.
 

(R)uffda! said:
Rutgers will hurt their RPI, win or lose. And that's the point, their RPI is toast. MAYBE if they win the rest of their matches they could squeak by, but for every Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin, there's a Rutgers, Northwestern, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Ohio State even. It has nothing to do with being unsettled.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-volleyball-rpi for reference. Yikes. It's worse than I thought.
Click to expand...
Winning on the road against Penn St. will improve our numbers quite a bit.
 

TruthSeeker said:
Winning on the road against Penn St. will improve our numbers quite a bit.
Click to expand...
1) They need to win that match (hardly a lock) and 2) Rutgers will cancel out whatever they gained. Maybe more than cancel out. RPI stinks, but no point in pretending it doesn't work the way it does. Diet Coke, even with Auburn, plus the Green Bay tournament seems to have torpedoed their chances of a decent RPI.
 



Note: as far as I know, NCAA volleyball RPI does not differentiate between home and road games
 

Ignatius L Hoops said:
Note: as far as I know, NCAA volleyball RPI does not differentiate between home and road games
Click to expand...
Even worse, it doesn't differentiate between 3-0 sweeps and 3-2 wins (or losses). Nor does it care if you lose sets by 2 points. It is a seriously flawed metric to use for something as important as NCAA tournament seeding. (And, yes, I know it supposedly isn't the ONLY thing they use.)
 


(R)uffda! said:
Even worse, it doesn't differentiate between 3-0 sweeps and 3-2 wins (or losses). Nor does it care if you lose sets by 2 points. It is a seriously flawed metric to use for something as important as NCAA tournament seeding. (And, yes, I know it supposedly isn't the ONLY thing they use.)
Click to expand...

For better or worse the NCAA RPI remains a reliable predictor of whether power conferences teams will host and/or make the tournament
 



SMU's loss to Stanford today is a perfect example. They were swept, but outscored by only 7 points -- and last set was 35-33. All losses are not the same.
 

(R)uffda! said:
Even worse, it doesn't differentiate between 3-0 sweeps and 3-2 wins (or losses). Nor does it care if you lose sets by 2 points. It is a seriously flawed metric to use for something as important as NCAA tournament seeding. (And, yes, I know it supposedly isn't the ONLY thing they use.)
Click to expand...
Yikes, that's brutal.
 

www.ncaa.com

NCAA Division I women’s volleyball committee reveals in-season top 16

The NCAA DI women's volleyball committee announced its 2024 in-season top-16 rankings during the Pitt vs. Stanford match on Sunday, Oct. 20.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com

Today's NCAA top 16 reveal. Minnesota at 16

  1. Nebraska
  2. Pitt
  3. Penn State
  4. Louisville
  5. Stanford
  6. Creighton
  7. SMU
  8. Texas
  9. Wisconsin
  10. Oregon
  11. Kansas
  12. Purdue
  13. Utah
  14. TCU
  15. USC
  16. Minnesota
 

NCAA Statistics

stats.ncaa.org stats.ncaa.org

NCAA RP1 through Sunday's (20 October) matches:

1 Louisville
2 Nebraska
3 Pitt
4 Creighton
5 Penn State
6 Stanford
7 Texas
8 Wisconsin
9 Oregon
10 SMU
11 Dayton
12 TCU
13 Kansas
14 Kentucky
15 Purdue
16 Southern Cal

21 Illinois
27 Minnesota
29 Washington
48 Michigan
53 Indiana
58 UCLA
68 Ohio State
89 Michigan State
114 Maryland
145 Iowa
195 Rutgers
216 Northwestern
Click to expand...
 

NCAA RPI through matches of Sunday 10-27-24

1 Louisville
2 Nebraska
3 Pittsburgh
4 Penn State
5 Stanford
6 Creighton
7 Texas
8 Wisconsin
9 Kansas
10 SMU
11 TCU
12 Oregon
13 Arizona State
14 Kentucky
15 Dayton
16 Baylor

19 Purdue
23 Southern Cal
25 Illinois
30 Minnesota
31 Washington
45 Michigan
57 UCLA
62 Indiana
71 Michigan State
86 Ohio State
120 Maryland
150 Iowa
194 Rutgers
240 Northwestern
Click to expand...
 

Louisville over Pitt. You just can't make it up. Man, there are a lot of weak teams in the B1G this year.
 

Ignatius L Hoops said:
NCAA RPI through matches of Sunday 10-27-24
Click to expand...
Does the fact that Minnesota made the top 16 when their rpi was 27 mean that the NCAA looks more at other rankings, such as Pablo or Massey? The Massey rankings, for example, do seem to be much closer to the coaches' rankings than the NCAA's rpi rankings.
 

let'sbeclear said:
Does the fact that Minnesota made the top 16 when their rpi was 27 mean that the NCAA looks more at other rankings, such as Pablo or Massey? The Massey rankings, for example, do seem to be much closer to the coaches' rankings than the NCAA's rpi rankings.
Click to expand...
The top sixteen reveal came out before the Gophers dropped to 27 and probably is indicative of the committee's thinking concerning Dayton and power conference member Minnesota. I don't know about the correlation between Massey or the committee's rankings.

The committee sez:
The reveal is based on the criteria used to select and seed the 64 teams for the volleyball championship. It includes strength of schedule, Rating Percentage Index, head-to-head competition, results versus common opponents, significant wins and losses and locations of contests. Input is also provided by the regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division I women’s volleyball committee
Click to expand...
 

Interesting that the NCAA's rpi has the Gophers strength of schedule ranking 41st, while Massey has it ranking 9th for the matches played so far, and 6th for the entire season's matches.
 

Ignatius L Hoops said:
The top sixteen reveal came out before the Gophers dropped to 27 and probably is indicative of the committee's thinking concerning Dayton and power conference member Minnesota. I don't know about the correlation between Massey or the committee's rankings.

The committee sez:
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting the committee's criteria. I'm just pointing out that the figstats RPI, which is the one the NCAA supposedly uses, has been the anomaly when it comes to Minnesota. For example, the latest Pablo rankings (Oct. 28) has the Gophers at 15, Massey (Nov. 2) has them at 14, AVCA (Oct. 28) has them at 15, and figstats (Nov. 2, RPI with bonuses) has them at 31.
 

Our non-con opponents from the SEC are taking a tumble.

- Auburn: 6 straight losses to unranked teams. Including Alabama under .500 and 100+ RPI.
- Texas: 3 straight 5-set losses at home to unranked opponents. Today's loss to Oklahoma being the worst.
 

NCAA RPI through matches of Sunday 11-3-24

1 Louisville
2 Nebraska
3 Pitt
4 Penn State
5 Creighton
6 Stanford
7 Wisconsin
8 SMU
9 Arizona State
10 Kansas
11 Texas
12 Kentucky
13 TCU
14 Dayton
15 Oregon
16 Utah

17 Southern Cal
24 Purdue
27 Minnesota
29 Illinois
31 Washington
50 Michigan
58 UCLA
66 Ohio State
69 IU
87 Michigan State
138 Maryland
159 Iowa
207 Rutgers
238 Northwestern
Click to expand...
 


let'sbeclear said:
Biggest discrepancies between AVCA rankings and RPI seem to be Purdue at 9 and 24, and Minnesota at 14 and 27.
Click to expand...

Minnesota's issue is the matches with LIU, Green Bay, North Dakota, St. Thomas and Chicago State are real drags on the RPI.

Purdue's issue is that one of their only good wins is over Minnesota, whose RPI is dragged down. :p

The committee doesn't *typically* penalize teams as much as the RPI does for wins over bad teams. As long as Minnesota doesn't drop a match to anyone outside the RPI Top 30, should be good for a top 16 seed. A sweep this week at home versus Washington and Oregon would be quite advantageous.
 

Otoh they could be looking for any excuse to spread the wealth -- give some other schools a shot at hosting. Which, honestly, wouldn't be a bad idea. But I was very surprised they were in the first reveal ...
 

Top 16 question:

If it comes down to Minnesota with a rating of about 17 or 18 or a couple of other schools whose arenas are smaller than the ~5,700 seat Maturi Pavillion, would the Gophers have an advantage of getting that 16th seed?
 

That is a very interesting question Ski U Mah Gopher. It shouldn't matter but the NCAA has proved time and again that cash is king. I'm sure their official answer would be that arena size is not a factor but it would not be surprising at all if it played a role.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom