The RPIs including today’s games:
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/40648
Just my two cents after watching UOP and Stanford (and everyone else play this weekend) and reading all the above coin-toss comments. Stanford is the better team (imo), and greater emphasis should always be given to the team that’s played “tougher” opponents which Stanford clearly has…but that’s just me. Otherwise, its gonna go south with those gaming the system as opposed to teams who actively seek out tougher opponents in their quest to punch above their weight. If UOP gets the nod, I believe it sets a bad precedent for the game going forward.
2 Likes
Stanford’s schedule was much more difficult than Pacific’s. Stanford deserves the second at-large bid. I will be surprised if the Committee gives Pacific the second at-large bid, but stranger things have happened.
Here are my predictions for the seedings and the tournament:
- UCLA
- USC
- Stanford
- Fordham
- Princeton
- LBSU
- Cal Baptist
- Salem
If these are the seedings, here are my predictions for the tournament:
First round:
UCLA over Salem easily
USC over Cal Baptist by at least 4
Stanford over LBSU by 3 to 4
Princeton over Fordham by at least 2
Semifinals:
UCLA over Princeton by 3 or more
Stanford over USC by 1
Finals:
UCLA over Stanford by at least 2
1 Like
Changes will have to be made for next year. But based on the criteria set out, UOP has it for this year. The Cal loss will likely factor in. It’s unfortunate the better team is left out and teams were allowed to clearly game the system (or work it positively based on how the system was drawn up—whatever your perspective).
If Stanford gets seeded over Fordham, I would be surprised. Stanford lost to a Cal team that lost to Pepperdine, UCI, Princeton and LBSU. Losses matter and that one is going to be staring at them when they are evaluating W/L record.
1 Like
If UOP gets in then Stanford should have played UOP this year… Stanford would have easily won and wouldn’t be in this spot. That decision cost them so I’m feeling neutral on whoever gets it.
Who is the last team to host NCAAs but not receive a bid to play in it?
Did you see who CBC lost to? and yet beat Pacific at Pacific?
Sorry, no way Pacific should go, but agree, Stanford put themselves in a position to let a committee choose.
Interesting question. Looks like 2011 when Cal hosted
No way UOP should go. It’s ridiculous
2 Likes
How much does it hurt Fordham–not in RPI, but in being ready to play their best water polo–that it’s been a month since their last game decided by a margin of less than 5 goals? Princeton tuned up for their conference tournament with games against Harvard and Brown (both wins by 4 goals), but didn’t see much competition in NEWPC tournament. All of the other 6 teams in the NCAA tournament have recent close games, many of them in high stakes situation. That difference in preparation for close games may show.
Would be a shame if Stanford (who hasn’t been ranked below top three all year in the AP polls all year) falls to UoP for the at-large. Their schedule has been head and shoulders more difficult than Pacific’s.
Also on a different note - if we are to compare Stanford’s loss to Cal vs. Pacific’s loss to CBU:
(No disrespect to CBU, but any of the top 3 teams would most likely beat them by 5 or 6 goals at least imo)
Cal has only lost to top 10 ranked opponents while CBU has a similar record against those same foes but includes losses to Harvard and Brown (twice).
This leads me to believe that anyone who has any knowledge of collegiate water polo should select Stanford over Pacific for the second at-large bid because, personally, I think that this RPI talk is nonsense - any of the MPSF teams (besides Cal) should be seeded at the top of the pack sheerly due to the fact that their opponents are better than the opponents of the likings of Pacific.
Yes, Pacific has a better overall record than Stanford, but the strength of schedule needs to be put into consideration. Pacific’s schedule is clearly weaker than Stanford’s and I think that this should be looked at as the first criteria (especially since Pacific has not played a single MPSF team this whole year).
2 Likes
Strongly disagree. If UOP does not get the bid then it means there are no rules and the system is corrupt. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the criteria for awarding the at large bid is published. There are seven criteria. UOP wins 4 of those criteria outright, and ties in the other three. Stanford wins zero of the criteria.
The above graphic was taken from the Water Polo Wednesday show where they broke down the entire process. All credit goes to them.
The ONLY advantage Stanford has is political power. If the political advantage overrides the published rules, I feel that sets a horrible precedent for water polo. For the betterment of the sport, I hope Stanford does not get the nod.
2 Likes
UoP may get the at large bid this year based on the criteria, but I’m of the opinion (and think others are too) that if that is the case then the criteria needs to be reexamined.
3 Likes
“Objective Metrics”? (laughing now).
1 Like
I’m with Breck. I’d be interested in what metrics WPW used to give Pacific a stronger strength of schedule than Stanford, and the RPI algorithm for the same reason. I also hope the last 10 games category looks at the level of competition in those games. Stanford’s last 10 games include 6 against top 10 ranked programs. Pacific’s last 10 have 4 games against top 10 opponents. Pacific’s highest ranked opponent was Fordham at #5; Stanford played UCLA (#1) and USC (ranked #2 and #3 in those games.) The selection committee is doing to do what they’re going to do, but if Pacific gets in, we should look at the selection criteria.
2 Likes
How does strength of schedule calculated/measured as I don’t see how Stanford’s schedule was weaker than of UOP!!!
It’s unlikely but a play-in home and away (2 games) would be awesome to decide who goes.
It is right here. The stat to look at is SOS (Opp. Success).
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/division_ranking_reports/40610
1 Like
I don’t think anyone on here knows what the actual SOS criteria is. I know that it’s different from RPI and RPI is the last criteria. As I said in a previous post, the secondary criteria looks dicey for Stanford. It’s also not subjective. They don’t get to go rogue. What will be really terrible is if they give UOP a 2 or 3 seed. I hope they get UCLA in that 2nd game and not Fordham.
Love it or hate it, the NCAA is not the 8 best teams in the country. UOP and Stanford both did not win their automatic conference spot, so their fate is left to the committee and to the agreed upon criteria. Could the criteria be improved? (Yes) Would it be great to see the selection decided upon a play-in matchup or expanded selection? (Yes) But this is what we have - UOP better satisfies the criteria while Stanford wins the eye test. And there are a lot of legacy factors that go into where the teams are today - why Stanford has to play D3 teams, why Pacific schedules the way they do, e.g. And if Stanford misses out, people can be upset (and vice versa with Pacific), but they should have won their conference if they didn’t want it in the hands of the criteria/committee.