There certainly is consensus for the top 12. Anybody having it any different is just “splitting hairs.” The real debate is for the 5 teams in the group from #13 to #17 and then the other 5 from #19 to #23, as it seems Misericordia is a solid #18 between these two layers. That is for everybody except Massey’s? I think it seems apparent his model is carrying a little too much residual from last season after taking note of Wentworth, Nichols, MIT, Misericordia, and maybe even Hobart too, as they didn’t have a team last year. That is exactly the point – Tough to compete with favorable residuals when you have none to rely on.
I am wondering why the KPI and the Coaches are slow acting on Augustana? They have what’s usually required to get noticed by NCAA experts: [1] A stellar W-L Record (17-4), [2] A signature win – Swept NC 3-0 after losing 3-2 earlier in the season for a 5-3 set advantage on the year, and [3] A competitive grinding spirit evidenced by winning 101 of 205 points against Carthage just 4 days before the NC win. I am attempting to discover why KPI seems to treat our friends in the mid-west a little more harshly than logic suggest it ought. Dude who built it works for Sparty (Michigan State) in their part of the country, too, sort of… I will give him a few more days to answer my inquiry seeing that Tom Izzo and the boys took it on the chin last weekend, and it may take a little time to get right.
It looks to me that IH’s algorithm is a little indifferent to Stevens, Springfield, NYU, New Paltz and Lasell as I scan the charts this week. The question to the Jeopardy statement is, “Who are 5 squads whose consensus SOS is among the top 8 in the country.”
Last is the most noticeable by the masses- The T100. It is the only model still clinging to Stevens as the #1, even while the other 3 undefeated teams continue to roll. Completely illogical given their loss was to one of them, too. It will likely stay this way, only allowing the others to catch up if they defeat enough worthy opponents to steal more points than Steven’s does, should it continue to win its matches. So with Stevens having Vassar as 1 of its remaining 3 on the schedule, a win there will likely make it so Southern Virginia and Wentworth can’t possibly steal enough points in their last 4, no opponent being presently ranked in the top 20. Should Stevens be defeated by Vassar, then it would be likely to lose its standing on the perch to one of them! Loras has its last 3 against teams all on the list below, so earning solid points is doable, but being still more than a full point back, I can’t see it happening. These 4 teams, nonetheless, continue to widen the gap relative to the field!
However, if I was handicapping a FINAL FOUR with these teams right now, giving no regard to the T100 model, I would have Stevens playing Southern Virginia in the NCAA Championship Match. At a -120 ML on the books to start at the MGM, which means the odds would be slightly favoring Stevens (6:5 for them or 5:6 against them, i.e. about a 55% chance to win it) to repeat in 2024. This means anybody could bet $100 to make $110 on Southern Virginia, who has only lost 1 set all year. Of course thinking winning 3 on the same day just wouldn’t be doable for anybody, even the likes of Stevens! Personally, I would bet both ways, pay the $10 difference, and sit back to see if the Knights Nasty D can thwart the Mighty Ducks ridiculously high powered offense. I’d pay $10 for that opportunity, and enjoy it rather than squeezing for just one side. Also, it would allow me to do what every gambler I know already does, simply share with anybody about how much I won, never mentioning the loss. LOL
I essentially threw one little chink in the armor of every one of the 5 expert models to simply make the point, “It takes the whole team to get it right.” If I could just find a 6th we’d have a starting squad! Anybody know a guy who knows a guy who wants to join the expert ranks?
Not going to begin doing serving analysis tonight, but I want to give a heads up to a new graphic which will come into play next week some time. The green circle represents 38% of the points won by a serving team and the red areas are the 62% side-out rate of their opponent. These are two very functional teams, pretty much like any two on the list above, though even that is a wide breadth of talent. The 4 quadrants in this graphic describe how the points might be expected to be earned as they all add to 100%. Suffice it to say a serving team who gets possession (happens about 50%) has about a 3 in 5 chance to earn the point, while not getting possession (the other 50%) it will have about a 1 in 6 chance of earning it. (Aces, Blocks, Hitting Errors)
Here is kind of a bizarre take:
- Assume Team A defeats Team B 25-23.
- Assume the set takes 24 minutes to play. (30 seconds per point on average.)
- There will be roughly 20% terminal points (~10 total, i.e. ~5 apiece) – Leaving 38.
- The serving team wins 41.25% of those 38 live balls served. (33% of 80% – see above)
- The receiving team wins 58.75% of those 38 live balls served. (47% of 80% – see above)
- So 16 balls (15.7) are point scores and 22 balls (22.3) are side outs.
- Since A won by two points, the live-ball play must have been 20-18 in A’s favor.
- Team A must have won points 9 to 7 and side-outs would be 11 to 11.
- So 25 years ago the score would have been 14-12. Pretty close to 15 … huh?
Leads me to the following conclusion for competition between two really functional teams like A & B: Any which earns one live-ball service point every 2 min 40 sec will likely win the set. (A second, third, or fourth ace would each substitute to get to that 9 total, too. And that would take less time off the clock, thereby improving the chances to get to 9 before the clock strikes the 24th minute.) WHAT?
Like I mentioned in my bio – Too much time on my hands It’s tickin’ away with my sanity…
Next Up! Conference Corner – Cuatro
You must be logged in to post a comment.