[Softball Fan]

I don't know who does those RPI future calculations.  I haven't looked at it in many years.  I do know odds could change dramatically from week to week.  If Stanford were to win both matches this weekend that prediction for the odds of making top 16 seed would improve substantially. Of course it's also possible Stanford could lose both matches and the odds would fall slightly from 9%.

[Softball Fan]

I don't know who does those RPI future calculations.  I haven't looked at it in many years.  I do know odds could change dramatically from week to week.  If Stanford were to win both matches this weekend that prediction for the odds of making top 16 seed would improve substantially. Of course it's also possible Stanford could lose both matches and the odds would fall slightly from 9%.

[BobK]

Top recruit Mendleson just re classified to 2022. From a 2023.

I do believe we have an opening

[BobK]

Top recruit Mendleson just re classified to 2022. From a 2023.

I do believe we have an opening

[Lorcan]

Mendleson was spotted at Texas this week. It seems like Stanford would be a long shot from an academic standpoint.

[Lorcan]

Mendleson was spotted at Texas this week. It seems like Stanford would be a long shot from an academic standpoint.

[Softball Fan]

Top recruit Mendleson just re classified to 2022.  From a 2023. 

I do believe we have an opening

Here is my fantasy scenario.  Mendleson knows she won't need test scores for Stanford in 2022 so she arranged her high school schedule to graduate in June and avoid taking SATs.

Stanford could really use her.  I'll take your word Stanford has a scholarship available although I don't know where it's coming from.   I doubt Fidelak is on scholarship.  That would only leave one opening.   Elia Rubin has to get a scholarship. As far as pin hitters Stanford has three really big sticks who can't pass worth a darn.   We need a complete player which Rubin is.

Do you know the back story?  Is Mendelson going to graduate an entire year early?  Will she start in the fall of 2022?  If not she won't be playing volleyball next fall.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVMOMBXFd_5/

[Softball Fan]

Top recruit Mendleson just re classified to 2022.  From a 2023. 

I do believe we have an opening

Here is my fantasy scenario.  Mendleson knows she won't need test scores for Stanford in 2022 so she arranged her high school schedule to graduate in June and avoid taking SATs.

Stanford could really use her.  I'll take your word Stanford has a scholarship available although I don't know where it's coming from.   I doubt Fidelak is on scholarship.  That would only leave one opening.   Elia Rubin has to get a scholarship. As far as pin hitters Stanford has three really big sticks who can't pass worth a darn.   We need a complete player which Rubin is.

Do you know the back story?  Is Mendelson going to graduate an entire year early?  Will she start in the fall of 2022?  If not she won't be playing volleyball next fall.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVMOMBXFd_5/

[BostonCard]

Stanford could really use her.  I'll take your word Stanford has a scholarship available although I don't know where it's coming from.   I doubt Fidelak is on scholarship.  That would only leave one opening.   Elia Rubin has to get a scholarship. As far as pin hitters Stanford has three really big sticks who can't pass worth a darn.   We need a complete player which Rubin is.

Is she going to be volleyball only or volleyball/basketball dual?  If the latter, she would be on a basketball scholarship.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford could really use her.  I'll take your word Stanford has a scholarship available although I don't know where it's coming from.   I doubt Fidelak is on scholarship.  That would only leave one opening.   Elia Rubin has to get a scholarship. As far as pin hitters Stanford has three really big sticks who can't pass worth a darn.   We need a complete player which Rubin is.

Is she going to be volleyball only or volleyball/basketball dual?  If the latter, she would be on a basketball scholarship.

BC

[ca245]

The pro-Texas line of thought over on VT goes as follows: (a) the reclassification announcement came shortly after MM visited Texas. (b) If she wants to play both WBB and WVB, Texas has two WBB scholarships open for 2022.

[ca245]

The pro-Texas line of thought over on VT goes as follows: (a) the reclassification announcement came shortly after MM visited Texas. (b) If she wants to play both WBB and WVB, Texas has two WBB scholarships open for 2022.

[joemontes]

The pro-Texas line of thought over on VT goes as follows: (a) the reclassification announcement came shortly after MM visited Texas. (b) If she wants to play both WBB and WVB, Texas has two WBB scholarships open for 2022.

Hmmm, given that behind-the-scene story, plus the fact that their 1st team All-American starting MB Brionne BUTLER has indicated that she will move on to play pro volleyball after this season, it is likely that Texas coach ELLIOTT, working in tandem with Texas WBB coach Vic SCHAEFER, convinced her to reclassify in order to fill up one of their remaining 2022 WBB scholarships, after promising her that she will replace BUTLER in their WVB starting line-up next season while also providing a much-needed imposing post presence for their WBB team.

[joemontes]

The pro-Texas line of thought over on VT goes as follows: (a) the reclassification announcement came shortly after MM visited Texas. (b) If she wants to play both WBB and WVB, Texas has two WBB scholarships open for 2022.

Hmmm, given that behind-the-scene story, plus the fact that their 1st team All-American starting MB Brionne BUTLER has indicated that she will move on to play pro volleyball after this season, it is likely that Texas coach ELLIOTT, working in tandem with Texas WBB coach Vic SCHAEFER, convinced her to reclassify in order to fill up one of their remaining 2022 WBB scholarships, after promising her that she will replace BUTLER in their WVB starting line-up next season while also providing a much-needed imposing post presence for their WBB team.

[BobK]

I’m pretty sure Fidalak is on scholarship. More than pretty sure

Both sports are full scholarship so why one over the other as a counter?
Pretty sure Pam McGee stayed on a WVB Scholie. But that was long ago

[BobK]

I’m pretty sure Fidalak is on scholarship. More than pretty sure

Both sports are full scholarship so why one over the other as a counter?
Pretty sure Pam McGee stayed on a WVB Scholie. But that was long ago

[DC 86]

Both sports are full scholarship so why one over the other as a counter?  
Pretty sure Pam McGee stayed on a WVB  Scholie.  But that was long ago

Both sports are head count sports but there is a hierarchy based on revenue, just as there is for football/basketball on the men's side.

It's covered in NCAA bylaw 15.5.9.2 - a counter who competes in basketball and one or more other sports shall be counted in basketball.

[DC 86]

Both sports are full scholarship so why one over the other as a counter?  
Pretty sure Pam McGee stayed on a WVB  Scholie.  But that was long ago

Both sports are head count sports but there is a hierarchy based on revenue, just as there is for football/basketball on the men's side.

It's covered in NCAA bylaw 15.5.9.2 - a counter who competes in basketball and one or more other sports shall be counted in basketball.

[ca245]

Both sports are full scholarship so why one over the other as a counter?  
Pretty sure Pam McGee stayed on a WVB  Scholie.  But that was long ago

Both sports are head count sports but there is a hierarchy based on revenue, just as there is for football/basketball on the men's side.

It's covered in NCAA bylaw 15.5.9.2 - a counter who competes in basketball and one or more other sports shall be counted in basketball.

Is the hierarchy spelled out, or is it based on actual revenue? I would think that at Nebraska WVB brings in more revenue than WBB.

[ca245]

Both sports are full scholarship so why one over the other as a counter?  
Pretty sure Pam McGee stayed on a WVB  Scholie.  But that was long ago

Both sports are head count sports but there is a hierarchy based on revenue, just as there is for football/basketball on the men's side.

It's covered in NCAA bylaw 15.5.9.2 - a counter who competes in basketball and one or more other sports shall be counted in basketball.

Is the hierarchy spelled out, or is it based on actual revenue? I would think that at Nebraska WVB brings in more revenue than WBB.

[DC 86]

Both sports are full scholarship so why one over the other as a counter?  
Pretty sure Pam McGee stayed on a WVB  Scholie.  But that was long ago

Both sports are head count sports but there is a hierarchy based on revenue, just as there is for football/basketball on the men's side.

It's covered in NCAA bylaw 15.5.9.2 - a counter who competes in basketball and one or more other sports shall be counted in basketball.

Is the hierarchy spelled out, or is it based on actual revenue? I would think that at Nebraska WVB brings in more revenue than WBB.

It's spelled out. It corresponds to revenue in the aggregate sense (not specific to each school) so I was inferring how the list was constructed, but in any case it's static. There is a chart in the NCAA bylaws (figure 15-3, "Where To Count Student Athletes Who Participate in More Than One Intercollegiate Sport") but I don't know how to embed it here. In any case:

1. Football
2. Basketball
3. Men's Ice Hockey
4. Women's Volleyball

If an athlete participates in both Men's Swimming AND Men's Water Polo he counts for Swimming, however if an athlete participates in Men's Swimming OR Men's Water Polo and another sport (other than football, basketball or ice hockey) he can be counted in either of his sports.

[DC 86]

Both sports are full scholarship so why one over the other as a counter?  
Pretty sure Pam McGee stayed on a WVB  Scholie.  But that was long ago

Both sports are head count sports but there is a hierarchy based on revenue, just as there is for football/basketball on the men's side.

It's covered in NCAA bylaw 15.5.9.2 - a counter who competes in basketball and one or more other sports shall be counted in basketball.

Is the hierarchy spelled out, or is it based on actual revenue? I would think that at Nebraska WVB brings in more revenue than WBB.

It's spelled out. It corresponds to revenue in the aggregate sense (not specific to each school) so I was inferring how the list was constructed, but in any case it's static. There is a chart in the NCAA bylaws (figure 15-3, "Where To Count Student Athletes Who Participate in More Than One Intercollegiate Sport") but I don't know how to embed it here. In any case:

1. Football
2. Basketball
3. Men's Ice Hockey
4. Women's Volleyball

If an athlete participates in both Men's Swimming AND Men's Water Polo he counts for Swimming, however if an athlete participates in Men's Swimming OR Men's Water Polo and another sport (other than football, basketball or ice hockey) he can be counted in either of his sports.

[johnbar]

Regarding RPI futures:  the predictions are based on the Pablo ratings, and for some reason, Pablo has not been kind to Stanford this year. 
Winning will fix that.

[johnbar]

Regarding RPI futures:  the predictions are based on the Pablo ratings, and for some reason, Pablo has not been kind to Stanford this year. 
Winning will fix that.

[Softball Fan]

There were a couple guys posting on a Nebraska WBB message board the last few days that Maggie Mendelson is destined to be a Husker.  They said Nebraska volleyball loses it top three MBs for next year and the plan is for her to play VB in 2022 and also BB.  According to them Texas is the only other school in the picture and Stanford is no longer there.

Of course these guys are just speculating and have no idea what is in Mendelson's thoughts.

---

While I'm here a few thoughts on NCAA WVB RPI which is calculated differently than WBB RPI.    For the longest time it was done in a simple straightforward manner.

25% for W/L record
50% for opponent's W/L record
25% for opponent's opponent's W/L record

It's easy to deduce a win or loss against a team only carried 25% of the weight.

Admittedly I haven't gotten into the weeds for a number of years.  I believe some years ago they tweaked the calculations to add some weight for a good win/bad loss, home/away/neutral site, and sweep/no sweep.

[Softball Fan]

There were a couple guys posting on a Nebraska WBB message board the last few days that Maggie Mendelson is destined to be a Husker.  They said Nebraska volleyball loses it top three MBs for next year and the plan is for her to play VB in 2022 and also BB.  According to them Texas is the only other school in the picture and Stanford is no longer there.

Of course these guys are just speculating and have no idea what is in Mendelson's thoughts.

---

While I'm here a few thoughts on NCAA WVB RPI which is calculated differently than WBB RPI.    For the longest time it was done in a simple straightforward manner.

25% for W/L record
50% for opponent's W/L record
25% for opponent's opponent's W/L record

It's easy to deduce a win or loss against a team only carried 25% of the weight.

Admittedly I haven't gotten into the weeds for a number of years.  I believe some years ago they tweaked the calculations to add some weight for a good win/bad loss, home/away/neutral site, and sweep/no sweep.

[teejers1]

Regarding RPI futures:  the predictions are based on the Pablo ratings, and for some reason, Pablo has not been kind to Stanford this year. 
Winning will fix that.

Pablo . . . Pablo?  

Dean Wormer, Tony Montana, or Spicoli may have said it best:

https://imgur.com/r/elfa82/1R03gpV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsboRHGzn2g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ektZ_RC1VL8

[teejers1]

Regarding RPI futures:  the predictions are based on the Pablo ratings, and for some reason, Pablo has not been kind to Stanford this year. 
Winning will fix that.

Pablo . . . Pablo?  

Dean Wormer, Tony Montana, or Spicoli may have said it best:

https://imgur.com/r/elfa82/1R03gpV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsboRHGzn2g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ektZ_RC1VL8

[CTcard]

While I'm here a few thoughts on NCAA WVB RPI which is calculated differently than WBB RPI.    For the longest time it was done in a simple straightforward manner.


25% for W/L record

50% for opponent's W/L record

25% for opponent's opponent's W/L record



It's easy to deduce a win or loss against a team only carried 25% of the weight.



Admittedly I haven't gotten into the weeds for a number of years.  I believe some years ago they tweaked the calculations to add some weight for a good win/bad loss, home/away/neutral site, and sweep/no sweep.

From what I can find on the web, it does not appear that volleyball makes any adjustments to the simple RPI formula - though I didn't find anything official looking.

Stanford's RPI takes two substantial hits. Stanford has the worst winning percentage of any team in the top 20 (68.75%) because they have played a very tough schedule. Also, despite that tough schedule, Stanford has three opponents with terrible winning percentages: Temple (26.3%), cal (36.8%) and OSU (16.7%).

The example somebody complained about is Tennessee. Their winning percentage is 83.3%. They seem to have only played one team with a horrendous winning percentage: Purdue Fort Wayne (21.8%). They have also managed to play some teams in lower leagues who have a good winning percentage like Jacksonville St (81%).

RPI is a simple formula that doesn't exactly care how good the team is one is playing. Playing good teams that also play tough schedules tends to hurt one's RPI. Playing the better teams in weak leagues tends to help one's RPI.

[CTcard]

While I'm here a few thoughts on NCAA WVB RPI which is calculated differently than WBB RPI.    For the longest time it was done in a simple straightforward manner.


25% for W/L record

50% for opponent's W/L record

25% for opponent's opponent's W/L record



It's easy to deduce a win or loss against a team only carried 25% of the weight.



Admittedly I haven't gotten into the weeds for a number of years.  I believe some years ago they tweaked the calculations to add some weight for a good win/bad loss, home/away/neutral site, and sweep/no sweep.

From what I can find on the web, it does not appear that volleyball makes any adjustments to the simple RPI formula - though I didn't find anything official looking.

Stanford's RPI takes two substantial hits. Stanford has the worst winning percentage of any team in the top 20 (68.75%) because they have played a very tough schedule. Also, despite that tough schedule, Stanford has three opponents with terrible winning percentages: Temple (26.3%), cal (36.8%) and OSU (16.7%).

The example somebody complained about is Tennessee. Their winning percentage is 83.3%. They seem to have only played one team with a horrendous winning percentage: Purdue Fort Wayne (21.8%). They have also managed to play some teams in lower leagues who have a good winning percentage like Jacksonville St (81%).

RPI is a simple formula that doesn't exactly care how good the team is one is playing. Playing good teams that also play tough schedules tends to hurt one's RPI. Playing the better teams in weak leagues tends to help one's RPI.

[joemontes]

While I'm here a few thoughts on NCAA WVB RPI which is calculated differently than WBB RPI.    For the longest time it was done in a simple straightforward manner.

25% for W/L record
50% for opponent's W/L record
25% for opponent's opponent's W/L record

It's easy to deduce a win or loss against a team only carried 25% of the weight.

Admittedly I haven't gotten into the weeds for a number of years.  I believe some years ago they tweaked the calculations to add some weight for a good win/bad loss, home/away/neutral site, and sweep/no sweep.

From what I can find on the web, it does not appear that volleyball makes any adjustments to the simple RPI formula - though I didn't find anything official looking.

Stanford's RPI takes two substantial hits. Stanford has the worst winning percentage of any team in the top 20 (68.75%) because they have played a very tough schedule. Also, despite that tough schedule, Stanford has three opponents with terrible winning percentages: Temple (26.3%), cal (36.8%) and OSU (16.7%).

The example somebody complained about is Tennessee. Their winning percentage is 83.3%. They seem to have only played one team with a horrendous winning percentage: Purdue Fort Wayne (21.8%). They have also managed to play some teams in lower leagues who have a good winning percentage like Jacksonville St (81%).

RPI is a simple formula that doesn't exactly care how good the team is one is playing. Playing good teams that also play tough schedules tends to hurt one's RPI. Playing the better teams in weak leagues tends to help one's RPI.

Thank you for the clear explanation of what RPI provides and its possible subsequent repercussions in the form of punishing teams like Stanford who lose early on due to an ambitiously tough schedule or somehow rewarding teams like Tennessee with not-so-tough schedules but who accumulate wins vs top teams from mid-major conferences.

[joemontes]

While I'm here a few thoughts on NCAA WVB RPI which is calculated differently than WBB RPI.    For the longest time it was done in a simple straightforward manner.

25% for W/L record
50% for opponent's W/L record
25% for opponent's opponent's W/L record

It's easy to deduce a win or loss against a team only carried 25% of the weight.

Admittedly I haven't gotten into the weeds for a number of years.  I believe some years ago they tweaked the calculations to add some weight for a good win/bad loss, home/away/neutral site, and sweep/no sweep.

From what I can find on the web, it does not appear that volleyball makes any adjustments to the simple RPI formula - though I didn't find anything official looking.

Stanford's RPI takes two substantial hits. Stanford has the worst winning percentage of any team in the top 20 (68.75%) because they have played a very tough schedule. Also, despite that tough schedule, Stanford has three opponents with terrible winning percentages: Temple (26.3%), cal (36.8%) and OSU (16.7%).

The example somebody complained about is Tennessee. Their winning percentage is 83.3%. They seem to have only played one team with a horrendous winning percentage: Purdue Fort Wayne (21.8%). They have also managed to play some teams in lower leagues who have a good winning percentage like Jacksonville St (81%).

RPI is a simple formula that doesn't exactly care how good the team is one is playing. Playing good teams that also play tough schedules tends to hurt one's RPI. Playing the better teams in weak leagues tends to help one's RPI.

Thank you for the clear explanation of what RPI provides and its possible subsequent repercussions in the form of punishing teams like Stanford who lose early on due to an ambitiously tough schedule or somehow rewarding teams like Tennessee with not-so-tough schedules but who accumulate wins vs top teams from mid-major conferences.

[Softball Fan]

Yes, that's a good analysis CTcard.   Stanford could carefully select the teams in weak leagues who were expected to finish near the top of their conference.  Provided those teams played their non-conference schedule in a cocoon of even weaker teams it would work out.  However if those teams chose a more challenging non-conference schedule and lost most of those matches it would be counter-productive.

I think Hambly made the right choices for non-conference opponents.  I think finding out a team's weaknesses and area for improvement early in the season are more important than beating up on cupcakes.   Of course you never know how good teams will be; i.e. Florida turned out to be something of a disappointment.

Once again thanks for your research.  I couldn't summon the motivation to scour the internet for recent updates to  Volleyball RPI calculations.


Stanford plays Cal at the end of the season which is usually a day or two before the selection committee finalizes the NCAA bracket.  I'm hoping they use the pre-Cal RPI for their decisions.

[Softball Fan]

Yes, that's a good analysis CTcard.   Stanford could carefully select the teams in weak leagues who were expected to finish near the top of their conference.  Provided those teams played their non-conference schedule in a cocoon of even weaker teams it would work out.  However if those teams chose a more challenging non-conference schedule and lost most of those matches it would be counter-productive.

I think Hambly made the right choices for non-conference opponents.  I think finding out a team's weaknesses and area for improvement early in the season are more important than beating up on cupcakes.   Of course you never know how good teams will be; i.e. Florida turned out to be something of a disappointment.

Once again thanks for your research.  I couldn't summon the motivation to scour the internet for recent updates to  Volleyball RPI calculations.


Stanford plays Cal at the end of the season which is usually a day or two before the selection committee finalizes the NCAA bracket.  I'm hoping they use the pre-Cal RPI for their decisions.

[BostonCard]

If one's goal is to maximize RPI, the best way to do so is exactly how you suggest, paloalto.  Beat on the best teams in poor conferences; it will hurt the second level opponents of opponents score a little bit, but that counts for only 25%, and in any case tends to have a narrower band.

But I think gaming the RPI shouldn't be our goal.  I like that we played a tough non-conference season, as we are a young team, and that was the best way to get identify team weaknesses and get the team used to tough matches.  Losing to Texas hurts us in RPI more than beating the best team in a bad conference would, but in losing to Texas we can benchmark ourselves in a way that beating an automatic qualifier won't.  Since the team's goal is to go as far as possible in the NCAA tournament, and we have ambitions beyond just making it to the round of 16, ultimately we are going to have to play, and figure out how to beat, top-10 teams.  So, as they say, "bring it on".

BC

[BostonCard]

If one's goal is to maximize RPI, the best way to do so is exactly how you suggest, paloalto.  Beat on the best teams in poor conferences; it will hurt the second level opponents of opponents score a little bit, but that counts for only 25%, and in any case tends to have a narrower band.

But I think gaming the RPI shouldn't be our goal.  I like that we played a tough non-conference season, as we are a young team, and that was the best way to get identify team weaknesses and get the team used to tough matches.  Losing to Texas hurts us in RPI more than beating the best team in a bad conference would, but in losing to Texas we can benchmark ourselves in a way that beating an automatic qualifier won't.  Since the team's goal is to go as far as possible in the NCAA tournament, and we have ambitions beyond just making it to the round of 16, ultimately we are going to have to play, and figure out how to beat, top-10 teams.  So, as they say, "bring it on".

BC

[Softball Fan]

Latest RPI rankings for 10/24/2021:

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball...eyball-rpi

Stanford drops one spot to #17.  The only other PAC-12 team in the top 20 is UCLA at #11.   I remember when the PAC-12/PAC-10 was the center of college WVB.  Those days are gone and never coming back.

Oregon State at #223 and Cal at #235. Those two teams are going to sink Stanford's chances of being in the top 16 RPI at the end of the season.

[Softball Fan]

Latest RPI rankings for 10/24/2021:

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball...eyball-rpi

Stanford drops one spot to #17.  The only other PAC-12 team in the top 20 is UCLA at #11.   I remember when the PAC-12/PAC-10 was the center of college WVB.  Those days are gone and never coming back.

Oregon State at #223 and Cal at #235. Those two teams are going to sink Stanford's chances of being in the top 16 RPI at the end of the season.

[BostonCard]

I remember when the PAC-12/PAC-10 was the center of college WVB.  Those days are gone and never coming back.

Why not?  Who would have guessed that the Pac-12 would become the center of college WBB, but here we are.

BC

[BostonCard]

I remember when the PAC-12/PAC-10 was the center of college WVB.  Those days are gone and never coming back.

Why not?  Who would have guessed that the Pac-12 would become the center of college WBB, but here we are.

BC