Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Performance Indicators 2016-17

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

    Jim naum should be proud. All those GLVC schools 200 and 250+.

    Comment


    • Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

      My end-of-year review over the PI's - which seeds were picked? (* indicates auto-bid)

      Atlantic 1, 2*, 3*, 5, 4, 6, 7, 14*
      Central 1*, 2*, 5*, 4, 6, 3, 7, 8
      East 1, 5, 2, 4*, 3*, 6*, 12, 11
      Midwest 1*, 2*, 4, 3*, 6, 5, 8, 7
      South 2*, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 7*, 12*
      Southeast 1*, 2, 5*, 7, 6, 3*, 4, 8
      South Central 1*, 2*, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 10*
      West 2*, 1*, 4*, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

      So, out of the 64-team field, there were three auto-bids outside of the top 8. A total of 6 teams in the top 8 of each region were left out, with the most curious being the East region. It looks to me like Philadelphia and Molloy got screwed.

      Comment


      • Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

        So the only difference in your modified PI and the actual seedings was Truman and Parkside flipped? Personally, I would have rather seen BU playing Truman first. Having to beat a good team 3 times in a season gets tough. Getting revenge on Truman would have been easier and sweeter.

        Comment


        • Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

          Originally posted by KnightStalker View Post
          So the only difference in your modified PI and the actual seedings was Truman and Parkside flipped? Personally, I would have rather seen BU playing Truman first. Having to beat a good team 3 times in a season gets tough. Getting revenge on Truman would have been easier and sweeter.
          My guess is that it stayed TSU 7/UWP 8 was because their overall numbers weren't too far off and TSU won at UWP in the only meeting between the teams this year. Truman also went 4-4 against teams that made the postseason to 2-4 for UWP.

          Comment


          • Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

            Originally posted by schnautza View Post
            My end-of-year review over the PI's - which seeds were picked? (* indicates auto-bid)

            Atlantic 1, 2*, 3*, 5, 4, 6, 7, 14*
            Central 1*, 2*, 5*, 4, 6, 3, 7, 8
            East 1, 5, 2, 4*, 3*, 6*, 12, 11
            Midwest 1*, 2*, 4, 3*, 6, 5, 8, 7
            South 2*, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 7*, 12*
            Southeast 1*, 2, 5*, 7, 6, 3*, 4, 8
            South Central 1*, 2*, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 10*
            West 2*, 1*, 4*, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

            So, out of the 64-team field, there were three auto-bids outside of the top 8. A total of 6 teams in the top 8 of each region were left out, with the most curious being the East region. It looks to me like Philadelphia and Molloy got screwed.
            For comparison's sake, my "modified PI" stacks up like this:
            Atlantic 1, 2*, 4*, 5, 3, 6, 7, 14*
            Central 1*, 2*, 4*, 3, 6, 5, 7, 8
            East 1, 5, 3, 4*, 2*, 6*, 11, 13
            Midwest 1*, 2*, 3, 4*, 5, 6, 8, 7
            South 2*, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 7*, 10*
            Southeast 1*, 2, 3*, 8, 6, 4*, 5, 7
            South Central 1*, 2*, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 10*
            West 2*, 1*, 4*, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

            Comment


            • Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

              Originally posted by schnautza View Post
              For comparison's sake, my "modified PI" stacks up like this:
              Atlantic 1, 2*, 4*, 5, 3, 6, 7, 14*
              Central 1*, 2*, 4*, 3, 6, 5, 7, 8
              East 1, 5, 3, 4*, 2*, 6*, 11, 13
              Midwest 1*, 2*, 3, 4*, 5, 6, 8, 7
              South 2*, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 7*, 10*
              Southeast 1*, 2, 3*, 8, 6, 4*, 5, 7
              South Central 1*, 2*, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 10*
              West 2*, 1*, 4*, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8
              Great job on the predicting the fields through your "modified PI." It looks like almost all the differences were just flip flopping one position one way or the other in seeding except in a few cases like the East and South Central. You mentioned the East teams left out but who was the #6 South Central team who was passed over by both the #7 and #11 PI teams?

              Comment


              • Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

                Originally posted by Panther Express View Post
                Great job on the predicting the fields through your "modified PI." It looks like almost all the differences were just flip flopping one position one way or the other in seeding except in a few cases like the East and South Central. You mentioned the East teams left out but who was the #6 South Central team who was passed over by both the #7 and #11 PI teams?
                For South Central, I believe Westminster is not eligible, but came in at #6 on the official PI. So that one makes sense to me. But then Kingsville jumped over Regis, CSU-Pueblo, and Cameron (8, 9, and 11, respectively), so I'm not sure what they thinking on that.

                In the South region, West Florida was my #6.

                Comment

                Ad3

                Collapse
                Working...
                X