Talk:UAAP Season 77 volleyball tournaments

Points system

So is the UAAP using the FIVB points system or the old way of using winning percentage? They used the latter last year. –HTD 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, people have been ranking teams by wins, instead of FIVB points. I've reverted several of those edits already. If people are ranking by wins, we might as well use the template the basketball tournaments is using. –HTD 09:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Howard the Duck:, my apologies for the late reply. Regarding your question, I believe rankings should be based on winning percentage. AFAIK, FIVB points are only used to break ties among teams that will have no immediate advantage (i.e., #1 and #2, #3 and #4). As an example, the FIVB points system was first used in UAAP Season 75. The Lady Bulldogs had more points scored (27) than the Lady Falcons (26) but the latter ended up at #3 due to superior winning percentage. The Lady Bulldogs and the Tigresses, tied with an 8-6 W-L card, battled for the #4 despite the former garnering more points. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks -VC 09:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My reading of that scenario was that the UAAP ditched the FIVB points system, used PCT, then if there was a tie, they used sets ratio, then points ratio. –HTD 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that. If I remember correctly, I really believe the points are just used to break ties. Whatever the case, I guess we'll find out at the end of the season. -VC 19:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The logic is you can't use the FIVB points system and PCT at the same time; it's all or nothing. You can't use the same "stat" (in this case, matches won) twice in classifying teams. Further looking at the incidences of "ties", the UAAP had a playoff for #4 seed in the UAAP Season 75 volleyball tournaments#Women's tournament even if the teams finished unequal on points, but equal on winning percentage. If they truly used points as primary classification, a playoff should had not been played, and NU should had been #3. Instead, NU had to play UST for #4, and had a chance of being eliminated, despite finishing third on points! If they're using points at all in any method of classifying teams, that should had never happened.

Either way, almost all of the standings published for the UAAP uses winning percentage, not this points system; therefore if this article is using the points system, it's making up stuff. –HTD 13:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was what I was saying too. I really believe that the points system will only come into play when there are ties among the teams that don't necessarily have an advantage (i.e., the #1 and the #2, #3 and the #4, and ties among the 5th to 8th seed). If there are no ties, the winning percentage stands. -VC 11:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is you can't use both. You could only use one. If they're using PCT, they're not using the points system anymore to break ties; the FIVB points system can only be used as the primary way of ranking teams, not as a tiebreaker. If they're using PCT as the primary way to rank teams, the standings here should use PCT (and GB?) instead of the points system. –HTD 15:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the UAAP is using the PCT as a primary way of ranking teams. However, let's say Ateneo and La Salle ends up tied at #1 with a 13-1 record, the points system will be used to determine who gets #1 and who gets #2. The same goes for ties between the #3 and #4 seed. The points system comes into play for playoff positioning and for the final standings among tied teams for the 5th to 8th seeds. So in essence, they will be using the Points, Sets Ratio,and Points Ratio as a secondary way of ranking the teams in case PCT will not be enough. -VC 01:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I dunno if "Pts." is even into the mix at all. They could might as well skip it entirely. This means PCT has to be in the standing tables while Pts. has to be relegated, if even displayed at all, as almost all standings tables I see display PCT and never Pts. –HTD 03:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is any way we can confirm the rules applied, I think we should leave that as is right now. I'll change it myself if we get confirmation of the rules. -VC 06:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

But there's even no confirmation that we're using the FIVB's rules on ranking teams. Everybody else ranks by PCT. We'd follow what most practically all of our sources tells us. –HTD 17:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's true. There are, however, a few pages here and there that rank the teams as I did. But let's at least keep it this way until the end of the season so we can be sure of what the official rules are. -VC 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to wait. They didn't rank it via points (at least primarily) last season. Practically all of the standings published have them ranked by PCT. There's no reason to use points, as I see it. –HTD 16:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's where we vary. For now, I believe they use the points to break the ties. Unless we get a clear confirmation of how teams are really ranked, let's leave the template as it is now. Or we could ask someone else to pitch in their ideas about this. -VC 03:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They're "really ranked" via PCT. It's a travesty we don't put the statistic on how teams are actually ranked over a, gasp, tiebreaker. 95% of standings published elsewhere use PCT. Wikipedia is the only place that I know that displays this point system for this tournament. This is a failure of WP:RS. There's no need to wait. –HTD 04:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To point out further absurdity, it's you who's enforcing PCT in the tables, but there's no PCT column at all. This makes the tables look badly ranked. –HTD 04:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well if you're going to insist doing it your way, then by all means, change the template yourself. After all, this is not solely my page. Just like everyone else, I am just doing my part to keep this page as updated as I possibly can. If at the end of the season they really do use that Pts column, then let's revert it back. Simple as that. -VC 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, it is my belief that the points system will come into play for seedings, final elims rankings, and for tiebreakers. If you believe otherwise, then go ahead and change the template. Just make sure we're using the correct rankings and template at the end of the elimination round. -VC 01:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really "my way" TBH, just "the way of almost all of the reliable sources". AFAIK, this is the only team standings table in the Wikipedia that doesn't show on the table how the teams are primarily ranked. We're showing supposedly the secondary basis on how they're ranked. That's just wrong. –HTD 17:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Then I guess we just have to add the percentage column beside the Loss column. -VC 01:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it has been established that the UAAP doesn't use "points" as the primary way of ranking teams, otherwise there wouldn't be a playoff for #4 as UST isn't tied with any other team, it's a good idea to use the standing templates other sports use other than this one, which promotes the idea that "points" is the primary criterion when it isn't. –HTD 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Elimination round game results

Please, stop making this article a stats dump. Sports season articles don't have results from individual regular season/"elimination round" games unless it's a continental-level tournament or higher (or if the league is based in Australia). The results table is enough in this regard. The individual game results don't help the reader but just makes it longer. –HTD 14:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'd agree not to list the elimination round games. Once the playoffs start it would had been a lot harder to navigate the article. In a 14-game season, tiebreakers would seldom go to points ratio as sets ratio would be enough, as this is what is displayed on the results table: sets won; while the points scored would only be the stat missing in the results table, which is almost never used. 124.107.169.10 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we ask the opinion of @Voncabriga: who's non-action on this seems quite appalling. –HTD 09:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Howard the Duck:, my apologies for the late reply or non-action. I have been quite busy lately. Regardless, I also agree not to post the elimination round game results since, yes, they do make the page too long. I edited it once since I thought it was what the other wanted. With that said, let's keep the page the same way it was last year. -VC 09:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)