baywatcher, by your post, it is for the MONEY and the MONEY only
Well, yeah. So?
And are you really arguing that it is bad to select sites with more fan interest?
PSU, Washington, Stanford, Nebraska, Texas -- all seem to get regionals every other year. Hawaii should too, really, but the NCAA is inordinately wrapped around the axle about the long flight for the other three teams and their fans.
I wish it was streamed online because I don't have ESPN News and no bar/restaraunt around here would be willing to put it on during an NFL Sunday
You never know till you ask. About 10 years ago I was in Denver on a Sunday afternoon when a Husker volleyball match was being televised. I call one of the sports bars and they said they'd find a tv off in a corner somewhere so we could watch it. When we got there, and talked to them about it at the door, they arranged for one of the televisions over some pool tables that weren't be used to have our match on. Sat on the edge of the pool table, had a couple of brews and watch the match. I'd do some calling around and you might get lucky.
Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking about American, "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in .. and how many want out."
Re: A seeding nightmare...someone is really going « Result #3 Today at 8:18am »
To me Nebraska is the key. You don't want to put them 8 or 9, unfair to PSU, or 7, unfair to Texas and unprecedented; Nebraska at 6 you would have to put Illinois at 3, after last night and with their libero out? That way Illinois get rewarded, not screwed. Then Stanford at 4, then Iowa State at 5 in either order, leaving Washington at 7. Could happen but Illinois is rewarded for losing at the end?
That's it? That's the indisputable evidence you're supplying to say that, now, Washington deserves the #9 seed? The committee doesn't use only tool to decide the fate of all 16 seeds. That's why there is a LIST. Wait... I said I wasn't going to argue anymore!
Stop baiting me!
You're missing the point being made, and not reading what is being written.
JoannaOR is simply saying that with all the criteria listed, you could often make equal cases for many teams as far as their seeding, or making the tournament; and that given the numerous criteria (which have no real pecking order outside of their 3 groupings) the committee could have a rational argument for interesting placements as they have done in the past.
I don't think Stanford deserves a top seed this year either, BUT since they are hosting a regional, that makes a big difference. You can't send another team as a "higher" seed and pretend Stanford would be the "underdog" at home to that team. That's why I've also tried to seed Nebraska higher as well. If Stanford and Nebraska were not hosting this year, I would've sent them to some other regional with a lower seed for sure.
Last year Nebraska was seeded #4 and Washington was seeded #5, but Washington was the host.
Florida and Minnesota are not going to be the highest seeded teams in their regionals. So why not Stanford and Nebraska?
Yes, and I would've called Nebraska winning an upset over Washington. Poor Penn State has suffered a couple of years being sent to Seattle with Washington seeded "lower" to fit the regional hosting choices. Nebraska will still not be the highest seeded team in it's regional, but they're a hell lot higher playing at home than their #12 RKPI ranking. I would seed them no lower than #8. Stanford's RKPI is #5 already, it's not a stretch to seed them #4 or even #3 against whoever is sent there. Saying they're a #5 underdog to some poor #4 seed sent there would be a joke.
Re: Championship Selection Criteria « Result #7 Today at 8:14am »
Quote:
It is bad enough that they have to play on a foreign floor under normal circumstances. I am not saying Nebraska shouldn't get a regional, but damn it, play on your home gym like all the others are doing.
That's just stupid. Regional hosts are selected by bid process. Any venue in the country can bid to host regionals. The fact that Nebraska is the host school has nothing to do with it. Louisville has hosted regionals in a convention center.
Re: #25 Notre Dame at #15 Florida (Senior Day) « Result #8 Today at 8:11am »
Great. I love humor with thought behind it, even though I don't get it. Stanford band is always getting excluded from venues because of their esoteric criticism of the other team (that tends to be cutting edge).
I don't think Stanford deserves a top seed this year either, BUT since they are hosting a regional, that makes a big difference. You can't send another team as a "higher" seed and pretend Stanford would be the "underdog" at home to that team. That's why I've also tried to seed Nebraska higher as well. If Stanford and Nebraska were not hosting this year, I would've sent them to some other regional with a lower seed for sure.
Last year Nebraska was seeded #4 and Washington was seeded #5, but Washington was the host.
Florida and Minnesota are not going to be the highest seeded teams in their regionals. So why not Stanford and Nebraska?
Re: Stanford: 2009 PAC-10 Champion! « Result #10 Today at 8:05am »
FSN used to (rarely) show some Pac-10 matches live. But not once this season has any broadcast been live.
Two years ago, I recall one "scheduled" live broadcast, which got almost totally pre-empted by a basketball game that went into OT.
It seems like they do these broadcasts because they have a contractual obligation with the Pac-10, not because they really feel like they'll get ratings. Which is a shame, because I think the FSN crews do a far superior job with VB to ESPN. But then they tape-delay them to the point of near worthlessness.
Re: A seeding nightmare...someone is really going « Result #11 Today at 8:04am »
I don't think Stanford deserves a top seed this year either, BUT since they are hosting a regional, that makes a big difference. You can't send another team as a "higher" seed and pretend Stanford would be the "underdog" at home to that team. That's why I've also tried to seed Nebraska higher as well. If Stanford and Nebraska were not hosting this year, I would've sent them to some other regional with a lower seed for sure.
Can someone please explain the thinking (or lack thereof) of Fox Sports Northwest.
They are going to show the Stanford/Cal match for the first time Tuesday evening at 8 p.m.
I fully understand that football and basketball broadcasts are a higher priority. But couldn't they have scheduled this very late Saturday night? Or very early Sunday? Or very late Sunday night? Maybe sometime Monday?
There's a real chicken/egg problem here. The TV types say volleyball doesn't get ratings. But then they put all the money and effort into producing a broadcast only to tape-delay it to the point where no real fan has much interest in watching.
I don't know what's more absurd: 1.) They don't run the f-ing thing until Tuesday; 2.) I'll probably watch anyway.
I forsook my TV privileges so Icouldn't watch, but the Bay Area Fox channel, I believe, showed the program on Saturday. Perhaps because it did not involve Northwest teams the Northwest channel chose to delay. When I did have TV I would watch delayed programs as I always knew who won, anyway. Live would be better and didn't somebody used to do that?
You have three teams from the "weakest" big conference in the top four?
It seems like you're unjustly protecting the Big 12 a little bit dude...
If you want, you can switch Iowa State and Stanford to portect them. However, i originally had Nebraska slightly ahead of Stanford and Washington ahead of both. Again, you can switch Washington and Nebraska and put Nebraska at 5, Washington at 4. Stanford as champ could be at 3, but with 7 losses? Illinois at 8 is a push, and they can be moved to 7, but then the #2 Big Ten team has to play the regional at #3 Big Ten, something that has never happpened. If liinois voves up to 6 then Stanford moves back to 7, Minnesota back to 9 and Florida up to 14, consistent with their RPI.
Re: Stanford: 2009 PAC-10 Champion! « Result #18 Today at 7:53am »
Can someone please explain the thinking (or lack thereof) of Fox Sports Northwest.
They are going to show the Stanford/Cal match for the first time Tuesday evening at 8 p.m.
I fully understand that football and basketball broadcasts are a higher priority. But couldn't they have scheduled this very late Saturday night? Or very early Sunday? Or very late Sunday night? Maybe sometime Monday?
There's a real chicken/egg problem here. The TV types say volleyball doesn't get ratings. But then they put all the money and effort into producing a broadcast only to tape-delay it to the point where no real fan has much interest in watching.
I don't know what's more absurd: 1.) They don't run the f-ing thing until Tuesday; 2.) I'll probably watch anyway.
Re: What happened to global warming? « Result #19 Today at 7:48am »
Hey Big Al! Similarities with our Present World "There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
Players will be as resilient as you expect them to be and as weak as you allow them to be.
Joined: Jun 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 4,089 Location: Tipp City, OH
Re: ESPN: Outside The Lines (Pregnant Athletes) « Result #20 Today at 7:48am »
I saw the piece and was kind of aghast. First, the doctor really does not understand the physical nature of volleyball. I am guessing that he still has the backyard hackball mentality. He also took the girl's description of what her job as setter involved. I think if he would have gone to a volleyball practice he would have seen how many times players have to hit the floor, definitely not good for the player.
I think the coach really messed up with the reaction. There is the privacy issue and as Thrill had noted, the team would have found out eventually. If he was concerned, he could have worked with the doctor and the kid on determining the conditions under which she could play.
The thought of not having an abortion because of her religious beliefs and then thinking about having an abortion just to play volleyball was truly scary and weird. So volleyball trumps religious beliefs too? That is some messed up priorities.
I don't know anything about the school or the league, it was Arlington Heights HS in Arlington Texas, but she didn't look like she was all that as a setter and the game action that they did have were pretty tame.
One last thing. Mireya Luis, the great Cuban outside hitter, was able to hide her pregnancy until she gave birth. She disappeared for a day or two and when the coaches asked, she had gone away to give birth. The coaches just thought she got fat and was out of shape.
[(R)uffda's Blog]
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Logged![[avatar]](http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics24/200/HX/HXBDKMXGOAPWMGD.20081219055709.JPG)
Author
Author![[avatar]](http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f381/buckeyeba/06009529.jpg)
