|
Post by chipNdink on Nov 26, 2006 0:41:04 GMT -5
There is no way Nebraska will be sent to Washington (thankfully) given that Washington will in no way be as low as an 8 seed. Don't forget the NCAA uses the RPI rather than the AVCA ranking as their guide to seeding.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Nov 26, 2006 0:44:36 GMT -5
There is no way Nebraska will be sent to Washington (thankfully) given that Washington will in no way be as low as an 8 seed. Don't forget the NCAA uses the RPI rather than the AVCA ranking as their guide to seeding. True, I just find it hard to believe that they would seed the runner-up team in the toughest conference that low. Especially since they did sweep Stanford themselves at home.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Nov 26, 2006 0:49:56 GMT -5
Well, 2 years ago, the NCAA fudged Washington's seeding down to 8th in order to send #1 ranked Penn State there, even though Washington was Pac-10 Champ that year. Why should Nebraska get any better treatment than Penn State? Especially since the Final Four is already sold out, so the NCAA doesn't have to worry about getting Nebraska back there in order to generate ticket sales.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 26, 2006 0:52:16 GMT -5
Nebraska has been screwed over in the past by the Committee (2002). I think it's safe to so that the only darling in the eyes of the Committee is Penn State.
|
|
|
Post by Ye Olde Dawg on Nov 26, 2006 1:24:16 GMT -5
Nebraska has been screwed over in the past by the Committee (2002). I think it's safe to so that the only darling in the eyes of the Committee is Penn State. Now watch them send Penn State to Seattle
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Nov 26, 2006 1:26:01 GMT -5
In 2004, before Penn State could unfairly face a #2 regional seed on its home court (Washington), they lost to a #4 regional seed on a neutral court (UCLA). Like Nebraska, Penn State's best beef that year would be about who they played, not about where they played them... the gross, systematic underseeding of the Pac-10 that year screwed both teams.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 26, 2006 1:58:12 GMT -5
The complaint for PSU actaually can be stated as where they played.
They had to travel through 3 time zones to play in Seattle while Hawaii have to travel through at least as many time zones to play in Green Bay.
It didn't make sense to put either team in that situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2006 2:15:20 GMT -5
For those of you with short memories (by definition, most of you who think the Pac 10 gets overly favorable treatment), here is what happened last year to the Pac 10:
Omaha regional: (Nebraska hosting); top Pac 10 team: #16 seeded UCLA
Penn State regional: (Penn State hosting); top Pac 10 team: None
Texas A&M regional: (TAMU/Big 12 hosting); top Pac 10 teams: #3 seeded Washington and (unseeded?) California
Palo Alto regional: (Stanford hosting); of the four seeded teams three were from the Pac 10: #4 Arizona, #5 Stanford and #12 Southern Cal.
I am on record a number of weeks ago for predicting that the Pac 10, which has even more teams dominating the top 10 than usual (sorry Ruffda), will be bunched together in an egalitarianistic geographical effort to assuage the constituency of the NCAA Committee entrusted with drawing up the brackets. In other words, the West Coast and Pac 10, specifically, will once again get screwed in the brackets (but will win anyway).
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Nov 26, 2006 19:42:01 GMT -5
I'm watching this match right now. Is the crowd always this quiet at Stanford? Also, they kept calling Jill Collymore, Jane.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Nov 26, 2006 19:46:46 GMT -5
Match point was one of the best points of the match, even if Kehoe got away with a double. That was a great point, great way to finish things off and win the Pac-10
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Nov 26, 2006 22:02:12 GMT -5
I'm watching this match right now. Is the crowd always this quiet at Stanford? Also, they kept calling Jill Collymore, Jane. I noticed that too, the crowd was low in energy or something. And after watching the whole match, it just looked like Stanford was up and ready for this Washington team, while Washington was not. And at the end Washington paid for it.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 26, 2006 22:14:42 GMT -5
For those of you with short memories (by definition, most of you who think the Pac 10 gets overly favorable treatment), here is what happened last year to the Pac 10: Omaha regional: (Nebraska hosting); top Pac 10 team: #16 seeded UCLA Penn State regional: (Penn State hosting); top Pac 10 team: None Texas A&M regional: (TAMU/Big 12 hosting); top Pac 10 teams: #3 seeded Washington and (unseeded?) California Palo Alto regional: (Stanford hosting); of the four seeded teams three were from the Pac 10: #4 Arizona, #5 Stanford and #12 Southern Cal. I am on record a number of weeks ago for predicting that the Pac 10, which has even more teams dominating the top 10 than usual (sorry Ruffda), will be bunched together in an egalitarianistic geographical effort to assuage the constituency of the NCAA Committee entrusted with drawing up the brackets. In other words, the West Coast and Pac 10, specifically, will once again get screwed in the brackets (but will win anyway). The Pac 10, Big 12, and Big 10 each had 6 teams last year and each had their teams placed into 3 of the regionals. The Pac 10 had 3 seeded teams lose to unseeded teams. The Big 10 had 1 seeded team lose to an unseeded team and one lose to a lower seeded team. The Big 12 had one seeded team lose to a lower seeded team. The committee didn't do the Pac 10 any favors in recent years, however, they've not been treated worse than the Big 10 and Big 12 in terms of the number of teams placed into different regionals. It's also arguable that the Pac 10 has been treated somewhat better because in some of those years the Big 12 and Big 10 have had more teams selected to the tournament and still had their teams placed in the same number of regionals as the Pac 10. Frankly, I'd like to see the pre-selected regional sites discontinued, have 32 teams honestly seeded, have the top 16 of those 32 seeded teams that made bids for hosting sub-regionals be given the hosting duties, and pair the remaining 32 teams up with the seeded teams as makes sense. Then have the teams fall into regions as their seedings dictate. If a conference's teams are seeded honestly and they all happening to be such that all of their teams fall within a single bracket then that's the way they ought to be placed. It is no better to intentionally separate teams from the same conference with no regard to seedings than it is to intentionally place them place them in the same region(s) with no regard to the seedings. As it currently is with the "terror threat" sub-regional travel restrictions and seedings that a regularly fudged by the committee to justify the placement of various teams the tournament becomes somewhat of a farce.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 26, 2006 22:19:10 GMT -5
Stanford crowds are just not as enthusiastic as others I've seen; partly because they play in the basketball gym, so always 5-7,000 empty seats, and partly the crowd is used to success. Crowd is knowledgeable, however, and knows volleyball pretty well; also lots of older folks. Basically a lot of nice people who are not going to say "Point Huskies" (or Point Cardinal) after every home point, which is like Chinese water torture to a visiting team in Seattle, or obnoxious sexual slurs like the UCLA frat boys, or transfer in rooting crowds from basketball games ala Oregon.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 26, 2006 22:23:21 GMT -5
Do they still play in Maples or have they moved from that facility?
I've seen some Stanford matches in Maples in the past where their fans were quite enthusiastic, loud, and supportive.
|
|
|
Post by pavbfan on Nov 26, 2006 22:52:10 GMT -5
Do they still play in Maples or have they moved from that facility? I've seen some Stanford matches in Maples in the past where their fans were quite enthusiastic, loud, and supportive. Yes, they play at Maples where the capacity is 7,200. The attendance for the Washington match was 3,200. The crowd can be loud, although there is little orchestrated cheering. There's usually a "Go Stanford" cheer once or twice a game, where the students/band start the Go part and the old folks (me) across the way do the Stanford part. It's still a good venue, as you can be pretty close to the action. There are plenty of nose-bleed seats that don't get filled. You can sit at the end sections for general admission. Two years ago, while Maples was being renovated, the matches were played at Burnham gym which was small and cozy. Now,that was fun. Fans were right on top of the action and the place got really loud-- several great matches that year, Penn State (we had a chance to win), USC, Cal, and one of the best matches I can remember, the Washington match) The band plays quite loudly during every timeout, with the "dollies" dancing, so there's not much group yelling. It can get loud during great rallies and good points. There were many of those during the Washington match.
|
|