What is the point of the tournament?

[Deleted]

I'm serious. I've been thinking a lot about this.

What we know:

*It's not about revenue -- or maximizing revenue. It's about minimizing costs.
*The fan support of teams is not a factor -- unless we're talking about awarding regionals every two years to Omaha.
*The results for the season are not a primary factor.

So, why are they playing this thing? If you can't seed the top 16 legitimately, if the combination of season results and fan support does not earn the right to host, what is the point?

Should we just accept the fact that there are only 5-6 teams the committee feels can win this thing and the rest of it is just for show?

[Wolfgang]

It's not about revenue because they know they can't generate revenue. So, do what a lot of companies do -- cut costs.

By definition, the winner of the NCAA tournament is declared the NCAA champions, however they are seeded and bracketed. That's the point of the tournament.

The weekly AVCA polls, now...what's that all about?

And it's Marci. She changed her mind about the whole "Malama" thing.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

ruffda said:

So, why are they playing this thing?

To award a championship.

In volleyball, the "Champion" is defined as the team that wins the NCAA tournament.

Why do they want to award a championship? Because the schools want one.

Thus, the NCAA gives them a championship. But running these types of things costs money, and so the NCAA does what it does.

It's not for the fans, it's not for the money, it's for the schools, the ones who are the members of the NCAA.

[Deleted]

But they could just award a championship based on ... Pablo rankings! Talk about a cost savings!

So, basically what you're saying is that they run a bogus championship on the cheap for the players and coaches -- and nothing else really matters? Seems like an awful lot of work for something that only matters to the coaches and players -- and is fraudulent to boot.

And they expect us to be fans?

Oh, wait. I forgot. We don't even exist.

[Wolfgang]

Or, they can just give it to St. John's. You know how good they are.

[Phaedrus]

How about the other non-revenue sports? Do they (NCAA) do as bad of a job seeding as people think the volleyball is seeded?

I know they all bitch about football and basketball but that makes too much money to be a good reference. How about baseball? Are they as unhappy as our lot seem to be?

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

phaedrus said:

How about the other non-revenue sports? Do they (NCAA) do as bad of a job seeding as people think the volleyball is seeded?

I guess, yes, but you have to be careful.

For example, in wrestling, for example, it seems that things like seedings are based more upon coaches. I know that coaches handle the selections of the "at-large" positions, but it is still done very differently.

You'd have to ask the soccer and baseball fans though.

[goGopherBill]

First off..

The NCAA is all about money .(period)
Why does Minney travel to New York?
Because we can afford it.

and those schools cannot afford to travel to Minnesota.

It is about certain schools getting preferential treatment.

Can you imagine coach Mike RECRUITING a future star for the next class?
Gee we play in a strong division.
Even if we finish 1st or 2nd we get sent on the road and your families must pay more to follow you.
I don't think Minnesota cares who it plays or where...as long as the field is on a level seeding and playoff schedual..

It does HURT RECRUITING for the reasons I mentioned...It puts Minnesota in a even worst case scenario trying to get quality kids to come from warm climates.The PAC 10 boast every year it is the toughest ..true.And nothing will change until recruiting changes.
The top kids will go or stay west.
True ..every few years a Nebraska ,Penn...Minnesota might have a great class ...but year in and year out the PAC 10 will remain a loaded devision..all because or recruiting pluses.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

ruffda said:

But they could just award a championship based on ... Pablo rankings! Talk about a cost savings!

See the BCS. They do this, too.

So, basically what you're saying is that they run a bogus championship on the cheap for the players and coaches

How is it bogus?

The winner has to beat everyone else out.

Whether it is seeded exactly right or not doesn't affect that. The winner is still the one who wins 6 matches in an elimination tournament.

You are seriously out of touch with reality on this, dude. No, it's probably not perfect, but to call it "bogus" is going too far.

It looks to me that the top 8 or so are about on schedule to meet in the final 8. Could be some happening sooner, but it's not like 1 vs 2 are scheduled in the first round.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

ruffda said:

So, basically what you're saying is that they run a bogus championship on the cheap for the players and coaches -- and nothing else really matters?.

Yes, it is for the players and coaches (and institutions). See Division 2 and Division 3. They don't get but maybe 500 fans for the championship (I know attendance at the D3 semis was 200 or so).

It's about the athletes, not about you.

[Deleted]

It's bogus because it matters what court you play the matches on -- you know that. And I would contend it matters who you play and in what order. That's where the fudged seedings have an effect.

I don't think I'm out of touch on this at all.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

gogopherbill said:

First off..

The NCAA is all about money .(period)
Why does Minney travel to New York?
Because we can afford it.

The NCAA pays travel costs for the tournament.

[Deleted]

pablo said:

ruffda said:

So, basically what you're saying is that they run a bogus championship on the cheap for the players and coaches -- and nothing else really matters?.

Yes, it is for the players and coaches (and institutions). See Division 2 and Division 3. They don't get but maybe 500 fans for the championship (I know attendance at the D3 semis was 200 or so).

It's about the athletes, not about you.

I bleeping know it's not about me. But the fans should be a part of the equation. No?

Furthermore, I'm far from convinced that a bogus tournament serves the athletes' interests.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

ruffda said:

It's bogus because it matters what court you play the matches on -- you know that. And I would contend it matters who you play and in what order.

The championship team is the one that beats out all the other teams in the tournament. If you don't beat team B, then you have to at least beat the team that beat team B. Or the team that beat that team, etc.

Where is the rule that says the "favored" team, however you want to define that, has to have the easiest route to the championship (the rules say the committee should match up the top 16 seeds that way, but don't require other matchups)

[Deleted]

pablo said:

ruffda said:

It's bogus because it matters what court you play the matches on -- you know that. And I would contend it matters who you play and in what order.

The championship team is the one that beats out all the other teams in the tournament. If you don't beat team B, then you have to at least beat the team that beat team B. Or the team that beat that team, etc.

Where is the rule that says the "favored" team, however you want to define that, has to have the easiest route to the championship (the rules say the committee should match up the top 16 seeds that way, but don't require other matchups)

So it's fair that PSU has to fly to Seattle to play UW (in theory) while Stanford stays at home and plays Texas (in theory)?

That's just one example.

I'm not asking for easier routes to the championship, but you would think _comparable_ routes would be a concern.

USC at #5 and UW at #6 _really_ bugs me.