|
Post by Ye Olde Dawg on Nov 27, 2006 19:27:00 GMT -5
... while Stanford stays at home and plays Texas (in theory)? I presume you mis spoketyped. Stanford is flying to Austin to play Texas (assuming Stanford and Texas win their matches).
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Nov 27, 2006 19:42:41 GMT -5
We on VT all understand the frustration with the committee and because we follow it closely can see the inconsistencies. The coaches also are clearly frustrated, after listening to Mary Wise today, and I know Cook was in the post game interview against Texas. The reality is though, that the teams are used to "challenges" and its what makes sports fun. So most teams respond much better than the die hard fans. I say die hard fans, because the average fan at the Qwest isn't going to know that California playing LSU in the first round is just plain stupid....or that that same regional has 4 of the top 24 teams according to the RPI.
So to answer the question, yes for the diehards you have to wonder why have a tourney. For the average fan and mostly for the team themselves, because a championship or a good showing at the "big dance" is what they spend so many hours in the gym, on bus rides, etc etc training for. Without a tourney or some type of post season, what's the point in busting your rear end day after day. Being sent on the road is just one of the many challenges teams will have faced during a long season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2006 19:46:28 GMT -5
Fine. Just don't make the _same_ teams face the extra challenge year after year after year.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Nov 27, 2006 19:48:08 GMT -5
Fine. Just don't make the _same_ teams face the extra challenge year after year after year. Fair enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2006 19:48:12 GMT -5
And, by the way, the question "What is the point of the tournament?" is not meant to imply there isn't one. I wanted to know what the point _was_.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Nov 27, 2006 20:21:34 GMT -5
I think Ruffda was saying Stanford got to stay home for their sub-regional... but so did Penn State, and with three cupcakes for dessert. Santa Clara, Stanford's likely sub-regional final opponent, is no cupcake... it's in the top 25 and has loud, boisterous fans. Between buzz on both campuses and the San Jose media pushing the Broncos, we could see 5,000-plus... or even a sellout... at Maples on Saturday night.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Nov 27, 2006 23:20:08 GMT -5
Hammer, nice explanation. Its kind of tough to use sampling theory with most people here, and you did a great job.
(R)uffda, I feel your pain, the point of Hammer's analysis is that there is no way to make all of this fair, someone will getscrewed how ever you did this unless you spent a few million bucks and created some kind of pool play sysytem apnning a few months. Given the financial, logistical, and academic constraint, there is no way to come up with a statistically fair process. It doesn' mean that some of the biases can be worked out but there will always be imperfections. Look at the way the basketball final four is set up, someone is always crying foul, and there are a lot more money riding on that one than volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 28, 2006 7:34:37 GMT -5
Hammer, nice explanation. Its kind of tough to use sampling theory with most people here, and you did a great job. Although the description was fine, it was based on a fundamental flaw: that the goal has anything to do with the "best" team (I didn't bring it up, IB ;D) As I noted the goal of the tournament is to determine the champion, not determine who is "best" (whatever that means). The tournament does a fine job of determining a champion.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Nov 28, 2006 7:53:13 GMT -5
p-dub, I think you have hit the nail on the head with that comment. When you speak of a championship, most people have in mind that you are sorting through the field to find the best team in the field, which as you have pointed out, is not the case. The team that emerges from the NCAA is the team that had played the best in this tournament format, which may not be the best team from top to bottom. I think this is the point of departure for the two groups in this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 28, 2006 8:19:23 GMT -5
p-dub, I think you have hit the nail on the head with that comment. When you speak of a championship, most people have in mind that you are sorting through the field to find the best team in the field, which as you have pointed out, is not the case. The team that emerges from the NCAA is the team that had played the best in this tournament format Shoot, I wouldn't even go that far. I would say the team that emerges from the NCAA is the team that has won the matches. I think you can play better than the other team in a match and still lose. For example, see Nebraska at Colorado. If it gets into game 5, anything can happen. But regardless of the outcome, I have a hard time believing that a team that wins a match by something like 35 - 33, 16 - 30, 16 - 30, 32 - 30, 18 - 16 really played better. But they won, and that is what matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2006 10:50:26 GMT -5
p-dub, I still think that's a pretty flimsy defense. There are literally thousands of formats one could use to determine a champion. I still think it is incumbent upon the committee to choose one that is fair.
Let's use 2005 Hawaii as an example -- again, only one of many. You could say and YOU seem to be saying that their draw last year was fine. It simply was not. How do you know they would have lost to Missouri had they not been sent to Texas and then to PSU? And how can you say it does not matter?
Who you play and the order you play them _does_ matter.
Can it be perfect? No. Can it be a hell of a lot better? Yes!
+++
The point about Stanford was that they are not playing a #1 seed in the regional on that team's home court. PSU is. That's what the bracket manipulation got us this year. Win or lose, I will argue it severely and unfairly impacts PSU's chances to win it all.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Nov 28, 2006 11:41:12 GMT -5
He's not saying it doesn't matter, he's saying that the ideas of "the best team" or "National Champion" are actually semantic games long before they become volleyball games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2006 12:01:53 GMT -5
Semantics? Well, I wouldn't put it like _that_.
(OK, I stole that from the Daily Show.)
|
|