|
Post by Gorf on Jan 2, 2007 9:09:44 GMT -5
I didn't realize that the AVCA poll started for the 1982 season while the NCAA started in 1981.
AIAW championship from 1973-82. Previously administered by the Division of Girls' and Women's Sports (DGWS).
1969-70 Sul Ross State (Texas) def. UCLA (DGWS) 1970-71 Sul Ross State (Texas) def. Long Beach State (DGWS) 1971-72 UCLA def. Long Beach State (DGWS) 1972-73 Long Beach State def. Brigham Young (Utah) 1973 Long Beach State def. Texas Woman's University 1974 UCLA def. Hawaii 1975 UCLA def. Hawaii 1976 USC def. UCLA 1977 USC def. Hawaii 1978 Utah State def. UCLA 1979 Hawaii def. Utah State 1980 USC def. Pacific (California) 1981 Texas def. Portland State (Oregon)
I also didn't realize that the AIAW and NCAA both had championships in 1981. I wonder how Texas would have done against USC that year in an overall championship match.
I've never seen any polls for women's volleyball during that era.
In relaiton to the AVCA polls during the NCAA era it would be interesting to see teams listed in terms of their annual point differential from the pre-season poll to the final poll.
Also, something of note to consider for the polls for the first handful of years of the NCAA the final poll came out before the championship match was played for you'll find cases where the national champion is not the top ranked team in the final poll.
Example: Stanford is ranked #1 in the final poll even though Pacific won the championship.
|
|
|
Post by Floyd R. Turbo on Jan 2, 2007 11:44:39 GMT -5
This was certainly the case at Nebraska. The statewide loyalty that the Husker football team has built over the decades was transferred pretty quickly to volleyball. High school football players in Nebraska dream of playing for the Huskers, and it was natural that high school volleyball players shared that same dream.
Terry Pettit decided early on that he would not fight the interest in football; he would capitalize on it. VB matches were scheduled to start half an hour after the football games ended so fans leaving Memorial Stadium who were walking by the Coliseum were invited in to watch. And the fact that the athletic department had relatively deep pockets due to the golden goose of football meant that facilities could be very good.
Pettit's success early on meant that the great female high school athletes in Nebraska focused on volleyball. That's why Nebraska produces more than its share of D-1 VB players. (It's also why girls high school basketball in Nebraska is pretty average at best; all the great athletes focus on VB.) And it just feeds on itself. Seven of the 12 players on Nebraska's roster this year are from Nebraska.
Of course, hiring great coaches has a lot to do with success as well, and Bob Devaney hired a great one in Pettit!
|
|
|
Post by Xplaya on Jan 2, 2007 12:20:44 GMT -5
San Jose St, San Diego St. and Illinois are surprises to me! I know the two California schools were strong before, but strong enough to warrant a top 25 in ANY poll? wow. FYI: Final polls. SDSU: 1982, 2nd; 83, 6th; 84, 8th; 85, 19th; 86, 5th; 88, 15th; 90, 19th. Highest final ranking 2nd in 1982 (ranked as high as 1st during the season) SJSU: 1982, 12th; 84, 11th; 85, 7th; 86, 4th; 87, 11th; 88, 18th; 90, 10th. Highest 4th 1986. Yes strong enough.....
|
|
|
Post by clivehusker on Jan 2, 2007 17:33:09 GMT -5
Thats changed a lot the last 5-10 years. Volleyball is still dominant with far more stars there, but there has been quite an increase with Basketball.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jan 2, 2007 17:58:52 GMT -5
I would suggest that weights be given, on a separate scale, to number of all national titles won, number of 2nd place finishes, number of final 4 appearances, schools vs school win-loss records. In short, actual accomplishments. These are the actual “raw statistics,“ not pollsters votes. The rebuttal I anticipate is the polls are reflective of actual accomplishments.
Really? Well, then, I ask (similar to Tsunami) why are Texas, BYU and Florida ranked higher than LBSU? Both BYU and Florida have not won a single NCAA volleyball title in the history of Womens volleyball. Florida played in one title match and lost to USC. BYU has never made it to a final match. LBSU has won the NCAA title 3 times, beating Penn St twice and Nebraska once, and played in two other finals (5 finals total). It has also won the AIAW titles 2 times and played in 2 other finals. In all, it has won a national title 5 times and played in 9 championship matches.
I ask again- how can LBSU be ranked lower than these three teams? Its naive and overly simplistic to go on polls alone.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Jan 2, 2007 18:07:52 GMT -5
My criteria would be never taking a drop as a program over lets say a 15 year period. They may have not even won a title, but have sustained a level of excellence, which is the difference between great teams and great programs. Stanford, Nebraska, Hawaii, PSU, Florida UCLA come to mind (UCLA did have a fall off, but I couldn't leave them off this list.. Teams that have been great would be USC, LBSU, BYU. Teams that if we included the last 6 years and the next 9, would be Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington etc...
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jan 2, 2007 18:21:09 GMT -5
It would make more sense and meaningfulness to be clear as to what is being measured such as what you're suggesting. SaltNPaper is measuring nothing more than final poll rankings since 1982 but is defining it differently.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Jan 3, 2007 6:37:19 GMT -5
At the request of a couple of people, here is a look at the most recent 10 years. In an attempt to avoid offending anyone by the description of the title for this chart, I'm calling it Weighted Average of Points Received in the AVCA Coaches Poll During the Last 10 Years
Rank | School | *Points | 1 | Nebraska | 12900 | 2 | Stanford | 12394 | 3 | Florida | 11935 | 4 | Penn St | 11510 | 5 | USC | 11319 | 6 | Hawaii | 10825 | 7 | UCLA | 8927 | 8 | Wisconsin | 8496 | 9 | LBSU | 7269 | 10 | Minnesota | 6945 | 11 | Arizona | 6518 | 12 | Washington | 6304 | 13 | Pepperdine | 6126 | 14 | UCSB | 5976 | 15 | Texas | 5174 | 16 | Ohio State | 5152 | 17 | Pacific | 4764 | 18 | BYU | 4555 | 19 | Texas A&M | 4551 | 20 | Colorado State | 4546 | 21 | Kansas State | 3297 | 22 | Northern Iowa | 2977 | 23 | San Diego | 2845 | 24 | California | 2682 | 25 | Santa Clara | 2611 |
* The points received for 2001 through 2004 when the AVCA used 65 voters (rather than 60 voters in the other years), have be adjusted downward by a factor of 60/65. I think one of the things that this points out, is that our perception of what it takes to be a successful program over a time period is a little different than simply adding up the points received in balloting. We place a higher value when certain levels are achieved. Like winning a National Championship or advancing to the Final 4 or making the Sweet 16. And those types of successes don't carry much of a premium when we simply add up points.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Jan 3, 2007 13:57:49 GMT -5
It would make more sense and meaningfulness to be clear as to what is being measured such as what you're suggesting. SaltNPaper is measuring nothing more than final poll rankings since 1982 but is defining it differently. I think the best thing to do if you (you meaning plural, not YOU personally) is to devise your own poll and set of criteria. Whether its the actual Rich Kern poll voters, Saltn'Pepper, Gorf, or IB, or anybody who actually takes the time to present "interesting" viewpoints. Its pointless IMHO to put down the results because "your" team doesn't come out as well as expected. It's so much easier to criticize than to go through the actual work and put something that's reasonalbly objective together. Just food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by clivehusker on Jan 3, 2007 15:57:28 GMT -5
It is interesting to see where they stand though just using that break down. Even if it does seem skewed in some spots.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Jan 3, 2007 16:12:24 GMT -5
It is interesting to see where they stand though just using that break down. Even if it does seem skewed in some spots. Sure they are generally interesting, and I respect the people that go through the effort to try to quantify something and then posts the results. Whenever I read one I take if for what it is and move on. I am just saying its obvious that when certain people's teams don't stack up in whatever arbitrary poll or analysis that certain people take a lot of offense. What I am saying to these people is instead of trying to nitpick or read something that's not there, take the suggestions that you put forth, do the work and then post the results. Simple enough request I think.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jan 3, 2007 16:19:51 GMT -5
No nitpicking by me. Just pointing out erroneous polls. Statistics are facts by themselves, not as accurate as math per se but is an effective measure of probabilities. The difficulty of what you suggest is that, since many posters on this board, if not most, probably did not take up statistics in college, or if they did still don't know how to do statistical analysis, they will not be able to do as you suggest but must rely on others. The summation of polls method as SaltNPepper offers is indeed a form of measurement that results in worthwhile information. However, it falls short of measuring of "All Time Top Volleyball Programs." This leads to misinformation Albeit with good intention.
|
|
|
Post by clivehusker on Jan 3, 2007 16:31:01 GMT -5
I don't think anyone here was saying that this was the "to end all" ranking of the teams though.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Jan 3, 2007 16:40:59 GMT -5
No nitpicking by me. Just pointing out erroneous polls. Statistics are facts by themselves, not as accurate as math per se but is an effective measure of probabilities. The difficulty of what you suggest is that, since many posters on this board, if not most, probably did not take up statistics in college, or if they did still don't know how to do statistical analysis, they will not be able to do as you suggest but must rely on others. The summation of polls method as SaltNPepper offers is indeed a form of measurement that results in worthwhile information. However, it falls short of measuring of "All Time Top Volleyball Programs." This leads to misinformation Albeit with good intention. OK, pinapple, did you even read my first post? I wanted to start a thread that discussed "All Time" top volleyball program, so my title of this thread was not misinformation in that regard. Second, When I discribed the information I was presenting, I indicated "it first of all is biased as it does not recognize the good programs in the late 70's." and then added "But even with those limitations, I think this gives a pretty good starting point for discussion." I just fail to see where I've misrepresented anything. Unless you don't think that using data from past AVCA polls would even be a good place to start. I would well your "starting point" for an "all time" list.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jan 3, 2007 16:54:04 GMT -5
At the request of a couple of people, here is a look at the most recent 10 years. In an attempt to avoid offending anyone by the description of the title for this chart, I'm calling it Weighted Average of Points Received in the AVCA Coaches Poll During the Last 10 Years
Rank | School | *Points | 1 | Nebraska | 12900 | 2 | Stanford | 12394 | 3 | Florida | 11935 | 4 | Penn St | 11510 | 5 | USC | 11319 | 6 | Hawaii | 10825 | 7 | UCLA | 8927 | 8 | Wisconsin | 8496 | 9 | LBSU | 7269 | 10 | Minnesota | 6945 | 11 | Arizona | 6518 | 12 | Washington | 6304 | 13 | Pepperdine | 6126 | 14 | UCSB | 5976 | 15 | Texas | 5174 | 16 | Ohio State | 5152 | 17 | Pacific | 4764 | 18 | BYU | 4555 | 19 | Texas A&M | 4551 | 20 | Colorado State | 4546 | 21 | Kansas State | 3297 | 22 | Northern Iowa | 2977 | 23 | San Diego | 2845 | 24 | California | 2682 | 25 | Santa Clara | 2611 |
* The points received for 2001 through 2004 when the AVCA used 65 voters (rather than 60 voters in the other years), have be adjusted downward by a factor of 60/65. I think one of the things that this points out, is that our perception of what it takes to be a successful program over a time period is a little different than simply adding up the points received in balloting. We place a higher value when certain levels are achieved. Like winning a National Championship or advancing to the Final 4 or making the Sweet 16. And those types of successes don't carry much of a premium when we simply add up points. Very nice, assuming the weights are correctly done. I can see Nebraska being up there and Hawaii being where it is. The rankings do indeed reflect what we've experienced in the past 10 years, thus are not hard to accept. Can you apply the same methodology over the original time period? If it was done, UCLA would probably be ranked at the top because they've won many more national championships than any other school, and LBSU would probalby end up in the top 5. Both Nebraska and Hawaii, I believe, would not be ranked 2 and 3 respectively but would still be in the top 5. It probably would not be feasible to do as I suggest because the need to standardize variables with weights would be overwhelming.
|
|