|
Post by pineapple on Jan 3, 2007 16:57:43 GMT -5
I don't think anyone here was saying that this was the "to end all" ranking of the teams though. Funny man! FUnny semantics.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Jan 3, 2007 17:07:09 GMT -5
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. Duh, that's the same "methodology" that was use for the table in my first post. It covers all available polls (NCAA) which didn't start until 1982. So if you can get us some kind of poll or ranking of teams for each prior year, I'd be glad to include them.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jan 3, 2007 17:24:13 GMT -5
No way Texas shoud be ranked far above LBSU much less FLorida and BYU, neither of which has won a single national championship. LBSU has won 5 titles (3 NACAA, 2 AIAWA). It has been in 9 championship games.
Duh, yourself!
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Jan 3, 2007 17:47:05 GMT -5
No way Texas shoud be ranked far above LBSU much less FLorida and BYU, neither of which has won a single national championship. LBSU has won 5 titles (3 NACAA, 2 AIAWA). It has been in 9 championship games. Duh, yourself! We are all anxiously awaiting your poll along with criteria, rationale, and explanations. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Jan 3, 2007 17:50:13 GMT -5
BYU ahead of Florida and LBSU? There's something wrong with that. I know that LBSU hasn't been playing the type of volleyball they're known for but, that's just too low for them. Florida has been a consistent top 10 program since Mary took over a decade ago that should count for something. I also don't agree with Texas being that high, they have been in and out of the top 25 after that national championship year in 1988. They were again contenders with Demetria Sance in the mid 90's, Runner-Up in 1995, and just recently with this very talented young team. But that's just my opinion. [ i]But that is part of the poll. As pointed out by beachmaster and others, the methodology is not without it's criticisms, however unless someone can come out with a better way of looking at the list, it looks pretty good based on the spectrum of a 25 year span. [/i][/u]I think this is probably the best way of looking at the information we have. You can't go off of the NCAA tournament as the tournament was regionalized before 1995. Teams like Hawaii, Pacific, Long Beach, Cal Poly, and UCSB were all aligned in the same regional to the Final Four. Likewise, almost all the Pac 10 teams and teams like BYU were aligned in the same region. Then the "non-west coast" teams were aligned together, with Nebraska, Texas, and Florida aligned with one another. The final bracket was usually the Big 10 teams and usually the other top Pac 10 team in UCLA or Stanford. This is how teams like LSU and Texas-Arlington ended up in the Final Four. And after the tournament, poll voters knew which teams were still the top teams who were in each others bracket and voted them higher than their performance in the NCAA tournament. Florida has done great since Wise took over in 1992, however based on what we have, Florida did nothing before that. BYU was a consistent top 15 team for years. More times then not, they were in the top 10. Granted, they fell out in the past few years, however pre-2000, they were a definite threat to a top 10 team. On the other hand, Long Beach was a complete non factor before 1989 and after 2001. Texas may not have competed for a national title many years, however like BYU, they were a consistent threat in the top 10. Truthfully, the top 4 in Stanford, Nebraska, Hawaii, and UCLA have been the most consistent programs in the past 25 years. Obviously, they have had their up and down years, however they have pretty much maintained consistent programs.[/quote] In the meantime, as always Roy offers the best subjective analysis of the whole situation. So just go ahead and reread this post.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jan 3, 2007 17:56:52 GMT -5
If you going to attempt to measure All-time to programs, you must factor in from the outset:
1) Titles won 2) 2nd place finishes 3) final 4 appearances
Polls alone are not reliable or absolute measures because of: 1) regional/conference biases 2) limitated information 3) no weights for the "Big Bangs." The polls should be only a criteria of several and each perhaps should have a set maximum points. Instead of looking at all 25 slots in the ranking, it would suffice to just look at the top 10 or top 5. (Below 10 would not be "top" so can be disregarded. )
1) for each year either give the scores of 10 to 100 for rankings 10 to 1, or give the top 5 100 and the bottom 5 50. It doesn't matter so long it's unformally applied based on final rankings. Thus, a Stanford ranked 1 in a year would score as much as a Wiscons ranked 4: 100.
2) Give a 100 points for each title won. (Possible to give higher scores to NCAA titles.)
3) give 50 points for 2nd place finishes.
4) Give 25 points for final fours
5) give 10 points for Sweet 16s
Doing something like this would be a more reliable measure of all-time top volleyball prgrams.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Jan 3, 2007 17:59:35 GMT -5
If you going to attempt to measure All-time to programs, you must factor in from the outset: 1) Titles won 2) 2nd place finishes 3) final 4 appearances Polls alone are not reliable or absolute measures because of: 1) regional/conference biases 2) limitated information 3) no weights for the "Big Bangs." The polls should be only a criteria of several and each perhaps should have a set maximum points. Instead of looking at all 25 slots in the ranking, it would suffice to just look at the top 10 or top 5. (Below 10 would not be "top" so can be disregarded. ) 1) for each year either give the scores of 10 to 100 for rankings 10 to 1, or give the top 5 100 and the bottom 5 50. It doesn't matter so long it's unformally applied based on final rankings. Thus, a Stanford ranked 1 in a year would score as much as a Wiscons ranked 4: 100. 2) Give a 100 points for each title won. (Possible to give higher scores to NCAA titles.) 3) give 50 points for 2nd place finishes. 4) Give 25 points for final fours 5) give 10 points for Sweet 16s Doing something like this would be a more reliable measure of all-time top volleyball prgrams. Well, get to work then!
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jan 3, 2007 18:24:37 GMT -5
Good, Lired, you're my hero!
The Huskers, as odd as it may seem, is my favorite big-time college football program. Using such measuring methodology, results will confirm that it clearly ranks as one of two or three all- time top college football programs. I am not being bias, the facts will speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Jan 3, 2007 18:50:47 GMT -5
Good, Lired, you're my hero! The Huskers, as odd as it may seem, is my favorite big-time college football program. Using such measuring methodology, results will confirm that it clearly ranks as one of two or three all- time top college football programs. I am not being bias, the facts will speak for themselves. Now now, flattery isn't gonna get you anywhere. I am well aware of the history of Nebraska football. Now get to work dammit! Still waiting for the new and improved list. PS I only have a half hour to go at my desk, then I have to go home and do actual work. So step on it.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Jan 3, 2007 20:19:14 GMT -5
Seriously, I have been avid Nebraska football fan ever since I first got interested in college football more than 30 years ago.
I thought you were going to do it since you have the data.
|
|
|
Post by clivehusker on Jan 4, 2007 16:48:00 GMT -5
Seriously, I have been avid Nebraska football fan ever since I first got interested in college football more than 30 years ago. I thought you were going to do it since you have the data. Then you probably already know about the 6'8 300+lb o-line commit. Ouch how did he not get recruited by others? bah nm this isn't football talk board. ;D
|
|