|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 24, 2007 16:28:24 GMT -5
Ruffio, I've noticed the same thing. Purdue is not even recieving votes this week, not that actually shows how good they are, but Dayton and Duke are given credit for that win alone. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Dayton and Duke are not "given credit for that win alone." That's not how polls work. Dayton and Duke are ranked where they are for the same reason: they were ranked close to that last week, and neither lost. The AVCA voters don't care who Dayton and Duke or Michigan or Kansas St have beaten. All they care about is, where were they ranked last week? And, did they lose (and, if so, to whom)? If they lose, they might drop (depending on who). When one team drops, that means the other teams move up. Don't interpret any more than that.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 24, 2007 16:29:26 GMT -5
Not if a top tier Pac-10 team gets pushed to 5 games by a verly low ranked Pac-10 team, and a team from another conference is ranked lower but is pushed to 5 games that is ranked higher than the lower ranked Pac-10 team.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
If it comes down to voters not paying attention to the number of games played or scores in matches and only using wins / losses it makes no sense that the lower ranked Pac-10 (or lower ranked teams from any conference) to gain points any time they lose.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Sept 24, 2007 16:29:47 GMT -5
"Washington has a win over LBSU. That's it. (They really should be ashamed of that schedule.)" Washington has to play Stanford, USC, UCLA, and Cal a total of 8 times this season. That is more quality matches than Florida or Nebraska will play. And let's face it, there's a lot at stake this season for being a number 1 vs. number 2 seed in the regionals. Who wants to risk being sent to the same regional as Nebraska? I think Washington is smart to take it easy in the preseason, pad their record, and give their team a chance to develop chemistry before putting their season (and seeding) on the line. For example, Texas may end up as a tougher team than Penn State by season's end, but there's no way after dropping TWO matches to PSU so early that Texas will beat PSU out for a number one seed. The problem with that argument is that it encourages soft scheduling just to build up your record. Let's say UW loses the 8 matches you list above to finish 10-8 in the conference. Including their non-conference schedule they finish the season at 21-8 which looks good on paper until look deeper and find they really have no wins against strong competition. Then you start becoming like college basketball where teams start ducking each other in the non-conference just increase their seed. And the real problem is that in volleyball that tactic may just work. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you have a inexperienced team and you need to find out what you have and build confidence, a soft schedule can be beneficial but it probably will not help them prepare for tough matches down the road. I was somewhat surprised at the MN schedule this year knowing that the program lost some key players from last year and would be working freshman into key roles. I thought they might go a little easier on them instead of opening against Ohio, Stanford, and San Diego. Great volleyball for us fans but a risk that could have damaged the psyche of a young team.
|
|
|
Post by bownlovingfreak on Sept 24, 2007 16:34:05 GMT -5
I have this question. What will it take for Sac St to be ranked? For the 3 seasons I've followed volleyball, they always seem to be receiving votes, but never ranked!
This season has been super back and forth with lots of 5 gamers and lots of losses. The committee has a tough job. Who would you put ahead of Michigan? I honestly think the top 12 teams should be in the top, except switch Michigan with Minnesota.
The rest if a crapshoot. I mean Duke and Dayton's ranking seems strange. But who should be ahead of them? Hawaii? No. Ohio? No. Maybe San Diego?
|
|
|
Post by Mix Breed-TEXAS,HI,LBSU on Sept 24, 2007 16:44:34 GMT -5
How can a 6-3 Texas be ranked at #7 when Washington is 13-0? That's because Texas is BETTER than Washington. Both are my teams though.....
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Sept 24, 2007 16:46:40 GMT -5
It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you have a inexperienced team and you need to find out what you have and build confidence, a soft schedule can be beneficial but it probably will not help them prepare for tough matches down the road. Not sure when it's right to choose an easy non-conference schedule, but teams like Florida and Hawai'i seem to know when to play a tough one. For example, the Gators played a very tough non-conference schedule in 2003, including a visit to Stanford. It's rare for Stanford to be swept at Maples... that year, they were swept twice (once by Florida... Cruz was back from the Worlds but Tom was still there... and once by USC... the teams who played in that year's national final).
|
|
|
Post by roofed! on Sept 24, 2007 16:52:45 GMT -5
It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you have a inexperienced team and you need to find out what you have and build confidence, a soft schedule can be beneficial but it probably will not help them prepare for tough matches down the road. Not sure when it's right to choose an easy non-conference schedule, but teams like Florida and Hawai'i seem to know when to play a tough one. For example, the Gators played a very tough non-conference schedule in 2003, including a visit to Stanford. It's rare for Stanford to be swept at Maples... that year, they were swept twice (once by Florida... Cruz was back from the Worlds but Tom was still there... and once by USC... the teams who played in that year's national final). I love that 2003 AVCA preseason tournament in Hawaii where you have #1 USC, #2 Hawaii and #3 Florida there. I thought that was very high levels of volleyball very early into the season!
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Sept 24, 2007 17:12:38 GMT -5
Not if a top tier Pac-10 team gets pushed to 5 games by a verly low ranked Pac-10 team, and a team from another conference is ranked lower but is pushed to 5 games that is ranked higher than the lower ranked Pac-10 team. That doesn't make any sense at all. If it comes down to voters not paying attention to the number of games played or scores in matches and only using wins / losses it makes no sense that the lower ranked Pac-10 (or lower ranked teams from any conference) to gain points any time they lose. The Pac-10 conference (overall) is just better than any other conference. Deal with it, and stop whining.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Sept 24, 2007 17:14:24 GMT -5
It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you have a inexperienced team and you need to find out what you have and build confidence, a soft schedule can be beneficial but it probably will not help them prepare for tough matches down the road. Not sure when it's right to choose an easy non-conference schedule, but teams like Florida and Hawai'i seem to know when to play a tough one. For example, the Gators played a very tough non-conference schedule in 2003, including a visit to Stanford. It's rare for Stanford to be swept at Maples... that year, they were swept twice (once by Florida... Cruz was back from the Worlds but Tom was still there... and once by USC... the teams who played in that year's national final). 2002 is when Tom didn't play cause she was at Worlds and Cruz was back. That match was in Gainesville. She graduated after that season. 2003 was Kristin Richards freshman season. That Florida team played a very tough non conference schedule(USC and KState at the NACWAA, BYU, UCSB and Stanford at Stanford, Minnesota , as well as another road trip for a tournament at Northwestern). You're right, Mary schedules a certain way knowing the kind of team she'll have. With that senior class in 03, they were road ready and able to face a bunch of great teams. Normally they don't go on the road as much during non conference, but with a veteran team, they will. This year was intended to be the same, with trips to ISU, ND and Utah, as well as Santa Clara coming to town. When those matches were scheduled, it was expected those teams would be better than they have shown. It's kind of a crap shoot sometimes when return trips/matches are set up a year or more in advance.
|
|
|
Post by automattic52 on Sept 24, 2007 17:33:20 GMT -5
Ruffda, I agree with you on Dayton and Duke. Teams are being carried by having beaten teams overrated. Purdue and Hawaii launched alot of teams in weeks 1 and 2. Duke and Dayton can snag a few good wins and than hide in mediocre leagues. Mid major and mediocre sure seem to fit the ACC. How could schools be that attractive to recruits, and not be very good. As volleyball athletes are middle to upper middle class kids with good grades, UNC, Wake, Virginia etc... should be killin it! For the most part you can say Dayton is hiding in a mediocre A10, but you have to give Xavier and Saint Louis some credit. They were good teams last year and they look just as good and maybe better this year. Saint Louis just played at Dayton and played very well. Saint Louis took LSU to five games at LSU and Xavier almost beat Michigan at Michigan and did beat Cal Poly on the west coast.
|
|
|
Post by cats48 on Sept 24, 2007 17:57:46 GMT -5
I think the reason for the added points for Arizona is the teams that played them , if they had a vote gave them credit and others that were impressed with the games they took on the road gave them a little credit. Remember no other conference has 5 teams in the top 10 in the nation.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Sept 24, 2007 18:01:21 GMT -5
Just to be petty, Ruffda says it's not impossible for Washington to go 11-9 or 12-8 in Pac 10 play; actually is impossible, since Pac 10 teams only play 18 matches (2 X 9 other teams). I like the note about the Atlantic 10; out on the West Coast we would hear nothing about them, but there are some impressive wins there and seem to be more than a few good teams, which means they play each other. College volleyball is one sport where the rankings seem set by reputation every year, with the same teams ranked in generally the same spots; shows little imagination,then the tournament starts and 15 of 16 ranked teams make the regionals (and 15 is beaten by 17 or so for the other).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2007 18:10:35 GMT -5
Doh! And I started with 9-9 because I knew there were only 18 matches, but then changed it because I didn't think they'd go .500.
Just stupidity. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by OU-OhYeah! on Sept 24, 2007 18:45:58 GMT -5
Dayton at #15? Who have they beaten besides Purdue and Utah, neither of whom is rated nor getting votes? Washington at #8? Who have they beaten besides Oregon? I equate Dayton in volleyball to Boise State in football (last year). You could make the same argument for the latter last year. Going undefeated, particularly having played some Top 50 teams, has to be worth something. Should Dayton lose, you will probably see them drop a lot more than other perennial high ranking teams.
|
|
|
Post by OU-OhYeah! on Sept 24, 2007 18:53:42 GMT -5
You might as well put Ohio in there as well...they'll play no one for the rest of the year. Last time I checked (two minutes ago), Minnesota is ranked #12 and San Diego is ranked #15, both with losses to Ohio. BIG difference, my friend! Yeah, Ohio may not play Big Ten-caliber teams for a while, but they do schedule tough in the pre-conference and they will play Louisville following the conference tournament. If they play lesser opponents, they just need to take care of business, as they did this past weekend. We certainly have a number of examples lately where teams did not perform as well as they should.
|
|