|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 24, 2007 20:30:37 GMT -5
Well, just like last year, come post-season I'm sure Hawaii will eliminate a Pac 10 team or two. We have a winning record against Pac-10 teams. Last year, we eliminated two in the post-season. Hawaii always has a slow start and finish very strong. Good point... and I hope the Hawaii vs Pac-10 matches come in the later rounds of the tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 24, 2007 20:36:52 GMT -5
Why is everybody freaking out over Washington? Oregon took them to 5 games at Oregon last year and UW still made it to the Final Four. Oregon State took UW to 5 games at OSU in '04 and UW still went to the final four. Some people are seriously underestimating Oregon, they are #10 in Pablo (but then again, Washington is #1 in Pablo right now, LOL). But as we all know, Pablo is much better than the AVCA rankings. While 10 might be too high, that is the way they are playing in comparison to the rest of the nation RIGHT NOW. Good point. It's not HOW you win in the preseason and regular season...it's that you etch a win. I mean we are all sitting here arguing that the polls are messed up because certain teams play a lighter schedule and get challenged by unranked teams...yada yada...but when it all comes down to it WHO CARES abotu the preseason match between Nebraska/UCLA or Stanford/Penn State!?!...it's the preseason.... you know what is most important? that these teams meet in the final four or regional finals, that is what matters. So kudos to those teams that have a really tough preseason schedule to beef up their resume, but frankly I'd be more impressed to see Penn State shut out Texas in the final four rather than the first match of the year.... Washington understands this which is why they can have close games and a light preseason schedule and still make it to the final four 3 years in a row.... |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Sept 24, 2007 20:42:56 GMT -5
You may be right with respect to Florida, but your statement doesn't hold water when looking at the quality of Nebraska's schedule. They played non conference matches against UCLA and Penn State. In the conference season they have two matches with Texas, Kansas State and Oklahoma, all of which are ranked higher than California in this week's Pablo rankings. That's a total of eight "quality matches" using your definition of that term. Oh yes I'm sure most teams in the natoin would LOVE to play Kansas State and Oklahoma over USC and UCLA. You apparently chose to ignore my reference to California's Pablo ranking in comparison to the Big 12 teams. That was the basis of my argument on this point. And, by the way, I failed to mention that Colorado (with a Pablo rank of 68 this week) beat California in a match earlier this season. I guess in a way we agree on this point. In my opinion, the overall schedules of Washington and Nebraska seem pretty comparable at this point in the season. I was simply trying to counter liberi's assertion that Washington has "more quality matches than . . . Nebraska will play." Good advice - you might want to heed it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 24, 2007 20:50:18 GMT -5
It would be nice to see "honest" seeding by the NCAA committee instead of fuding the seedings to make the teams fit together as they want them to fit.
No conference should ever have 3 teams in the same region - this happens to the Pac-10 and Big-10 in almost all off the tournaments since they added pre-selected regional hosts. It may also happen to the Big 12 but I haven't followed theirr conference as much in the tournament selections.]]
No conference with 4+ teams selected should ever had a region where none of their teams are placed. Again this almost always happens to at least the Pac-10 and Big-10.
If the NCAA wants to do either of those things then they ought to rank every team 1-64 then place the top four seeds in appropriate regions and the other 60 teams fall into place by region based on the regions of the top four seeds. Once the 16 teams and their sub-regions are decided in that manner the host for the sub-region site can be selected. The pre-select regional hosts would have a tendancy to muck this up though.
OTOH: It's about time the the pre-selected regional hosts hasn't provided the things the NCAA promised, attendance is lower at most sites than it would have been using the old way of determining region and sub-region hosts. Nebraska would have hosted regionals the old way as well instead of pre-selecting them as a regional host.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 24, 2007 20:50:44 GMT -5
Good point. It's not HOW you win in the preseason and regular season...it's that you etch a win. I mean we are all sitting here arguing that the polls are messed up because certain teams play a lighter schedule and get challenged by unranked teams...yada yada...but when it all comes down to it WHO CARES abotu the preseason match between Nebraska/UCLA or Stanford/Penn State!?! The NCAA selection committee cares, that's who! The committee does not distinguish between conference and non-conference matches in doing things like assigning seeds. All matches count! NO IT ISN'T!!!! The NCAA volleyball season started on Aug 25 or whatever. Matches BEFORE Aug 25 were "preseason." Every match since then counts, and very often matters. The committee is allowed to weigh the last 10 matches of the season more heavily, but that is only half the conference season on the whole. For most teams, that non-conference part is most important. Why do you think Oregon and Michigan load up on weaker teams at the beginning? Because once they get into the conference schedule, wins are much harder to come by, so they need to be sure they get themselves eligible. Teams in weaker conferences like Florida and Hawaii need those non-conference wins in order to get good seeds in the tournament. Yeah, they could get themselves into the tourney by winning their conference, but if you want a seed, you need good wins, and they can't get them as easily in conference play. The committee does not look at conference finish when selecting teams. The non-conference schedule is very important overall. It is typically 1/3 or so of the team's overall package. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 24, 2007 21:05:09 GMT -5
I guess in a way we agree on this point. In my opinion, the overall schedules of Washington and Nebraska seem pretty comparable at this point in the season. I was simply trying to counter liberi's assertion that Washington has "more quality matches than . . . Nebraska will play." According to Pablo's rankings: Nebraska has played no teams ranked lower than #77 plus they've played #4 Penn State, #5 UCLA, #9 Texas, and #15 Cal Poly. Washington has played 9 teams ranked lower than #77 including 5 teams ranked between #208 and #293 and they've played only 1 top 10 ranked teams - that being Oregon ranked at #10 and one other top 25 ranked team in LBSU at #22. I'm not sure how you consider those schedules "pretty comparable at this point in the season". |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Sept 24, 2007 21:12:42 GMT -5
I guess in a way we agree on this point. In my opinion, the overall schedules of Washington and Nebraska seem pretty comparable at this point in the season. I was simply trying to counter liberi's assertion that Washington has "more quality matches than . . . Nebraska will play." According to Pablo's rankings: Nebraska has played no teams ranked lower than #77 plus they've played #4 Penn State, #5 UCLA, #9 Texas, and #15 Cal Poly. Washington has played 9 teams ranked lower than #77 including 5 teams ranked between #208 and #293 and they've played only 1 top 10 ranked teams - that being Oregon ranked at #10 and one other top 25 ranked team in LBSU at #22. I'm not sure how you consider those schedules "pretty comparable at this point in the season". The key word in my post was "overall". While lacking clarity, I was looking at both matches already played and those to be played through the remainder of the season. The reference to "this point in the season" was an attempt to acknowledge that the Pablo rankings are and will be fluid as the season progresses. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 24, 2007 21:38:03 GMT -5
I'm pretty confident that none of the teams for Washington ranks in the 200s are going to rise apreciably above those rankings and none of the teams that Nebraska has played will fall anywhere close to those rankings. |
|
|
|
Post by rubyredslippers on Sept 24, 2007 21:46:36 GMT -5
Interesting that you should mention Nebraska... Playing in their home court .... especially with over 11,000 fans yelling for them, etc... have they played ahywhere besides their own court?
|
|
|
|
Post by automattic52 on Sept 24, 2007 22:04:02 GMT -5
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. Note that Pablo has been very cautious on Dayton this year. I am somewhat surprised, because I would think that an undefeated team, even with a bunch of close matches, would creap higher than they have, especially considering the competition they have played. You would think beating #36 at Purdue in 3 would lead to more than 38, but then I guess dropping games to Jacksonville, Wake, and then going basically 50/50 against St Louis hurts enough. I don't know about the Wake Forest game, but Tim Horsman gave plenty of playing time to the freshman during the Jacksonville game. He has done this a couple of other times and put all five freshman in the game at once. I'm pretty sure that one was dropped since they had so much experience on the bench. Horsman is really impressed with this recruiting class and they have all had their moments this year, but they are definitely not ready to be taking over the majority of playing time themselves. Although i know they are anxious to get out there and i am glad Horsman is giving them a taste of college volleyball as well as highlighting their strong points at times to help the team. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 24, 2007 22:21:59 GMT -5
Interesting that you should mention Nebraska... Playing in their home court .... especially with over 11,000 fans yelling for them, etc... have they played ahywhere besides their own court? Nebraska: - 6 home matches - 1 away match - 3 neutral site matches - Average Pablo rankings for all opponents 36.75 (includes all conference opponents) - Average home attendance: 5419 with only one match in Omaha then other home matches have been at the Coliseum which I believe holds fewer fans than Washinton's home arena. It isn't Nebraska's fault that they can regular fill their home arena and Washington can't. Washington: - 3 home matches - 6 away matches - 4 neutral site matches - Average Pablo rankings for all opponents 74.68 (includes all conference opponents) - Average home attendance: 919 |
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Sept 24, 2007 22:27:22 GMT -5
I just wasted a half hour reading this whole thread. You make ma laugh. When I send in my AVCA votes, I switch it around just to make you guys argue over the gain/loss in points  |
|
|
|
Post by rubyredslippers on Sept 24, 2007 22:27:46 GMT -5
What do you call a neutral site... the quest center? Give me a break!
|
|
|
|
Post by huskervbfan on Sept 24, 2007 22:33:05 GMT -5
Interesting that you should mention Nebraska... Playing in their home court .... especially with over 11,000 fans yelling for them, etc... have they played ahywhere besides their own court? When every game they have won has been by an average of 30-20, I really don't think it matters where they have been playing. However, our home court is the Coliseum so, yes, the Huskers have four of their 10 matches away from their home court but only one match out of state so far with the next one in two days. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 24, 2007 22:33:33 GMT -5
No the Quest Center is considered a home site match and they actually played 2 matches there this season against Tennessee and UCLA.
That doesn't explain why Washington is only averaging 919 fans for home attendence though.
|
|
