Outrageous selections:

[GatorVball]

bearclause said:

sunny said:

gtvbjt--didn't Alabama lose to GT, FSU and the other ACC team at last spring's SEC/ACC meeting? I know it was Spring, but if I recall correctly, the ACC completely dominated the SEC. I mention this only because the SEC supporters continue to claim they are a "much stronger" conference. As to this year's tournament, I think 4 SEC teams and 3 ACC would have been fair. This is especially true in light of the fact that the 7 SEC teams who were invited last year did not exactly distinguish themselves. In my opinion, GT should definitely be there. Sorry the selection committee didn't see it that way.

Excuse me? Florida? LSU? Granted - LSU ended up with an atrocious first round matchup for a top 25 team.

Anyone who points to Spring results as if they should be weighed towards NCAA Tournament consideration should have VT posting privileges denied for a week.

The ACC fans do it every year cause it's the only thing they have to grasp at.

[BearClause]

gatorvball said:

The ACC fans do it every year cause it's the only thing they have to grasp at.

Honestly - last year I saw the SEC as having 2 slam dunk tournament teams, 2-3 teams that seemed like decent selections, and 2-3 borderline cases. It wasn't as if the SEC was that strong from top to bottom, but that they got in 7 didn't seem that unreasonable. I think some were wondering how the 7th team got in though.

I guess beyond arguing about Spring results, the other super-weak argument we've been hearing is about how "20+ win teams" are left out, without analyzing the weak competition faced to amass a 20+ win season.

[goldlabel]

Having seen both Georgia Tech (a couple of times) and Alabama (just once against South Carolina), I think Georgia Tech was a much better team than Alabama. I had to turn the channel during the Alabama game because the level of volleyball was so poor. Heck, the Illinois State and Northern Iowa match was a much higher level of volleyball than Alabama played.

I believe, after the top six or so teams, the experience of club volleyball for these players shows in much more parity across the country. I also think the club volleyball experience shows in the inability of these teams to play at a high level in every match. A "we always have the next match" mentality.

Just my 2 cents.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Based on the end of the season Pablo rankings, here are the differences that Pablo would like to see:

Teams out:
Illinois St
Xavier
Ole Miss
Kentucky
Missouri State
Western Kentucky
Alabama

Teams in:
TAMU
Northwestern
Illiinois
Loyola Marymount
Notre Dame (aaaaaarrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!)
Georgia Tech
Tulane

OTOH, the ISU, Xavier, and Ole Miss selections aren't all that bad, and even Kentucky is not too whacky. Missouri St, Western Kentucky, and Alabama are the most aggregious.

Now, I have suggested that much of the problem comes from the time component of Pablo, and that plays a significant role. If I take out the time component, and don't weight for the most recent matches (although the committee is supposed to take that into account), here is what Pablo thinks:

Get rid of:
Missouri State
Alabama
Illinois St
Xavier
Western Kentucky

and replace with
TAMU
Loyola Marymount
Northwestern
Illinois
Creighton

Of the eliminates, Xavier and Western Kentucky are the worst. The other teams are all close enough to not sweat about.

Here is what Pablo concludes:
While their are some debatable teams, there really is no case for Western Kentucky (even Alabama isn't aggregious if you don't weight "recent performance" any more heavily). Moreover, weak non-conference schedule aside, TAMU belongs.

If you ask me, I really like that non-time weighted group shown above.

[silversurfer]

pablo said:

Based on the end of the season Pablo rankings, here are the differences that Pablo would like to see:

Teams out:
Illinois St
Xavier
Ole Miss
Kentucky
Missouri State
Western Kentucky
Alabama

Teams in:
TAMU
Northwestern
Illiinois
Loyola Marymount
Notre Dame (aaaaaarrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!)
Georgia Tech
Tulane

OTOH, the ISU, Xavier, and Ole Miss selections aren't all that bad, and even Kentucky is not too whacky. Missouri St, Western Kentucky, and Alabama are the most aggregious.

Now, I have suggested that much of the problem comes from the time component of Pablo, and that plays a significant role. If I take out the time component, and don't weight for the most recent matches (although the committee is supposed to take that into account), here is what Pablo thinks:

Get rid of:
Missouri State
Alabama
Illinois St
Xavier
Western Kentucky

and replace with
TAMU
Loyola Marymount
Northwestern
Illinois
Creighton

Of the eliminates, Xavier and Western Kentucky are the worst. The other teams are all close enough to not sweat about.

Here is what Pablo concludes:
While their are some debatable teams, there really is no case for Western Kentucky (even Alabama isn't aggregious if you don't weight "recent performance" any more heavily). Moreover, weak non-conference schedule aside, TAMU belongs.

If you ask me, I really like that non-time weighted group shown above.

I agree that WKU, Illinois State, 'Bama, and Mizzou State should be out (4 teams from MVC? C'mon...2 is plenty). No way would I say Notre Dame should be in.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

I think the second batch is better: TAMU, Loyola Marymount, Northwestern, Illinois, Creighton for Missouri State, Alabama, Illinois St, Xavier, Western Kentucky

(if you want three teams from the valley, at least take the TOP three teams)

OTOH, Notre Dame isn't quite as bad you think. Wins against Louisville, Santa Clara, and they beat out Alabama in the head-to-head. They had some bad, bad losses, true, but there could be worse selections (coughalabamacoughwku)

[silversurfer]

pablo said:

I think the second batch is better: TAMU, Loyola Marymount, Northwestern, Illinois, Creighton for Missouri State, Alabama, Illinois St, Xavier, Western Kentucky

(if you want three teams from the valley, at least take the TOP three teams)

OTOH, Notre Dame isn't quite as bad you think. Wins against Louisville, Santa Clara, and they beat out Alabama in the head-to-head. They had some bad, bad losses, true, but there could be worse selections (coughalabamacoughwku)

True. I guess I'm overly critical of the Irish. And yeah, Xavier's another that shouldn't be in.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Yeah, but it is so easy to be against the Irish. I understand the sentiment.

[rukidding]

I think that Pablo is much quicker to react to what happens weekly and seems to weigh wins and losses more equally. Texas A&M's worst losses were to #46 Missouri and #50 Iowa St. and they also beat both of those teams in the last 10 matches of the season. Their other losses were to all to teams in the top-25. OK, the non-Con schedule turned out weaker than expected, but only 7 matches were played against teams in the 150+ category.

Kentucky posted 5 losses to teams in the 26-50 range against only two wins. Two losses to teams in the 50-100.

Alabama posted 4 losses to teams 26-50, 6 losses to teams 51-100 and one loss to #106.

Missouri posted two losses to teams 26-50, 2 losses to 51-100 and one to #108.

Illinois St. posted 4 losses to 26-50, 6 losses to 51-100.

W. Kentucky had 1 loss from 26-50, 3 to 51-100 and a loss to #177!

Losses don't seem to be of much consideration. If you beat someone their rank/rating seems to matter, but if you lose to them nobody seems to care. Go figure.

[hammer]

wolfgang said:

I renew my desire for pool play tournaments.

First, shorten the regular season.
Second, select N number of teams. It could be 64 or it could be all 320+ teams.
Third, divide said teams into pools/groups. Each team plays every other team in its group/pool.
Fourth, take the top 2 teams from each group/pool and place them in single-elimination brackets. Depending on the number of teams, you could have a bye round for the 1st place teams.

Here's my idea. Get together a group of experts who watch/follow vball at the collegiate level nationally. After the regular season has completed, ask the experts for a list of teams they think could win a National pool play tournament where all teams play all teams, just like World Cup. So, just pretending, maybe expert #1 might think that only these nine teams could win such a tournament in 2007:

Nebraska, Texas, Penn St., Stanford, UW, Cal, USC, Florida, Wisconsin.

Expert #2 might think that only these five teams could win:

Nebraska, Stanford, Penn St., UW, Texas

Anyway, the teams that would go into pool play would have to be mentioned on (say) 50% of the ballots. There would be no restriction on the number of teams that could go in. If there were too many teams, then two or more pools could be formed and a playoff would have to take place between pool winners and runnerups.

[IdahoBoy]

Woah, woah, woah... Stop the presses.


XAVIER got in!? no way!

[Gelatinous Mass]

I always thought that Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan was an outrageous selection....wait, seriously, Xavier got in? WTH!

[smp0024]

Watch out for XU in round 1. They beat Cal Poly in 5 on the west coast earlier this year and now they get to play them closer to home. With a draw of Ohio/Purdue in round 2, don't be terribly surprised if XU is in the sweet 16 with a little luck.

[aardvark]

Gator said:
The ACC fans do it [complain about the SEC] every year cause it's the only thing they have to grasp at.

There's some truth to this. There are many ACC fans who would rather moan than take a hard look at themselves. On the other hand, you yourself have said the last two years that the SEC should have gotten one fewer team in. Yes, in volleyball the SEC is better than the ACC. But the ACC has only gotten ten invites in the last 5 years. The SEC has gotten twelve in the last two years. Are they really that much better? Part of what riles up ACC fans is that the SEC is a prime opponent in the recruit battle, because of the extensive geographical overlap. If recruits perceive that the NCAA committee is giving the SEC the benefit of the doubt over an ACC team, then who do you think a recruit would prefer to go with? Bama got in this year barely winning half of their games. GT won over 2/3 but they're staying home. What kind of message does that send to high schoolers mulling over where they should land? The SEC and the ACC do have a common cause (with many other conferences). That is, to continue to cut into the Pac-10's dominance in this sport, so that it has a truly national appeal. I've seen this thing from both sides of the coin (UNC's dominance in women's soccer, for example), and I think it's better for the sport if power isn't clustered with so few. That won't happen if we keep sending less deserving teams to the tourney, as they will less likely win and open eyes to the possibility of a winner coming from somewhere other than the west coast.

[BearClause]

aardvark said:

Gator said:
The ACC fans do it [complain about the SEC] every year cause it's the only thing they have to grasp at.

There's some truth to this. There are many ACC fans who would rather moan than take a hard look at themselves. On the other hand, you yourself have said the last two years that the SEC should have gotten one fewer team in. Yes, in volleyball the SEC is better than the ACC. But the ACC has only gotten ten invites in the last 5 years. The SEC has gotten twelve in the last two years. Are they really that much better? Part of what riles up ACC fans is that the SEC is a prime opponent in the recruit battle, because of the extensive geographical overlap. If recruits perceive that the NCAA committee is giving the SEC the benefit of the doubt over an ACC team, then who do you think a recruit would prefer to go with? Bama got in this year barely winning half of their games. GT won over 2/3 but they're staying home. What kind of message does that send to high schoolers mulling over where they should land? The SEC and the ACC do have a common cause (with many other conferences). That is, to continue to cut into the Pac-10's dominance in this sport, so that it has a truly national appeal. I've seen this thing from both sides of the coin (UNC's dominance in women's soccer, for example), and I think it's better for the sport if power isn't clustered with so few. That won't happen if we keep sending less deserving teams to the tourney, as they will less likely win and open eyes to the possibility of a winner coming from somewhere other than the west coast.

Still - the recent years where the SEC has gotten many teams in is best explained in a description of mild political support by many. They've been "a mile wide and an inch deep". They had a bunch of borderline teams just barely make it in the tournament. It's not that the SEC has turned into a power conference, but that enough of their teams have done what they needed to squeak into the NCAA Tournament field.