|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 19, 2010 12:20:37 GMT -5
This is what many of us knew was going to happen. No matter how convincingly PSU won against Texas and Cal, there would be questions about their draw that would, in the eyes of some, diminish their incredible accomplishment. And that's why I said earlier, Russ Rose is the one person who should be doing the most to try to make the brackets more equitable. No question Penn State clobbered Texas and manhandled Cal. But Cal had to play their very first tournament game against a conference tournament champion and then got sent to the Seattle "Regional of Death;" then had to play a Pac-10 team that had already beaten them twice. Penn State traveled in luxury to the final four in lecticas carried by the likes of Niagara, Virginia Tech and Oklahoma. Even Karch felt obligated to mention their draw at least a half-dozen times. No matter how remarkable their accomplishment getting the 4th trophy, there are some who will always put an asterisk on it. No, nobody is going put an "asterisk" on this season or any other season, for that matter. It's not an issue. Heck, it's not even an ant hill. Give it a rest. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 19, 2010 12:26:17 GMT -5
Would the tournament go better if all teams were seeded like the Men's BBall? Yes, assuming the committee was able to do a good job of doing that. Regionalization of the first two rounds is the number one problem with the tournament. Overusing the RPI for seeding is the number two problem. Fix both of those and it would be a much better tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Dec 19, 2010 12:29:03 GMT -5
Would the tournament go better if all teams were seeded like the Men's BBall? Yes, assuming the committee was able to do a good job of doing that. Regionalization of the first two rounds is the number one problem with the tournament. Overusing the RPI for seeding is the number two problem. Fix both of those and it would be a much better tournament. Yea that seems to be the hold up. Why not just go the opposite way and BCS it! Take a VT poll of who should be in the NC match and have bowl games for the rest (also voted on my VT) ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Dec 19, 2010 12:29:49 GMT -5
This is what many of us knew was going to happen. No matter how convincingly PSU won against Texas and Cal, there would be questions about their draw that would, in the eyes of some, diminish their incredible accomplishment. And that's why I said earlier, Russ Rose is the one person who should be doing the most to try to make the brackets more equitable. No question Penn State clobbered Texas and manhandled Cal. But Cal had to play their very first tournament game against a conference tournament champion and then got sent to the Seattle "Regional of Death;" then had to play a Pac-10 team that had already beaten them twice. Penn State traveled in luxury to the final four in lecticas carried by the likes of Niagara, Virginia Tech and Oklahoma. Even Karch felt obligated to mention their draw at least a half-dozen times. No matter how remarkable their accomplishment getting the 4th trophy, there are some who will always put an asterisk on it. No, nobody is going put an "asterisk" on this season or any other season, for that matter. It's not an issue. Heck, it's not even an ant hill. Give it a rest. You can't argue with PAC 10 homers, you will just wasted your time. Just enjoy it, PSU bested the PAC 10 champ, the higher ranked team, COY, NPOY. 90% of the people on here gave PSU no chance to beat CAL or TX for that matter, make this even more sweet. |
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 19, 2010 12:31:32 GMT -5
"I'm sure if PSU had beaten Utah State in round one and then took out Washington and Minnesota, there wouldn't be a peep from anyone on this board about the greatness of Penn State." If PSU had played Minnesota in the round of 16, then this tournament would have needed a congressional investigation. You have to hand it to PSU, they got their best win of the season in their last match. The only thing missing this year was a win over Stanford, PSU got better and Stanford didn't get over some humps. Nobody preps their teams better than Rose. I was going to let you have it because you are one of the few posters here on VT bashing PSU incessantly before the NC game...until I read this. Kudos. |
|
|
|
Post by ccman on Dec 19, 2010 12:34:36 GMT -5
"Would the tournament go better if all teams were seeded like the Men's BBall?"
Leaving RPI aside, there's some easy changes, and that is probably the best one.
1) Seed at least 8 teams 1-8 in each regional. 32 total teams that get seeded in regionals. At least this would eliminate the some really bad sub-regional imbalances. 64 would be even better.
2) No hosting sub-regionals & regionals. 4 matches at home for any team is not a competitive set-up.
3) Top 4 teams in a conference should be distributed across regionals.
4) Take away or re-do the travel guidelines, they basically aren't adhered to that well anyway. There are three big examples. a) Not one of top 4 Big Ten teams was even in the most Big Ten'ish regional - Dayton - with Ill & Purdue going to Texas. b) Mississippi & NC going to Berkeley. c) USC/Stan and half the west being placed in the Dayton Regional. Might have gone another 300 or so miles and put some of them in PSU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Dec 19, 2010 12:36:50 GMT -5
Would the tournament go better if all teams were seeded like the Men's BBall? Yes, assuming the committee was able to do a good job of doing that. Regionalization of the first two rounds is the number one problem with the tournament. Overusing the RPI for seeding is the number two problem. Fix both of those and it would be a much better tournament. That's not going to work since no one can afford it. MBB is a $$$ making machine second only to Football. How many WVB programs are making $$$, may be a handful? Until then, the debate will go on. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 19, 2010 12:39:02 GMT -5
2) No hosting sub-regionals & regionals. 4 matches at home for any team is not a competitive set-up. It is just impractical not to have host teams playing at home. Look at the Dayton Regional. Less than 4000 attending. To avoid any team hosting four matches in a row, you could have a rule that the top seeded team hosts rounds 1/2 -- unless they are a regional host, in which case the second-highest seeded team hosts rounds 1/2. |
|
|
|
Post by ccman on Dec 19, 2010 12:45:10 GMT -5
"I was going to let you have it because you are one of the few posters here on VT bashing PSU incessantly before the NC game...until I read this."
Huh, don't understand this at all?? When have I bashed PSU incessantly?
I certainly bashed their regional, their tournament set-up, as it should have been bashed, and mocked the whole tournament set-up and the NCAA regionals. I stated in early Nov. the Big 10 would have 8 teams, and the Big 10 was the best conference. I've thought they deserved a very high seed. I've certainly bashed the competitive set-up for PSU in the tournament, but don't understand why you would equate that to bashing PSU or think I've bashed PSU. They got the best win of any team in the country this year, beating the best team, Cal, in the nation - so now they're the best team..
|
|
|
|
Post by psuvbfan10 on Dec 19, 2010 12:50:07 GMT -5
Before VT, there was the feeling that sending PSU to Nebraska for several tournaments matches in the 90's was a tough & unfair draw. You just have to take what is in front of you step by step regardless of whether one thinks it's tough/easy/fair etc
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Dec 19, 2010 12:53:10 GMT -5
Before VT, there was the feeling that sending PSU to Nebraska for several tournaments matches in the 90's was a tough & unfair draw. You just have to take what is in front of you step by step regardless of whether one thinks it's tough/easy/fair etc I actually agree with a PSU fan. WOW! But Whether or not the draw was easy they took care of business and did what they had to do. Would the tournament had been different if they were in a different Regional? Probably, but it is the same thing with all the Non-AQ conferences in football they play who is on their schedule and that is all they can do. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 19, 2010 13:09:38 GMT -5
Let me put it another way: all you PSU fans, wouldn't you want to watch more competitive volleyball? In Seattle this year we got to watch Hawaii, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Cal. Even Michigan and Portland State weren't all that bad. You got to watch PSU, sure, but other than that you saw Duke, Mizzou, Oklahoma, Niagara, Delaware, and Virginia Tech. How many of those were even as interesting to watch as Michigan? Maybe one or two.
I would have thought it would be the PSU fans calling for a more distributed seeding process, actually. Don't you want to see your team challenged? Don't you want to see them beat the best competition? That's what the tournament is supposed to be all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 19, 2010 13:58:51 GMT -5
Let me put it another way: all you PSU fans, wouldn't you want to watch more competitive volleyball? In Seattle this year we got to watch Hawaii, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Cal. Even Michigan and Portland State weren't all that bad. You got to watch PSU, sure, but other than that you saw Duke, Mizzou, Oklahoma, Niagara, Delaware, and Virginia Tech. How many of those were even as interesting to watch as Michigan? Maybe one or two. I would have thought it would be the PSU fans calling for a more distributed seeding process, actually. Don't you want to see your team challenged? Don't you want to see them beat the best competition? That's what the tournament is supposed to be all about. We already played MN and Mich. twice. Hawaii lost to Utah State big time. Nebraska already designated with a region. So that leaves Cal left. But we played Cal in the finals. Plus, Cal was co-Pac 10 champs. Can't play Cal that early, being both Big 10 and Pac 10 champs for PSU and Cal respectively. If any team should go it would be Washington or USC to PSU region instead, perhaps. Washington and USC would have had no chance at PSU. But all in all, a if the NC is the consolation prize, it's fine with me. Case close. Give it a rest. |
|
|
|
Post by NebraskaVBfan93 on Dec 19, 2010 14:06:48 GMT -5
If PSU had played Minnesota in the round of 16, then this tournament would have needed a congressional investigation. Why? Cal had to play them then. The round of 16 is when seeded teams are supposed to be playing other seeded teams. I'm not complaining that the wrong team won the tournament. I'm complaining that the wrong tournament was played. There is a difference between the two complaints, but some of you folks are too defensive to accept that. What a bunch of BS. You come on here and spout of a bunch of crap like , "some" will say their accomplishment is tarnished, or "there are those" who won't give them credit, and "many" will remember the easy path............blah blah blah. some=you there are those=you many=you Dang man, have some conviction for your opinion instead of your thinly veiled attempt to speak for the masses. And then you hold up you hands in surprise that people are offended? "Who me? What did I do? If you have a problem with the "wrong tournament being played" and not the "wrong team won the tournament", then is it not quite possible the points you have to make would be better served on a different thread? |
|
|
|
Post by 1volley1 on Dec 19, 2010 14:17:37 GMT -5
I am a PSU fan, but Mike Garrison is 100% right. Even if you acknowledge PSU as the best team this year, you have to admit that their tournament schedule was relatively easy. That they were gifted with a relatively easy schedule does not mean that they are not the best, it just means that they were exogenously given a more likely shot at the NC than a team like Cal.
Again, they are (most likely) better than Cal. But it was harder for Cal to get to the final than it was for PSU to get to the final. That's all I am seeing people say and I agree with it. All you can really do is say "oh well" and acknowledge this fact as evidence that the seeding process is really difficult given the multiple constraints the committee is under.
|
|
