|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 28, 2011 19:39:00 GMT -5
They were the last man (or woman) standing, for sure. Everyone else who made the tourney ended their season with a loss. They are the champs.
Does that mean they were definitively the best team of 2011? Maybe, maybe not. Note that they didn't have to face any Pac-1(2) teams. Most years, going through PSU and Texas would be a big achievement, but maybe not so much this year. Getting FSU in the semi's was a gift with a big bow on top.
|
|
|
Post by GoUCLA on Dec 28, 2011 19:45:02 GMT -5
They were the last man (or woman) standing, for sure. Everyone else who made the tourney ended their season with a loss. They are the champs. Does that mean they were definitively the best team of 2011? Maybe, maybe not. Note that they didn't have to face any Pac-1(2) teams. Most years, going through PSU and Texas would be a big achievement, but maybe not so much this year. Getting FSU in the semi's was a gift with a big bow on top. They were definitely the hottest and most solid team during the tournament. I think they would've taken down any team in their path...and yes, including Arizona who they lost to twice during the regular season.
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Dec 30, 2011 12:44:48 GMT -5
By comparing the AVCA rankings of the teams to (a) their NCAA tourney performance and (b) their power rankings (pablo, RPI & Massey). You think RPI is a better ranking of teams than the AVCA poll? Well OK, maybe you do think that. But so what? Why is your opinion more correct than then that of the AVCA voters? Pablo & Massey also disagreed with the AVCA rankings of most of the Pac-12 teams. Are you really saying that the AVCA poll is better than all three ranking systems and the results of the NCAA tournament?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 30, 2011 13:31:28 GMT -5
Pablo & Massey also disagreed with the AVCA rankings of most of the Pac-12 teams. Are you really saying that the AVCA poll is better than all three ranking systems and the results of the NCAA tournament? All ranking systems become more accurate as the season progresses, as results accumulate to underwrite or undercut initial expectations. Still, all ranking systems are hampered by the relative paucity of shared datapoints between major conferences. The Pac-1(2)'s early to midseason rankings were largely based on Stanford beating PSU and other Pac-1(2) teams beating Stanford or other Pac-1(2) teams who beat Stanford. If the Pac-1(2) was overranked, as a group, it was because PSU was overranked by at least a half-a-dozen spots for the whole season, because the initial expectations were so unreasonably high starting the season (as were the expectations for Stanford). At the same time, it is hard to say that UCLA and USC were overranked. If anything UCLA was underranked.
|
|