stc23
Sophomore
Posts: 195
|
Post by stc23 on Nov 9, 2012 20:10:19 GMT -5
My thanks as well to the anonymous participants, Bofa, Rich Kern, and all their compatriots, and all the coaches, AVCA, and NCAA members who have been involved in the efforts to improve the process.
The 8 regions are: Central, East, Mideast, Midwest, Northeast, Pacific, South, and West.
The national committee has 10 members. Currently there are two representatives from the Central and East regions, and one from every other region.
Each advisory committee currently consists of 5-7 representatives from schools in that region, and is chaired / co-chaired by its national committee representative(s).
The members of all committees are listed in the General Administration section of the manual. The complete list of schools in each region can also be found in the manual (Appendix B), but the shorter form is just to list the conferences that comprise each region:
Central = Big 12, Missouri Valley, Southland, Summit League East = ACC, Big South, Colonial, MEAC Mideast = Big 10, Metro Atlantic, MAC, Northeast Midwest = Conference USA, Horizon, Ohio Valley, SWAC Northeast = America East, A10, Big East, Ivy League Pacific = Big Sky, Pac 12, WCC South = Atlantic Sun, SEC, Southern, Sun Belt West = Big West, Mountain West, WAC
Multiple Regions * = Great West, Independents (CS-Bakersfield, New Orleans)
* not eligible for automatic qualification
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 10, 2012 15:34:59 GMT -5
so the committee IS using AVCA and Pablo?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 10, 2012 16:01:24 GMT -5
so the committee IS using AVCA and Pablo? It seems like they are now allowed to, if they want.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Nov 10, 2012 16:50:30 GMT -5
The lamest part of this Q&A had to do with seeding. I refuse to believe that the reason all 64 teams aren't seeded is travel. I suspect it's laziness--too much trouble. Seed them all and then distribute by seed. Make little tweaks here and there if the travel restrictions are a real problem. At least seed the first 32. With so much more parity in the country, imo, we may find more unseeded teams forced to play through ridiculous schedules when they could have competed in the final eight or four.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 10, 2012 18:47:38 GMT -5
The lamest part of this Q&A had to do with seeding. I refuse to believe that the reason all 64 teams aren't seeded is travel. I suspect it's laziness- This makes no sense at all. The reason all 64 teams aren't seeded is because volleyball is a non-revenue sport, and in non-revenue sport, the NCAA only allows the committee to seed 1/4 of the teams in the tournament. Who in the blazes are you accusing of being lazy? Every single selection committee for every non-revenue sport? That's beyond nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Nov 12, 2012 0:52:01 GMT -5
I have to say, I'm still fuming at the blanket discount of VTers from "the Guru."
These selection committee members are brainwashed into thinking that they are doing this right.
|
|
|
Post by teamster on Nov 16, 2012 11:42:46 GMT -5
The Q & A for this. Was it done by email or by phone?
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Nov 16, 2012 23:43:29 GMT -5
Wait. Now we're back to "above .500 record" rather than at or above?
|
|
|
Post by ForSureSurfin on Nov 17, 2012 0:29:06 GMT -5
I just want to see... Stanford/BYU vs. Hawaii/Louisville @ Berkeley Penn State/Dayton vs. Washington/Ohio State @ Purdue Texas/Florida State vs. USC/Minnesota @ Texas Oregon/Florida vs. UCLA/Nebraska @ Nebraska
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Nov 17, 2012 1:54:10 GMT -5
I'm a little late to the party, but I just want to give a congrats to Bofa for the acceptance of Pablo. Loved the article in coaching volleyball, BTW.
About time.
|
|
|
Post by sirtrojan on Nov 19, 2012 1:01:34 GMT -5
I want to thank Volley Talk and The Guru for putting together this interview. Now to my point. The Guru said USC was strongly penalized in the 2011 seeding because of one bad loss. Specifically the Guru says, "One example of the one bad loss affecting seeding is the case of USC in 2011. They were very highly ranked in the AVCA poll heading into selection weekend but because they had one of the worst bad losses to a much lower ranked team (UCF), they got dropped to seventh overall."
Here are some facts for 2011:
Going into the 2011 NCAA tournament USC was ranked #1 in the AVCA poll with 53 first place votes.
UCF (University of Central Florida) had a 20-11 record in 2011. USC played UCF the second weekend of the season in the morning on a day USC had another match in the afternoon.
USC won its next 16 of 17 matches with 14 of those being sweeps. USC won its last 8 matches of the regular season with 7 of those matches being sweeps.
Here are my two questions:
How can a loss to a 20 game winning team be a really bad loss?
How can one aberration at the beginning of the season outweigh all other accomplishments?
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 19, 2012 1:14:38 GMT -5
For sirtrojan; will be interesting to see how Penn State is treated this year; Oregon States RPI is down to 54 and still descending, with the Washington losss and WSU win to be figured in, then still to play UCLA and Oregon. Will Penn State still be seeded #1 over A Stanford team that did lose to them, 15-13 in the fifth, and has 3 losses v. #2, #6 and #18 type RPI's. Shouldn't be higher, according to this guy. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by FTLOG on Nov 19, 2012 2:00:14 GMT -5
For sirtrojan; will be interesting to see how Penn State is treated this year; Oregon States RPI is down to 54 and still descending, with the Washington losss and WSU win to be figured in, then still to play UCLA and Oregon. Will Penn State still be seeded #1 over A Stanford team that did lose to them, 15-13 in the fifth, and has 3 losses v. #2, #6 and #18 type RPI's. Shouldn't be higher, according to this guy. We'll see. stanford still has to get by cal, but in general i think this is a good point.
|
|
|
Post by volleyhead on Nov 19, 2012 2:34:45 GMT -5
I can't believe the NCAA is naive enough to think that just by making the AVCA votes public that that gives enough validity to the poll to use it in the selection of at-large teams. As many posters have identified through the season, there are still conference and west coast bias to the NCAA poll. I don't have a problem with them using PABLO because that is generated with a neutral formula that has been around for years. There is no way the poll will ever be worth anything more than just something to put into USA Today until they have people that DON'T have a conflict of interest voting on the poll.
|
|
|
Post by unrated on Nov 19, 2012 11:02:40 GMT -5
I would submit that the person who is a) qualified to vote in the NCAA poll b) unbiased Does not exist.
|
|