|
Post by MsRSV on Nov 11, 2013 20:23:15 GMT -5
Just to be more clear. This Q&A session was provided by an anonymous VT agent with an anonymous Selection Committee member.
|
|
|
Post by kurtndiego on Nov 12, 2013 15:25:47 GMT -5
Will be interesting to see how this all pans out. Will PSU "luckily" be dealt another cakewalk to the Final Four like in the last few years past?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 12, 2013 19:27:34 GMT -5
Will be interesting to see how this all pans out. Will PSU "luckily" be dealt another cakewalk to the Final Four like in the last few years past? You mean like their 2012 regional final against a team ranked #5 in Pablo? That seems tougher than it should be for the #1 overall... Or do you mean 2011 when they faced the eventual national champion in the Sweet 16? Or 2009 when as the #1 seed overall they faced Pablo #19 then #8 in regionals (almost exactly what it should be)? Or 2008 when as the #1 overall they face Pablo #6 in the regional final? Yes, they got a friendly break in 2010 but that will happen by chance to everybody every once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 12, 2013 20:05:16 GMT -5
According to this community of Volleytalkers are all delusional and living in a fantasy land. Lets get real the committee has historically used RPI way too heavily. I think the committee needs to just own up to the mistakes they make. The system is flawed has been for awhile. The idea that they will use the coaches poll and Pablo remains to be seen but I will believe it when I see it. For all the complaining I do though they have a tough job but we wouldn't complain so much if the seeds reflected what we actually thought of each team.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 12, 2013 20:16:08 GMT -5
According to this community of Volleytalkers are all delusional and living in a fantasy land. Lets get real the committee has historically used RPI way too heavily. I think the committee needs to just own up to the mistakes they make. The system is flawed has been for awhile. The idea that they will use the coaches poll and Pablo remains to be seen but I will believe it when I see it. For all the complaining I do though they have a tough job but we wouldn't complain so much if the seeds reflected what we actually thought of each team. Their job is create a tournament that eventually crowns a worthy National Champion. I can't recall a year when the best team didn't win, so to me that means they are accomplishing their goal.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 12, 2013 20:36:02 GMT -5
I can't recall a year when the best team didn't win, so to me that means they are accomplishing their goal. And what is this supposed to mean, anyway? How do you determine when the best team didn't win? If I say one team would beat another team 9 times out of 10, and yet they play one time and the second team wins, was I wrong? Or was that just the 1/10 chance coming to fruition? Or what if a team that would win in an infinite round-robin loses a knockout match to a team that is overall not as good but matches up quite well to the first team? One team will win six matches and be the champion. This is certain. If that is your definition of "best team" then the best team always wins. But that's a trivial outcome. I thought that just last year the best team didn't win. I still think Oregon was the best team. But they lost to Texas, so Texas is the 2012 champion. As has been said before, the point of the tournament is to find a champion, not necessarily to find "the best team." However, it should be set up to try and make sure that it is more likely the best teams will face each other later rather than sooner. This is for entertainment value, if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 12, 2013 20:44:26 GMT -5
According to this community of Volleytalkers are all delusional and living in a fantasy land. Lets get real the committee has historically used RPI way too heavily. I think the committee needs to just own up to the mistakes they make. The system is flawed has been for awhile. The idea that they will use the coaches poll and Pablo remains to be seen but I will believe it when I see it. For all the complaining I do though they have a tough job but we wouldn't complain so much if the seeds reflected what we actually thought of each team. Their job is create a tournament that eventually crowns a worthy National Champion. I can't recall a year when the best team didn't win, so to me that means they are accomplishing their goal. This sounds like dumb logic to me. What you stated is not their job at all. Their job is to correctly seed and place 64 teams in a bracket to compete for a National Championship. Sometimes the best team wins but not always and some teams get screwed along the way.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 12, 2013 20:45:02 GMT -5
I can't recall a year when the best team didn't win, so to me that means they are accomplishing their goal. And what is this supposed to mean, anyway? How do you determine when the best team didn't win? If I say one team would beat another team 9 times out of 10, and yet they play one time and the second team wins, was I wrong? Or was that just the 1/10 chance coming to fruition? Or what if a team that would win in an infinite round-robin loses a knockout match to a team that is overall not as good but matches up quite well to the first team? One team will win six matches and be the champion. This is certain. If that is your definition of "best team" then the best team always wins. But that's a trivial outcome. I thought that just last year the best team didn't win. I still think Oregon was the best team. But they lost to Texas, so Texas is the 2012 champion. As has been said before, the point of the tournament is to find a champion, not necessarily to find "the best team." However, it should be set up to try and make sure that it is more likely the best teams will face each other later rather than sooner. This is for entertainment value, if nothing else. Not sure I understand your point. If you think Oregon was the best team than the committee did an awesome job getting them to the National championship game. I disagree through, Texas was the best team.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 12, 2013 20:58:10 GMT -5
And what is this supposed to mean, anyway? How do you determine when the best team didn't win? If I say one team would beat another team 9 times out of 10, and yet they play one time and the second team wins, was I wrong? Or was that just the 1/10 chance coming to fruition? Or what if a team that would win in an infinite round-robin loses a knockout match to a team that is overall not as good but matches up quite well to the first team? One team will win six matches and be the champion. This is certain. If that is your definition of "best team" then the best team always wins. But that's a trivial outcome. I thought that just last year the best team didn't win. I still think Oregon was the best team. But they lost to Texas, so Texas is the 2012 champion. As has been said before, the point of the tournament is to find a champion, not necessarily to find "the best team." However, it should be set up to try and make sure that it is more likely the best teams will face each other later rather than sooner. This is for entertainment value, if nothing else. Not sure I understand your point. If you think Oregon was the best team than the committee did an awesome job getting them to the National championship game. I disagree through, Texas was the best team. That's fine. We can disagree. And yeah, I think the best team got to the finals (and lost), so I am not complaining about the outcome of the tournament. I'm just questioning whether your statement has any objective meaning.
|
|
|
Post by kokyu on Nov 12, 2013 21:02:57 GMT -5
Oregon probably had around a 65% probability of beating Texas last year, clearly the favorite.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 12, 2013 21:03:24 GMT -5
Not sure I understand your point. If you think Oregon was the best team than the committee did an awesome job getting them to the National championship game. I disagree through, Texas was the best team. That's fine. We can disagree. And yeah, I think the best team got to the finals (and lost), so I am not complaining about the outcome of the tournament. I'm just questioning whether your statement has any objective meaning. I guess I'd turn it around on the critic and ask when has their been a worthy champion not given an opportunity to win the championship ? Since I believe only 9 teams have ever won a National championship in volleyball in 30 + years, the final four is usually the same 6-9 schools every year. Occasionally there's a Cinderella, but when has a worthy champion candidate been screwed by the committee ??
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 12, 2013 21:06:58 GMT -5
That's fine. We can disagree. And yeah, I think the best team got to the finals (and lost), so I am not complaining about the outcome of the tournament. I'm just questioning whether your statement has any objective meaning. I guess I'd turn it around on the critic and ask when has their been a worthy champion not given an opportunity to win the championship ? Since I believe only 9 teams have ever won a National championship in volleyball in 30 + years, the final four is usually the same 6-9 schools every year. Occasionally there's a Cinderella, but when has a worthy champion candidate been screwed by the committee ?? Are you addressing volleyfan24? Because I never said "a worthy champion has not been given an opportunity to win the championship." Though I will point out that not all opportunities are equal. Every year some do get easier roads than others.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 12, 2013 21:14:49 GMT -5
Their job is create a tournament that eventually crowns a worthy National Champion. I can't recall a year when the best team didn't win, so to me that means they are accomplishing their goal. This sounds like dumb logic to me. What you stated is not their job at all. Their job is to correctly seed and place 64 teams in a bracket to compete for a National Championship. Sometimes the best team wins but not always and some teams get screwed along the way. They do that and the best 4 teams are usually the top 4 seeds and more often than not have an opportunity to advance and win the championship. What worthy championship level team has ever been "screwed" by the committee ?
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 13, 2013 1:14:58 GMT -5
This sounds like dumb logic to me. What you stated is not their job at all. Their job is to correctly seed and place 64 teams in a bracket to compete for a National Championship. Sometimes the best team wins but not always and some teams get screwed along the way. They do that and the best 4 teams are usually the top 4 seeds and more often than not have an opportunity to advance and win the championship. What worthy championship level team has ever been "screwed" by the committee ? Most recent memory is when Klineman. Lichtman, and Ailes of Stanford had to face Jupiter, Falyn, and Bateman of USC in the regional final those teams had already faced each other during conference play and to meet in a regional final was robbery. Either one was Final Four worthy in my opinion. Also after beating on each other either team was going to have a tough time winning after that sometimes the bracket gets stacked in certain areas with really good teams. Also its rough playing a team multiple times during a season then getting thrown in the same regional. You are bound to win one but I digress we can agree to disagree but anyone with half a brain knows that the road to the final four and national championship isn't always equal or divided equally amongst teams.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 13, 2013 1:25:58 GMT -5
They do that and the best 4 teams are usually the top 4 seeds and more often than not have an opportunity to advance and win the championship. What worthy championship level team has ever been "screwed" by the committee ? Most recent memory is when Klineman. Lichtman, and Ailes of Stanford had to face Jupiter, Falyn, and Bateman of USC in the regional final those teams had already faced each other during conference play and to meet in a regional final was robbery. Either one was Final Four worthy in my opinion. Also after beating on each other either team was going to have a tough time winning after that sometimes the bracket gets stacked in certain areas with really good teams. Also its rough playing a team multiple times during a season then getting thrown in the same regional. You are bound to win one but I digress we can agree to disagree but anyone with half a brain knows that the road to the final four and national championship isn't always equal or divided equally amongst teams. Eh. Pretty much any team that gets to the round of 16 is "Final Four worthy." Certainly any team that gets to the round of eight is. You think God anoints four teams with fire and deems them as THE FOUR WORTHY TEAMS? The main difference really tends to be in the second round. Almost every top team gets an AQ cupcake in the first round. A few of them (cough)Penn State(cough) get the same thing in the second round too. But often the second round is where the "shoulda coulda seeded" teams clash with the actual seeded teams. That's where people mostly whine about the seeding. By the time you only have 16 teams left, they are usually all really good. Occasionally you get a "Region Of Death" or (also occasionally) somebody not-so-tough got a crazy upset in round two and is then served for dinner in round three, but getting through the regionals is always difficult for everybody.
|
|