|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 13, 2013 8:07:56 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? It isn't "luck" Their easy first rounds are a function first of them being a #1 seed every year. Secondly its a function of NCAA policy regarding travel. In the past 6 years what other 1 seeds opponents would PSU have not hammered in the first two rounds? Someone answer that, and then we can have a conversation, or are people worked up about PSU not having a tougher team to blowout in three? The argument is old, and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Nov 13, 2013 9:52:44 GMT -5
Do you think albany/yale are the same as playing san diego/long beach in the second round. the argument is not old and stupid. not even close
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 13, 2013 9:59:36 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? It isn't "luck" Their easy first rounds are a function first of them being a #1 seed every year. Secondly its a function of NCAA policy regarding travel. In the past 6 years what other 1 seeds opponents would PSU have not hammered in the first two rounds? Someone answer that, and then we can have a conversation, or are people worked up about PSU not having a tougher team to blowout in three? The argument is old, and stupid. I disagree with the first factor you cite. It's not that Penn State is a #1 seed, it's simply that they are seeded and thus get to host. Your second factor is the real reason they get grouped with three AQ teams each year. I also disagree with your claim that this argument is "old and stupid". There have been several recent years where at-large teams or AQ teams with better RPI's are located within 400 miles of State College and they never get sent there. Sure, Penn State would probably blow out those teams in the 2nd round, but at least they would be playing a higher quality team that might make them work a bit harder for the win. It's a shame the NCAA and the committee choose to ignore this issue, even in the years when they have options to assign a better potential 2nd round opponent within the Penn State subregional.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 13, 2013 10:48:50 GMT -5
Do you think albany/yale are the same as playing san diego/long beach in the second round. the argument is not old and stupid. not even close What top seed is playing San Diego in the second round? Not high seed, top seed? If you are asking me would PSU beat San Diego and LBSU soundly in State College in December, the answer is yes, and everything suggests that.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 13, 2013 11:06:32 GMT -5
Do you think albany/yale are the same as playing san diego/long beach in the second round. the argument is not old and stupid. not even close What top seed is playing San Diego in the second round? Not high seed, top seed? If you are asking me would PSU beat San Diego and LBSU soundly in State College in December, the answer is yes, and everything suggests that. In 2011, #1 seed Texas got Michigan St. in the 2nd round (Arizona was other possibility). #2 Nebraska got K-State. #8 Penn St. got American/Delaware. In 2010, #1 Florida got FSU. #3 Stanford got Colorado St. #4 Penn St. got Delaware/V-Tech (and V-Tech's at-large that year was a mystery of RPI). #6 USC got San Diego or LBSU (and that was a REALLY good USD team in De Groot/Troost's senior year that could have taken out PSU or given them a match. They took a set off of SC in Round 2 and had beaten Minnesota that year). In 2007, #1 Stanford had Minnesota in its subregional vs. #3 Penn St.'s Alabany/Cleveland St. In 2006, #2 Stanford got Santa Clara and Missouri, #3 Penn St. got Cornell/Hofstra. So no, it's not because they're the highest seed because every time they aren't the #1 seed, they still get much easier draws. Additionally, the #1 seed should get a slightly easier second round match than the #2 seed -- but Penn State's are disporporationately easier and more like another first round match.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 13, 2013 13:47:11 GMT -5
Can we please, please, please, for all that is merciful and good STOP CALLING VOLLEYBALL A NON-REVENUE SPORT!!
That is Orwellian double-speak.
There is revenue...lots and lots of revenue in D1 Volleyball at many schools.
It may be a non-PROFIT sport at many schools. They may spend more on scholarships and facilities and coaches salaries and marketing than they generate in ticket sales and alumni club fees and parking and $6 hotdogs and $4 sodas and $3 bottles of water....and all that scratch is what we call revenue.
Most human beings on earth have never watched porn. But that doesn't make it a "non-porn" world.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 13, 2013 13:52:35 GMT -5
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. Back in 2005 I thought that Arizona was a much better team than Santa Clara, but Arizona couldn't convert when they had match point. Heck - I thought that Stanford was better even without Barboza, but upsets happen.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 13, 2013 13:52:45 GMT -5
Can we please, please, please, for all that is merciful and good STOP CALLING VOLLEYBALL A NON-REVENUE SPORT!! That is Orwellian double-speak. There is revenue...lots and lots of revenue in D1 Volleyball at many schools. It may be a non-PROFIT sport at many schools. They may spend more on scholarships and facilities and coaches salaries and marketing than they generate in ticket sales and alumni club fees and parking and $6 hotdogs and $4 sodas and $3 bottles of water....and all that scratch is what we call revenue. Most human beings on earth have never watched porn. But that doesn't make it a "non-porn" world. Tom, I apologize, but you are wrong on this one. There are most certainly not lots and lots of vb programs that are revenue sports, in fact their aren't a handful. Last year, there was 1, and this year there will be two. Not sure where you are getting that from, But scholarships, salaries, travel etc........... are not being covered by attendance and slices of pizzas. I would suggest you talk to some folks who are in administration, and they will most certainly tell you the same. Nebraska who had 4,000 plus season ticket holders at a price way higher than what others charge, and sell a ton of concessions, didn't quite break even. If they aren't, then no way lots and lots are. Do programs have lots of money coming in? They sure do, but that number isn't exceeding whats going out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 13:56:04 GMT -5
Tom's saying that if you charge admission, you're bringing in revenue. You may not be breaking even, but you're bringing in revenue.
He'd rather us call these non-profit, instead of non-revenue.
Revenue = top line, not bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 13, 2013 14:20:52 GMT -5
Tom's saying that if you charge admission, you're bringing in revenue. You may not be breaking even, but you're bringing in revenue. He'd rather us call these non-profit, instead of non-revenue. Revenue = top line, not bottom line. Well than every sport is revenue producing. I was under the impression he meant programs "make money"
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 13, 2013 14:47:59 GMT -5
Tom's saying that if you charge admission, you're bringing in revenue. You may not be breaking even, but you're bringing in revenue. He'd rather us call these non-profit, instead of non-revenue. Revenue = top line, not bottom line. Well than every sport is revenue producing. I was under the impression he meant programs "make money"
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 16, 2013 19:52:52 GMT -5
Going to give this a bump as the closest thing to a primer on committe selection criteria? Anyone (Bofa?) seen the NCAA criteria for this year?
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,374
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 20, 2013 5:42:42 GMT -5
Can I get a bump as well?
Does anyone know what the selection criteria would be for this year? Is it the same as last year? I've prepared all the NCAA at-large candidate resume's but need to make sure what the committee is looking for.
|
|
stc23
Sophomore
Posts: 195
|
Post by stc23 on Nov 20, 2013 11:29:01 GMT -5
Aside from all the dates that obviously vary from year to year, and some procedural stuff related to submitting bids to host, the only changes I notice in the Determination of Championship Participation section of this year's Pre-Championships manual are:
- The addition of the American Athletic Conference to the list of automatic bids - The adjustments to the base RPI formula have changed to the following:
In the 2012 manual, the penalty was applied for playing the majority of matches against / losing to teams ranked 150 and above in the RPI (or non-DI teams).
|
|
stc23
Sophomore
Posts: 195
|
Post by stc23 on Nov 20, 2013 11:33:28 GMT -5
The list of Evaluative Tools Available to the Committee (in addition to RPI) remains the same:
|
|