|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 21, 2014 12:14:08 GMT -5
There is a difference between getting up and playing big a couple times a season, but staying charged for an entire season in at least 3:4 sets is something all together different. This is a great example of how it's always easy to confirm your prejudgment if you discount any counter-evidence as being an outlier. Like the Creighton fans last year who said Creighton would be the 4th best team in the PAC, despite their team going 0-2 at home/neutral against the 5th and 9th place teams in the conference?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 21, 2014 12:41:28 GMT -5
It could. Or it could be one of those things. Come on, a win could just as easily be "one of those things" too. In fact, yeah. Single matches are so easy to overinterpret.
|
|
|
Post by MTC on Aug 21, 2014 12:46:27 GMT -5
I'll give Creighton credit for taking on better teams. To be the best you have to play the best (or at east better) teams.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 21, 2014 12:54:54 GMT -5
How could we possibly know? Why not ask where St. Mary's would/will finish in the Pac 12. Where would Duke or Florida State finish in the Big 10?
The top two conferences appear to be so far superior to any other conference that it seems hard to think that more than a handfull of the teams in the country could finish in the top 4 of those conferences in most seasons.
Then try to infer information from only one or two games during the season - does that tell us anything? Creighton lost to Cal and UCLA last year. But they beat BYU who beat Arizona State. They beat Kansas who beat Wisconsin. Kansas played just 1 Big 10 team last year - that team finished 4th in the Big 10 and the game was played on the road. Kansas won (of course Wisconsin was not nearly at full health, which is part of the problem of putting too much into just one match). Does this make Kansas a top 4 team if they played in the Big 10 last year?
As to Creighton - for what it is worth, I would expect Creighton to be a much better team this year than last year. I think they could/should be one of the 10 best teams in the country that doesn't play in the Big 10 or the Pac 12 - yet they most certainly would have their hands full playing in the Big 10.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 21, 2014 13:44:16 GMT -5
This is a great example of how it's always easy to confirm your prejudgment if you discount any counter-evidence as being an outlier. Like the Creighton fans last year who said Creighton would be the 4th best team in the PAC, despite their team going 0-2 at home/neutral against the 5th and 9th place teams in the conference? Yes, exactly.
|
|
|
Post by alpacaone on Aug 21, 2014 14:09:49 GMT -5
There is a difference between getting up and playing big a couple times a season, but staying charged for an entire season in at least 3:4 sets is something all together different. This is a great example of how it's always easy to confirm your prejudgment if you discount any counter-evidence as being an outlier. I have a quality degree but, that is over my head. If you are saying it's a statement without an answer to the question, then that it is; one can never know how the troops will perform under fire untill they are actually under fire. My only knowledge of Creighton comes from playing MN rather well in the ncaa's two years ago. They had an awesome block, which is one way to do well in the B1G.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 21, 2014 14:21:54 GMT -5
This is a great example of how it's always easy to confirm your prejudgment if you discount any counter-evidence as being an outlier. I have a quality degree but, that is over my head. If you are saying it's a statement without an answer to the question, then that it is; one can never know how the troops will perform under fire untill they are actually under fire. My only knowledge of Creighton comes from playing MN rather well in the ncaa's two years ago. They had an awesome block, which is one way to do well in the B1G. The data is the data. Whether they win or lose against Nebraska, we should not read more into it than it deserves nor should we read less into it than it deserves. Your original statement about "getting up for one or two big matches" is clearly a message about discounting the results if the Jays happen to win. If Nebraska beats Penn State do we say they only did it because they "got up for one big match"? If the overall body of work of Creighton (or anybody else) shows them to be at some level, then that's most likely the level they really are at. But individual wins and losses are still part of that overall body of work, and they still are valid data. In fact, they are important bits of valid data, because there are probably 300 or so D1 teams that, no matter how much they get up for a big match, have the next best thing to zero chance of beating Nebraska. So if some team does beat Nebraska, that says something about that team -- even if it doesn't necessarily say that the team is actually better than Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by alpacaone on Aug 21, 2014 14:49:27 GMT -5
My statement wasn't at all about winning or losing a match against a top rated B1G team. We have no way of knowing how well Neb is now, or will be untill we have a wee bit more data. Still, there is no way of knowing now if a Neb team that Creighton beats in an early preseason match is a better or worse latter season Neb team unless they match up again later in the season. My statement was much more about parody in the B1G, and that some teams are good at getting up for a big matchup, or tournement, but are not designed for a 20 match grind. A trail of who beat who who beat who says nothing about a teams durability, versitality, and ability to make sometimes giant adjustments, all of which is key to finishing high in the standings of the more competative conferences.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 21, 2014 14:53:28 GMT -5
There is a difference between getting up and playing big a couple times a season, but staying charged for an entire season in at least 3:4 sets is something all together different. This is a great example of how it's always easy to confirm your prejudgment if you discount any counter-evidence as being an outlier. Or it could be true. Guess we'll never know because neither has a football program, population/$, or recruiting base the BIG cares about.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 21, 2014 15:08:40 GMT -5
Like the Creighton fans last year who said Creighton would be the 4th best team in the PAC, despite their team going 0-2 at home/neutral against the 5th and 9th place teams in the conference? Yes, exactly. The other thing I think folks forget is, the combined pressure and grind of playing the whole conference schedule. It eats teams alive. We aren't talking about Creighton beating Michigan and assuming "well, if Michigan was 7th than Creighton would finish 6th". Creighton has to play that whole meat grinder of a schedule and finish 6th. Remember 6th place teams are going to FF's and finals. Its not in and of itself that difficult to beat the 5th best team in the Big or PAC, it is freakin really hard to finish 5th in those leagues.
|
|
|
Post by royhobbs on Aug 21, 2014 15:47:31 GMT -5
Right on point. Look at the travel partners and schedules... Minnesota/Wisconsin followed by Michigan/Michigan St, both on the road on consecutive weekends... Or Stanford/Cal followed by USC/UCLA...
|
|
|
Post by macroman on Aug 30, 2014 21:39:25 GMT -5
With geographic conference spread being the going trend midwest looking to move up should look west or south. BIG already has a solid handle on Omaha's TV market.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Aug 30, 2014 23:25:24 GMT -5
There is a difference between getting up and playing big a couple times a season, but staying charged for an entire season in at least 3:4 sets is something all together different. Of course, if they were actually in the conference, they would get a big infusion of TV money for their athletic department, which carries advantages. Of course it varies from school to school how much of that money makes it to the volleyball program, but if you're considering the added challenges of being in the conference, you should also consider the added benefits.
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Aug 31, 2014 0:58:01 GMT -5
Part of the problem is that if they played in the B1G on a regular basis, the game planning would be a level playing field, which would likely hurt them more than help.
When they play a B1G team now, my guess is that they spend much more time in preparation than the B1G team.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 31, 2014 6:08:52 GMT -5
There is a difference between getting up and playing big a couple times a season, but staying charged for an entire season in at least 3:4 sets is something all together different. Of course, if they were actually in the conference, they would get a big infusion of TV money for their athletic department, which carries advantages. Of course it varies from school to school how much of that money makes it to the volleyball program, but if you're considering the added challenges of being in the conference, you should also consider the added benefits. It was my understanding the conversation is about "this" Creighton team, not the fictitious Creighton team 5 years from now after joining the Big.
|
|