|
Post by elevationvb on Oct 22, 2014 10:31:20 GMT -5
That makes no sense.
Texas is not an inexperienced team.
If you want to make the argument that Texas will be the 1st out, no problem. But comparing them to last year's Missouri team is ridiculous. The point wasn't even that they would be first out. The point was that they are vulnerable to be because their ridiculous schedule does so little to prepare them for the post-season, like Missouri last year. Texas is playing a 5 or 6 match season. Please stop while you are just a little behind!
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2014 10:37:32 GMT -5
2014 Texas vs. 2013 Missouri. I think the only statement comparing these two teams is the relative SOS. This is something we can quantify.
Missouri played 34 matches last year and went 34-0. The average of where each opponent ranked among the season ending Pablo ratings (this is before the tournament) is 103.5. Texas has 25 teams on their schedule this year and the average is 66.3.
HOWEVER: was Missouri's shedule made worse by playing an extra 9 useless games? Would they have been better prepared for the tournament had they not played those games? What if we just compared the top 25 opponents that Missouri faced last year? Doing this, the avearge ranking was down to 70.9 - much, much closer to what Texas is playing this year.
Both teams will have played just 4 teams in the top 25. Missouri would have faceed the 2 toughest opponents - Florida twice. Texas would have played the 3 easiest opponents.
Not related to the point made above, but I cannot help myself - No team took Missouri to 5 sets, and certainly didn't come close to losing a match to a team like West Virginia who took Texas to 5 sets. Missouri played 15 teams with a higher Pablo rating than West Virginia. Missouri lost only 8 sets all season (34 matches). Texas has already lost 6 sets and 11 matches to go.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 22, 2014 12:20:49 GMT -5
I certainly don't root for Texas, but this whole Texas v. Missouri stuff is completely ridiculous. These are programs that are fundamentally on different levels in college volleyball, period. Missouri 2013 lucked out with quality, experienced senior talent in an otherwise overrated conference. Were they a good team? sure. Were they winning the championship last year? ummm no, regardless of what their record said. Does it really matter what Texas' overall SOS is? In reality the Big 12 has ill-prepared texas for the tournament since Nebraska left, yet that hasn't stopped the longhorn machine from having an NCAA tournament record that every school other than PSU would die for. This idea that somehow Texas is will meet the same fate as Missouri because of similar schedules is just stupid. Texas isn't going to lose in the tournament because their overall schedule strength wasn't very good.
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Oct 22, 2014 12:25:42 GMT -5
2014 Texas vs. 2013 Missouri. I think the only statement comparing these two teams is the relative SOS. This is something we can quantify. Missouri played 34 matches last year and went 34-0. The average of where each opponent ranked among the season ending Pablo ratings (this is before the tournament) is 103.5. Texas has 25 teams on their schedule this year and the average is 66.3. HOWEVER: was Missouri's shedule made worse by playing an extra 9 useless games? Would they have been better prepared for the tournament had they not played those games? What if we just compared the top 25 opponents that Missouri faced last year? Doing this, the avearge ranking was down to 70.9 - much, much closer to what Texas is playing this year. Both teams will have played just 4 teams in the top 25. Missouri would have faceed the 2 toughest opponents - Florida twice. Texas would have played the 3 easiest opponents. Not related to the point made above, but I cannot help myself - No team took Missouri to 5 sets, and certainly didn't come close to losing a match to a team like West Virginia who took Texas to 5 sets. Missouri played 15 teams with a higher Pablo rating than West Virginia. Missouri lost only 8 sets all season (34 matches). Texas has already lost 6 sets and 11 matches to go. The scheduling discussion is meaningless. The difference is the championship experience on the current Texas team. You have 7 players from the National Championship team and add the players from last year's Final 4 team. That is the difference between the 2 teams.
Again, that doesn't mean Texas is a lock for the Final 4, etc. Depends on match-ups, etc.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 22, 2014 12:46:53 GMT -5
Agree that TX and MO isn't a comparison. I just would find it difficult to be Texas and play all season during conference against powder puffs, more or less, and then have to turn it up against the big girls. That's all. Missouri didn't have the same challenge...They just weren't the caliber of other top teams. Texas is the same caliber, if not better. Just tough to push a team when the girls you practice against is the toughest team you'll ever play during conference.
|
|
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 Oct 22, 2014 12:52:43 GMT -5
2014 Texas vs. 2013 Missouri. I think the only statement comparing these two teams is the relative SOS. This is something we can quantify. Missouri played 34 matches last year and went 34-0. The average of where each opponent ranked among the season ending Pablo ratings (this is before the tournament) is 103.5. Texas has 25 teams on their schedule this year and the average is 66.3. HOWEVER: was Missouri's shedule made worse by playing an extra 9 useless games? Would they have been better prepared for the tournament had they not played those games? What if we just compared the top 25 opponents that Missouri faced last year? Doing this, the avearge ranking was down to 70.9 - much, much closer to what Texas is playing this year. Both teams will have played just 4 teams in the top 25. Missouri would have faceed the 2 toughest opponents - Florida twice. Texas would have played the 3 easiest opponents. Not related to the point made above, but I cannot help myself - No team took Missouri to 5 sets, and certainly didn't come close to losing a match to a team like West Virginia who took Texas to 5 sets. Missouri played 15 teams with a higher Pablo rating than West Virginia. Missouri lost only 8 sets all season (34 matches). Texas has already lost 6 sets and 11 matches to go. The scheduling discussion is meaningless. The difference is the championship experience on the current Texas team. You have 7 players from the National Championship team and add the players from last year's Final 4 team. That is the difference between the 2 teams.
Again, that doesn't mean Texas is a lock for the Final 4, etc. Depends on match-ups, etc. Yet, no one has yet contended that Texas and Missouri are similar in any other way then their 'weak' SOS.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Oct 22, 2014 12:54:01 GMT -5
These may not be the top 4 when all is said and done. Still alot of volleyball coming in November.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Oct 22, 2014 13:35:39 GMT -5
I think the comparison between Texas and Hawai'i of a few years ago (Ohana and the dwarfs - the WACked off years) would be more apt. Some years they were fine and others the lack of competition during the WAC season really showed the problem and resulted in an early exit [granted the bracket pairings did not always help].
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Oct 22, 2014 14:31:25 GMT -5
I think the comparison between Texas and Hawai'i of a few years ago (Ohana and the dwarfs - the WACked off years) would be more apt. Some years they were fine and others the lack of competition during the WAC season really showed the problem and resulted in an early exit [granted the bracket pairings did not always help]. Hawaii always got paired with a VERY tough school. Granted you have your blunders like last year, getting demolished by BYU, but most of Hawaii loses come from pac12 powerhouses like usc, ucla and washington. The best example of horrible seeding is 2011. Both usc and hawaii were legit FINAL FOUR teams. That should of been at least a regional final match, not to mention we had nebraska in our region as well. Hawaii was eliminated in the round of 16, but still ended up being ranked 5th at seasons end. But I do dread having to face washington AGAIN this year, so I hope we dont get put in your way until at least the regional semis
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Oct 22, 2014 20:30:05 GMT -5
I certainly don't root for Texas, but this whole Texas v. Missouri stuff is completely ridiculous. These are programs that are fundamentally on different levels in college volleyball, period. Missouri 2013 lucked out with quality, experienced senior talent in an otherwise overrated conference. Were they a good team? sure. Were they winning the championship last year? ummm no, regardless of what their record said. Does it really matter what Texas' overall SOS is? In reality the Big 12 has ill-prepared texas for the tournament since Nebraska left, yet that hasn't stopped the longhorn machine from having an NCAA tournament record that every school other than PSU would die for. This idea that somehow Texas is will meet the same fate as Missouri because of similar schedules is just stupid. Texas isn't going to lose in the tournament because their overall schedule strength wasn't very good. NOBODY is comparing Texas's volleyball program to Missouri's program. I never referenced their overall strength of schedule, just the matches vs potential seeds, of which there are very few. 2014 Texas vs. 2013 Missouri. I think the only statement comparing these two teams is the relative SOS. This is something we can quantify. Missouri played 34 matches last year and went 34-0. The average of where each opponent ranked among the season ending Pablo ratings (this is before the tournament) is 103.5. Texas has 25 teams on their schedule this year and the average is 66.3. HOWEVER: was Missouri's shedule made worse by playing an extra 9 useless games? Would they have been better prepared for the tournament had they not played those games? What if we just compared the top 25 opponents that Missouri faced last year? Doing this, the avearge ranking was down to 70.9 - much, much closer to what Texas is playing this year. This is why I don't care about the rest of the schedule, just the matches that are a legitimate challenges. Both teams will have played just 4 teams in the top 25. This, THIS is the only comparison that was ever put on the table. Beyond Florida (2), Nebraska, and maybe Arizona K-State the Texas schedule has no significant challenges to prepare them for the post season, like Missouri. The purpose of this point is that Texas will not be as prepared for the postseason as other teams (like those in the Big 10 and Pac 12) or as well as they have been in previous years. This doesn't mean they can't win, just suggesting that they might be more vulnerable than people realize because of their lackluster schedule. I'm sorry this point has been so difficult to get across. It should not have taken up this much volume on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 2, 2014 15:19:03 GMT -5
This isn't even a legit question. FSU is still going to 5 with teams like Pittsburgh and Clemson this late in the season. I'm not saying they WILL be eliminated first, because that IMO, is largely determined by the bracket. But if the question is which top 4 RPI/AVCA team is the worst (i.e. if they all played a round robin who would have the worst record), I would choose, without question, FSU.
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on Nov 2, 2014 15:45:13 GMT -5
This isn't even a legit question. FSU is still going to 5 with teams like Pittsburgh and Clemson this late in the season. I'm not saying they WILL be eliminated first, because that IMO, is largely determined by the bracket. But if the question is which top 4 RPI/AVCA team is the worst (i.e. if they all played a round robin who would have the worst record), I would choose, without question, FSU. Put FSU in a bracket together with lower seeds such as Oregon or UCLA or Illinois or Purdue and they will exit early.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 2, 2014 15:51:20 GMT -5
This isn't even a legit question. FSU is still going to 5 with teams like Pittsburgh and Clemson this late in the season. I'm not saying they WILL be eliminated first, because that IMO, is largely determined by the bracket. But if the question is which top 4 RPI/AVCA team is the worst (i.e. if they all played a round robin who would have the worst record), I would choose, without question, FSU. Put FSU in a bracket together with lower seeds such as Oregon or UCLA or Illinois or Purdue and they will exit early. purdue is not getting a seed, but I get your point, and completely agree. Perhaps the Boilmakers will be in their subregional. Actually, I'm hoping that an unseeded Pac-12 team ends up in the FSU Sub regional...I'm thinking USC or one of the Zona's.
|
|
|
Post by vbbetterthanbb on Nov 2, 2014 15:56:15 GMT -5
This isn't even a legit question. FSU is still going to 5 with teams like Pittsburgh and Clemson this late in the season. I'm not saying they WILL be eliminated first, because that IMO, is largely determined by the bracket. But if the question is which top 4 RPI/AVCA team is the worst (i.e. if they all played a round robin who would have the worst record), I would choose, without question, FSU. I was hoping for the following overall seeding: 1. Washington or Stanford 2. Washington or Stanford 3. Wisconsin 4. FSU 5. PSU 6. Texas And then you put out this "locker room" material. I am not sure I like that seeding now .
|
|
|
Post by canda on Nov 2, 2014 20:12:16 GMT -5
I think the main problem in any discussion on VOLLEY TALK is the discussion of who beat which top ranked team, when the games they are referring to happened very early in the season, when the more inexperienced, or younger, teams were not as good as they are now, or will be at the end of the year.
Who cares who Texas or Stanford, or anyone else beat? Yes, Penn State is better now, than they were at the start of the year. Sure, Texas, Stanford and Washington are also, but all discussions should center on how teams are playing NOW.
For my money, and I watch a lot of games on the PAC 12, Big 10, and Big 12 network, no one is playing with more intensity on every point than Wisconsin. It feels like there is very little they can't block or dig, and Carlini is growing in leaps and bounds as a player. I'm a Penn State fan, and they will have to play at a very high level to repeat their success this year. There are just too many moments when they lose their intensity, or mentally relax. Stanford, Washington, and Texas have moments when they lose focus. This could kill them all in the tournament.
|
|