|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 25, 2014 16:48:38 GMT -5
It would solve the problem of this year -- where Wisky wins the championship by fluke of schedule (not that Wisky isn't deserving, but ...) That's called having your cheese, and smelling it, too.
|
|
|
Post by volleyohio on Nov 25, 2014 17:45:26 GMT -5
Really? Wisconsin beat both the teams Penn state beat (nebraska, illinois) Penn State had their chances but had two losses where they should have or could have won. Wisconsin could have easily slipped multiple times. Wisconsin earned this. Penn State should have stepped up.
|
|
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 Nov 25, 2014 17:45:58 GMT -5
The single-game championship (matching division champions) seems a pretty good compromise. It would solve the problem of this year -- where Wisky wins the championship by fluke of schedule (not that Wisky isn't deserving, but ...) It would sort of solve the unbalanced schedule problem. It would be more fair to Penn State which will have to play FOUR freaking games against Rutgers and Maryland year after year. It would make money for the B1G, it would be good for fan interest. Some years it would allow an underdog to win the league championship in an upset. And it would provide one more great experience match for two B1G teams going into the NCAA tournament. Either winning or losing a match like that can help a team in the tournament -- by providing a boost of confidence or by providing a wake-up call.... IMO, this is so wrong. Wisconsin and PSU had just about the same schedule - except the H2H was at Wisconsin. PSU won the game - PSU could not have improved that outcome if the game was played at PSU. Prior years, 12 teams, 20 game schedule - it was possible that PSU and Wisconsin only play once. Same thing almost happened in the PAC12 this year (if Washington hadn't lost twice). IF Wisconsin wins the conference this year - they are every bit as deserving as any past B1G champion.
|
|
|
Post by ultrabadger on Nov 25, 2014 17:55:27 GMT -5
As I said, I am certain Cook would like to phrase the point he was trying to make differently. As for Rose, he like all coaches, including Wisconsin do not feel the current schedule is the best way to determine the conference champion, primarily because it isn't. I'm not disputing that it's not the best system, but it is the system that the conference agreed to for this season. My point isn't that the current system is great. My point is that you gotta play the hand that's dealt to you. All PSU had to do to currently be in uncontested 1st place in the conference would have been to go undefeated since UW and PSU played in the first match of the season. They didn't, and the Badgers did. I really don't get all this talk about "asterisk." You win according to the rules as they're set forth or you don't. It's pretty cut and dry. Come on people. Wisconsin suffered in the wilderness for years. We get a team and a coaching staff that finally puts it all together and we can't even celebrate our victories without people being all butt-hurt about it?
Next year will be something different, and certainly there will be some who will be unhappy about whatever that system looks like. Either it will be similar complaints to this year, or issues with RPI impacts, both, or something entirely new. As someone previously stated, once the conference expanded past the point of being able to actually schedule everyone twice, it was never going to be even. I think we may need to get comfortable with the fact that, at some level, the B1G conference championship is going to be decided by straight numbers not head-to-head competitions. Even with some kind of conference championship playoff, who gets to play in that championship will be decided by record in some way, not by head-to-head. That or we could kick PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland out of the pool (last in first out), and go back to straight 10 week, 20 match, even-steven, head-to-head play.
But I doubt anyone wants that.
As for whether Cook would choose different words, since we're both going on opinion, my guess is that we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 19:45:42 GMT -5
Didn't Nebraska just win the B1G under similar circumstances?
Oh, right. 2011. Didn't have to play at Illinois.
|
|
|
Post by coloradokidd on Nov 25, 2014 21:35:15 GMT -5
I like Coach Cook's idea!, but kind of modified while keeping the same number of season matches as now (20). 2 Divisions - A 6-team round with 7 (rotating) cross overs = 19. Then a final match #20; My example - (all numbers rotate east/west the following year) 1 vs. 1 - held at the east teams' home court this season - playing for #1 and #2 in the 'final' tournament standings 2 vs. 2 - held at the west teams' home court this season - playing for #3 and #4 in the 'final' tournament standings 3 vs. 3 - held at the east teams' home court this season - playing for #5 and #6 in the 'final' tournament standings 4 vs. 4 - held at the west teams' home court this season - playing for #7 and #8 in the 'final' tournament standings 5 vs. 5 - held at the east teams' home court this season - playing for #9 and #10 in the 'final' tournament standings 6 vs. 6 - held at the west teams' home court this season - playing for #11 and #12 in the 'final' tournament standings 7 vs. 7 - held at the east teams' home court this season - playing for #13 and #14 in the 'final' tournament standings
Every B1G Team will be playing for something on the last conference match of the season, and more important - in front of only their fans, and their opponent's fans! And it also keeps 'season records' relevant, because you can only finish in 1 of 2 spots in the 'Final Tournament Standings'. What a fun weekend for every B1G volleyball fan - from the PSUs to the Rutgers. Save the money making (big arenas) for the usual NCAA's.
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Nov 25, 2014 21:40:06 GMT -5
It would be more acceptable if BTN televised all the games--albeit some might have to be delayed.
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Nov 25, 2014 22:09:03 GMT -5
Defensive, aren't we? I'm not saying they aren't deserving. They would be a lot more deserving if they had to play at Rec Hall and Devaney and win at least one of them. The single-game championship (matching division champions) seems a pretty good compromise. It would solve the problem of this year -- where Wisky wins the championship by fluke of schedule (not that Wisky isn't deserving, but ...) It would sort of solve the unbalanced schedule problem. It would be more fair to Penn State which will have to play FOUR freaking games against Rutgers and Maryland year after year. It would make money for the B1G, it would be good for fan interest. Some years it would allow an underdog to win the league championship in an upset. And it would provide one more great experience match for two B1G teams going into the NCAA tournament. Either winning or losing a match like that can help a team in the tournament -- by providing a boost of confidence or by providing a wake-up call.... IMO, this is so wrong. Wisconsin and PSU had just about the same schedule - except the H2H was at Wisconsin. PSU won the game - PSU could not have improved that outcome if the game was played at PSU. Prior years, 12 teams, 20 game schedule - it was possible that PSU and Wisconsin only play once. Same thing almost happened in the PAC12 this year (if Washington hadn't lost twice). IF Wisconsin wins the conference this year - they are every bit as deserving as any past B1G champion.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Nov 25, 2014 22:11:23 GMT -5
Conference tournaments are ridiculous, especially in volleyball. I doubt any of the coaches would want this nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Nov 25, 2014 22:18:13 GMT -5
BTN treatment of volleyball was EXTREMELY disappointing. Given what is happening with fan interest in the sport natitionally, given that the B1G has been the best VB conference in the country the last couple of years, one would think the BTN brass would try to take advantage of that. But no, they'd rather show meaningless preseason BB games and re-runs of the previous weekend's football. The streaming options were sparse, and charging $10 a month on TOP of a cable subscription for streaming privileges is ridiculous. I have seen fewer decent VB games this season than any any of the last 4 seasons. When they do bother broadcasting VB they do a good job. Clearly the VB crews work hard and really care about the sport. Too bad the BTN brass doesn't. It would be more acceptable if BTN televised all the games--albeit some might have to be delayed.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 26, 2014 0:56:08 GMT -5
Defensive, aren't we? I'm not saying they aren't deserving. They would be a lot more deserving if they had to play at Rec Hall and Devaney and win at least one of them. IMO, this is so wrong. Wisconsin and PSU had just about the same schedule - except the H2H was at Wisconsin. PSU won the game - PSU could not have improved that outcome if the game was played at PSU. Prior years, 12 teams, 20 game schedule - it was possible that PSU and Wisconsin only play once. Same thing almost happened in the PAC12 this year (if Washington hadn't lost twice). IF Wisconsin wins the conference this year - they are every bit as deserving as any past B1G champion. Your own defensiveness is misplaced. I don't think penguin has any reason to be defensive on this topic as I don't believe he is a badger backer. Also, he has been pretty consistent in this position all year. Pointed out after UW lost to PSU that their schedules thereafter were virtually identical in strength and that PSU had a clear advantage going forward. Given that past position, his current position makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 26, 2014 1:37:56 GMT -5
I find the idea of a conference tournament interesting. My primary concern would be how they set the pools for the rest of the conference season. East vs. West? Ultimately the rude but real question is who gets stuck playing Maryland and Rutgers twice. That would be an RPI killer. Still, I'll see what they come up with. Now, if you'll allow me a moment... God. Whatever tiny shred of respect I had for Cook is gone. Nebraska lost at home to the Buckeyes and the Illini, the Devaney advantage didn't seem to help there. And they lost to MI on the road, hardly a terribly hostile environment. The only team that even has a shred of cause to gripe would be PSU, but Rose knows better. He knows that if you truly are the best, you need to be able to beat any team no matter whether you're playing in your place or theirs. Sure PSU beat WI in the season opener, but then fell to IL in Happy Valley, a team WI has beaten twice, and NE, a team WI also beat. Rose would probably agree with me that PSU doesn't deserve an outright conference title this year because they couldn't come up with those wins. Finally, the door swings both ways, sure WI didn't have to play PSU twice, but that also means PSU didn't have to play WI twice. In theory this gave them an "easier" schedule, one on which they should have been able to capitalize. Same for NE. As I said, I am certain Cook would like to phrase the point he was trying to make differently. As for Rose, he like all coaches, including Wisconsin do not feel the current schedule is the best way to determine the conference champion, primarily because it isn't. Do you really think it's a question of phrasing it differently? I thought he was pretty clear and unambiguous with regard to his points. It probably would have been better for him not to have made those points.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Nov 26, 2014 10:27:07 GMT -5
BTN treatment of volleyball was EXTREMELY disappointing. Given what is happening with fan interest in the sport natitionally, given that the B1G has been the best VB conference in the country the last couple of years, one would think the BTN brass would try to take advantage of that. But no, they'd rather show meaningless preseason BB games and re-runs of the previous weekend's football. The streaming options were sparse, and charging $10 a month on TOP of a cable subscription for streaming privileges is ridiculous. I have seen fewer decent VB games this season than any any of the last 4 seasons. When they do bother broadcasting VB they do a good job. Clearly the VB crews work hard and really care about the sport. Too bad the BTN brass doesn't. It would be more acceptable if BTN televised all the games--albeit some might have to be delayed. Agree. But, it has always been this way. Decent coverage until BB starts and then shucked to the sideline. I mean, really, I guess that Campbell @ Ohio State tonight would be much better to watch than Nebraska @ Illinois, Purdue @ Michigan State, or Minnesota @ Ohio State. And, on Friday, I am seriously thinking of staying home for the highly anticipated Monmouth/Maryland basketball game! I mean, that has to be better than Purdue @ Wisconsin, right? At least we get Nebraska @ Penn State on Saturday. I haven't paid for the streaming service. As you said, why should BTN subscribers have to pay for the service on top of the cable/satellite service? I don't think you have to for ESPN3. Plus, what I have heard, the streaming service isn't that reliable or that good.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Nov 26, 2014 11:08:48 GMT -5
Well, if more people watched the vb than the basketball, then I'm sure the big 10 would show it.
But they basketball gets better ratings so that's what they show.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 26, 2014 12:24:13 GMT -5
Didn't Nebraska just win the B1G under similar circumstances? Oh, right. 2011. Didn't have to play at Illinois. That is accurate. Nebraska would acknowledge that. The point is that schedule is going to play a big role in conference champ with this format.
|
|