|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 26, 2014 12:31:39 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. 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. Well as all head coaches are in agreement regarding scheduling, have met about it, there was a press release about it, him stating those points wouldnt really be that big of a deal. The entire point of what he was trying to say was that the coaches dont find the current schedule acceptable because there is going to be imbalance in terms of how tough schedules are team to team. Wisconsin not playing what I think most would consider the two toughest challenges in the league, certainly is a good example, of which he used. I dont believe his point was "wisconsin didnt earn title" it was Wisconsins schedule played a role, as it did when they won, and as it would continue to do, if they dont change it. I do know the Wisconsin coach understolod his point, and took zero exception to what he said.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 26, 2014 13:09:03 GMT -5
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. Well as all head coaches are in agreement regarding scheduling, have met about it, there was a press release about it, him stating those points wouldnt really be that big of a deal. The entire point of what he was trying to say was that the coaches dont find the current schedule acceptable because there is going to be imbalance in terms of how tough schedules are team to team. Wisconsin not playing what I think most would consider the two toughest challenges in the league, certainly is a good example, of which he used. I dont believe his point was "wisconsin didnt earn title" it was Wisconsins schedule played a role, as it did when they won, and as it would continue to do, if they dont change it. I do know the Wisconsin coach understolod his point, and took zero exception to what he said. I understand that addressing the issue of the unbalanced conference schedule is something that the coaches can all get behind. What I had in mind was more along these lines: “Nobody wants to play four matches in four days someplace with no crowds unless we host it here maybe or Minnesota where they’ll draw. “So you get more champions, you get a true champion,” Cook said. “This year nobody feels like there is a true champion. Wisconsin is in first right now. They didn’t have to go to Penn State. They didn’t have to go to Nebraska. “I look at Michigan’s schedule. They played Maryland and Rutgers once each, so they’ve had a really brutal schedule.” [Coincidentally, Nebraska just played and beat Michigan.] Cook said he also proposed a tournament the past two years. Now the idea is spreading among league coaches. “The Illinois coach is proposing something similar, so now it’s not totally Nebraska’s idea so it will go,” Cook said. “That’s what I think. “The fact that we started it... ‘Nah, we can’t listen to Nebraska.’ That’s the Big Ten. We’re still the new guys in there.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 26, 2014 13:26:08 GMT -5
Well as all head coaches are in agreement regarding scheduling, have met about it, there was a press release about it, him stating those points wouldnt really be that big of a deal. The entire point of what he was trying to say was that the coaches dont find the current schedule acceptable because there is going to be imbalance in terms of how tough schedules are team to team. Wisconsin not playing what I think most would consider the two toughest challenges in the league, certainly is a good example, of which he used. I dont believe his point was "wisconsin didnt earn title" it was Wisconsins schedule played a role, as it did when they won, and as it would continue to do, if they dont change it. I do know the Wisconsin coach understolod his point, and took zero exception to what he said. I understand that addressing the issue of the unbalanced conference schedule is something that the coaches can all get behind. What I had in mind was more along these lines: “Nobody wants to play four matches in four days someplace with no crowds unless we host it here maybe or Minnesota where they’ll draw. “So you get more champions, you get a true champion,” Cook said. “This year nobody feels like there is a true champion. Wisconsin is in first right now. They didn’t have to go to Penn State. They didn’t have to go to Nebraska. “I look at Michigan’s schedule. They played Maryland and Rutgers once each, so they’ve had a really brutal schedule.” [Coincidentally, Nebraska just played and beat Michigan.] Cook said he also proposed a tournament the past two years. Now the idea is spreading among league coaches. “The Illinois coach is proposing something similar, so now it’s not totally Nebraska’s idea so it will go,” Cook said. “That’s what I think. “The fact that we started it... ‘Nah, we can’t listen to Nebraska.’ That’s the Big Ten. We’re still the new guys in there. I think we could all agree that Cook doesnt always come across very well in these settings, and that he is also vocal about what changes should be looked at. As others have mentioned its refreshing that someone actually cares enough to address it. As for the comments, remember it is in context to how "scheduling is done" not an indictment on specific teams. His first comment about having it at venues that wouldnt draw well, is sadly a fact. If you think he shouldnt have said it, that's one thing, but historically, his statement would be fair. Yes, he uses Wisconsin's schedule as an example which is an excellent example, its too bad that it came across as UW not being a worthy champion, they are, but their schedule did not include what has been historically the two most difficult challenges in the league. Michigan only playing the bottom two teams once, is also an undeniable fact, that of course had a huge impact on their finish. The fact the release came out the same week as they played Michigan would be more coincidence than him hailing Michigan as a great team, right after they beat them. Again, context is schedule and how that impacts league finishes. Michigan along with Wisconsin are the two best examples. One team not having to face the two toughest opponents on the road, and another only playing the two weakest teams by a mile only once. The fact he said he proposed it earlier is here nor there IMO. His comment about nobody listening if it isnt Nebraska's idea makes him sound like a conspiracy theorist, and just sounds silly. IMO he cares enough to comment, has a pretty big platform, could use a publicist!
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Nov 26, 2014 13:30:19 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. BTN was created for football first, then basketball. Any coverage of volleyball on BTN is a bonus until volleyball can start paying its own way. Hence, BTN will show volleyball anytime it wants, not when VT fans want it. Ditto with the Pac-12 Network, SEC Network, Longhorn Network, etc. If you want to see volleyball in prime time, then why don't you call up the network to find out how much it would cost to put it on?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 26, 2014 13:40:59 GMT -5
I understand that addressing the issue of the unbalanced conference schedule is something that the coaches can all get behind. What I had in mind was more along these lines: “Nobody wants to play four matches in four days someplace with no crowds unless we host it here maybe or Minnesota where they’ll draw. “So you get more champions, you get a true champion,” Cook said. “This year nobody feels like there is a true champion. Wisconsin is in first right now. They didn’t have to go to Penn State. They didn’t have to go to Nebraska. “I look at Michigan’s schedule. They played Maryland and Rutgers once each, so they’ve had a really brutal schedule.” [Coincidentally, Nebraska just played and beat Michigan.] Cook said he also proposed a tournament the past two years. Now the idea is spreading among league coaches. “The Illinois coach is proposing something similar, so now it’s not totally Nebraska’s idea so it will go,” Cook said. “That’s what I think. “The fact that we started it... ‘Nah, we can’t listen to Nebraska.’ That’s the Big Ten. We’re still the new guys in there. I think we could all agree that Cook doesnt always come across very well in these settings, and that he is also vocal about what changes should be looked at. As others have mentioned its refreshing that someone actually cares enough to address it. As for the comments, remember it is in context to how "scheduling is done" not an indictment on specific teams. His first comment about having it at venues that wouldnt draw well, is sadly a fact. If you think he shouldnt have said it, that's one thing, but historically, his statement would be fair. Yes, he uses Wisconsin's schedule as an example which is an excellent example, its too bad that it came across as UW not being a worthy champion, they are, but their schedule did not include what has been historically the two most difficult challenges in the league. Michigan only playing the bottom two teams once, is also an undeniable fact, that of course had a huge impact on their finish. The fact the release came out the same week as they played Michigan would be more coincidence than him hailing Michigan as a great team, right after they beat them. Again, context is schedule and how that impacts league finishes. Michigan along with Wisconsin are the two best examples. One team not having to face the two toughest opponents on the road, and another only playing the two weakest teams by a mile only once. The fact he said he proposed it earlier is here nor there IMO. His comment about nobody listening if it isnt Nebraska's idea makes him sound like a conspiracy theorist, and just sounds silly. IMO he cares enough to comment, has a pretty big platform, could use a publicist! The man has been at this a long time. A publicist won't help. Besides, I thought that was you! As far as the proposed realignment, I would think that if Rutgers and Maryland are both in the East Division, the other teams stuck in the East would be extremely concerned about the effect that has on their own RPI. That alone seems reason to oppose that particular realignment. At the end of the day, the RPI is more significant than a Division or conference Championship.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Nov 26, 2014 13:44:43 GMT -5
I love how everyone treats a win at Rec Hall like it cancels out losing to anyone else anywhere.
The only thing this makes plain to me is that Cook is a jerk. Which isn't a surprise. I wonder how the conversation with Sheffield went down. "Well, Kelly, when I said that you aren't really the champions even though you swept us, what I MEANT was..."
Edited to add: The fact of the matter is that now that we have a 14-team conference, this championship is always going to come down to math. It's always going to be who won more of the teams they were scheduled to play. That's it. There will always be an asterisk. And whining about it to the press just makes a coach look like a sore loser.
Even if we do divisions, split by time zone, The west division will always be harder than the east. The championship will always be Penn State against whoever. So how is that really more fair?
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 26, 2014 14:04:29 GMT -5
John Cook to Wisconsin: "Nice Championship, but that schedule was lame."
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 26, 2014 14:15:06 GMT -5
Yes, he uses Wisconsin's schedule as an example which is an excellent example, its too bad that it came across as UW not being a worthy champion, they are, but their schedule did not include what has been historically the two most difficult challenges in the league. Michigan only playing the bottom two teams once, is also an undeniable fact, that of course had a huge impact on their finish. Dorothy, specifically bringing up the schedule in the way you and Cook do, with respect to UW not playing PSU and Neb away, amounts to questioning whether UW deserves the B1G championship. Cook is simply stating outright what everyone is thinking when they make this comparison. The problem is that I think its a complaint based on a faulty premise. You have to look at the whole schedule, not pick one or two matches to make a point. Badgers had to play IL twice and won, PSU played them once at home and lost. Would the badgers prefer to swap Neb in Lincoln for IL on the road, and let PSU play IL in champaign? Based on what I have seen of both teams this year, I would say yes. Badgers handled Neb in Madison in straight sets, and played better against them in Lincoln than in Madison last year. My opinion on this could change after this weekend, but that is what I have seen so far. After the PSU match, the badgers and PSU had virtually indistinguishable SOS, as Penguin will tell you till he is blue. But they lost two matches and the badgers lost none. So badgers gave PSU a handicap and PSU blew it. That blowing it had nothing to do with SOS. I think an unbalanced schedule can cause problems, I just don't think this year it really did. It does provide a lot of ammunition for excuses, though. For that reason alone, maybe we should get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 26, 2014 14:44:56 GMT -5
Yes, he uses Wisconsin's schedule as an example which is an excellent example, its too bad that it came across as UW not being a worthy champion, they are, but their schedule did not include what has been historically the two most difficult challenges in the league. Michigan only playing the bottom two teams once, is also an undeniable fact, that of course had a huge impact on their finish. Dorothy, specifically bringing up the schedule in the way you and Cook do, with respect to UW not playing PSU and Neb away, amounts to questioning whether UW deserves the B1G championship. Cook is simply stating outright what everyone is thinking when they make this comparison. The problem is that I think its a complaint based on a faulty premise. You have to look at the whole schedule, not pick one or two matches to make a point. Badgers had to play IL twice and won, PSU played them once at home and lost. Would the badgers prefer to swap Neb in Lincoln for IL on the road, and let PSU play IL in champaign? Based on what I have seen of both teams this year, I would say yes. Badgers handled Neb in Madison in straight sets, and played better against them in Lincoln than in Madison last year. My opinion on this could change after this weekend, but that is what I have seen so far. After the PSU match, the badgers and PSU had virtually indistinguishable SOS, as Penguin will tell you till he is blue. But they lost two matches and the badgers lost none. So badgers gave PSU a handicap and PSU blew it. That blowing it had nothing to do with SOS. I think an unbalanced schedule can cause problems, I just don't think this year it really did. It does provide a lot of ammunition for excuses, though. For that reason alone, maybe we should get rid of it. I guess the first thing I would ask is "how did UW give PSU a handicap?" Having said that, I Agree bringing up the schedule the "way he did" makes it look like he is questioning the validity of their title. In questioning the schedule it doesnt mean they wouldn't have won the conference, it means "we don't know what would have happened" That is specifically what the coaches don't like about it. At the end of the day, the very fact that we are having this debate, looking at relative SOS, speculating....... all suggest the entire point Cook made, (poorly) but all coaches including the UW coach agree with. The current schedule is not a good way to determine conference champion. In the current system, Wisconsin is the undeniably deserved champion! In the exact same way, PSU was last year, and Nebraska was the year before. Their banner won't, and shouldnt have an asterisk.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 26, 2014 15:46:03 GMT -5
With handicap, I was referring to the loss to PSU and using the term rather flippantly in the golfing sense.
I will let this rest. My apologies to cook and to you if I inferred intended meanings that weren't there. I thought it important to point out how this criticism was coming off to others.
My main issue with the unbalanced schedule is the one Wolf had -- I wanted to see the match ups between the best teams at the end of the year. As a fan, I feel cheated. Any plan to make sure we get those matches in the future is fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by trampas on Nov 28, 2014 8:58:14 GMT -5
If the B1G adds a conference tournament the location that makes the most sense in Chicago. It has large numbers of graduates and fans in town, is centrally located vis-a-vis the conference, and has superior transportation logistics.
|
|
jiml
Sophomore
Go Badgers
Posts: 234
|
Post by jiml on Nov 28, 2014 10:02:09 GMT -5
The coaches I've heard talk about it don't want to beat up their teams with too many matches just before the NCAA's, so it's unlikely that any kind of multiple-round tourney will be scheduled by the B1G. Which is where the Cook/Hambly? suggestion of playing in divisions with ranked peers as the 20th match gets interesting. You have most of the drama of a tournament with nearly everyone's conference standing at risk, but without making the season longer. I'd like to see us try it; it's not that weird a departure from the 7 home&away plus 6 onesies they tried this year to go to 6 home&away plus 7 onesies plus a division playoff match. It would get rid of some of the weirder stuff from this year like playing travel partners back to back.
The lack of balance between east and west divisions could be an issue; the eastern teams would take an RPI hit in 2015 from doubling up on Rutgers and Maryland compared to the western teams.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 28, 2014 10:15:49 GMT -5
While the unbalanced schedules are not ideal, conference tournaments (IMO) cheapen the regular season.
If a team battles the slog of regular season - with the travel, the hostile road crowds, the short-turnarounds, the odd scheduling - and finishes in first place, they should be the conference champ...period.
To then turn around and have another team be crowned champion makes no sense to me. Especially if the lowest seeded team in the tournament goes on a hot streak and wins the tournament.
Don't forget 2010, South Carolina State won their conference tournament and qualified for the NCAA tournament even though they had 22 losses. 22!!! How is that good for volleyball?
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 28, 2014 10:23:51 GMT -5
Going forward the prestige of the Big Ten should boost Rutgers and Maryland, Utah and Colorado started out near the bottom of the PAC but have stepped up their game. ...Yes, Colrado did so with a transfer but that's what happens when you join a power conference.Long range an eastern division should be Ok, although as long as Rose coaches it will be the Penn State invitational. The one v one, two v two set up leaves me cold, why not 2 v l both ways over the last week. Dont think anyone cares about five v. five.
|
|
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 28, 2014 10:56:49 GMT -5
While the unbalanced schedules are not ideal, conference tournaments (IMO) cheapen the regular season. If a team battles the slog of regular season - with the travel, the hostile road crowds, the short-turnarounds, the odd scheduling - and finishes in first place, they should be the conference champ...period. To then turn around and have another team be crowned champion makes no sense to me. Especially if the lowest seeded team in the tournament goes on a hot streak and wins the tournament. Don't forget 2010, South Carolina State won their conference tournament and qualified for the NCAA tournament even though they had 22 losses. 22!!! How is that good for volleyball? I agree with this as it relates to the Big 10. The main driver for a conference tournament in the Big Ten is that the unbalanced schedule is not fair. If they went to the Cook plan of a 20th game used to determine the champion. What if you have a two 18-1 teams from one division and the winner of the other division was 16-3. Some tie-breaker determines which of the 19-1 teams plays for the championship - then losses and the 16-3 team become champion, and which part of this is 'fair'?
I was thinking - what if the Cook plan was just a way to get a 20th game that was more competitive. The 20th game counts the same as the other 19 and best record wins the conference. Still may be worse than the current system - 6 of the 7 best teams in the conference could be in one division, so the team w/o the other 5 good teams in their division would have a considerably easier schedule and probably win the conference. At the end of the day - the current system is probably going to be the best - with maybe some tweaks to the schedules that increases the chances of more H2H games of the 'top' teams.
|
|