|
|
Post by Victory At Hand on Nov 28, 2014 2:28:20 GMT -5
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on the WAC Tournament, with Bakersfield winning it. Personally, I don't care for the conference tournament in the WAC, they should get rid of it. A team like Bakersfield with a 16-14 record and an RPI around 200 gets the automatic bid to the NCAA tournament, which means...somewhere a team having a good season, with a better RPI, will be left out of the NCAA Tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 28, 2014 3:31:15 GMT -5
I honestly don't care. They probably took the place of the best team in their conference. These conferences choose to have tournaments. Teams that are on the bubble will be left out but those teams put themselves in that position. Regardless these girls play their hearts out in their conference tourneys because they know a tourney berth is at stake.
|
|
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: 28,098 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 28, 2014 3:50:33 GMT -5
Was UMKC, who couldn't beat #5 Seeded Seattle, a better choice than Bakersfield?
Even if, thats just the way of conference tournaments. Good for CSUB
|
|
|
|
Post by ence on Nov 28, 2014 11:24:55 GMT -5
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on the WAC Tournament, with Bakersfield winning it. Personally, I don't care for the conference tournament in the WAC, they should get rid of it. A team like Bakersfield with a 16-14 record and an RPI around 200 gets the automatic bid to the NCAA tournament, which means...somewhere a team having a good season, with a better RPI, will be left out of the NCAA Tournament. Unless you have a problem with inclusion of weak conferences in general, the WAC's results shouldn't bug you. The best RPI in the WAC last week was UKMC's 62, which isn't good enough to get an at-large slot anyway. Either way, such a conference only sends one team to the dance and there are plenty of good arguments to support that. What irks me is when an upset in the tournament of a conference with a big RPI spread allows that conference to send multiple teams to the national tournament. On its face, this smells of sand-bagging by the better RPI teams during the conference tourney, though that's pretty much foil-hat thinking. There are only two examples of this so far this year, Mid-American sending their champ Western MI (138) along with Ohio (39) and Atlantic Sun sending their champ Jacksonville (141) along with Lipscomb (31). Luckily, the selection committee can probably find justification to snub Ohio since they're close to a bubble RPI. |
|
|
|
Post by shotcaller on Nov 28, 2014 12:07:57 GMT -5
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on the WAC Tournament, with Bakersfield winning it. Personally, I don't care for the conference tournament in the WAC, they should get rid of it. A team like Bakersfield with a 16-14 record and an RPI around 200 gets the automatic bid to the NCAA tournament, which means...somewhere a team having a good season, with a better RPI, will be left out of the NCAA Tournament. There is a need for the conference tournament to fill an additional weekend of the schedule. With only 8 teams in this conference there are only 7 weeks of conference play. As a result if you removed the conference tournament WAC teams would be sitting twiddling their thumbs for 2 weekends prior to the NCAA tournament kicking off. Of course they could throw together some last minute matches, but with most teams in the WAC using a lot of their additional play dates on mid week non conference scheduling who would they play? |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 28, 2014 12:10:44 GMT -5
How many of these WAC schools were D-I 5 years ago?
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 28, 2014 12:48:08 GMT -5
How many of these WAC schools were D-I 5 years ago? Year they started D1 volleyball: 1981 New Mexico State 1984 Chicago State 1987 Texas-Pan American 1995 Kansas City 2009 Utah Valley 2010 Bakersfield 2012 Seattle 2017 Grand Canyon |
|
|
|
Post by shotcaller on Nov 29, 2014 0:06:24 GMT -5
How many of these WAC schools were D-I 5 years ago? Year they started D1 volleyball: 1981 New Mexico State 1984 Chicago State 1987 Texas-Pan American 1995 Kansas City 2009 Utah Valley 2010 Bakersfield 2012 Seattle 2017 Grand Canyon Wow I didn't appreciate how long some of these programs had been D1 and how new others are. Chicago State is one of the oldest programs yet there athletic department is an absolute mess. Rumor has it that both assistant coaches walked out mid season not having been paid by the school. Farcical when it comes to a well established D1 program...and by well established I mean long standing |
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Nov 29, 2014 15:38:56 GMT -5
Poor USC.  |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 29, 2014 16:37:46 GMT -5
How many of these WAC schools were D-I 5 years ago? Year they started D1 volleyball: 1981 New Mexico State 1984 Chicago State 1987 Texas-Pan American 1995 Kansas City 2009 Utah Valley 2010 Bakersfield 2012 Seattle 2017 Grand Canyon It's been explained to me in the past, but I still don't understand why UMKC wanted to be in a conference with such a widespread, rag-tag group of schools. They were a natural fit in the Summit League, their prior home from 1994-2013. |
|
|
|
Post by Victory At Hand on Nov 30, 2014 0:23:59 GMT -5
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on the WAC Tournament, with Bakersfield winning it. Personally, I don't care for the conference tournament in the WAC, they should get rid of it. A team like Bakersfield with a 16-14 record and an RPI around 200 gets the automatic bid to the NCAA tournament, which means...somewhere a team having a good season, with a better RPI, will be left out of the NCAA Tournament. Unless you have a problem with inclusion of weak conferences in general, the WAC's results shouldn't bug you. The best RPI in the WAC last week was UKMC's 62, which isn't good enough to get an at-large slot anyway. Either way, such a conference only sends one team to the dance and there are plenty of good arguments to support that. That is exactly my point, none of these schools have the RPI, why should they go to the tournament? Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by ence on Nov 30, 2014 1:06:02 GMT -5
Unless you have a problem with inclusion of weak conferences in general, the WAC's results shouldn't bug you. The best RPI in the WAC last week was UKMC's 62, which isn't good enough to get an at-large slot anyway. Either way, such a conference only sends one team to the dance and there are plenty of good arguments to support that. That is exactly my point, none of these schools have the RPI, why should they go to the tournament? Just saying. Well, the NCAA supposedly (YMMV) represents all of its member conferences. It sounds like what you propose is to have them blow off more than half of their members year after year (17 of 32 this year). Pretty much an eat the weak approach to things. I'm not sure that's a good strategy for the NCAA to continue existing. Whether that's a good idea or not is another discussion entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by aggiefansince83 on Dec 3, 2014 18:56:50 GMT -5
I hate conference tournaments, especially for one bid leagues. Its like saying playing everyone home and home for 2 months is not good enough to decide a champion, that you need to play a few more games in a couple of days and that matters as opposed to the previous 2 months.
I wish the WAC would do away with the conference tournament and just give the autobid to the regular season champ. Instead use the extra week to schedule an additional non conference match.
Also Chicago State is in a scary part of town. That's the only WAC school I will not make a road trip to see NMSU play. I see there is a subway station about a half mile from the school but no way I walk that neighborhood, especially at night and I have walked the streets of Newark New Jersey before and I will go nowhere near the south side of Chicago. Scary place!
|
|
