|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 18:39:38 GMT -5
I think you need to factor in one and done also. And, that's what the NCAA tournament is. In our sports crazed culture it's all about winning "the championship." But if the method of picking your champion is flawed and biased, then you must weigh that methodology. So I tend to take the season as a whole and give a lot of weight to winning a conference championship, because that is pool play where everyone plays everyone home and home (with some exceptions now due to large conferences). There was just a hockey-stat article on that--that with their system of best-of-_____, the best team only wins the Cup 20-24% of the time. With single-elimination, you're liable to greater disparity. But...at a certain point, you see PSU and.... ...just how many years do you have to go back before they aren't #1? They dominated the East Coast, then the Big Ten, now the nation. If that's not a long tradition, I don't really know what is....and then add a record number of titles. People can make all kinds of arguments. One doofus was arguing that Stanford wasn't in the conversation because they lost to Michigan several times, even though Stanford has been in well over half of the Final Fours there have ever been, and Florida was, despite losing 6 of 7 semi-finals, and USC isn't with three national titles, including the first. Go figure. Penn St has gotten 6 in almost as many years. That certainly counts as domination, but there's another quarter of a century of history there as well where they weren't.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on May 29, 2015 18:47:19 GMT -5
There was just a hockey-stat article on that--that with their system of best-of-_____, the best team only wins the Cup 20-24% of the time. With single-elimination, you're liable to greater disparity. But...at a certain point, you see PSU and.... ...just how many years do you have to go back before they aren't #1? They dominated the East Coast, then the Big Ten, now the nation. If that's not a long tradition, I don't really know what is....and then add a record number of titles. People can make all kinds of arguments. One doofus was arguing that Stanford wasn't in the conversation because they lost to Michigan several times, even though Stanford has been in well over half of the Final Fours there have ever been, and Florida was, despite losing 6 of 7 semi-finals, and USC isn't with three national titles, including the first. Go figure. Penn St has gotten 6 in almost as many years. That certainly counts as domination, but there's another quarter of a century of history there as well where they weren't. I know it's fun to quibble over the word "traditional" because I love that Penn State is in the conversation. But you must put in perspective that the women's volleyball is still a very new sport in the NCAA. It's not like wrestling where Oklahoma State is the truest "traditional' power in every sense. The number titles they have is ridiculous. What do they have now? 34...since 1928?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 18:48:15 GMT -5
People are making different arguments, doofi or not.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 29, 2015 19:39:02 GMT -5
Eh, Lisa Love had some very good squads throughout the 90's, usually hanging around the Top 10 and making regional semi's/finals. USC just couldn't get by some great Stanford teams in the west regionals during that era. Some of those Marinkovic/Kessy/Mounts teams were really tough. Tough ain't the criteria. What criteria? The baselines are all over the map in this thread. At any rate, IMO calling USC "also-rans" for fifteen years is off base. Not that I would put the Trojans in the mythical top four in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 19:52:19 GMT -5
BiK's criteria. I was responding to:
He chose to select seven schools that met that criteria. I don't think USC or UCLA belong. One could make the argument that Texas doesn't either. Not with the other four schools he listed.
This is totally different from my comments previously about the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 20:24:06 GMT -5
BiK's criteria. I was responding to: He chose to select seven schools that met that criteria. I don't think USC or UCLA belong. One could make the argument that Texas doesn't either. Not with the other four schools he listed. This is totally different from my comments previously about the last decade. I'm following you. Given his criteria, I think BIK is spot on. That's where the point about Penn State and Florida's relatively late arrival comes in ("over a long period of time") along with the point about every team having some breaks in success (as far as Final Four success, anyway, which isn't the only measure of course, as geddy pointed out). There's no cap necessarily on the number of teams that can be traditional powers--but defining traditional powers as "being there at the beginning and being there now" isn't a bad place to start.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 20:43:14 GMT -5
Well, define "the beginning." 1976? I'm not sure that's the right place to start.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 21:15:33 GMT -5
Well, define "the beginning." 1976? I'm not sure that's the right place to start. NCAA competition as the beginning point ensures some continuity of evaluation. AIAW history would include some schools outside of the schools considered traditional in the current debate, but some of those aren't DI now. So, current DI, and therefore 1981, would be my point of reference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 21:30:52 GMT -5
How many schools were participating in 1981?
Anyhow, that's another strike against USC.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 21:42:07 GMT -5
How many schools were participating in 1981? Anyhow, that's another strike against USC. I don't really understand your aversion to including USC. The USC teams from the late seventies and early eighties included a core part of the next two Olympic squads, and some of the best USA players ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 21:56:17 GMT -5
You just eliminated the late 70s.
My aversion isn't so much to USC as it is to including USC (and UCLA and Texas) while excluding other programs. I think BiK's criteria really only applies to 4 schools. Taking a decade off in the middle (or recently) seems like a lot.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 22:16:24 GMT -5
You just eliminated the late 70s. My aversion isn't so much to USC as it is to including USC (and UCLA and Texas) while excluding other programs. I think BiK's criteria really only applies to 4 schools. Taking a decade off in the middle (or recently) seems like a lot. The reference to the 70's was for context about USC's tradition. I've already stated '81 is the reference point. But USC won the first NCAA Championship, lost in the final the next year and took third after that. After 1985, they seriously struggled for a long time, but came back eventually to win back-to-back titles. Penn St didn't make their first tournament until '93. Does that make them nouveau riche? Every school has had ebbs and flows, and whether they've been at the beginning, middle or end, the long view says that SC is a traditional power--and I'm not even a fan of USC or Haley. I would include Penn St as a traditional power as well btw. Texas too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 22:22:49 GMT -5
You mean finals, right? PSU made the tournament every year, I believe.
I can't really defend this any more than I have, since, ultimately, it's pretty damned subjective. Not sure it's entirely fair to compare West Coast programs in the 80s with the rest of the country either. That's why I think late 80s is a better starting point, when there was something approaching an even playing field.
USC and UCLA disappearing during that even playing field era is a major factor for me.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 29, 2015 22:31:58 GMT -5
Wasn't that also the era where they regionalized the brackets? Of course USC and UCLA were having a tougher time making the Final Four. The Floridas/LSU teams in the Final Four were not better....
USC has 3 titles and double-digit Final Fours. Who not on BiK's list are you really going to put that up against who you feel is being unjustly excluded there?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 22:45:03 GMT -5
You mean finals, right? PSU made the tournament every year, I believe. I can't really defend this any more than I have, since, ultimately, it's pretty damned subjective. Not sure it's entirely fair to compare West Coast programs in the 80s with the rest of the country either. That's why I think late 80s is a better starting point, when there was something approaching an even playing field. USC and UCLA disappearing during that even playing field era is a major factor for me. It's extremely subjective, but I'm having trouble seeing where you defended your position at all. UCLA missed the tournament in '96. UCSB never missed the tournament until recently--I don't see the relevance of your reference. And as was mentioned above, Florida benefited greatly (and Penn St too) from the efforts to equal the playing field.
|
|