|
Post by ay2013 on May 30, 2015 14:11:10 GMT -5
FF's are far less significant before they went to a true "national tournament" Why do you believe it's less significant? There weren't enough quality teams for a 64 team format, but the concentration of talent was there among the top teams, similar to the men's game now. wasn't it far more regionalized?
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 30, 2015 14:35:08 GMT -5
FF's are far less significant before they went to a true "national tournament" Why do you believe it's less significant? There weren't enough quality teams for a 64 team format, but the concentration of talent was there among the top teams, similar to the men's game now. Yes, but you could have had a national tournament of 24, 48...... In the end there was an era where for Texas or Florida to advance they essentially had to just beat each other. Not knocking Tx or Florida just using them as example. Does Texas-Arlington go to the FF in 89 in a nationally seeded tournament?
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on May 30, 2015 15:39:53 GMT -5
I know I'm being repetitive, but 1998 was the last time a team outside of the PAC 10/12, Big 12, or B1G won the national championship. Perhaps it might be best to look at 20th vs. 21st Century powers?
I has been a fun discussion.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 30, 2015 15:45:15 GMT -5
Why do you believe it's less significant? There weren't enough quality teams for a 64 team format, but the concentration of talent was there among the top teams, similar to the men's game now. Yes, but you could have had a national tournament of 24, 48...... In the end there was an era where for Texas or Florida to advance they essentially had to just beat each other. Not knocking Tx or Florida just using them as example. Does Texas-Arlington go to the FF in 89 in a nationally seeded tournament? I understand. Probably not, but they were better than Texas or Florida that year I would assume. And of course, there isn't a nationally seeded tournament for volleyball currently either.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 30, 2015 15:48:06 GMT -5
Yes, but you could have had a national tournament of 24, 48...... In the end there was an era where for Texas or Florida to advance they essentially had to just beat each other. Not knocking Tx or Florida just using them as example. Does Texas-Arlington go to the FF in 89 in a nationally seeded tournament? I understand. Probably not, but they were better than Texas or Florida that year I would assume. And of course, there isn't a nationally seeded tournament for volleyball currently either. Mary wasnt there yet, they beat Texas at Texas and very good LSU team in the semi.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 30, 2015 16:44:16 GMT -5
I know I'm being repetitive, but 1998 was the last time a team outside of the PAC 10/12, Big 12, or B1G won the national championship. Perhaps it might be best to look at 20th vs. 21st Century powers? I has been a fun discussion. The teams are the same trade a team or 2: Stanford, UCLA, USC (U Dub) in the PAC, Texas in the Big 12, and Penn State and Nebraska in the B1G.
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on May 30, 2015 16:46:20 GMT -5
Exactly
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 17:09:23 GMT -5
UCLA?? 21st Century?? Uh, no.
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster71 on May 30, 2015 19:32:48 GMT -5
Why do you believe it's less significant? There weren't enough quality teams for a 64 team format, but the concentration of talent was there among the top teams, similar to the men's game now. wasn't it far more regionalized? Yes it was. You had several years where you had Hawaii / UOP / LBSU battling it out as #1 & #2 in the nation or Stanford / UCLA battling as #1 & #2 but due to strict regionalization, they were in the same region. From '86 - '91, they used a strict regionalization formula. It didn't matter if you had 3 of the top 4 teams in the nation in one regional (ex: 1986, #2 UOP, #3 UH, #4 SJSU, #5 SDSU all in the same regional), that's what they did. '92 One rule change. If the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the coaches poll were in the same region, the #2 team would be moved. '93 Next rule change. The top 4 teams nationally would be split apart. After that, my old memory starts to fall apart as to when they started to seed the top 8 and when they moved further away from the strict regionalization.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 31, 2015 12:07:25 GMT -5
Yes it was. You had several years where you had Hawaii / UOP / LBSU battling it out as #1 & #2 in the nation or Stanford / UCLA battling as #1 & #2 but due to strict regionalization, they were in the same region. From '86 - '91, they used a strict regionalization formula. It didn't matter if you had 3 of the top 4 teams in the nation in one regional (ex: 1986, #2 UOP, #3 UH, #4 SJSU, #5 SDSU all in the same regional), that's what they did. '92 One rule change. If the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the coaches poll were in the same region, the #2 team would be moved. '93 Next rule change. The top 4 teams nationally would be split apart. After that, my old memory starts to fall apart as to when they started to seed the top 8 and when they moved further away from the strict regionalization. Fortunately, all of the old brackets are on Wikipedia. It looks like in 1995 they started to lose some of the regionalization as they sent 2-seed Notre Dame to the West regional and sent 2-seed UCLA to the Central. I'm not certain what the actual rule was however. Perhaps this is when they started seeding the top 8? 2000 was the first season of seeding teams 1-16.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 16:55:13 GMT -5
Also keep in mind that there has been a west coast bias forever, EVEN WHEN Nebraska and Texas (and later PSU) were winning titles and Illinois was reaching the final 4.
Hell, you see it in this thread when people talk about Florida.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 31, 2015 17:27:58 GMT -5
Also keep in mind that there has been a west coast bias forever, EVEN WHEN Nebraska and Texas (and later PSU) were winning titles and Illinois was reaching the final 4. Hell, you see it in this thread when people talk about Florida. You can rest easy now that the pro west coast bias has been mostly erased by the advent of parity, as evidenced by winning championships--which is the way it should be (for now, let's not bring up the bias against west coast teams brought on by RPI and geographic restrictions). BTW,I don't have a bias against Florida, but I do have one against teams that can't seem to win a national semi-final match.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 17:31:53 GMT -5
Noted. Just as long as they receive proper credit for MAKING a national semi-final match, something MANY programs have never done once, let alone several times.
And West Coast teams were, generally, better. They just weren't as superior as some always say. (And BiK still says. UCLA a 21st Century power.)
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 31, 2015 17:38:05 GMT -5
Noted. Just as long as they receive proper credit for MAKING a national semi-final match, something MANY programs have never done once, let alone several times. And West Coast teams were, generally, better. They just weren't as superior as some always say. (And BiK still says. UCLA a 21st Century power.) No question that the geographic center of college volleyball has shifted eastward. Anyone who doesn't realize that is in denial. I'm not sure how much credit goes to the NCAA or to the growth of club, but either way, it's generally a good thing for the sport
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on May 31, 2015 21:40:05 GMT -5
Noted. Just as long as they receive proper credit for MAKING a national semi-final match, something MANY programs have never done once, let alone several times. And West Coast teams were, generally, better. They just weren't as superior as some always say. (And BiK still says. UCLA a 21st Century power.) No question that the geographic center of college volleyball has shifted eastward. Anyone who doesn't realize that is in denial. I'm not sure how much credit goes to the NCAA or to the growth of club, but either way, it's generally a good thing for the sport It certainly moved a lot faster than the center for Lacrosse.
|
|