|
Post by rogero1 on Nov 16, 2015 3:59:36 GMT -5
The selection committee/program was limited to flying seven teams and ended up taking 11 hours to finally get the brackets. If you want to donate to the NCAA to fly a team to improve the process, be my guest. Until volleyball becomes a major sport and can fund itself, the NCAA will keep minimizing costs to run these tourneys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 9:48:13 GMT -5
The selection committee/program was limited to flying seven teams and ended up taking 11 hours to finally get the brackets. If you want to donate to the NCAA to fly a team to improve the process, be my guest. Until volleyball becomes a major sport and can fund itself, the NCAA will keep minimizing costs to run these tourneys. I agree with your sentiment. Others here have argued that travel/costs did not play into selections.
|
|
|
Post by joc on Nov 16, 2015 10:03:44 GMT -5
The selection committee/program was limited to flying seven teams and ended up taking 11 hours to finally get the brackets. If you want to donate to the NCAA to fly a team to improve the process, be my guest. Until volleyball becomes a major sport and can fund itself, the NCAA will keep minimizing costs to run these tourneys. I agree with your sentiment. Others here have argued that travel/costs did not play into selections. ..And they don't. The selections are done first irregardless of economics/travel. It's not an argument but a reality from those of us who have been a part of the process. But who has to go where and who has to host is where the economics comes in. That's why you get some stacked regionals in terms of strength.
|
|
|
Post by awgriffey on Nov 16, 2015 10:18:11 GMT -5
Pablo Rankings for Regional Finalists (Pablo Rankings for all teams in the Regional): Mid Atlantic: #1 Juniata vs #3 Wittenberg (#1, #3, #37, #42, #46, #62, #132, #208) West: #2 WashU vs #5 Cal Lutheran (#2, #5, #7, #14, #17, #44, #137, #144) Central: #4 Calvin vs #8 Carthage (#4, #8, #11, #14, #21, #33, #38, #117) South: #5 Emory vs #35 Hendrix (#5, #13, #35, #45, #56, #60, #139, #168) North Central: #29 Bethel vs #53 Northwestern (#10, #16, #20, #22, #27, #29, #30, #53) Eastern: #32 Randolph Macon vs #67 Stockton (#9, #24, #32, #67, #71, #106, #190, #265) New York: #48 Clarkson vs #53 Springfield (#48, #53, #59, #63, #83, #213, #313, #316) New England: #49 MIT vs #65 Bowdoin (#23, #49, #65, #99, #124, #150, #229, #320) Thanks for the info. I don't have access to the Pablo rankings, and it's interesting to see where the regions stand. The West was brutal. Outside of Santa Cruz, and Whitworth, it was just stacked. Since i haven't been able to get out and see many teams from around the country, it was fun to watch a couple of live matches, and at least give teams the eye test. I watched MIT, and Bowdoin, and they would have struggled to beat the low seeds in the west. It looked to me like there were 4 tough brackets, and 4 easy ones, which seems to be backed up by the Pablo rankings. I'd guess that Wittenberg, Cal Lu, Carthage, and Hendrix all sweep through to the semi's, and Cal Lu wins it all.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Nov 16, 2015 11:55:32 GMT -5
Pablo Rankings for Regional Finalists (Pablo Rankings for all teams in the Regional): Mid Atlantic: #1 Juniata vs #3 Wittenberg (#1, #3, #37, #42, #46, #62, #132, #208) West: #2 WashU vs #5 Cal Lutheran (#2, #5, #7, #14, #17, #44, #137, #144) Central: #4 Calvin vs #8 Carthage (#4, #8, #11, #14, #21, #33, #38, #117) South: #5 Emory vs #35 Hendrix (#5, #13, #35, #45, #56, #60, #139, #168) North Central: #29 Bethel vs #53 Northwestern (#10, #16, #20, #22, #27, #29, #30, #53) Eastern: #32 Randolph Macon vs #67 Stockton (#9, #24, #32, #67, #71, #106, #190, #265) New York: #48 Clarkson vs #53 Springfield (#48, #53, #59, #63, #83, #213, #313, #316) New England: #49 MIT vs #65 Bowdoin (#23, #49, #65, #99, #124, #150, #229, #320) Thanks for the info. I don't have access to the Pablo rankings, and it's interesting to see where the regions stand. The West was brutal. Outside of Santa Cruz, and Whitworth, it was just stacked. Since i haven't been able to get out and see many teams from around the country, it was fun to watch a couple of live matches, and at least give teams the eye test. I watched MIT, and Bowdoin, and they would have struggled to beat the low seeds in the west. It looked to me like there were 4 tough brackets, and 4 easy ones, which seems to be backed up by the Pablo rankings. I'd guess that Wittenberg, Cal Lu, Carthage, and Hendrix all sweep through to the semi's, and Cal Lu wins it all. Go to RichKern.com and buy a years worth of Pablo and other cool stuff. Oh am I not Rich Kern nor do I play him on TV but I do know him.
|
|
diiifan
Freshman
https://d3vbwest.wordpress.com/
Posts: 95
|
Post by diiifan on Nov 16, 2015 12:40:10 GMT -5
I agree with your sentiment. Others here have argued that travel/costs did not play into selections. ..And they don't. The selections are done first irregardless of economics/travel. It's not an argument but a reality from those of us who have been a part of the process. But who has to go where and who has to host is where the economics comes in. That's why you get some stacked regionals in terms of strength. I think everyone would agree that the regional RACs rank teams without regard to travel and money. Outside the West and maybe the South, I think everyone would agree that the NCAA does not select teams based on travel and money. But, when it comes to (specifically) the West, the NCAA has considered travel and money in the selection. Case in point: * 2014 the West RAC ranked Southwestern 6th and had Colorado College unranked going into their conference tournament. * Southwestern beat Colorado College in their conference tournament (then holding a 3-0 head-to-head record). * NCAA selected Colorado College and Southwestern was NOT selected. Outside looking in, NCAA wanted Colorado College in the tournament (and they deserved to be in). NCAA swapped them to get this result and then decided Southwestern was not worthy. Based on the West RAC rankings (reviewed weekly by the NCAA) and the subsequent head-to-head victory (for the third time), both deserved to be selected or neither deserved it. The notion that Southwestern was not better than some of the at-large bids given to the east coast that year is laughable. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this set of events is that travel and expense played a roll in selection. (Keep in mind, I understand why the NCAA did something like this - bypassing Southwestern...not swapping Colorado and Southwestern. They only have so much money. I just think they should be open and honest that this can play a role in extreme cases as happened last year.)
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Nov 16, 2015 12:56:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. I don't have access to the Pablo rankings, and it's interesting to see where the regions stand. The West was brutal. Outside of Santa Cruz, and Whitworth, it was just stacked. Since i haven't been able to get out and see many teams from around the country, it was fun to watch a couple of live matches, and at least give teams the eye test. I watched MIT, and Bowdoin, and they would have struggled to beat the low seeds in the west. It looked to me like there were 4 tough brackets, and 4 easy ones, which seems to be backed up by the Pablo rankings. I'd guess that Wittenberg, Cal Lu, Carthage, and Hendrix all sweep through to the semi's, and Cal Lu wins it all. Go to RichKern.com and buy a years worth of Pablo and other cool stuff. Oh am I not Rich Kern nor do I play him on TV but I do know him. RichKern.com is a website I happily pay for, as the amount of information on there is incredible. Rich does a tremendous job!
|
|
|
Post by awgriffey on Nov 16, 2015 14:26:17 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. I don't have access to the Pablo rankings, and it's interesting to see where the regions stand. The West was brutal. Outside of Santa Cruz, and Whitworth, it was just stacked. Since i haven't been able to get out and see many teams from around the country, it was fun to watch a couple of live matches, and at least give teams the eye test. I watched MIT, and Bowdoin, and they would have struggled to beat the low seeds in the west. It looked to me like there were 4 tough brackets, and 4 easy ones, which seems to be backed up by the Pablo rankings. I'd guess that Wittenberg, Cal Lu, Carthage, and Hendrix all sweep through to the semi's, and Cal Lu wins it all. Go to RichKern.com and buy a years worth of Pablo and other cool stuff. Oh am I not Rich Kern nor do I play him on TV but I do know him. I believe i'll do just that. Thanks,
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Nov 16, 2015 14:36:51 GMT -5
Go to RichKern.com and buy a years worth of Pablo and other cool stuff. Oh am I not Rich Kern nor do I play him on TV but I do know him. I believe i'll do just that. Thanks, And I do not get any form of payment from him. Although perhaps now when I see him in Omaha I might ask.
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on Nov 16, 2015 14:59:16 GMT -5
Go to RichKern.com and buy a years worth of Pablo and other cool stuff. Oh am I not Rich Kern nor do I play him on TV but I do know him. RichKern.com is a website I happily pay for, as the amount of information on there is incredible. Rich does a tremendous job! agreed.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Nov 16, 2015 20:59:58 GMT -5
..And they don't. The selections are done first irregardless of economics/travel. It's not an argument but a reality from those of us who have been a part of the process. But who has to go where and who has to host is where the economics comes in. That's why you get some stacked regionals in terms of strength. I think everyone would agree that the regional RACs rank teams without regard to travel and money. Outside the West and maybe the South, I think everyone would agree that the NCAA does not select teams based on travel and money. But, when it comes to (specifically) the West, the NCAA has considered travel and money in the selection. Case in point: * 2014 the West RAC ranked Southwestern 6th and had Colorado College unranked going into their conference tournament. * Southwestern beat Colorado College in their conference tournament (then holding a 3-0 head-to-head record). * NCAA selected Colorado College and Southwestern was NOT selected. Outside looking in, NCAA wanted Colorado College in the tournament (and they deserved to be in). NCAA swapped them to get this result and then decided Southwestern was not worthy. Based on the West RAC rankings (reviewed weekly by the NCAA) and the subsequent head-to-head victory (for the third time), both deserved to be selected or neither deserved it. The notion that Southwestern was not better than some of the at-large bids given to the east coast that year is laughable. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this set of events is that travel and expense played a roll in selection. (Keep in mind, I understand why the NCAA did something like this - bypassing Southwestern...not swapping Colorado and Southwestern. They only have so much money. I just think they should be open and honest that this can play a role in extreme cases as happened last year.) You make a compelling argument with your southwestern and CC example, but one instance with only partial facts doesn't mean it's accurate. The national committee is able to essentially rerank regions if they feel that the regional committee did not rank properly based on all criteria.
|
|
diiifan
Freshman
https://d3vbwest.wordpress.com/
Posts: 95
|
Post by diiifan on Nov 17, 2015 10:12:18 GMT -5
I think everyone would agree that the regional RACs rank teams without regard to travel and money. Outside the West and maybe the South, I think everyone would agree that the NCAA does not select teams based on travel and money. But, when it comes to (specifically) the West, the NCAA has considered travel and money in the selection. Case in point: * 2014 the West RAC ranked Southwestern 6th and had Colorado College unranked going into their conference tournament. * Southwestern beat Colorado College in their conference tournament (then holding a 3-0 head-to-head record). * NCAA selected Colorado College and Southwestern was NOT selected. Outside looking in, NCAA wanted Colorado College in the tournament (and they deserved to be in). NCAA swapped them to get this result and then decided Southwestern was not worthy. Based on the West RAC rankings (reviewed weekly by the NCAA) and the subsequent head-to-head victory (for the third time), both deserved to be selected or neither deserved it. The notion that Southwestern was not better than some of the at-large bids given to the east coast that year is laughable. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this set of events is that travel and expense played a roll in selection. (Keep in mind, I understand why the NCAA did something like this - bypassing Southwestern...not swapping Colorado and Southwestern. They only have so much money. I just think they should be open and honest that this can play a role in extreme cases as happened last year.) You make a compelling argument with your southwestern and CC example, but one instance with only partial facts doesn't mean it's accurate. The national committee is able to essentially rerank regions if they feel that the regional committee did not rank properly based on all criteria. Without an open selection process (something no sport has), it is true we don't know what other facts were in play behind closed doors. With that said, the NCAA reviews the regional rankings each week. Southwestern was ranked ahead of CC in prior weeks with no re-ranking. Only when Southwestern beat CC again after the last public regional ranking did the NCAA decide to re-rank. If the West RAC was not properly ranking the teams there was ample opportunity to do so weeks prior. A third Southwestern victory over CC seems like a strange time to realize CC was better than Southwestern. Regardless, the example was used to refute the notion that the NCAA doesn't consider travel and money when it comes to selection. All I'm saying is that the West Region is impacted by these considerations in extreme cases. A number of posters insist that it's never a consideration. There may be other facts in play but I'm comfortable with the conclusion based on what we know.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoach06 on Nov 17, 2015 12:18:01 GMT -5
All-American teams just announced. www.avca.org/awards/all-america/division-three/No dog in the D3 fight as I am not involved with it in any way outside of being a fan, but how does the assists leader in the nation whose team was 31-3 only get an honorable mention?
|
|
|
Post by joc on Nov 17, 2015 15:03:04 GMT -5
I think everyone would agree that the regional RACs rank teams without regard to travel and money. Outside the West and maybe the South, I think everyone would agree that the NCAA does not select teams based on travel and money. But, when it comes to (specifically) the West, the NCAA has considered travel and money in the selection. Case in point: * 2014 the West RAC ranked Southwestern 6th and had Colorado College unranked going into their conference tournament. * Southwestern beat Colorado College in their conference tournament (then holding a 3-0 head-to-head record). * NCAA selected Colorado College and Southwestern was NOT selected. Outside looking in, NCAA wanted Colorado College in the tournament (and they deserved to be in). NCAA swapped them to get this result and then decided Southwestern was not worthy. Based on the West RAC rankings (reviewed weekly by the NCAA) and the subsequent head-to-head victory (for the third time), both deserved to be selected or neither deserved it. The notion that Southwestern was not better than some of the at-large bids given to the east coast that year is laughable. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this set of events is that travel and expense played a roll in selection. (Keep in mind, I understand why the NCAA did something like this - bypassing Southwestern...not swapping Colorado and Southwestern. They only have so much money. I just think they should be open and honest that this can play a role in extreme cases as happened last year.) You make a compelling argument with your southwestern and CC example, but one instance with only partial facts doesn't mean it's accurate. The national committee is able to essentially rerank regions if they feel that the regional committee did not rank properly based on all criteria. What could be more likely is that Colorado College had a better overall resume in terms of garnering an At-Large since they had wins over Clarkson and Tufts. While Southwestern had beaten CC three times, did they have other regionally ranked wins to anchor their resume to. In cases like this, the RAC can re-rank prior to selection. It happened once in my region. One team had beaten another 3-0, but went out of region and lost to a bunch of teams. We moved them up in the last week and got them a bid because their resume otherwise was solid.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Nov 17, 2015 21:19:40 GMT -5
You make a compelling argument with your southwestern and CC example, but one instance with only partial facts doesn't mean it's accurate. The national committee is able to essentially rerank regions if they feel that the regional committee did not rank properly based on all criteria. What could be more likely is that Colorado College had a better overall resume in terms of garnering an At-Large since they had wins over Clarkson and Tufts. While Southwestern had beaten CC three times, did they have other regionally ranked wins to anchor their resume to. In cases like this, the RAC can re-rank prior to selection. It happened once in my region. One team had beaten another 3-0, but went out of region and lost to a bunch of teams. We moved them up in the last week and got them a bid because their resume otherwise was solid. Exactly. My experience also saw members of the committee start asking "who will have the best chance of getting the national at large bids". Basically who can they make the best case for given the criteria. As the season goes on, that question was asked more frequently. And don't forget the final regional ranking I believe is never published. I've never heard a member of the committee make any reference of the process taking into account travel. Maybe for who hosts, or where they play, but never with regards to who is selected.
|
|