|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 31, 2015 9:22:30 GMT -5
If by asleep you meant asleep in their first weekend of play, you could list nearly all Big Ten teams as sleepers.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 31, 2015 9:31:09 GMT -5
Both the B1G and PAC are under 80% W-L in the first weekend, and as schedules escalate on both sides are not likely to crawl back above it. (Both conferences are usually more in the 82-85 range). That will have some significant RPI-related outcomes. Oddly enough, it's not like the Big XII or ACC are winning more to pick up the slack.
It may be a good year for mid-majors.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 31, 2015 9:39:18 GMT -5
Both the B1G and PAC are under 80% W-L in the first weekend, and as schedules escalate on both sides are not likely to crawl back above it. (Both conferences are usually more in the 82-85 range). That will have some significant RPI-related outcomes. Oddly enough, it's not like the Big XII or ACC are winning more to pick up the slack. It may be a good year for mid-majors. And then, come tournament time, the mid-major teams that made the tournament based on their RPI will lose to the 5th, 6th, and 7th place teams from the B1G, like usual.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 31, 2015 9:46:34 GMT -5
Yep. Want the list? Here you go: Wyoming over OSU TAMU over Minnesota Northern Illinois over Iowa W Kentucky over Wisconsin Cleveland State over Indiana Kentucky over MSU I personally think Minnesota only scoring 56 points in a sweep by the Cardinal counts, too. I'll give Rutgers a pass. Well I pretty much discard anything that happens in week 1. Kentucky is at least as good as MSU so that isnt an upset or negative outcome. I certainly saw Cleveland St as a team that could beat IU, and frankly A&M wasnt a shock. Iowa also hasnt done anything in 15 years. I wouldnt call the weekend "bleak" but certainly not a good start either. Thought Minnesota would be competitive with Stanford especially with Inky out. They weren't.
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Aug 31, 2015 10:07:33 GMT -5
If you take Penn State out of the equation, the Big Ten isn't exactly spectacular in the post-season. Let's look at 2014: Michigan State - BEATEN BY #1 STANFORD IN ROUND 2. Not an upset. Illinois - BEATEN BY #8 FLORIDA IN ROUND OF 16. Not an upset. Nebraska - who had a rough regular season, gets upset by BYU in the the ROUND OF 8. BYU ended up in the Championship. Ohio State UPSETS Kentucky in the second round, nearly upsets WISCONSIN in the round of 16. Well, somebody has to lose, right? Wisconsin loses to PENN STATE in the round of 8. Again, somebody from the Big Ten has to lose. What exactly are you looking for? 4 in the Final Four? Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio State overachieved based on their Big Ten season, and MSU got paired with a #1 in the second round, and two teams had to play two other Big Ten teams. Is it because Penn State has the only title from the Big Ten? Do you know how few teams have an NCAA title? 10. Choosing one year hardly refutes my point. How did the Big Ten do prior to 1991? Who has all of the Big Ten's national championships and the vast majority of Final Four and championship match appearances? If you take Penn State out of the equation, the Big Ten historically has not been that impressive. Any success the Big Ten has had on a national level occurred only after Penn State joined the conference. You can keep Nebraska out of the discussion as they are relatively new to the conference and their best years were as member of the Big 8 and Big 12.
|
|
|
Post by chatchu-off moksri on Aug 31, 2015 11:14:35 GMT -5
Does anyone know how serious Autumn Bailey's injury is? I really think that MSU would have been able to beat Kentucky if they had her on the court. She is a great player.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 31, 2015 11:16:14 GMT -5
Both the B1G and PAC are under 80% W-L in the first weekend, and as schedules escalate on both sides are not likely to crawl back above it. (Both conferences are usually more in the 82-85 range). That will have some significant RPI-related outcomes. Oddly enough, it's not like the Big XII or ACC are winning more to pick up the slack. It may be a good year for mid-majors. And then, come tournament time, the mid-major teams that made the tournament based on their RPI will lose to the 5th, 6th, and 7th place teams from the B1G, like usual. Well, of course. On the bright side, a midmajor who shouldn't be in the tournament is a pretty good first round draw for an at-large.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 31, 2015 11:22:05 GMT -5
Meanwhile, good wins? Illinois over Louisville and Creighton, Nebraska over Pitt, Purdue over Ohio -- all decent, but none unexpected. Depends on what you mean by "unexpected." For example, how good is Ohio? Last year, they were top 40ish. Are they still top 50? Because if so, then Purdue's win is pretty unexpected, at least in the level of domination. I looked up the losses last year for teams that were in the top 50. Something like 420 losses total. However, only 14 of them (3%) had the winning team scoring at least 59% of the points like Purdue did against Ohio. 8 of the 14 winning teams were top 10. 2 more were in the top 20 and 2 more were in the top 25. The best team to lose such a match was #12 UCLA to #4 Washington. If you up it to top 60, there's 8 more teams added (out of 100 losses), so only 22 out of about 530 losses were that lopsided. It's more likely to occur at home (didn't do that breakdown, but can) but still, if Ohio is still good, then Purdue's win to that level would be unexpected.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 31, 2015 11:30:41 GMT -5
Let's look at 2014: Michigan State - BEATEN BY #1 STANFORD IN ROUND 2. Not an upset. Illinois - BEATEN BY #8 FLORIDA IN ROUND OF 16. Not an upset. Nebraska - who had a rough regular season, gets upset by BYU in the the ROUND OF 8. BYU ended up in the Championship. Ohio State UPSETS Kentucky in the second round, nearly upsets WISCONSIN in the round of 16. Well, somebody has to lose, right? Wisconsin loses to PENN STATE in the round of 8. Again, somebody from the Big Ten has to lose. What exactly are you looking for? 4 in the Final Four? Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio State overachieved based on their Big Ten season, and MSU got paired with a #1 in the second round, and two teams had to play two other Big Ten teams. Is it because Penn State has the only title from the Big Ten? Do you know how few teams have an NCAA title? 10. Choosing one year hardly refutes my point. How did the Big Ten do prior to 1991? Who has all of the Big Ten's national championships and the vast majority of Final Four and championship match appearances? If you take Penn State out of the equation, the Big Ten historically has not been that impressive. Any success the Big Ten has had on a national level occurred only after Penn State joined the conference. You can keep Nebraska out of the discussion as they are relatively new to the conference and their best years were as member of the Big 8 and Big 12. Please stop. The year before last they probably had the greatest NCAA tournament record of any conference in the history of the sport. 1991 is TWENTY FOUR YEARS AGO!!!!!. LBSU was dominating volleyball, so was Pacific.......... It's way easier for you to drop this argument, than it is to make yourself look further ridiculous. Also, as a PSU fan I beg you to stop being obnoxious about their success, it is totally unnecessary because it speaks for itself, and the program hates when people do it. Your goal as a PSU fan shouldnt be that people want to hate PSU, and that the program wouldn't be embarrassed by you doing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 11:33:54 GMT -5
The fact he thinks the only measure of tournament success is NTs (or even FF appearances) is all you need to know.
Again, you are asking the donkey not to be an ass.
|
|
|
Post by thereisnoplace on Aug 31, 2015 12:38:32 GMT -5
Definitely not a perfect weekend for the B1G, but Illinois, Nebraska, and Penn St look strong. If all three emerge from nonconference play with strong RPIs, when/if they lose in B1G play it'll bump everyone else in the conference up. But in any event, we're probably jumping ahead a bit too far. Minnesota hasn't looked impressive early on, but they have tremendous coaching and might be a legitimate contender by year end. They might cost the B1G some tourney bids and top seeds along the way But they might just make a late-season run. The same goes for nearly any team in the B1G.
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Aug 31, 2015 13:03:01 GMT -5
Choosing one year hardly refutes my point. How did the Big Ten do prior to 1991? Who has all of the Big Ten's national championships and the vast majority of Final Four and championship match appearances? If you take Penn State out of the equation, the Big Ten historically has not been that impressive. Any success the Big Ten has had on a national level occurred only after Penn State joined the conference. You can keep Nebraska out of the discussion as they are relatively new to the conference and their best years were as member of the Big 8 and Big 12. Please stop. The year before last they probably had the greatest NCAA tournament record of any conference in the history of the sport. 1991 is TWENTY FOUR YEARS AGO!!!!!. LBSU was dominating volleyball, so was Pacific.......... It's way easier for you to drop this argument, than it is to make yourself look further ridiculous. Also, as a PSU fan I beg you to stop being obnoxious about their success, it is totally unnecessary because it speaks for itself, and the program hates when people do it. Your goal as a PSU fan shouldnt be that people want to hate PSU, and that the program wouldn't be embarrassed by you doing it. I'm not being obnoxious about Penn State's success. I am merely pointing out the fact that until Penn State entered the conference, the Big Ten really wasn't a big deal in volleyball. Without Penn State and Nebraska, the Big Ten wouldn't have much of a volleyball history at all.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Aug 31, 2015 13:34:32 GMT -5
Please stop. The year before last they probably had the greatest NCAA tournament record of any conference in the history of the sport. 1991 is TWENTY FOUR YEARS AGO!!!!!. LBSU was dominating volleyball, so was Pacific.......... It's way easier for you to drop this argument, than it is to make yourself look further ridiculous. Also, as a PSU fan I beg you to stop being obnoxious about their success, it is totally unnecessary because it speaks for itself, and the program hates when people do it. Your goal as a PSU fan shouldnt be that people want to hate PSU, and that the program wouldn't be embarrassed by you doing it. I'm not being obnoxious about Penn State's success. I am merely pointing out the fact that until Penn State entered the conference, the Big Ten really wasn't a big deal in volleyball. Without Penn State and Nebraska, the Big Ten wouldn't have much of a volleyball history at all. How many final fours and/or national championships did Penn State win prior to joining the Big Ten ?
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Aug 31, 2015 17:22:40 GMT -5
I'm not being obnoxious about Penn State's success. I am merely pointing out the fact that until Penn State entered the conference, the Big Ten really wasn't a big deal in volleyball. Without Penn State and Nebraska, the Big Ten wouldn't have much of a volleyball history at all. How many final fours and/or national championships did Penn State win prior to joining the Big Ten ? None that I remember. PSU VB wasn't fully funded until joining the Big Ten. Penn State began dominating the Big Ten almost immediately. They finished second or third in 1991 and won the conference title the next year. If you are suggesting the Big Ten made Penn State better, I hope you aren't talking about the level of competition. Even Russ has said that until only recently when he looked at other Big Ten teams he rarely saw anyone who could play for Penn State.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Aug 31, 2015 17:31:14 GMT -5
How many final fours and/or national championships did Penn State win prior to joining the Big Ten ? None that I remember. PSU VB wasn't fully funded until joining the Big Ten. Penn State began dominating the Big Ten almost immediately. They finished second or third in 1991 and won the conference title the next year. If you are suggesting the Big Ten made Penn State better, I hope you aren't talking about the level of competition. Even Russ has said that until only recently when he looked at other Big Ten teams he rarely saw anyone who could play for Penn State. Russ would never say that
|
|