|
Post by jgrout on Nov 29, 2015 22:47:43 GMT -5
Hmmm. Have you watched Kansas recently? Are you saying they're better than Stanford?
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Nov 29, 2015 22:48:52 GMT -5
It's frickin' BS than out of the nine teams the B1G has in the tournament, not one single one of them is in this bracket. First, only seeded B1G teams are even in the conversation: if Penn State can get regional brackets stuffed full of lightly regarded teams from the East... and they do, over and over again... why shouldn't USC and Stanford ever fare similarly? Second, there have been _MANY_ East regionals without any Pac-12 teams (let alone seeded ones) and there is only one regional west of the Rockies. Third, how many of the seeded B1G teams would want to come out to USC's regional? Did you ever think they might like their chances better elsewhere? P.S. I don't like Buzzword Bingo, and my term for "lightly regarded team" was intercepted by something like it.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 29, 2015 22:52:32 GMT -5
Hmmm. Have you watched Kansas recently? Are you saying they're better than Stanford? As a Stanford fan I wouldn't think we walk all over Kansas they are pretty good. I think we have a lot harder a sub regional than most realize. If we have CSU in the second that's not a gimme. I like our chances against Kansas but I don't picture us sweeping them.
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Nov 29, 2015 22:52:33 GMT -5
What a missed opportunity. My guess is their volleyball facility did not meet the requirements to submit a bid, it seats just under 3,000. Creighton's facility holds more than Kansas and they draw more than other teams that are hosting. Somebody goofed.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 29, 2015 22:53:53 GMT -5
USC's Christmas came early I don't see them losing to any of the teams they should be in the regional final easy.
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Nov 29, 2015 22:54:37 GMT -5
Hmmm. Have you watched Kansas recently? Are you saying they're better than Stanford? I have watched both teams play numerous times. Stanford is clearly getting better throughout the season, but I am still not sold on their back row and OH's. I give Stanford the edge, but do not expect Kansas to be a pushover.
|
|
|
Post by rcryland on Nov 29, 2015 23:15:34 GMT -5
It's frickin' BS than out of the nine teams the B1G has in the tournament, not one single one of them is in this bracket. First, only seeded B1G teams are even in the conversation: if Penn State can get regional brackets stuffed full of lightly regarded teams from the East... and they do, over and over again... why shouldn't USC and Stanford ever fare similarly? Second, there have been _MANY_ East regionals without any Pac-12 teams (let alone seeded ones) and there is only one regional west of the Rockies. Third, how many of the seeded B1G teams would want to come out to USC's regional? Did you ever think they might like their chances better elsewhere? P.S. I don't like Buzzword Bingo, and my term for "lightly regarded team" was intercepted by something like it. Still doesn't make it right. It's pretty ridiculous that Texas could potentially face THREE B1G teams before the FF and USC/Stanford don't have to face a single one. Really lame of the committee, not just because of the lopsided draws for B1G teams, but for the fans who want to see a competitive tournament in every region. With 9 teams, there's no excuse whatsoever for not placing at least one of them in San Diego. As for your third reason, that's completely irrelevant. Penn St., Purdue, Illinois or Ohio St could have certainly been placed in San Diego without ruffling any feathers at all.
|
|
|
Post by vbct3 on Nov 29, 2015 23:44:23 GMT -5
I got Stanford, Missouri, USC and UNC advancing to San Diego, easiest of the regionals IMO, USC should easily advance tot he final four, USC lost by two points in the fifth set to Stanford earlier this year. Even Mick doesn't think the Women will "easily" advance to the Final Four... so why should you? Pretty sure USC beat Stanford in that 5th set at the farm.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 29, 2015 23:57:35 GMT -5
This is by far the easiest sub-regional outside of the top two seeds.
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Nov 30, 2015 0:04:46 GMT -5
This is by far the easiest sub-regional outside of the top two seeds. Which one?
|
|
|
Post by jaypak on Nov 30, 2015 0:39:47 GMT -5
My guess is their volleyball facility did not meet the requirements to submit a bid, it seats just under 3,000. Creighton's facility holds more than Kansas and they draw more than other teams that are hosting. Somebody goofed. Kansas plays NCAA tournament matches in 16,000 seat Allen Fieldhouse, not their 1,300 seat gym. Creighton's volleyball-specific arena seats 2,500 comfortably although they can cram a few more in and stay within code. But I don't think size had anything to do with it. This city has 5 arenas of 3,000+ and the school would have surely rented one if size was the issue. Heck, they already hosted Nebraska in one of them this season and drew 10,000+. I think the athletic department simply dropped the ball thinking there was no way the RPI would go so high.
|
|
|
Post by GoUCLA on Nov 30, 2015 0:46:31 GMT -5
Creighton's facility holds more than Kansas and they draw more than other teams that are hosting. Somebody goofed. Kansas plays NCAA tournament matches in 16,000 seat Allen Fieldhouse, not their 1,300 seat gym. Creighton's volleyball-specific arena seats 2,500 comfortably although they can cram a few more in and stay within code. But I don't think size had anything to do with it. This city has 5 arenas of 3,000+ and the school would have surely rented one if size was the issue. Heck, they already hosted Nebraska in one of them this season and drew 10,000+. I think the athletic department simply dropped the ball thinking there was no way the RPI would go so high. Size may not have anything to do with it. UCLA's matches will be at Wooden, which is like a high school gym.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Nov 30, 2015 1:07:59 GMT -5
My guess is their volleyball facility did not meet the requirements to submit a bid, it seats just under 3,000. Apparently they changed that requirement for this season. Kansas is playing in their 1,300 seat gym (I assume that will easily sell out). There are other requirements to submitting a bid, like available parking, practice courts, etc. Creighton's women's basketball team is on the road next weekend so the arena is available. But it very well could be that the Creighton administration chose not to submit a bid.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 30, 2015 1:36:51 GMT -5
First, only seeded B1G teams are even in the conversation: if Penn State can get regional brackets stuffed full of lightly regarded teams from the East... and they do, over and over again... why shouldn't USC and Stanford ever fare similarly? Second, there have been _MANY_ East regionals without any Pac-12 teams (let alone seeded ones) and there is only one regional west of the Rockies. Third, how many of the seeded B1G teams would want to come out to USC's regional? Did you ever think they might like their chances better elsewhere? P.S. I don't like Buzzword Bingo, and my term for "lightly regarded team" was intercepted by something like it. Still doesn't make it right. It's pretty ridiculous that Texas could potentially face THREE B1G teams before the FF and USC/Stanford don't have to face a single one. Really lame of the committee, not just because of the lopsided draws for B1G teams, but for the fans who want to see a competitive tournament in every region. With 9 teams, there's no excuse whatsoever for not placing at least one of them in San Diego. As for your third reason, that's completely irrelevant. Penn St., Purdue, Illinois or Ohio St could have certainly been placed in San Diego without ruffling any feathers at all You missed that this would have been unfair to these B1G teams. I mean, having to travel to San Diego in the middle of December. The warm weather would have been a major distraction and adjusting their bodies to it might have killed them ... not to mention having to play USC and/or Stanford on home turf ...
|
|
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: 28,114
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 30, 2015 1:41:17 GMT -5
Still doesn't make it right. It's pretty ridiculous that Texas could potentially face THREE B1G teams before the FF and USC/Stanford don't have to face a single one. Really lame of the committee, not just because of the lopsided draws for B1G teams, but for the fans who want to see a competitive tournament in every region. With 9 teams, there's no excuse whatsoever for not placing at least one of them in San Diego. As for your third reason, that's completely irrelevant. Penn St., Purdue, Illinois or Ohio St could have certainly been placed in San Diego without ruffling any feathers at all You missed that this would have been unfair to these B1G teams. I mean, having to travel to San Diego in the middle of December. The warm weather would have been a major distraction and adjusting their bodies to it might have killed them ... not to mention having to play USC and/or Stanford on home turf ... San Diego campus is absolutely gorgeous -- one of my favorites. Love LMU's as well
|
|