|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 1:15:09 GMT -5
the seeds this year show that there really isn't any rhyme or reason to some of these selections, despite what trojansc or bofa might say (and this isn't a knock on them, I think they are both GREAT posters). But just like last year when there was little to justify (given the committee's data) PSU ahead of FSU, this year there is little to justify Texas A&M seeded #10.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Nov 30, 2015 1:22:49 GMT -5
the seeds this year show that there really isn't any rhyme or reason to some of these selections, despite what trojansc or bofa might say (and this isn't a knock on them, I think they are both GREAT posters). But just like last year when there was little to justify (given the committee's data) PSU ahead of FSU, this year there is little to justify Texas A&M seeded #10. I think the RPI is what justifies it. I'm not saying it's right, or that there couldn't be better things to consider, etc., but the seeding IS tied to something tangible |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 30, 2015 1:26:48 GMT -5
A&M gets to host, what difference does it make?
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 1:29:16 GMT -5
frankly I think it's great. I don't think A&M is as good as their resume suggests, but their resume says higher than #10, by almost any criteria given to the committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 1:30:58 GMT -5
the seeds this year show that there really isn't any rhyme or reason to some of these selections, despite what trojansc or bofa might say (and this isn't a knock on them, I think they are both GREAT posters). But just like last year when there was little to justify (given the committee's data) PSU ahead of FSU, this year there is little to justify Texas A&M seeded #10. I think the RPI is what justifies it. I'm not saying it's right, or that there couldn't be better things to consider, etc., but the seeding IS tied to something tangible That doesn't make any sense. Texas A&M is rpi #6, seeded 10.... meanwhile Stanford and Washington jumped 4 spots up. |
|
|
|
Post by 5280volleyball on Nov 30, 2015 1:47:00 GMT -5
A&M was 19 in the last coaches poll, so maybe the committee is silently giving that some weight. RPI 6, poll lets say 15 with two wins last week...average would be 10.5, round down and you get 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by seymour8 on Nov 30, 2015 1:52:49 GMT -5
Looks like the committee finds the top 16 teams, then those who just miss out and then those who get at large bids. Then the rest they seem to not care about. The committee sees they won't win, so why bother with where they go or who they play. Doesn't matter to them. Very sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 1:56:44 GMT -5
A&M was 19 in the last coaches poll, so maybe the committee is silently giving that some weight. RPI 6, poll lets say 15 with two wins last week...average would be 10.5, round down and you get 10. that theory doesn't fit with other seeds |
|
|
|
Post by 5280volleyball on Nov 30, 2015 2:00:45 GMT -5
I'm not going to waste my time overanalyzing the bracket. You're in...play good volleyball and you'll have a great chance to advance.
At the end of the day, there are 5-6 teams with a chance to win it all. Everyone else is happy to be in for recruiting gains so they can maybe make a run in 2-3 years like BYU did last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Nov 30, 2015 2:13:25 GMT -5
Looks like it starts with RPI and then they start sliding up and down based on some combo of conference strength/quality wins. That lets them slide the SEC schools down the PAC12/B1G schools up. UCLA ended up getting passed up due to their lack of top end wins. They get to punt Western Kentucky/Arkansas State out of the seed conversation completely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 6:47:37 GMT -5
I think the RPI is what justifies it. I'm not saying it's right, or that there couldn't be better things to consider, etc., but the seeding IS tied to something tangible That doesn't make any sense. Texas A&M is rpi #6, seeded 10.... meanwhile Stanford and Washington jumped 4 spots up. The conference factor played a big role in who gets the better seeding. That's why Stanford, Washington, and Penn State got pushed up while Texas A&M got pushed down. Actually, that's why USC and Minnesota were higher than Texas as top seeds. The Selection Committee recognizes the Big10 and Pac12 as power conferences in women's volleyball. Can't blame them, most of the NC winners and final four teams have come from those two conferences over the past 15 years. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 30, 2015 11:31:01 GMT -5
That doesn't make any sense. Texas A&M is rpi #6, seeded 10.... meanwhile Stanford and Washington jumped 4 spots up. The conference factor played a big role in who gets the better seeding. That's why Stanford, Washington, and Penn State got pushed up while Texas A&M got pushed down. Actually, that's why USC and Minnesota were higher than Texas as top seeds. The Selection Committee recognizes the Big10 and Pac12 as power conferences in women's volleyball. Can't blame them, most of the NC winners and final four teams have come from those two conferences over the past 15 years. Doesn't add up. The big 12 actually has the second best rpi so if anything Texas and Kansas should have gotten the boost over USC and Stanford. The fact of the matter is that based on the rules of the NCAA, I do not see any equal justification for Texas A&M being seeded 10. Mind you, I do love the outcome, I just don't know how they got to it. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,370 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 30, 2015 12:00:43 GMT -5
The conference factor played a big role in who gets the better seeding. That's why Stanford, Washington, and Penn State got pushed up while Texas A&M got pushed down. Actually, that's why USC and Minnesota were higher than Texas as top seeds. The Selection Committee recognizes the Big10 and Pac12 as power conferences in women's volleyball. Can't blame them, most of the NC winners and final four teams have come from those two conferences over the past 15 years. Doesn't add up. The big 12 actually has the second best rpi so if anything Texas and Kansas should have gotten the boost over USC and Stanford. The fact of the matter is that based on the rules of the NCAA, I do not see any equal justification for Texas A&M being seeded 10. Mind you, I do love the outcome, I just don't know how they got to it. I find this year consistent with the past 3 years (since I have been following). We can argue over the cause - but the committee consistently bumps up Big 10 and Pac 12 teams from their RPI. Yes, 2 years ago Missouri and Florida were #4/5 - but both of those teams had outstanding years with great records. Texas A&M lost 6 matches while playing in the SEC. USC, Washington, Stanford, Minnesota , Nebraska, Penn State, and Texas all had fewer losses while playing in much tougher conferences. Wisconsin had the same number of losses (Kansas had 4 fewer losses). The committee has shown discretion from RPI in where they seed teams - 2012 Louisville, 2014 Florida State.
I think they honestly thought 9 other teams were more deserving of a higher seed (despite RPI) - and I think this is the same process they have used in the past 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolleyvol on Nov 30, 2015 12:07:59 GMT -5
Looks like it starts with RPI and then they start sliding up and down based on some combo of conference strength/quality wins. That lets them slide the SEC schools down the PAC12/B1G schools up. UCLA ended up getting passed up due to their lack of top end wins. They get to punt Western Kentucky/Arkansas State out of the seed conversation completely. UCLA did beat the #1RPI team (USC). They also had some pretty good wins- Hawaii (at Hawaii) and several good PAC12 schools- that maybe should have helped their RPI more than they did(if RPI made any sense). Certainly they did more than some of the teams ahead of them. Kansas-best win what, Iowa State? Duke? Florida- a couple of good wins, before losing to Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, Auburn, the aforementioned Hawaii (at Gainesville)... |
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Nov 30, 2015 12:12:39 GMT -5
UCLA only had the 2 top25 RPI wins and their RPI was around 10-11. Kansas started at a higher RPI and slid in seeding. When I'm talking about UCLA getting passed, I'm thinking more of a team like Ohio State, that jumped passed them pretty hard with 4 Top 25 RPI wins. I can't quite figure out how the rationale of BYU sliding past UCLA, but ultimately that's not that big a difference.
|
|
