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: 12,423
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 1, 2015 9:44:21 GMT -5
Do I have this right, there are 7 Pac12 schools in the tournament. And one regional doesn't have any of them? Is it just me, or does that seem f****** stupid? And 8 B1G schools and none in the San Diego Region. It is clear that the committee doesn't and never has cared about conference balance after the 1st 2 rounds.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Dec 1, 2015 10:03:37 GMT -5
Do I have this right, there are 7 Pac12 schools in the tournament. And one regional doesn't have any of them? Is it just me, or does that seem f****** stupid? And 8 B1G schools and none in the San Diego Region. It is clear that the committee doesn't and never has cared about conference balance after the 1st 2 rounds.
To me, this approach defies common sense and logic.
|
|
|
Post by kubricks on Dec 1, 2015 10:12:13 GMT -5
They should have switched PSU and Stanford. Stanford #7 and PSU #8. That way the BIG would have all 4 of their teams in the FINAL FOUR. I guess the committee didn't want to leave the PAC out of having a team in the final 4.
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Dec 1, 2015 10:19:44 GMT -5
With Oregon, they're playing a different system, having switched to a 6-2 fairly late in the season, and being much more effective offensively because of it. How many B1G teams are running a 6-2? It has become rather common in the Pac-12. Oregon also started the season in a 6-2, changed, and then changed again. The 6-2 didn't do so well against Big10 teams early on. Maybe things will be different now.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 1, 2015 10:21:14 GMT -5
With Oregon, they're playing a different system, having switched to a 6-2 fairly late in the season, and being much more effective offensively because of it. How many B1G teams are running a 6-2? It has become rather common in the Pac-12. Oregon also started the season in a 6-2, changed, and then changed again. The 6-2 didn't do so well against Big10 teams early on. Maybe things will be different now. No... they ran a 5-1 the whole year up until the Utah match. They only played B1G teams in the 6-2 last year, when they did pretty darn well. Not that facing a 6-2 gives any particular insight or extra preparation...
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on Dec 1, 2015 10:24:38 GMT -5
They should have switched PSU and Stanford. Stanford #7 and PSU #8. That way the BIG would have all 4 of their teams in the FINAL FOUR. I guess the committee didn't want to leave the PAC out of having a team in the final 4. Don't forget Hawaii on that regional with PSU. First and second round for PSU are c.u.p.c.a.k.e.s, round of 16 or elite 8 won't be.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Dec 1, 2015 10:33:03 GMT -5
And 8 B1G schools and none in the San Diego Region. It is clear that the committee doesn't and never has cared about conference balance after the 1st 2 rounds. To me, this approach defies common sense and logic. Do you have an example of a tournament (NCAA sport or otherwise) that does conference balancing when filling the bracket? I don't think your definition of common sense is common. And ignoring the distribution of conferences across regions does not violate any rules of logic.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Dec 1, 2015 10:47:14 GMT -5
To me, this approach defies common sense and logic. Do you have an example of a tournament (NCAA sport or otherwise) that does conference balancing when filling the bracket? I don't think your definition of common sense is common. And ignoring the distribution of conferences across regions does not violate any rules of logic. I wouldn't begin to compare volleyball to, for example, men's basketball. In volleyball, for several years now, there have been two dominant conferences. You have auto-qualifiers who, frankly, have no business even being in the tournament. Jackson State is not going to upset Minnesota in round one. Howard is not going to be a Cinderella story knocking off PSU. In basketball there are one or two Cinderella stories every year. There's much more parity. You have two dominant conferences with a total of 15 teams in the tournament and at least 10 teams that have almost no chance of advancing. That means 15 of 54 teams come from the two top conferences. So why not balance the brackets and spread those two conferences among all four regionals. After all, it was just a couple years ago when the top 3 B1G teams got crammed into one regional. That is common sense. It may not meet your definition of how the handful of deciders should operate behind closed doors over their shrimp cocktail and bottles of sparkling water. But to any fair-minded person with a lick of logic it's quite obvious.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Dec 1, 2015 11:01:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't begin to compare volleyball to, for example, men's basketball. In volleyball, for several years now, there have been two dominant conferences. You have auto-qualifiers who, frankly, have no business even being in the tournament. Jackson State is not going to upset Minnesota in round one. Howard is not going to be a Cinderella story knocking off PSU. In basketball there are one or two Cinderella stories every year. There's much more parity. You have two dominant conferences with a total of 15 teams in the tournament and at least 10 teams that have almost no chance of advancing. That means 15 of 54 teams come from the two top conferences. So why not balance the brackets and spread those two conferences among all four regionals. After all, it was just a couple years ago when the top 3 B1G teams got crammed into one regional. That is common sense. It may not meet your definition of how the handful of deciders should operate behind closed doors over their shrimp cocktail and bottles of sparkling water. But to any fair-minded person with a lick of logic it's quite obvious. So you are suggesting they do that with the seeding also? That is, reserve seeds for conferences so that they are spread out across the regionals? And I guess you are also suggesting that if in some future year certain conferences are no longer dominant or different conferences dominate then they should change the balancing strategy? Is a conference being dominant defined by how many teams make the tournament regional? Does the regular season matter? I never said there is no case for balancing the bracket by conference. But using pejorative terms like "common sense" and "lick of logic" actually undermines your case, and I think you need to clearer about what you have in mind and why it would be beneficial rather than whining about the current situation and waving your hands about how to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Dec 1, 2015 11:08:07 GMT -5
Oregon also started the season in a 6-2, changed, and then changed again. The 6-2 didn't do so well against Big10 teams early on. Maybe things will be different now. No... they ran a 5-1 the whole year up until the Utah match. They only played B1G teams in the 6-2 last year, when they did pretty darn well. Not that facing a 6-2 gives any particular insight or extra preparation... My mistake. I was thinking of colorado.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Dec 1, 2015 11:12:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't begin to compare volleyball to, for example, men's basketball. In volleyball, for several years now, there have been two dominant conferences. You have auto-qualifiers who, frankly, have no business even being in the tournament. Jackson State is not going to upset Minnesota in round one. Howard is not going to be a Cinderella story knocking off PSU. In basketball there are one or two Cinderella stories every year. There's much more parity. You have two dominant conferences with a total of 15 teams in the tournament and at least 10 teams that have almost no chance of advancing. That means 15 of 54 teams come from the two top conferences. So why not balance the brackets and spread those two conferences among all four regionals. After all, it was just a couple years ago when the top 3 B1G teams got crammed into one regional. That is common sense. It may not meet your definition of how the handful of deciders should operate behind closed doors over their shrimp cocktail and bottles of sparkling water. But to any fair-minded person with a lick of logic it's quite obvious. So you are suggesting they do that with the seeding also? That is, reserve seeds for conferences so that they are spread out across the regionals? And I guess you are also suggesting that if in some future year certain conferences are no longer dominant or different conferences dominate then they should change the balancing strategy? Is a conference being dominant defined by how many teams make the tournament regional? Does the regular season matter? I never said there is no case for balancing the bracket by conference. But using pejorative terms like "common sense" and "lick of logic" actually undermines your case, and I think you need to clearer about what you have in mind and why it would be beneficial rather than whining about the current situation and waving your hands about how to fix it. I didn't say anything about seeding (although that's another can of rotten worms). You could do it the grade school way. "Billy, you have 8 hearts and 4 boxes. How many hearts do you put in each box?" Or you could do it the committee way. Me? I'm going with the first-graders.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Dec 1, 2015 13:17:11 GMT -5
Do you have an example of a tournament (NCAA sport or otherwise) that does conference balancing when filling the bracket? I don't think your definition of common sense is common. And ignoring the distribution of conferences across regions does not violate any rules of logic. I wouldn't begin to compare volleyball to, for example, men's basketball. In volleyball, for several years now, there have been two dominant conferences. You have auto-qualifiers who, frankly, have no business even being in the tournament. Jackson State is not going to upset Minnesota in round one. Howard is not going to be a Cinderella story knocking off PSU. In basketball there are one or two Cinderella stories every year. There's much more parity. You have two dominant conferences with a total of 15 teams in the tournament and at least 10 teams that have almost no chance of advancing. That means 15 of 54 teams come from the two top conferences. So why not balance the brackets and spread those two conferences among all four regionals. After all, it was just a couple years ago when the top 3 B1G teams got crammed into one regional. That is common sense. It may not meet your definition of how the handful of deciders should operate behind closed doors over their shrimp cocktail and bottles of sparkling water. But to any fair-minded person with a lick of logic it's quite obvious. 4 Big ten teams in the Final Four would be bad for the sport, so you get Minnesota, Penn State and Illinois in one regional, Wisconsin, Michigan and Purdue in another, and a Big 10 free San Diego regional.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Dec 1, 2015 13:28:27 GMT -5
I didn't say anything about seeding (although that's another can of rotten worms). If you want the 8 teams split evenly across regions then you can't ignore how you rank the 4 seeded teams. But maybe a first grader wouldn't be able to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Dec 1, 2015 14:25:42 GMT -5
I wouldn't begin to compare volleyball to, for example, men's basketball. In volleyball, for several years now, there have been two dominant conferences. You have auto-qualifiers who, frankly, have no business even being in the tournament. Jackson State is not going to upset Minnesota in round one. Howard is not going to be a Cinderella story knocking off PSU. In basketball there are one or two Cinderella stories every year. There's much more parity. You have two dominant conferences with a total of 15 teams in the tournament and at least 10 teams that have almost no chance of advancing. That means 15 of 54 teams come from the two top conferences. So why not balance the brackets and spread those two conferences among all four regionals. After all, it was just a couple years ago when the top 3 B1G teams got crammed into one regional. That is common sense. It may not meet your definition of how the handful of deciders should operate behind closed doors over their shrimp cocktail and bottles of sparkling water. But to any fair-minded person with a lick of logic it's quite obvious. 4 Big ten teams in the Final Four would be bad for the sport, so you get Minnesota, Penn State and Illinois in one regional, Wisconsin, Michigan and Purdue in another, and a Big 10 free San Diego regional. I'm going to have to respectfully call bovine excrement on this. I don't believe having 4 B1G teams in the FF would be all that bad for the sport. If it's the best volleyball (and they can figure out how to finally do a good broadcast) that's what's good for the sport. And, frankly, if they're gaming the brackets to avoid certain late-round match-ups, they should all be fired not only from the committee but from whatever university-related jobs they have.
|
|