|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 19, 2016 19:23:00 GMT -5
I don't think the NCAA will award a regional host without a gate guarantee equivalent to or greater than past years. The Toreros struggle to get more 500 in attendance. UW has an arena with twice the capacity and a proven attendance record. I understand what you are saying, but the Top 4 national seeds should be determined by the set criteria. In the event there are regional host requirements (venue size, ticket sales, etc.), then the next highest seed in that region would be given first option to host the regional (assuming they make it out of the sub-regional, and meet those hosting requirements). They still need to put in a bid that meets NCAA requirements. Would USD, even with a Top Four seed? If not, then the #5 seed would be next up.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 19, 2016 19:27:11 GMT -5
But redbeard, THEY HOSTED LAST YEAR.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Oct 19, 2016 19:28:02 GMT -5
If Washington scheduled tougher/smarter in non-conference, they'd be in great position right now. I still think they're playing the best overall in the PAC at the moment. Well, I'm not going to say too much about it, but you know they *tried* to schedule Wisconsin, right? Instead of Wisconsin, they now have a commitment to play Oklahoma for at least one more year. That (along with Maryland, who was also part of the Wisconsin deal) is not helping their RPI much this year. Oklahoma is 12-8, Maryland is 8-12. Wisconsin is 15-2. They also played James Madison, who was 22-8 last year. JMU is 11-10 so far this year. American is probably going to win a few more matches. Not so sure about Villanova, who was 25-9 last year but only 14-8 this year (with several losses to conference foes that they still have to play again). So they tried.... Yes, I do recall that Wisconsin bailed out of that Challenge. Tough to predict how well your non-conference opponents will fare during the season, but everyone faces that predicament.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 19, 2016 19:29:27 GMT -5
Didn't USD host a regional last year? Yes, they did. But they didn't make it to their own regional. I'm not sure what the attendance was. Which means they lost their shirt, so to speak. For the L.A. Subregional Final, USD vs USC, attendance was 1,028.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 19, 2016 19:35:31 GMT -5
But redbeard, THEY HOSTED LAST YEAR. And lost a bucket of money. Would their budget allow it, again? Dunno. My point is that it isn't as simple as just being a top four seed.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Oct 19, 2016 19:42:38 GMT -5
The other factor which may prevent a school from being able to host is the venue (if also used for men's and women's hoops) being available Thursday through Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Oct 19, 2016 19:50:54 GMT -5
But redbeard, THEY HOSTED LAST YEAR. And lost a bucket of money. Would their budget allow it, again? Dunno. My point is that it isn't as simple as just being a top four seed. Did they? The guarantee for a regional is $10,000 (and now it's $12,000) and they had attendance of 2600 and 2100 last year without even being there. Not great but right in the mix with Stanford/CAL/USC's regionals from previous years.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 19, 2016 22:10:46 GMT -5
And lost a bucket of money. Would their budget allow it, again? Dunno. My point is that it isn't as simple as just being a top four seed. Did they? The guarantee for a regional is $10,000 (and now it's $12,000) and they had attendance of 2600 and 2100 last year without even being there. Not great but right in the mix with Stanford/CAL/USC's regionals from previous years. How much does it cost them to put on a Regional? Does averaging 2,350 a night cover those costs? Dunno. I doubt they covered them, plus $10,000. Also, wasn't $10,000 just the minimum guarantee?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 19, 2016 23:04:53 GMT -5
By the way, according to pablo right now, I make it about 5% that Washington would get either one more loss or no more losses.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 19, 2016 23:11:44 GMT -5
Well, I'm not going to say too much about it, but you know they *tried* to schedule Wisconsin, right? Instead of Wisconsin, they now have a commitment to play Oklahoma for at least one more year. That (along with Maryland, who was also part of the Wisconsin deal) is not helping their RPI much this year. Oklahoma is 12-8, Maryland is 8-12. Wisconsin is 15-2. They also played James Madison, who was 22-8 last year. JMU is 11-10 so far this year. American is probably going to win a few more matches. Not so sure about Villanova, who was 25-9 last year but only 14-8 this year (with several losses to conference foes that they still have to play again). So they tried.... Yes, I do recall that Wisconsin bailed out of that Challenge. Tough to predict how well your non-conference opponents will fare during the season, but everyone faces that predicament. If you want to be neighborly, Texas could lose to Oklahoma on the 26th. That would help Washington's RPI.
|
|
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: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 20, 2016 10:10:58 GMT -5
FYI - I will be on vacation thru Monday. The next Futures will be delayed to either late Monday or Tuesday evening.
Looking at some various scenarios:
1) Penn State could win the B1G with a 17-3 record, but have an ending RPI as low as #8/9 and have 3 other B1G teams in the top 4 in RPI. 2) Texas could go 16-2 in conference (which would be pretty underwhelming) and still be #1 overall in RPI. 3) Wisconsin could finish 4th in the Big Ten and be #1 in RPI (this one is not very likely) 4) Stanford could finish 14-6 in conference - which could be 3rd in conference, yet finish #5 in RPI. 5) Florida could finish #5 in RPI and finish 2nd in the SEC.
There are a lot of illogical conference standings to RPI rank potential.
There is considerably more upside for any PAC team (other than Stanford who is already high in the rankings) than what this RPI Futures is showing. Probably the same for those 2nd tier B1G teams (5-10). I don't know, but I think this is understating the likelihood that someone (or two) from the PAC breaking away from the pack - either from being an improved team or some random luck/variation. If this happens in the PAC - they will pass San Diego, Florida, and UNC for the #5 spot.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Oct 20, 2016 10:21:36 GMT -5
Good stuff.
My memory is that when the numbers are close, the committee gives the nod to conference champions.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 20, 2016 13:46:51 GMT -5
2014: Stanford, Texas, Washington, and Florida State were the top 4 RPI. Wisconsin won the Big Ten and Penn State was a little farther down in the RPI but was subjectively considered one of the best teams in the country. The committee seeded both Wisconsin (#4) and Penn State (#5) ahead of Florida State (#6). I don't see this having anything to do with geography - as Florida State would have been more geographically balanced than Wisconsin (in terms of time zones). I think the committee felt Wisconsin and Penn State were better than Florida State based on volleyball factors other than just RPI and nothing to do with geography. I actually think this is the instance where the conference championship - not geography - came into play. FSU was #3 in RPI before the tournament and had a very strong resume - only 2 losses all season - 6-2 against the Top 25 and beat three other seeded teams (UNC, Florida, @nebraska) with one of the top non-conference SOS's. Wins at Nebraska, and against Florida and UNC mean they had plenty of Top 10-caliber competition to justify a high seed. Notably, UNC won the ACC outright despite the teams splitting H2H. Wisconsin was at 6 in the RPI and a bad RPI year for the Big Ten (and the fact that they lost to Penn St. and only played Nebraska once) meant they were only 5-2 against the Top 25 and only beat 2 seeded teams (Illinois and Nebraska). The "RPI" + big wins formula (plus any H2H or common opponent considerations) would not justify dropping them below Wisconsin. It's clear Wisconsin was rewarded with a Top 4 seed on the basis of its conference championship. I also think FSU not winning the ACC made it hard for the Committee to seed FSU much higher than UNC (they ended at 6-7) - even though FSU did so much more OOC that they should have been quite a few slots higher - season splits aren't normally treated that way without the title component.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 20, 2016 14:03:44 GMT -5
So far we have all said the same thing in slightly different words -- the committee has a history of rewarding significant conference championships. Not exactly regardless of RPI, but they have often moved conference champions higher in the seeds than their RPI ranking would otherwise indicate.
And I have rarely seen them seed teams over the top of the champions in their own conference, at least not without compelling head-to-head domination.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 20, 2016 14:12:39 GMT -5
So far we have all said the same thing in slightly different words -- the committee has a history of rewarding significant conference championships. Not exactly regardless of RPI, but they have often moved conference champions higher in the seeds than their RPI ranking would otherwise indicate. And I have rarely seen them seed teams over the top of the champions in their own conference, at least not without compelling head-to-head domination. For some reason I read Blue's post to say that they didn't think about conference wins. Upon a re-read he in fact clearly said so. Whoops.
|
|