|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 7, 2005 21:09:36 GMT -5
So, a region can be dismissed because it hasn't won a national championship, because it hasn't hosted a top 25 team, and because in your opinion they rarely are worthy of the national tournament?
WOW.
They don't suck because there is quality volleyball at schools such as Western Kentucky, Duke, Maryland, Jacksonville State with quality players from quality clubs and high schools. They also don't suck because these schools and many others have quality coaches that are working their asses off to raise the level of their programs.
As much as you'd like to see the tournament just involve the top 25, it won't.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 7, 2005 21:14:07 GMT -5
So, a region can be dismissed because it hasn't won a national championship, because it hasn't hosted a top 25 team, and because in your opinion they rarely are worthy of the national tournament? WOW. They don't suck because there is quality volleyball at schools such as Western Kentucky, Duke, Maryland, Jacksonville State with quality players from quality clubs and high schools. They also don't suck because these schools and many others have quality coaches that are working their asses off to raise the level of their programs. As much as you'd like to see the tournament just involve the top 25, it won't. Don't put words into my mouth. I'd actually love to see a fair-seeded 312-or however many this year-school tournament. Then we'd see just how poorly these teams perform on a National level. Still waiting for ANY pertinent information...
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 7, 2005 21:21:11 GMT -5
So, a region can be dismissed because it hasn't won a national championship, because it hasn't hosted a top 25 team, and because in your opinion they rarely are worthy of the national tournament? WOW. They don't suck because there is quality volleyball at schools such as Western Kentucky, Duke, Maryland, Jacksonville State with quality players from quality clubs and high schools. They also don't suck because these schools and many others have quality coaches that are working their asses off to raise the level of their programs. As much as you'd like to see the tournament just involve the top 25, it won't. Don't put words into my mouth. I'd actually love to see a fair-seeded 312-or however many this year-school tournament. Then we'd see just how poorly these teams perform on a National level. Still waiting for ANY pertinent information... Wait...so you WANT a tournament filled with these unworthy teams to prove that they're unworthy? It seems to me that what you're really upset about is the bad seeding, and not that these other regions don't match up to your standards. I just can't stand it when someone dismisses other programs simply because they're not as good as Hawaii. And it's obvious that I can't give you anything pertinent because you haven't proved why these regions can be dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 7, 2005 21:29:09 GMT -5
Wait...so you WANT a tournament filled with these unworthy teams to prove that they're unworthy? It seems to me that what you're really upset about is the bad seeding, and not that these other regions don't match up to your standards. I just can't stand it when someone dismisses other programs simply because they're not as good as Hawaii. And it's obvious that I can't give you anything pertinent because you haven't proved why these regions can be dismissed. Yet again, putting words into my mouth. I'm not and have not compared any of these teams to Hawaii. There would not be any comparison had I done that. I'm generalizing on a National level. These teams from the northeast, and east regions especially, are typically what I call low-level. Perhaps the reason why you cannot offer any pertinent information is because it doesn't exist. You are arguing a point that is impossible to prove. On the other hand, I could inundate you with national finishes, comparitive ratings, etc. etc. for until my fingers turn the color of this board and you'd only offer some sarcastic remark that I was stupid and imply something I did not or have not suggested.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 7, 2005 21:37:13 GMT -5
Wait...so you WANT a tournament filled with these unworthy teams to prove that they're unworthy? It seems to me that what you're really upset about is the bad seeding, and not that these other regions don't match up to your standards. I just can't stand it when someone dismisses other programs simply because they're not as good as Hawaii. And it's obvious that I can't give you anything pertinent because you haven't proved why these regions can be dismissed. Yet again, putting words into my mouth. I'm not and have not compared any of these teams to Hawaii. There would not be any comparison had I done that. I'm generalizing on a National level. These teams from the northeast, and east regions especially, are typically what I call low-level. Perhaps the reason why you cannot offer any pertinent information is because it doesn't exist. You are arguing a point that is impossible to prove. On the other hand, I could inundate you with national finishes, comparitive ratings, etc. etc. for until my fingers turn the color of this board and you'd only offer some sarcastic remark that I was stupid and imply something I did not or have not suggested. Oh for crying out loud...calm down. My point is that you don't have to be so dismissive about teams from regions such as the East. They don't "only produce weak matchups." Maryland didn't produce a weak matchup against Kentucky or Louisville. College of Charleston isn't "weak," either. Just ask Purdue.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 7, 2005 22:13:54 GMT -5
Oh for crying out loud...calm down. My point is that you don't have to be so dismissive about teams from regions such as the East. They don't "only produce weak matchups." Maryland didn't produce a weak matchup against Kentucky or Louisville. College of Charleston isn't "weak," either. Just ask Purdue. Damn. I did some research, was ready to post, and my browser crashed. So I'll summarize what I spent 15-minutes researching without the fancy tables. A) Trust me, I am calm. B) CofC was swept off the court by Purdue? How is that saying they are not weak? Same goes for Maryland vs. Louisville. C) CofC is not an East or Northeast Region team. But I'll accomodate you Regionally and let you keep them, because when it comes down to it, I'd lump them in there too. Their best win is against Pablo #61 Houston and their average Pablo opponent is something like #162. D) Maryland was the best team from the ACC this season. I'd pair them as a loss in the first-round against any NCAA-eligible team from west of the Mississippi. Kentucky was not a good at-large bid for the tournament by any intelligent person's means.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 7, 2005 23:14:52 GMT -5
Oh for crying out loud...calm down. My point is that you don't have to be so dismissive about teams from regions such as the East. They don't "only produce weak matchups." Maryland didn't produce a weak matchup against Kentucky or Louisville. College of Charleston isn't "weak," either. Just ask Purdue. Damn. I did some research, was ready to post, and my browser crashed. So I'll summarize what I spent 15-minutes researching without the fancy tables. That was me...sorry... Me too! Me too! How does getting swept by the #16 team in the land mean you're weak? Same for Maryland v. Louisville. Whoops. But beating North Carolina, at UNC, isn't bad. And again, I don't think any of this means they're weak. Really? Nevada? Sac State which lost to Duke 3-0? Texas State?
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 0:11:53 GMT -5
Really? Nevada? Sac State which lost to Duke 3-0? Texas State? At-Large team. Sac State and Texas State were Automatic. Nevada would have beat them. So would have New Mexico State, who was not invited sadly at the expense of some team like Kentucky. I consequently don't think much of North Carolina, either. By the way, bad form in answering a question with a question. I'm still waiting for any piece of data supporting that these teams are worthy of any consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Dec 8, 2005 4:48:13 GMT -5
You can actually purchase your way into the Who's Who books. I found that out in junior high school and it shattered my esteem for that publication.
There's an interesting article on the Wall Street Journal about Awards. The conclusion: Awards are nice but don't be fooled for one second that you are better (or the best) just because you won and the others did not. Awards are even more important for the awarding organization to promote its name (e.g., Pulitzer, Nobel, Rhodes) and further its agenda (e.g., political, religious, money-driven). Oftentimes, the awarding institution does not care about merit so long as the winner, whom they select very carefully, further promotes the name of the awarding institution and its agenda.
I won't run through the list of all the stupid awards, but I will say this:
1. I've never read a Pulitzer-Prize winning novel that I liked (off the top of my head). In fact, I think most of them sucked;
2. Awards in the entertainment industry are jokes, for me and for the industry insiders. The Grammys, the Oscars, the Emmys. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
3. Awards are like hemmerhoids; every arsehole eventually gets one. Which reminds me, I made All-Conference in soccer in high school, only because my team was really good and my coach put my name down on the ballot and the other coaches in the conference didn't give a rip. Half of them didn't even know me by name, but they thought the best team should get the honor. Soon, you too will get an award.
|
|
|
Post by vjcsetter22 on Dec 8, 2005 5:42:01 GMT -5
Let the bitching begin. Allow me to start. Candace Lee over Seilhamer? Abernathy over Pressey? I know exactly! Seilhamer should be 1 team All-American. She is clearly the best Liebro!
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 8, 2005 10:36:23 GMT -5
Really? Nevada? Sac State which lost to Duke 3-0? Texas State? At-Large team. Sac State and Texas State were Automatic. Nevada would have beat them. So would have New Mexico State, who was not invited sadly at the expense of some team like Kentucky. I consequently don't think much of North Carolina, either. By the way, bad form in answering a question with a question. I'm still waiting for any piece of data supporting that these teams are worthy of any consideration. It's hard to prove my point when you answer with subjective opinion. Just saying that Nevada would have beaten Maryland doesn't make it so. And I disproved your earlier point by bringing up Sac State and Texas St. And I don't see any wins on NMSU's record that indicates they're any more worthy than Kentucky.
|
|
|
Post by vbjunkie on Dec 8, 2005 12:30:33 GMT -5
How about NMSU beating Cincinnatti who beat Kentucky easily. I also don't see NMSU losses to teams like Auburn or Wright State. The SEC got more than they deserved and Nevada getting in along with all of the decisions on seeds and host sites just proves incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 8, 2005 12:48:26 GMT -5
How about NMSU beating Cincinnatti who beat Kentucky easily. I also don't see NMSU losses to teams like Auburn or Wright State. The SEC got more than they deserved and Nevada getting in along with all of the decisions on seeds and host sites just proves incompetence. Well we could play that game all day long. Kentucky beat LSU who beat Tennessee in three straight. San Jose State beat Idaho which beat NMSU.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 13:53:02 GMT -5
At-Large team. Sac State and Texas State were Automatic. Nevada would have beat them. So would have New Mexico State, who was not invited sadly at the expense of some team like Kentucky. I consequently don't think much of North Carolina, either. By the way, bad form in answering a question with a question. I'm still waiting for any piece of data supporting that these teams are worthy of any consideration. It's hard to prove my point when you answer with subjective opinion. Just saying that Nevada would have beaten Maryland doesn't make it so. And I disproved your earlier point by bringing up Sac State and Texas St. And I don't see any wins on NMSU's record that indicates they're any more worthy than Kentucky. The only thing you proved with bring up Sac State and Texas State again is that you're a fool. I said At-Large on purpose. If you don't know the difference, than that is a big part of the problem. You're just not even trying to throw any numbers or ratings in there because they'll further disprove your position, not because it's subjective, EVERYTHING is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 8, 2005 14:11:39 GMT -5
Actually, I give up. You're right. You've convinced me.
|
|