Wichita State wins own tourney

[beachman]

wsufan said:

beachvball said:

Glad to see Stephanie do well. We never got to see her play at the Beach.

Do you know why she red-shirted at LBSU? She seems to have really long arms (and 6'5" doesn't hurt either) and was blocking shots with her feet on the ground. As a well respected poster on ShockerNet said:
" Stephanie will be a very solid middle for us. She had 3 blocks last night that she jumped early, landed on her feet, and then made the block. On some of the quick sets to her it looks like her arm grows another 2-3 inches to reach the ones that are to high. If you watch her in warm ups she can get up pretty high."
www.shockernet.net/sn/viewtopic.php?t=4308
Anyway I can't see why she didn't play last year at LBSU unless she was hurt (or you had a 6'8" MB last year). ;D

Stephanie was nowhere ready to start for us last year although she showed great promise......had some physical things going on but more than that she just wanted to return home as she felt a little overwhelmed by the big city atmosphere....she was a great kid and all of the players really liked her. She could be a very solid player at just about any good program.....had some very solid training, I might add, last year at LBS and I am sure that she would make that comment if asked too!

[royalshock]

roy said:

Some things I really don't understand with respect to Lamb's argument. Wichita only has 9 preseason matches. Of those, one is against Kansas State who is ranked. One match is against Illinois and another against North Carolina, both of whom might be decent (not sure about either school). The point is that they have their chances. You can't expect a preseason schedule laced with ranked teams when all you have are 9 preseason matches. Hawaii has 12 preseason matches and they are only playing 5 ranked teams (Pepperdine 2 times) and then Norte Dame in the middle of the conference season. UNI has 3 ranked teams (Kansas State, Norte Dame, and Minnesota) along with Georgia Tech (not ranked) in 12 preseason matches.

I agree with Pablo in that the standards were set a few years ago. The committee really looks at who you beat. Nevada beat Cal last year, who was ranked #23 if I am correct. That was one of the major reasons Nevada got in.

Those teams are playing us this year because we graduated a bunch of seniors and have NONE on this year's team. When it was known WSU would be good last year, NO ONE with any name recognition would play us. And yet you can honestly say (and support) that "the standards were set" and so, too bad?

cougarize said:

WSU = Washington State University in my mind. Give the Kansas school 10 years of volleyball success and maybe, maybe others around the country will take notice and care.

It's not about others (like you) taking notice. It's about rewarding a deserving team with a bid to the NCAA tournament. Wichita St. should not have to play 10 years of successful volleyball to earn an at-large bid. History is nice, but in the selection process it should be virtually irrelevant.

With attitudes like these among fans it is no wonder the selection committee can get away with as much as they do. The system is broken and it needs fixed, which can only help the sport as a whole.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

wsufan said:

I understood his comment to be a justification of the current system.

I gave no assessment on my opinion about the system, just an assessment of what it is.

If my understanding of his intent is correct, then I don't care how well respected he is; I think he is supporting an unfair and somewhat corrupt system. If, on the other hand, he was merely commenting on the "facts of life" in NCAA tourney selection, then I hope he used his position to encourage reform in the selection process.

If I knew how to influence anyone on the committee, I would surely do it. But then, that makes me no different from anyone else, which is why they don't pay any attention to me, either.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

xplaya said:

Don't know why you keep bringing up UNC over Wichita...UNC won the ACC and the automatic bid, so it's a moot point.

;D ;D ;D ;D

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

wsufan said:

I guess I should add that if p-dub is so knowledgeable and well respected, then perhaps he can enter into a debate on the merits of the current NCAA VB selection system and reforms he would like to see.

I will gladly participate in a discussion of what the committee should be looking for when chosing teams for the NCAA tournament. But that is a separate issue from what I was addressing above.

Of course, I don't know how much I could really contribute to the aforementioned discussion, outside of "I've spent a lot of years trying to determine how to assess team performance and use it to predict the future outcomes, and my conclusions are all culminated in Pablo rankings. Find the automatic selections, and pick the next best 33 in Pablo, subject to any W/L pct restrictions they want to employ."

[wsufan]

xplaya said:

Don't know why you keep bringing up UNC over Wichita...UNC won the ACC and the automatic bid, so it's a moot point.

My error. I was starting from the comments in Mike Falcon's article www.richkern.com/vb/Articles/outside051212/outside.asp where he said "Which leaves us to contemplate only why the committee chose North Carolina and overlooked Wichita State. And a few others. UNC is a terrific team (and we LIKE the Wolf Pack as well), but WSU was ranked #25 in the last AVCA poll, with UNC at 34. RKPI's were 27 and 38, respectively. Pablo rankings were 21 and 55. C'mon, this isn't even close." If UNC got the automatic bid, then his comments would seem to be wrong and I didn't do my homework. I also assumed his Pablo rankings of WSU and UNC were correct and did not verify these. I apologize for any errors I made.

[wsufan]

roy said:

Some things I really don't understand with respect to Lamb's argument. Wichita only has 9 preseason matches. Of those, one is against Kansas State who is ranked. One match is against Illinois and another against North Carolina, both of whom might be decent (not sure about either school). The point is that they have their chances. You can't expect a preseason schedule laced with ranked teams when all you have are 9 preseason matches. Hawaii has 12 preseason matches and they are only playing 5 ranked teams (Pepperdine 2 times) and then Norte Dame in the middle of the conference season. UNI has 3 ranked teams (Kansas State, Norte Dame, and Minnesota) along with Georgia Tech (not ranked) in 12 preseason matches.

I agree with Pablo in that the standards were set a few years ago. The committee really looks at who you beat. Nevada beat Cal last year, who was ranked #23 if I am correct. That was one of the major reasons Nevada got in.

I have no disagreement with you provided ranked schools are willing to play you. If they are not, then the system is biased in favor of schools which ranked (or high RPI) schools are willing to play. As to why WSU is only playing 9 preseason matches, I have no answer. WSU has 18 conference matches; what is the "usual" number in other conferences? Our men's basketball team (ranked in the top 25 in some preseason polls and coming off a visit to the Sweet 16) has had trouble filling out a OOC schedule and, as far as I know, the men's basketball schedule is still not final. Chris Lamb might (or might not) have trouble finding teams willing to play WSU. I simply don't know.

[wsufan]

beachman said:

wsufan said:

Do you know why she red-shirted at LBSU? She seems to have really long arms (and 6'5" doesn't hurt either) and was blocking shots with her feet on the ground. As a well respected poster on ShockerNet said:
" Stephanie will be a very solid middle for us. She had 3 blocks last night that she jumped early, landed on her feet, and then made the block. On some of the quick sets to her it looks like her arm grows another 2-3 inches to reach the ones that are to high. If you watch her in warm ups she can get up pretty high."
www.shockernet.net/sn/viewtopic.php?t=4308
Anyway I can't see why she didn't play last year at LBSU unless she was hurt (or you had a 6'8" MB last year). ;D

Stephanie was nowhere ready to start for us last year although she showed great promise......had some physical things going on but more than that she just wanted to return home as she felt a little overwhelmed by the big city atmosphere....she was a great kid and all of the players really liked her. She could be a very solid player at just about any good program.....had some very solid training, I might add, last year at LBS and I am sure that she would make that comment if asked too!

I think LBSU has a great program (in VB and baseball). I grew up in California and my undergraduate degree is from one of the California State Universities, so I am familiar with the Cal State system. I'm glad Stephanie returned to Wichita and I can understand the comment about "some physical things going on" because she doesn't have the athleticism and grace of Sara Lungren, for example. I expect her to improve as time goes on; she's pretty good right now, however. BTW: Thanks for the reply. I'm going through this thread one post at a time but I am afraid this may turn into a pissing match thread - hope I'm wrong. The posters who seem to belittle LBSU do not have my respect; it is not possible for every program to be Nebraska, Washington, Stanford, etc. but the players and coaches love the game and I think student-athletes deserve respect for their efforts.

[wsufan]

pablo said:

wsufan said:

I understood his comment to be a justification of the current system.

I gave no assessment on my opinion about the system, just an assessment of what it is.

If my understanding of his intent is correct, then I don't care how well respected he is; I think he is supporting an unfair and somewhat corrupt system. If, on the other hand, he was merely commenting on the "facts of life" in NCAA tourney selection, then I hope he used his position to encourage reform in the selection process.

If I knew how to influence anyone on the committee, I would surely do it. But then, that makes me no different from anyone else, which is why they don't pay any attention to me, either.

If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize. I think there are serious problems with the current NCAA tourney selection system; it would be nice if this was publicized more by, for example, you or on richkern.com.

[wsufan]

pablo said:

wsufan said:

I guess I should add that if p-dub is so knowledgeable and well respected, then perhaps he can enter into a debate on the merits of the current NCAA VB selection system and reforms he would like to see.

I will gladly participate in a discussion of what the committee should be looking for when chosing teams for the NCAA tournament. But that is a separate issue from what I was addressing above.

Of course, I don't know how much I could really contribute to the aforementioned discussion, outside of "I've spent a lot of years trying to determine how to assess team performance and use it to predict the future outcomes, and my conclusions are all culminated in Pablo rankings. Find the automatic selections, and pick the next best 33 in Pablo, subject to any W/L pct restrictions they want to employ."

You seem to have the respect of people on this board, which counts for something. I suspect coaches and, possibly, members of the NCAA selection committee might read volleytalk once in a while. Perhaps we can discuss the merits of the selection system here and, at a minimum, inform people about the current situation.

I guess the first question I have deals with WSU. Do you think all of the at-large invitees to the last NCAA WVB tourney were "better" (i.e. higher probability of winning) than Wichita State?

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

wsufan said:

pablo said:

I will gladly participate in a discussion of what the committee should be looking for when chosing teams for the NCAA tournament. But that is a separate issue from what I was addressing above.

Of course, I don't know how much I could really contribute to the aforementioned discussion, outside of "I've spent a lot of years trying to determine how to assess team performance and use it to predict the future outcomes, and my conclusions are all culminated in Pablo rankings. Find the automatic selections, and pick the next best 33 in Pablo, subject to any W/L pct restrictions they want to employ."

You seem to have the respect of people on this board, which counts for something. I suspect coaches and, possibly, members of the NCAA selection committee might read volleytalk once in a while. Perhaps we can discuss the merits of the selection system here and, at a minimum, inform people about the current situation.

I guess the first question I have deals with WSU. Do you think all of the at-large invitees to the last NCAA WVB tourney were "better" (i.e. higher probability of winning) than Wichita State?

If you want to talk about the tournament selection system, this is exactly the type of questions you want to avoid. Before worrying about whether WSU was better than the teams in there, you first have to establish that selecting the "better" teams is the goal of the process. After that, you have to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used to evaluate the teams in light of the goal. Lastly, you can ask the question of how accurate are the evaluations at the individual level.

When it comes to the NCAA committee, their words tend to support the first part of that statement (regarding the goal), but the devil is in the second part (the assessment tools). We can gauge some of that by looking at their actions. As I noted, they are generally insistent upon teams having good wins. Unfortunately, we don't know if that is because they think that a team is not good unless they have good wins, or if it is because they don't think they can effectively assess teams who have not played someone very good. If we look at the primary criteria, we have

head-to-head
common opponents
rpi
significant wins and losses

Therefore, significant wins and losses is a primary consideration for the committee. Interestingly, so is rpi, but, as far as I can see, the committee pays no consideration to individual rpi. The basketball committee indicates that it uses it for strength of schedule comparison, but in fact the basketball selection procedures are described far differently from volleyball

the volleyball handbook (page 10)
www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/volleyball/2005/2005_d1_w_volleyball_handbook.pdf

That's where I got the primary criteria listed above

the basketball handbook (see appendix D)
www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2006/2006_d1_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

Note that for basketball, the ONLY directive for the committee is "The committee shall select the best 34 teams..."

"Among the resources available to the committee are computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division 1 results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last 10 games, polls and the coaches' regional advisory committees' rankings."

Unlike for volleyball, the committee is NOT directed on the criteria to consider, outside of "pick the best teams."

In the end, it seems to me that the only real question would have to be why does the volleyball committee not put much stock in the RPI rankings despite it being a primary consideration? They will probably claim that it is only one of many factors, but in terms of selection, I don't know any case where teams have been selected based on RPI despite having weaknesses in the other areas, although I know of a couple of examples the other way.

I think there is some reliance on RPI when it comes to seeding. Or maybe that is just the Notre Dame exception.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

pablo said:

In the end, it seems to me that the only real question would have to be why does the volleyball committee not put much stock in the RPI rankings despite it being a primary consideration?

OBTW, to follow up my own question, this is mostly rhetorical. I know full well why the committee doesn't consider RPI rankings, and that is reflected very much on the board here. They don't consider them to be very meaningful, and so dismiss them out of hand.

Of course, I have shown that RPI, while not as good as Pablo, is not the uselessness that it is made out to be, and so the committee could be advised to not ignore it completely.

One thing that they could do is to try to put some sort of range on the RPI results. For example, if they say that the RPI ranking is +/- 25 spots, then if you drop a team by 25 spots and they still would be within the at-large realm (around 50, typically), then you put them in, regardless of whether they have a significant win or not. If dropping them by 25 spots puts them out of the at-large list, then look to other things.

No, you don't just want to pick teams based on RPI, but it wouldn't hurt to use RPI as a tool to narrow down possibilities (although I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that anyone with an RPI of less than 25 should get in automatically). By the same token as above, I would argue that you shouldn't be looking at teams with RPI below 75 _unless_ you can use head-to-head or common opponents arguments.

My proposal here doesn't change too much, just the extremes. The teams with RPI from 25 - 75 are all still considered in the mix (30 - 70 might be better), but the difference is that RPIs less than 25 (or 30) would be no-brainer selections, in general (unless they have lots of significant losses, but I don't think that's very possible with a high rpi)

It would be a way to use RPI as a primary criterion without relying on it too heavily, only when it is overwhelming.

[roy]

wsufan said:

I have no disagreement with you provided ranked schools are willing to play you. If they are not, then the system is biased in favor of schools which ranked (or high RPI) schools are willing to play. As to why WSU is only playing 9 preseason matches, I have no answer. WSU has 18 conference matches; what is the "usual" number in other conferences? Our men's basketball team (ranked in the top 25 in some preseason polls and coming off a visit to the Sweet 16) has had trouble filling out a OOC schedule and, as far as I know, the men's basketball schedule is still not final. Chris Lamb might (or might not) have trouble finding teams willing to play WSU. I simply don't know.

I understand the point Lamb is trying to make. You can’t make yourself look good in the eyes of the NCAA committee if no one is willing to play you. But looking a typical schedule, you don’t see teams loading up on only ranked opponents. A typical preseason schedule has between 6 to 12 matches, depending on when conference play starts for that school. Generally, I try not to look at mid-season non-conference opponents as scheduling tends to be difficult.

Nebraska has 3 ranked teams on their preseason schedule out of 7 matches, not counting Long Beach State (currently unranked) and Cal Poly (decent program). Florida has 8 preseason matches with only 4 ranked teams (3 of which are at Hawaii’s tournament). And these are some of the most sought after teams in the nation. The “mid-major teams” such as Nevada doesn’t have a ranked opponent on their preseason this year and had only one or two from last year. NMSU who was also snubbed by the NCAA committee has only one ranked team in San Diego in their preseason and their best preseason match last year was against Colorado State.

So, I guess the point is that typical schedules of most schools are not lined with ranked teams. It almost sounds like Lamb wants to create a preseason schedule with all ranked teams or teams that will make his team look good for the NCAA committee. While that is not an unreasonable goal to have, looking at other schools, it is unrealistic. The teams in the MVC have the opportunities to play a ranked team or two and win to prove they are tournament teams.

[Go Iowa]

cougarize said:

WSU = Washington State University in my mind. Give the Kansas school 10 years of volleyball success and maybe, maybe others around the country will take notice and care.

Well considering the thread pertains to Wichita State, I'd think your mind could logically conclude that I was referring to them, and not Washington State.

And I agree with the other posts... no way should you have to generate 10 years of success to make the tournament. That talented team last year should have been in the tournament, just as Eastern Washington should have a couple years back.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

roy said:

I understand the point Lamb is trying to make. You can’t make yourself look good in the eyes of the NCAA committee if no one is willing to play you.

OTOH, should the committee have to endure the excuses from everyone who doesn't have the non-conference schedule to match up against others? If they start doing that, every coach will claim they tried and failed, regardless of how hard they actually tried.

I'm not questioning Lamb's effort, just noting that this is a huge can of worms to open, and you have to draw a line. Considering...see below

But looking a typical schedule, you don’t see teams loading up on only ranked opponents. A typical preseason schedule has between 6 to 12 matches, depending on when conference play starts for that school. Generally, I try not to look at mid-season non-conference opponents as scheduling tends to be difficult.

Nebraska has 3 ranked teams on their preseason schedule out of 7 matches, not counting Long Beach State (currently unranked) and Cal Poly (decent program). Florida has 8 preseason matches with only 4 ranked teams (3 of which are at Hawaii’s tournament). And these are some of the most sought after teams in the nation. The “mid-major teams” such as Nevada doesn’t have a ranked opponent on their preseason this year and had only one or two from last year. NMSU who was also snubbed by the NCAA committee has only one ranked team in San Diego in their preseason and their best preseason match last year was against Colorado State.

So, I guess the point is that typical schedules of most schools are not lined with ranked teams. It almost sounds like Lamb wants to create a preseason schedule with all ranked teams or teams that will make her team look good for the NCAA committee. While that is not an unreasonable goal to have, looking at other schools, it is unrealistic. The teams in the MVC have the opportunities to play a ranked team or two and win to prove they are tournament teams.

Look at the schedules of teams in the Valley. Illinois St played Illinois and goes to Florida. Missouri St plays Texas A&M, Utah, and Northwestern. UNI has Purdue, Notre Dame, and Minnesota. So apparently, the other good MVC teams have not had a problem finding competition. Why is Chris having such a hard time?

Even when UNI was at the top of its game, it didn't have any trouble finding top opponents.

What about a west coast trip? That's a good approach for finding better competition (the good team density is higher there). Now, Chris might say that he doesn't have the budget for that, but if that's the case, then the truth is not that he CAN'T put together a good schedule, but the _university_ WON'T support his attempts to schedule better (although it is worth noting that this year's schedule should be better than last year, albeit still missing a big hammer).