|
Post by wsufan on Aug 29, 2006 19:26:31 GMT -5
p-dub: My participation in this thread (the second post) was concerned with the WSU WVB team and two of its players; I did state "Others have pointed out that the NCAA selection committee made an error" and offered a reference to a column on richkern.com to support this statement. I attempted to add a little humor (third post) and then beachvball posted to comment on Stephanie Tokarz. I asked beachvball about Stephanie at LBSU. So far, it was a pleasant, friendly thread. In the sixth post you joined in, seemed (to me) to disagree with my characterization of the NCAA selection committee's decision and said "You can argue all you want about what the committee should or shouldn't do, but that does not change the fact of what they actually do." It seems to me that at that point, the thread changed from a friendly chat to a confrontational discussion. I don't mind a confrontational discussion but was (and am) interested in learning more about LBSU and how Stephanie had been expected to fit into the LBSU team if she had stayed (since it might give me some insight about her potential at WSU). You asked: "But your subjective opinion is more correct than the subjective opinion of the committee?"If I was the only person who thought that the NCAA WVB tournament selection process was flawed, then it would be silly to have a debate over this issue. It is my assumption that many people agree with me that the selection process is flawed. We can both accept this assumption for the moment or, if you wish, I can attempt to provide evidence of this in terms of links to articles, sports threads, columns, etc. While you present the selection process "as it actually is" (in your opinion) rather than "as it should be", I get the impression that you are defending the status quo; the person who started this thread wrote (on ValleyTalk) "I'm reading through the rest of that topic and it reminds me of the "debate" I got into there last year. p-dub is a knowledgeable poster, but he kept repeating "that's just the way it is and WSU didn't deserve a bid." So, WSUfan, you're right in that his posts are tantamount to supporting the current system." www.valleytalk.net/showthread.php?t=1890 As you can see, at least two people here viewed your posts as defending the current selection system. I believe you have a much better understanding of the selection process than do I. I would be interested in seeing this process reformed. You (or someone else) might argue that this is a pipe dream. I can think of at least one case where the NCAA is planning to change/reform its procedures in the interest of fairness. In NCAA baseball, northern teams have a big disadvantage. Coaches like Gene Stephenson have fought for 20 years for reforms like a uniform starting date. It appears that the NCAA will adopt a starting date of (approximately) March 1 beginning with the 2008 season. Some links on this topic are: NCAA BASEBALL ISSUES COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_I/board_of_directors/pag/2005/january/S4.htmA 1998 (?) article by a student at Ohio University www.thepost.ohiou.edu/archives/archives/052496/battle.htmlA 2006 article including "NCAA baseball calendar changes still in limbo" www.bonesville.net/Articles/OtherArticles/Bonesville/NN/2005/02/020505_NN.htmIn order to achieve change, it is necessary to consider the possibility that the selection process may not remain "as it actually is" and to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. You have asked some good questions about WSU, UNI, etc. and I am going to ask other Valley fans (e.g. from UNI) for help in finding information related to these questions. Please bear with me if some answers take time.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Aug 29, 2006 19:29:22 GMT -5
Hmmm... I usually glaze over when p-dub gets into his mode, so have skipped this, but it seems I need to review this thread and chime in. See what happens when you throw the NCAA suck-lection committee into the mix?
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 29, 2006 19:38:20 GMT -5
IdahoBoy, the hazard predicto® I'm happy to have you participate. You have a great reputation.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Aug 30, 2006 0:23:31 GMT -5
NOTE: While I had initially planned to mock p-dub and his 'better-best' tirades and schema coherentness, I went off on my own tirade about the process of selecting the teams.
For better or worse, but hopefully for more insight into the process (and an initial look at some of it's downfalls), read on.
If you read nothing but the final paragraph, then please skip to it now.
The NCAA Selection Committee has been making obtuse errors since I know of their existence, some 13-years now. Each year, they make obvious odd calls and each year end up defending their system. At some point, one would think the Committee might actually wake up and do something to improve the system rather than waste their efforts on defending a steaming pile of poo. wsufan brings up the point of an overlooked Wichita State team in 2005. Although, Mike's point isn't exactly accurate this time, due to the automatic stature of UNC's admittance, it has all to often been an example over the years. The issue comes up to be, who do we allow to make the decisions? The coaches? The fans? The bean-counters? Obviously it's not any one group because year after year, there are selection choices that defy all logic. 2002 saw Eastern Washington omitted from the tournament after receiving as high as an AVCA ranking of #19 (from memory, forgive error of +/- 1). 2004 saw the financial stupidity of sending Hawaii on the road (Hawaii's hosting bid guaranteed a profit of $100,000 to the NCAA, along with defiance of the coaches (Hawaii had been ranked as high as #1). Fans obviously account for nothing, but one might think that with continued discussion of 'growing NCAA volleyball popularity' that the Committee might consider attendance as a factor in deciding venues and seeds, to some small extent. What kind of 'tournament atmosphere' is generated by the echoes of un-enthusiastic announcers and squeak of shoes rather than the roar of a crowd and point-by-point excitement? So, who does make the decisions, and why? The NCAA Selection Committee is made up of senior women representatives from each of the NCAA regions. Typically, these ladies are not volleyball fans, although, in some rare cases they are former coaches or players. They do however have some familiarity with the sport, because, according to the lovely Miss Sharon Cessna, who will refuse to answer any fan's inquiry with more than a canned response, the NCAA committee watches "(as many as possible)" volleyball matches (in-person and televised). If one ever wanted a specific answer from the selection committee... that's about as close as you're going to get. I'll outline the presentation linked from above generally here. It defines the overview of the AVCA Selection Committee process as given in a presentation to the AVCA the year after the EWU omission and shortly following the disgraceful bracket of 2003. The presentation is broken into 5 categories: 1) How the committee prepares, 2) Steps in the process, 3) Principles and procedure, 4) The RPI & other evaluation tools, and 5) The bracketing process. 1) How the committee prepares for selections is noted with the comment that "Nothing the committee does is more important than selecting, seeding, and bracketing the teams. Preparation is the key." So, we can ask, how does this committee... which, from this statement sounds like the Selection Committee gets together for tea parties and scones 300-days of the year... prepare? They go to games, (as many as possible); they watch televised games (as many as possible); they review the Regional rankings (which are no longer available to fans, because they were sick of defending their glaring obvious omissions... and by the way, these RACs are made up from coaches voting after the regular season, although, they don't tell us that their are only several (maybe up to 6) coaches who do the rankings); they evaluate the RPI; they review instituional/conference information (whatever the hell that is, talk about vagueness!); and they share information amongst themselves (cluster?). Now, after reviewing this information, it should be known that my mind is entirely set at ease, because, this committee, which, is so prepared.... in vagueness. You know, this 'as many as possible' thing continually pisses me off. 'as many as possible' for who? I personally see around 100 matches a year, over the internet, in person, listening on radio, watching on TV. Do they do that? There are 300+ teams each playing nearly 30-games per season... it would be possible to see 9,000 volleyball matches in a season, in theory, is that 'as many as possible?' More likely, it's as many as are possible that don't coincide with some hot date with another member of the committee or basketball coach someplace. 2) Steps to the process, which is broken into "Affective" (Shouldn't it be effective?) and "Non-Affective" (again...) factors to the process. The "Affective" factors are: The 'nitty gritty' report. Speaking like George Carlan here, "WOW!. What the H-E-double-hockey-sticks is a nitty gritty report? I'm sure it was spoken of in the meeting, however, an online search for 'nitty gritty report' yields nothing more than blue-grass country lyrics. However, generically, it's the report that tells how the teams did during the year. Team information sheet for each of the 311 D1 institutions. WHY!? Why waste time reviewing them all when one of the first criteria for post-season (after winning the conference title) is a .5000001 winning percentage. Throw out about 1/2 the sheets and let's get to business. You already have 31-automatic bids, let's, there are 33-remaining places to be filled, let's not waste time with ineligible team reports. Coaches' regional advisoriy committee rankings. B.S. You put 6-coaches in a room with a few beers and tell them to rank their region... I don't by the objectivity of this ranking, especially since the hardest teams to seed are going to be the closest calls to rank. No offense meant to the coaches that do this ranking, but it's hard to believe that this is an objective method.
Other information as shared by the committee. No comment.
The "Non-Affective" factors are: performance by a team in previous NCAA tournament, a team's previous regular season performance, committee member's affiliation, Placement in any poll, lobbying by coaches or administrators.
Performance in previous NCAA tournament. If Pacific's selection in 2003 was not an indication of this being untrue, noone can tell me what is. The 5th place-tie team Utah State get ommitted from the tournament in favor of 6th place Pacific! What's that about?
A team's previous regular season performance. Yeah, good.
Committee member's affiliation. Yeah, right. Again, see Pacific 2003, and USC's seeding in 2000.
Placement in any Poll. No mention of the Rich Kern poll in this article. Interesting, since it's a fan poll. I'll return to that. Why, pray tell me, do these factors not contribute to the process, when it's the appearance of these factors, that we are unable to view the regional rankings as composed by the NCAA throughout the season, to get an estimate of the teams?
Lobbying of committee members by coaches or administrators Note, fans are not listed. The NCAA could give a rat's ass about the fans. If anyone has ever been to a Final Four event, I believe they'll find this to be true in the first-person-view.
I think I'm too upset to continue now... I'll return.
However, I will point out a few things to remember while we complain about the process, which DOES need to be changed.
Volleyball is considered to be a Stage III event. Stage I is basketball, Stage II is baseball, hockey (other revenue producing sports). Volleyball does NOT want to drop to Stage IV. This would force a drop in the number of teams in the championships and less marketing and promotional availability. While I do not think that maximizing income is the fairest way to run a tournament, I think it's heading that way, after a few years of poor pre-selected regional choices and sub-maximum capacity crowds at the Final Fours. My personal feeling is that it would highly benefit volleyball to become a Stage II event, to force higher demands (because of revenue generation) on the NCAA and give fans and coaches some leverage room to argue with the Selection Committee. I guarantee the NCAA looks at volleyball as a charity case at this point in time and because of that, refuses to listen to any complaints we have as fans. So, let's focus on the now, attend matches, by crap merchandise and watch every vb match possible on tv... then we can give the NCAA an earful.
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 30, 2006 8:18:32 GMT -5
Idaho: An interesting read with many good points. Please finish your remarks when you are prepared to. I would like to hear from some "haves"; fans of teams who might suck but have reputations which allow them to be invited year after year. (OK, if Missouri loses (about) half of its games, it won't (hopefully) get an at-large bid. Here "suck" means playing badly enough that is doesn't deserve an at-large bid (but would probably get one anyway).) We have an "old boy network" which favors certain schools, regions, etc. in the selection process. (Note: If you don't like my phrase, look it up. According to dictionary.reference.com/ ,an old boy network is "an exclusive network that links members of a profession, social class, or organization or the alumni of a particular school through which the individuals assist one another in business, politics, etc.".) I'd like to hear some comments from fans of the "club" (or the country club).
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 30, 2006 8:18:36 GMT -5
Given this nonsense attitude: So, who does make the decisions, and why? The NCAA Selection Committee is made up of senior women representatives from each of the NCAA regions. Typically, these ladies are not volleyball fans, Is there any surprise that you get this? I have had very insightful email discussions with Sharon Cessna regarding the NCAA tournament, without any sort of canned response, so apparently your statement about "any fan" is mistaken. Granted, I did not approach the exchange with the attitude that the committee are not volleyball fans or incompetent, so perhaps that came through moreso in my correspondence.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 30, 2006 8:20:50 GMT -5
I would like to hear from some "haves"; fans of teams who might suck but have reputations which allow them to be invited year after year. Can you be more specific? You mention Missouri, do you mean to include them as an example?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 30, 2006 9:22:13 GMT -5
However, I will point out a few things to remember while we complain about the process, which DOES need to be changed. Volleyball is considered to be a Stage III event. Stage I is basketball, Stage II is baseball, hockey (other revenue producing sports). Volleyball does NOT want to drop to Stage IV. This would force a drop in the number of teams in the championships and less marketing and promotional availability. While I do not think that maximizing income is the fairest way to run a tournament, I think it's heading that way, after a few years of poor pre-selected regional choices and sub-maximum capacity crowds at the Final Fours. My personal feeling is that it would highly benefit volleyball to become a Stage II event, to force higher demands (because of revenue generation) on the NCAA and give fans and coaches some leverage room to argue with the Selection Committee. I guarantee the NCAA looks at volleyball as a charity case at this point in time and because of that, refuses to listen to any complaints we have as fans. So, let's focus on the now, attend matches, by crap merchandise and watch every vb match possible on tv... then we can give the NCAA an earful. I agree with most of this, but will add the following: I don't see the volleyball tournament necessarily going toward "maximizing revenue." The only manner in which that MIGHT happen would be if they were to make Omaha the permanent home for the championship, which would be based on a combination of popularity and revenue. One thing I would add, however, is that you need to remember that being classified as a "non-revenue" sport, the NCAA approach is NOT to maximize revenue, but to _minimize expense_. They don't consider it from an issue of revenues vs costs, but solely in terms of costs. That's why IB's suggestion is so crucial here. In order to effect a change in this approach, we need to work to convert volleyball from a non-revenue sport to a revenue sport. That means that we as fans have to support everything we can. An important thing you can do is to support the media covering volleyball. If aren't in Hawaii and see an article in the local paper written by one of their writers, send them a note and tell them that you found it interesting. When the local news shows highlights of a match, let them know you saw it and liked it. The media need to know people are paying attention. (BTW, you can do it in Hawaii, too, but the coverage there is pretty good already so it is less critical; wouldn't hurt, though)
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 30, 2006 11:54:07 GMT -5
While you present the selection process "as it actually is" (in your opinion) rather than "as it should be", I get the impression that you are defending the status quo; Then you need to be more careful to read what I actually write. Nowhere in this thread have I actually stated that I think the committee has done a good job, or that I think this is the way things should be done. I just stated that leaving Wich St out of the tournament was in line with the way the committee has done things in the past, and therefore, was not a surprise to me. Moreover, I have provided my opinion about things that could be done to make it better, either by changing the system altogether (use Pablo rankings ;D) or by doing a better job working within the current system (give RPI the status that is supposed to have). I don't know what else you guys want from me. If you read what I have actually said (I know, IB has skipped it), you would realize that we don't have any disagreements at all. The difference is that I am trying to work within a realistic framework to determine what it is that is actually leading to the problems that we see and how to solve it. General rants about why did the committee do this or that don't get anywhere (see IB's comments about the responses that the NCAA gives to them). If you want to try to make a difference, you have to have a better strategy for that. My opinion is that this starts by first understanding the system, so that you can have a reasoned discussion. The reason fans don't have a lot of say in the NCAA is because, for the most part, fans don't understand how it works. This is not a criticism, because it's true in general that people not in administration don't understand administration. Workers don't know much about what management does, students don't know much about what professors do, and professors don't know what administration does (I can attest to the last two from first hand). But in order to have a reasoned discussion, which is what is going to be needed in order for a change to occur, you have to work from a sufficient knowledge base. Which of the following is going to be a more persuasive argument: "The committee has made a big mistake by selecting teams X, Y, and Z over teams A, B, and C. Why did they do that?" or "The selection guidelines indicate that RPI is supposed to be a primary consideration, parallel with significant wins and losses, but over the years, the committee has focused mostly upon significant wins, and not paid much attention to either RPI or significant losses. Has the committee made any comments about their use of RPI in the selection process?" Not completely, although I will say that the way you are trying to go about it doesn't help anything. Changing the system by complaining that team X got hosed is a pipe dream. What do you want to know about UNI?
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 30, 2006 16:32:37 GMT -5
I would like to hear from some "haves"; fans of teams who might suck but have reputations which allow them to be invited year after year. Can you be more specific? You mention Missouri, do you mean to include them as an example? Missouri did beat Hawaii on Dec. 9, 2005 before losing to Tennessee on Dec. 10, 2005. Missouri finished at 25-5, which is pretty good. I may be wrong but I don't really think of Missouri as one of the "entitled" schools; I think they have earned their place in the sun. The reason I mentioned Missouri was because, on other VT threads, some posters seemed to see the loss by Missouri to LBSU as a sign that the Tigers are in trouble. I happen to respect Missouri, Nebraska (and lots of other schools) for their hard work and success. There are schools which have natural advantages (e.g. geographic location near lots of good VB schools) for whom it is easier to play "quality teams." It would not matter if the selection process did not place such emphasis on "quality wins" (i.e. it's hard to get a "quality win" if you can't play "quality teams").
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 30, 2006 16:49:15 GMT -5
however, I'm starting to doubt that anyone posting here will change her/his opinion about the selection process. Well, I agree you aren't going to change my opinion about the selection process, but that is because we have the same opinion about it! I have already corrected your misconception about my position on it. Explaining what it is and how it currently works does not constitute approval. It is just is a description of the current state of affairs. I've even provided descriptions of what I think could be done to make the system work better, both at a fundamental level and even within the current guidelines. Like I said, I don't know what else you want from me.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Aug 31, 2006 9:20:12 GMT -5
WSUfan, p-dub has been more charitable and patient than any of the rest of us would have been. I believe you are approaching this with such a strong adversarial slant - for reasons which may be perfectly valid - that you are seeing enemies where there are none. In the long run, this will only further distract you from reaching your goals. You must be open to building partnerships to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by royalshock on Aug 31, 2006 10:32:50 GMT -5
p-dub, I appreciate your clarification of your stance on this issue. From our discussion last year I got the impression that you were sympathetic but not necessarily in disagreement with the committee.
Hopefully they (the committee) will get it figured out. It can only help the sport to reward teams like WSU (and EWash) when they emerge from an unknown to a deserving team in any given year. It will grow the general college volleyball fanbase, particularly at schools that do not field a football team. Keeping the party exclusive to the "knowns" and the "elites" can only serve to keep a lower ceiling on the level of popularity the sport could enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 31, 2006 23:38:03 GMT -5
WSUfan, p-dub has been more charitable and patient than any of the rest of us would have been. I believe you are approaching this with such a strong adversarial slant - for reasons which may be perfectly valid - that you are seeing enemies where there are none. In the long run, this will only further distract you from reaching your goals. You must be open to building partnerships to succeed. OverAndUnder: I can understand how it might appear that I have "such a strong adversarial slant". I might not agree but I respect your opinion on this. My basic desire is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current WVB selection system and potential reforms which might be made. I suspect Wade Benson and Chris Lamb might see a few flaws in the current system. It goes without saying that a hypothetical poster who said (in effect) "This is the way it is and there is no point in discussing an alternative selection system" might put a damper on the discussion of reforms. I wanted to hear from fans of schools which benefit from the current selection process. It would be refreshing to see fans admit that their schools have an advantage; fans willing to make this admission are probably fairly interesting people with whom to talk (or post). A baseball analogy might be southern schools, which can start practice earlier than northern schools, play northern schools at home and raise their OOC RPI ratings; fans of such schools who are willing to admit to this geographical advantage are probably more thoughtful and well informed than typical fans. (And, of course, Go Beavers!) I do not watch college football. Most of the college football on television is Division 1 football and the games which get broadcast are usually BCS games. The current bowl system is extremely unfair; for example, if Boise State University had the best college football team in the country, I would be surprised if they were invited to play in the championship bowl game. The system is rigged in favor of the BCS conferences (i.e. Atlantic Coast Conference, Southeastern Conference, Pacific-10 Conference, Big East Conference, Big XII Conference, Big Ten Conference). For this reason, I don't support college football in any way. I prefer (to the extent that this can be achieved) a fair and unbiased system for determining national champions from the best teams in the country. I don't think there is much disagreement over the fact/claim that the at-large bids do not necessarily go to the best WVB teams who failed to win their conference tourneys. If I were a coach, I would try to optimize my chances of making the tourney under the current system. As a fan, I see no harm in discussing potential reforms. If nobody on VT cares about this, this thread will be lost in the dustbin of history. In all likelihood, a team that is "objectively" seen to be strong by having good Pablo, RPI and poll rankings will be left out of the NCAA tourney this fall or next fall and a wave of criticism will descend on the NCAA WVB selection committee. Schools that benefit from the current system will probably sit quietly (and perhaps smirk). For example, how did the University of Kansas get an at-large invite last year when WSU did not? "The Kansas University volleyball players were hoping for the best when they gathered last week to watch the NCAA Tournament selection show. But it was even a shock to them when the word "Kansas" appeared on the first screen alongside UCLA in the first round of the 64-team field." www2.kusports.com/news/2005/dec/02/banged_jayhawks_hoping_seize_day/
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Sept 1, 2006 10:43:28 GMT -5
I have read with great interest this thread. I stayed out of it because I really didn't feel I had much to say that could add to the discussion. (Probably still don't.) But here are a couple things that come to mind.
Any selection process that involves a group of people locked up in a room that then comes out with a 64 team bracket of teams that includes 30-something "at large teams" will almost certainly be controversial at best or down right outrage as it applies to a few teams - which seems to be the case each year. If you took a different set of women administrators and have them go through the exact same process, there is no doubt in my mind that they would make some different selections each year, probably a few better choices and a few worse choices. And that to me is the heart of the problem. The selections that we get each year are a result of the particular biases of the people making the selection. If I was on a selection committee with a group of fans from other parts of the country, I'm sure we would come up with some different selections too. I believe as hard as we all try, there are biases that each one of us would bring into a selection process. Nothing we say here is going to change that fact if the selection of teams is made be a committee.
If you could somehow tighten up the selection process criteria to the point that any group of people that were on the committee (making an honest attempt to follow that criteria) would come up the same group of 64 teams and the same bracket, then you really wouldn't need a committee, you'd just have an allogram or formula that could be used to make the selections or bracketing.
What I like about the BCS in football is its ordering of teams is determined by a formula that is known before the season begins (good or bad - everyone knows what it is). The problem with the BCS is that they use it only to match 1 vs. 2. What they need to do is then match #3 vs. #8 ; #4 vs. #7 and #5 vs. #6 (or some other predefined seeding) and let the other 3 non championship BCS bowls have a selection process for which of those games they want - but not just let them go out and pick teams that they want.
Next, a bit about the problem of the scheduling of (or with) top 25 teams. Most years, going into the upcoming season, anyone can guess at least two-thirds or three-fourths of the teams that will be top 25 during the upcoming season. However, by the time the season is over, there are always going to be surprises and some of these teams will not be considered as good a team as when the scheduled was made – and conversely, other teams will be more highly regarded. That’s really just one of the breaks of the game.
As I think Roy mentioned in an earlier post, it is typical for top 25 teams to schedule about half of their non conference matches with other top 25 programs and maybe a match or two with other “solid” teams who would be considered contenders for at large bids if they don’t win their conference. This will vary a bit from the philosophy of the coach and year to year but on a whole it probably isn’t too far off from an overall average standpoint. That really only leaves about 50 to 75 matches that will be scheduled by all the top 25 teams each year with teams outside of those teams that are usually considered top 25’s or just outside the top 25 but generally NCAA tournament regulars. So if a team is outside this “perennial top 40ish”, then the simple mathematics of it is going to make it tough to get many if any matches scheduled every year with a top 25 team. In other words, there just aren’t going to be enough top 25 teams to go around to all the programs that want to schedule a match with them.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for these top 25 teams to try to place a significant portion of their non conference schedule with teams that will challenge them, help them improve and get ready for their conference play, help their own RPI, give their fans great matches to watch, etc. – and avoid the downside risk of getting beat by a team that may not be highly regarded in the eyes of the selection committee. Is this really fair? Probably depends on which side of the fence you’re on.
I don’t know much about the requirements of Stage III events versus Stage II or Stage IV. I do, however, find hard to understand how the NCAA can take a simplest approach and look at running their tournaments from either a revenue standpoint or from a cost standpoint. Any business that ignores one or the other generally isn’t successful very long. All they’d need to do is develop guidelines for their tournaments that would address both, then a deserving Hawaii could be hosting 1st and 2nd round match when they’ve earned them AND the NCAA would make money in the process. That’s the part of this that is so hard for me to swallow.
|
|