An "up" year for the Pac-10?

[Gorf]

idahoboy said:

chipndink said:

The NCAA will certainly look for any excuse NOT to pay for flying 3 teams to Hawaii for the first 2 rounds, when they are already committed to flying teams in for a Hawaii regional. Hawaii better at least win the WAC, or they'll have no chance at all of hosting the first 2 rounds.

I should state this, because it's an important criteria.

The NCAA is guaranteed to profit even AFTER flying 3-teams to Hawaii. So, WHY ON EARTH would they not reward some teams the opportunity to vacation a bit? Especially if Hawaii is a top 16 seed.

Technically UH would need to be a top 4 team in order to host sub-regionals and regionals.

Since they're already guaranteed to be hosting a regional they'd need to be sent on the road for the sub-regionals if they're not a top 4 seed.


OTOH: You never know with the NCAA based on the way the fudge the seedings in order to make their desired travel plans and regionalization of the sub-regionals to work.

[Ye Olde Dawg]

gorf said:

These early polls are how much different than last year when the Pac-10 have 4-5 teams ranked in the top 10 early but ended up with two teams ranked in the top 10 of the final poll of the season?




We'll probably know by the end of December whether it is truly an up or down year for the Pac-10 (and every other conference).

At this time last year, the top 10 in the AVCA poll (subjective) and Pablo (mechanical) each had only two Pac-10 teams. UCLA and USC were #11 and #12. Arizone and Cal were #20 and #21. That's the difference; the "usual suspects" have generally been spread out more than they are this year.

As you say, we'll know by the end of December. I brought the whole thing up only because it's fun wondering about.

[Gorf]

I think I was looking at the 2004 seaons when I counted 4-5 Pac 10 teams in the top 10 during the early polls. Startng with the pre-season poll: #1 USC, #3 UCLA, #6 Stanford, #7 Washington, #10 California. With various changes over the next few weeks.


It is indeed interesting to speculate.

I just don't think the polls / voters have a lot to go on for their predictions yet.

Last year 8 of the top 25 and 12 of the teams receiving votes in the final AVCA poll were not in the pre-seasn poll.

The results were very similar for at least the few years prior to that.


With so many "strange" results so far this year, it will be interesting to see if they keep happening throughout the season or if we get back to seeing "usual suspects" spread amongst the top 25 in the polls and heading the top spots in the conferences again this year.