|
Post by hammer on Nov 16, 2006 20:51:59 GMT -5
We read and talk a lot about "what the committee wants". I think sometimes we tend to lump together the NCAA Selection Committee with the rest of the NCAA Volleyball Administration. It is NCAA Volleyball in general that would love to have Hawaii make it to there own regional so that revenue will increase - this should not be part of the selection committee's agenda. Just like it should not be the agenda of the selection committee to place Nebraska in a regional that gives them the best chance of advancing to Omaha other that the chance that they've earned by a fair seeding process. I don't think that the "selection committee wants" really anything as far as whether Hawaii or anyone else specifically advances because they are holding a regional. At least I hope that is not their intent. There job is to fairly place the teams within the structure of the guidelines and limitations that they are required to work within. We've spend a lot of time on this board in the last few years discussing those guidelines and limitations and how well the committee has seemed to follow or not follow them - that's not really the point I want to make. It is that the selection committee should not really be worried about or wanting a particular team to advance. They need to place the teams as fairly as possible within the rules they are required to follow and whatever happens, happens. The committee is not supposed to be biased but "real-world" factors slant their results. For example, revenue generation, politics, TV ratings, number of vball schools East of the Continental Divide, AND the rules. Hence the theory on this board, that Nebraska gets the #1 ranking and is setup to avoid matchups with the power teams of the Pac-10.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Nov 16, 2006 20:58:57 GMT -5
At least one regional figures to be free of Pac-10 teams. If any team has earned that privilege, it would be Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 16, 2006 21:03:46 GMT -5
BASTA! has Stanford being sent to Hawaii for rounds 1 and 2, and to Florida for the Regional. Also fair. What is fair about having the second or third ranked team not hosting rounds 1 and 2 when it is already going to have to travel for the regionals ? My scenario: At Texas: 1. Nebraska 8. Texas 9. Minnesota 16. San Diego At Washington: 2. Washington 7. UCLA 10. Wisconsin 15. Cal Poly At Hawaii: 2. Stanford 6. USC 11. Hawaii 14. Utah At Florida: 4. Penn State 5. Florida 12. Oklahoma 13. LSU *Modified to accept GatorVball's seedings suggestion and to acknowledge (R)uffda's joke, now that I have read the post explaining the meaning of BASTA. Bingo! This maximizes revenue at each regional and gets Nebraska to the final four with high probability. Nebraska in FF creates more excitement and, in theory, better TV ratings.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 16, 2006 23:11:33 GMT -5
If the top 8 teams stay close to where they are I think: 1) Nebraska will be the top overall seed; they're supposed to be placed closest to their campus; that would be Texas, but same conference; I say they get placed in the Gainesville, FL regional; Gators probably will be a #3 seed in that regional. I can see a PAC 10 team being sent there as a #2 seed since they will spread out the PAC 10 teams. 2) Washington will be a #1 seed in their own regional. Would not be surprised if another PAC 10 team isn't a #2 seed in Seattle, as well 3) I see either UCLA, USC, or Stanford coming to Austin; think this depends on whether Penn State gets a #1 seed; I don't think the committee would put Penn State #1 in Hawaii since they can easily place the PAC 10 champion (if other than UW) there, and more in sync geographically with their region. So, Texas a #2/3 with a PAC 10 team #2/3. I have a feeling it is gonna be USC; think the committee would enjoy sending MickHaley to Austin 4) PAC 10 champ (if other than UW) goes here. Once again, the #2 seed is probably another PAC 10 team. We'll know soon enough . . . I don't think seeds matter all that much anymore to the committee since they fudgle plenty of them just to get the matchups they appear to want. In 2004 Washington was *cough* the 8th seed and hosted both sub-regionals and regionals while Minnesota was the 4th seed (as mentioned earlier in this thread) and was sent on the road for sub-regionals. Over the past few years there have been plenty of non-seeded teams hosting sub-regionals. They only seem to worry about travel distances for sub-regionals and not even then in all cases. Travel distances in regionals don't even appear to be considered or situation like 2004 when Hawaii was sent to Green Bay and Penn State was sent to Seattle wouldn't have happened. With Louisvile and Nebraska also hosting regionals that year the committee could have placed teams like those two in better travel situations rather than having both have to cross multiple time zones in traveling to their regional matches. The committee just seems to "fly by the seat of their pants" since the advent of pre-selected regionals and they use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to make inane decisions in the sub-regionals that also have an impact on the regionals.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 16, 2006 23:24:04 GMT -5
I don't think that the "selection committee wants" really anything as far as whether Hawaii or anyone else specifically advances because they are holding a regional. At least I hope that is not their intent. There job is to fairly place the teams within the structure of the guidelines and limitations that they are required to work within. If that is indeed their job, then they haven't been doing it well. In recent years, Nevada and Pacific got tourney bids over other teams that were more deserving. They got in because they had representatives from their schools on the Committee. The Committee does what is wants without explanation or reason. In their eyes, they can try to justify anything. They need to place the teams as fairly as possible within the rules they are required to follow and whatever happens, happens. Therein lies the problem with this rogue group, they create their own rules as they go along.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2006 3:52:13 GMT -5
My scenario: At Texas: 1. Nebraska 8. Texas 9. Minnesota 16. San Diego What's interesting about this one is that if the 4 seeds all advance to the regionals, then all the teams would have been on the Huskers regular season schedule. And if the Huskers were to win, then they'd make it to the Final 4 without having ever faced a team from the Pac-10. Boy, would we hear about that on this board. SNP, you picked up an important part of my scenario. Another is that I had the top four Pac 10 teams lumped together in only two regionals. No one has commented on that, so I will merely say it is my take on the politics of NCAA VB. Another part of my scenario is that having segregated the top four Pac 10 teams into only two regionals, I also projected that, as two and three seeds, the winners would play each other in the semis, thus guaranteeing only one Pac 10 team, at most, iin the finals. If this in fact occurs, it is one reason why many of us do not view the final four as the real arbiter of women's vb (OK, now bring it on about Pac 10 arrogance ;D).
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Nov 17, 2006 4:11:37 GMT -5
Do you really think they will send Nebraska to Texas. Just to piss off the Pac-10, that won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 17, 2006 7:30:10 GMT -5
What's interesting about this one is that if the 4 seeds all advance to the regionals, then all the teams would have been on the Huskers regular season schedule. And if the Huskers were to win, then they'd make it to the Final 4 without having ever faced a team from the Pac-10. Boy, would we hear about that on this board. SNP, you picked up an important part of my scenario. Another is that I had the top four Pac 10 teams lumped together in only two regionals. No one has commented on that, so I will merely say it is my take on the politics of NCAA VB. Another part of my scenario is that having segregated the top four Pac 10 teams into only two regionals, I also projected that, as two and three seeds, the winners would play each other in the semis, thus guaranteeing only one Pac 10 team, at most, iin the finals. If this in fact occurs, it is one reason why many of us do not view the final four as the real arbiter of women's vb (OK, now bring it on about Pac 10 arrogance ;D). Among the things that I don't like about your Texas bracket is the fact that the top 2 Big 12 teams (no offense to Oklahoma) are in the same regional which means only one of them has a chance to advance to the Final 4. That seems almost as crazy to me as taking the top 2 teams from the Pac-10 and putting them in the same regional. Texas seems a little bit like a team that is either hot or cold this year (actually most of the top 6 to 8 teams seem that way). If Texas gets hot in December with the home regional, they will be nearly impossible to stop. So I don't want the Husker to be sent to Texas. Obviously, I don't want them to be sent to Washington. Hawaii would seem the best except for the effects of the time zone chances. Maybe the Florida regional is what I need to be rooting for? As we've said all season long, there will be no gimmies getting to the Final 4 with the four teams that have regionals this year. That's why the thought of a selection committee "trying to fudge the bracketing" to get some desired results just doesn't sit very well with me. They need to seed the teams as fairly as possible and whoever makes it, makes it. And if that means Nebraska is at Texas because they feel the teams are 1 & 8(or9) or 2 & 7 or whatever, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 17, 2006 9:27:37 GMT -5
At least one regional figures to be free of Pac-10 teams. If any team has earned that privilege, it would be Nebraska. That could happen, but I have a feeling that this year the committee will place Stanford, UCLA, USC, and Washington in different regions. I believe 2 of them will be #1 seeds, and 2 of them will be #2 seeds. While I wouldn't necessarily guess that the two #2 seeds of out the Pac 10 should be the overal #7/8 seeds, they might be; if that's the case, Nebraska gets one of them. Last few matches will settle the pecking order for the PAC-10's elite.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 17, 2006 9:45:58 GMT -5
I just wish they would seed the top 16 teams honestly by whatever criteria they use then stop the fudging around with the seeds in order to get matchups they desire because of the pre-selected regionals.
Then all the top 16 teams are paired up by their seedings and placed each 4 team grouping in regionals as to home for the top four seeds as possible.
Or...
Stop doing pre-selected regional sites.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2006 11:17:44 GMT -5
And a reminder that the current RKPI (because we all KNOW the AVCA rankings mean nothing):
1--Nebraska 2--UCLA 3--Stanford 4--Wisconsin 5--USC 6--Minnesota 7--PSU 8--Texas 9--Florida 10--Washington 11--LSU 12--Hawaii 13--San Diego 14--Purdue 15--Utah 16--California
Do I have a point? No.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Nov 18, 2006 4:24:51 GMT -5
With the Final Four already being sold out, this year is as good as any to simply disperse the conf teams across the regions evenly to make the most even brackets ever. Who cares if 4 Pac10 teams make the FinalFour (or reciprocal)... it's sold out. And most of those ticket holders will at least be able to fill the lower bowl area if they let people migrate down even if Nebr or fellow Big12 member Texas doesn't make it.
Figure Pac10, Big10, Big12, AllOthers fit 4 groups, spread top 4 teams from these groups out evenly across the 4 brackets please.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Nov 18, 2006 4:33:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Nov 18, 2006 4:37:18 GMT -5
That's the most sensible and fair minded thing I've ever heard from a husker. Uhhh, you forgot the smiley at the end. (B&*^%)
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Nov 18, 2006 11:45:51 GMT -5
That's the most sensible and fair minded thing I've ever heard from a husker. Uhhh, you forgot the smiley at the end. (B&*^%) Better now?
|
|