|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 30, 2005 13:00:05 GMT -5
Their stength of schedule is anemic. Would like to see them play against a steady diet of MPSF teams week after week. They'd be no better than Pacific was this season. The MIVA and EIVA conference champ should automactically play for third place, no higher.
|
|
|
Post by TheProfessor on Apr 30, 2005 14:37:09 GMT -5
That actually hurts Long Beach because he has to leave the room whenever they talk about Long Beach as it would clearly appear to be a conflict of interest. Yes, the same thing is done with basketball for March Madness. Now, that's with like 8 or 9 people on the committee. If one of them voted against your school when you left the room, it wouldn't be obvious who it was. Note: the following is assuming Pepperdine wins tonight. Now with only three committee members in the first place, if Shumard leaves the room and comes back to find LBSU is not the at-large, well, he definitely knows that both the MIVA and EIVA members voted against LBSU. And then he can give them the icy stare of death for the rest of the meeting. It then becomes a question of whether or not the other two members would try and appease him instead of following the guidelines the NCAA has set forth. No matter how you slice it, according to the NCAA guidelines, the criteria are overall record, head-to-head record, and record against Final Four opponents. There is no "hottest team" component like there is in basketball. There is no RPI like there is in basketball. When comparing UCLA and Long Beach State on those counts, UCLA comes out on top in all three categories. Had Long Beach State played Penn State this year, we may have had a better grasp on the 3rd category. As it stands, if the committee follows their own guidelines, UCLA would get the at-large over Long Beach State. The 1991 case has been cited on this board, when UCLA was the one that made the MPSF final, and USC had lost in the quarterfinals, yet USC was given the at-large because of their better overall record. But from what I understand, back in 1991 there were not the written guidelines we have in place now. Back then it was just expected that the MPSF tourney runner-up would get the at-large, no ifs, ands, or buts. Because of the clamor UCLA raised in 1991, written guidelines were set forth some time after that to give a more rigorous interpretation of the rules, and to justify the USC pick as the at-large in 1991. And so now we find ourselves in the situation we find ourselves in.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 30, 2005 14:46:22 GMT -5
Note: the following is assuming Pepperdine wins tonight. Thanks for your succinct summation and explanation. Somebody is going to be piissed off come Sunday afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by AAVolley on Apr 30, 2005 14:46:53 GMT -5
Regardless of what happens this year, I wouldn't be surprised for them to clarify (or improve) the rules this off season. Because I think by the rules UCLA does go, but I clearly think Beach is more deserving. Go Beach tonight...
|
|
|
Post by TheProfessor on Apr 30, 2005 14:58:34 GMT -5
Regardless of what happens this year, I wouldn't be surprised for them to clarify (or improve) the rules this off season. Because I think by the rules UCLA does go, but I clearly think Beach is more deserving. Go Beach tonight... That may very well be necessary this offseason. Rules usually get modified as the need arises. Now, there seems to be a need to get better (or more) clarification of the current rules. But just think... had the NCAA selection committee picked UCLA instead of USC back in 1991, we may never had gotten a codified version of the rules in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by rk1690 on Apr 30, 2005 15:35:21 GMT -5
The Bruins are done!!!! They do not win all the areas of the selection criteria. One of the majoe considerations of the committee is health of team. The Bruins starting setter broke his finger prior to the Norhridge match. He is done for the season and so are the Bruins. This has happened before and it involved CSULB. In 2000, they were the #1 ranked team in the nation and #1 seed in the MPSF tournament. Starting outside hitter, Jim Polster got hurt in the last league match. He was done for the post-season and so were the 49ers. They lost in the first round to LMU (#8 seed) 23-21 in the 5th. The selection committe did not consider them for the at-large. This was a team that returned all the starters from the 1999 NCAA championship match vs. BYU. Because of the injury they were not the same team and did represent the best volleyball for the championship. It is the same situation this year. But, this time it works for CSULB. I guess what goes around comes around. UCLA has been a disaster down the stretch and CSULB has been on fire! The Bruins do not represent the best team for the championship and they are not even healthy enough to field their starting team. The fact that the match is at UCLA means nothing. Loose in the first round to the play in team at home and loose your starting setter for the year and you want the at-large, good luck! The Bruins are out .................. Enjoy the the final four from behind the blue curtian!
To night's match at Pepperdine is for seeding only........ can,t wait to see the best two teams battle for the #1 seed.
|
|
|
Post by wornjersey on Apr 30, 2005 15:54:53 GMT -5
Can't agree with you. If Long Beach beats Pepperdine, it's in. Ans if it doesn't, it certainly shouldn't get anouther chance to beat Pepperdien. The tourney structure allows a team that did not have that great a season to get hot and get in. Almost will not be good enough. The Long Beach contingent is forgeting some pretty awful losses like Pacific and Stanford in three. Plus Long Beach lost four more conference matches than did UCLA. So Long Beach better win or its out. And that's how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by rk1690 on Apr 30, 2005 16:00:20 GMT -5
Nice try.......Bottomline UCLA is not playing well, did not win the league, lost in the first round and is not healthy for the post season. You can cry all you want, they are DONE!! Volleyball needs to put it's best teams in the final four and that is Pepperdine & CSULB. UCLA can politic all they want, but they can set up tee times for next week......................
|
|
|
Post by blob on Apr 30, 2005 17:09:56 GMT -5
I don't particularly care for either UCLA or Long Beach, but here's my take. If Long Beach wins the MPSF final Pepperdine is in as the at large. If Pepperdine wins, then UCLA goes. Why?- UCLA went 22-5 during the season while Long Beach lost nearly twice as many times at 21-9. Also, head to head, the Bruins beat Long Beach 2 out of 3 . Both wins were 3-0 spankings. Bruins go - end of discussion. Now- who do I think is the better team right now, Long Beach. But they should have taken care of business earlier in the year when they had bad losses like 0-3 to Stanford, 0-3 to Hawaii, etc,etc,etc. It will be no picnic for Pepperdine no matter who they get in the finals. UCLA ,even though not playing well, is tough at Pauley. (Although Northridge may have damaged the mystique a little. LOL) If Long Beach gets in they will have beaten Pep twice in a row. So the Waves better not be worrying about who they play and just get their act together.
|
|
|
Post by midwestfan on Apr 30, 2005 23:04:00 GMT -5
Does anyone know when the announcement will be made? I'm sure it is tomorrow sometime.
**Just read the PSU - GM thread and it answered my question. It's tomorrow between 3:30 and 4:00 ET
|
|
|
Post by Will Rogers Beach on Apr 30, 2005 23:06:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Apr 30, 2005 23:40:52 GMT -5
Come on, Charles. You should know by now, being the Bruin fan and Al Scates fan that you are, that Farting Al has gone on record several times in the Daily Bruin saying that he has in the past withheld what he thought was relevant information during a match that may have helped his team win, for the express purpose of throwing a match. I've never seen such comments but who could ever doubt you. Again, coaches don't play the matches. I note that you didn't claim that he has asked players to lose a match. I could see a time when a coach doesn't show his hand in a match that is not the final one that matters. That's not deliberately throwing a match, that's just smart strategy, even if it does contribute to a loss at the time. In the end, the win-loss record doesn't determine the NCAA Championship, the last match does. A few years ago, I helped a local high school team. The team was clearly #2 and would play #1 twice during the regular season. #2 lost those two matches 3-0. I videotaped throughout the season. I charted #1 and gave rotation videotapes and charts to the players of team #2 before the Championship match, the third meeting. Team #2 won the first game (it was fun to see their delight in this accomplishment) and it went five, but #1 eked it out in the end. I knew that #2's only chance was to try and steal the third meeting of the teams. So, I withheld information until then. Was that purposely losing? Might have been able to suprise them in that second conference match, you know? But what I find most interesting about your comment is that you are confirming a belief that is widespread that Al Scates is the best match-coach in the nation. You're saying: if he doesn't tell the team what he is able to discern about the other team, then UCLA loses. But if he does work hard and analyzes the other team in detail, prepares a good game plan and the players execute the plan, then UCLA wins. I'll end by saying once again, the coach isn't out on the court playing. Do the players have so little to do with the outcome?
|
|
beachdude
Junior
The Volleyball Made Me Do it!
Posts: 423
|
Post by beachdude on May 1, 2005 11:52:29 GMT -5
SOBB and Sir Charles:
Boys boys boys! Oil you up, put you in a ring and....probably would not be a pretty sight.
UCLA will get the nod. Finals in Pauley notwithstanding, they should be good matches.
Here is what will be interesting: Penn State is probably a better team than OSU at this point--although both will show up white and pastey looking. Penn State will take UCLA to 4 while Pepp will cruise over OSU in three uncontested matches. Last time this situation presented itself was in Hawaii when Lewis had an uncontested swing for a 13-9 lead in the rally scoring fifth. They muffed it. The Bruins behind Taliafero and Farmer survive only to take down Roumain and company the next night in three straight.
Same situation next weekend? Pepp crushes OSU then goes on to………..
|
|
beachdude
Junior
The Volleyball Made Me Do it!
Posts: 423
|
Post by beachdude on May 1, 2005 12:32:42 GMT -5
One more thing to think about. If the NCAA follows strict criteria such as regular season record etc...then why not take Loyola? They only have 3 losses compared to UCLA's 5. So what is a committee member to do? Strength of schedule you say? If you look at a 3 loss season by Loyola beating a 5 loss season by UCLA beating a 10 loss season by LBSU. Tough call......What if the finals were held in the mid-west? Tough to compare apples and oranges especially when you are dealing with a basket of mid-west peaches.
|
|
|
Post by VBaller23 on May 1, 2005 12:33:08 GMT -5
I don't particularly care for either UCLA or Long Beach, but here's my take. Are u serious? You have been pro UCLA in every comment you have posted on this board. Regardless of criteria, records, head to head, past 2 months of play leading into playoffs, or playoff performance, Long Beach is clearly the better team between the two. THEREFORE, they deserve the at large and should go to the final four. You have yet to meantion that UCLA lost in the first round of the playoffs against the #7 seed and lbsu made it to the finals
|
|