2005 Comes to a end for UCLA ......

[rk1690]

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.

[Mac]

The Bruins have a 2nd team setter who is equal to the starter, in fact he was the starter for most of the first half. So injuries are not a factor. In fact, they are much healthier now than when they played in the Pyramid. Food poisoning then kept one of their key players from suiting up for both that match and the SD match the next day. The only valid criteria is the written rules that guide the selection committee. You have to admit this topic sure keeps everyone on the seat of their pants.

I think the whole argument here just brings another dimension to the bigger issue. The means by which only 4 teams are selected for the NCAA tournament must seriously be reviewed. IMO, it ought to be 8 teams, 4 from the two Eastern conferences, 4 from the MPSF, and real seeding to enable a true final four. Expanding to 8 would give more teams in the East a legitimate chance at making the finals, and would ingnite more interest in Men's Volleyball back East where it's in the best interest of the sport in total.

[rk1690]

Who is that 2nd setter, Arron Dodd??? The one that started against Northridge. Maybe you are talking about Azevado, the one who was not good enough to start the most important match of the year for UCLA and then get put in and chuck so many balls they had to yank him.
Ok, they won't miss a beat.
Check out he selection 3 points. They are listed at the start of this thread. Health of team is a major point! As it should be, they are simply not good enough to join the party next week with or without GOnzalez. But, without him, they showed they have nobody who can set the offense.
Sorry bruins, you can now start officially blaming everyone else;
The selection committee
The Ref's
The NCAA
The MPSF
The CSULB AD

but we wont hear ;
UCLA lost at home in the 1st round to the #7 seed
UCLA does not have a setter who can set other than Gonzalez
UCLA messed with their lin up so much down the stretch that it destroyed the team
McKinney helped the bruins lose more matches than he helped them win
Leaving Klosterman home to motivate him for the playoff's backfired
Embarrassing and showing no respect to your captian (Acosta) down the stretch crushed the team
It will be a long time until the bruins get a chance to play for a title at hoe again
WE BLEW AND OUR SEASON IS OVER!

[puwave]

The NCAA won't expand their tournament to 8 teams because there aren't enough schools participating in Men's Volleyball... I've read somewhere before that the size of the NCAA tournaments for each sport are determined by how many schools participate (with a max of a 64-team playoff)...

I'm not sure how many schools need to participate in order to bump up the tourney to 8 teams, but with Men's V-ball only losing teams, I don't see it happening any time soon.

[rk1690]

Sorry the selection criteria is on the "Critera thread"

I am out, I got a long drive to Malibu. Can't wait to see the nations to best battle for the MPSF crown and the top seed!!

[southerncalivball]

puwave said:

The NCAA won't expand their tournament to 8 teams because there aren't enough schools participating in Men's Volleyball... I've read somewhere before that the size of the NCAA tournaments for each sport are determined by how many schools participate (with a max of a 64-team playoff)...

I'm not sure how many schools need to participate in order to bump up the tourney to 8 teams, but with Men's V-ball only losing teams, I don't see it happening any time soon.

64 cant be the max since college basketball has got 65

[TheProfessor]

rk1690 said:

Who is that 2nd setter, Arron Dodd??? The one that started against Northridge. Maybe you are talking about Azevado, the one who was not good enough to start the most important match of the year for UCLA and then get put in and chuck so many balls they had to yank him.
Ok, they won't miss a beat.
Check out he selection 3 points. They are listed at the start of this thread. Health of team is a major point! As it should be, they are simply not good enough to join the party next week with or without GOnzalez. But, without him, they showed they have nobody who can set the offense.

Wow. Where to begin? You talk a big game, but you've got more holes in your logic than swiss cheese.

First, about Acevedo. He was good enough to start against Pepperdine when UCLA faced the Waves in Pauley Pavilion. He was the only setter UCLA used that night, and the result was a 3-0 demolition of Pepperdine. There was also a 3-0 win over Long Beach State back in January where Acevedo also was the only setter used. While Acevedo struggled last week, it'd be very foolish of anyone to overlook how he was able to lead the team to 3-0 victories over Pepperdine and Long Beach State earlier this season.

You can bet if UCLA makes the Final Four along with Pepperdine, Marv Dunphy will NOT be overlooking Acevedo simply because he had a bad week. If UCLA were to make it, Bruin fans could only hope Dunphy would be as short-sighted as you are regarding Acevedo.



Now, let's look at the official 2005 men's volleyball handbook for the NCAA:
www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/volleyball/2005/2005_nc_m_volleyball_handbook.pdf

It says on page 9:

The remaining at-large team will be selected by using the following criteria (in no priority order):

(a) Won-lost record;
(b) Strength of schedule;
* head-to-head competition
* home and away records
* records against common opponents
* results against teams already qualified and other teams under consideration; and
(c) Eligibility and availability of student-athletes for NCAA Championships

To me, that part (c) reads more like if a team is without a setter at all, versus having a more than capable backup who can fill in. But to each his own. Let us assume you are correct, and that Gonzalez's injury hurts UCLA in the eyes of the Selection Committee.

So what about (a) and (b)? Clearly UCLA is superior to Long Beach State in won-lost record.


Let's look more closely at part (b). In head-to-head competition, UCLA has the advantage, having beaten the Beach twice.

Long Beach is 13-2 at home, only 7-6 on the road (including at Hawaii in the first round), and 2-1 on neutral sites. UCLA is 15-2 at home, 8-3 on the road, and 3-0 on neutral sites.

As for record against common opponents, both teams split with Pepperdine, BYU, & Hawaii. But while UCLA beat UCSB twice this season, Long Beach State suffered TWO losses to the Gauchos, and is only 2-2 against them in matches this season. On the flip side, Long Beach State beat CSUN twice this year, while UCLA won 3 but lost one match against them. But then, Long Beach State has losses to both Stanford and Pacific, while UCLA doesn't. In other words, UCLA only lost to schools that qualified for the MPSF Tournament, while Long Beach State has a bad loss to a school (Pacific) that couldn't even qualify for the conference tournament.

As for record against other qualified opponents, we've already reviewed the conference foes. In non-conference action, UCLA swept Penn State 3-0, while Long Beach State did not play the Nittany Lions this year. UCLA also beat the #2 EIVA team George Mason 3-0 this year too.

So, in two of the three criteria set forth by the NCAA, UCLA clearly holds the advantage. With the injury to Gonzalez, perhaps that docks UCLA, but why should that override the other two criteria?

Let me ask you this. Who was Polster's backup? Was it someone who had started for the first part of the season and had lots of game experience that season?


Now, while I don't think the Bruins are "done", I think their chance of making it if Pepperdine wins tonight is only 50/50.

[MossV2]

I don't understand why people are so blatantly overlooking USC for the at-large bid.

...

[TheProfessor]

MossV2 said:

I don't understand why people are so blatantly overlooking USC for the at-large bid.

...

[rk1690]

You kill me the Azevedo comment. He was so good that Al did not start him in the play-off's, using #3 setter instead. That shows a lot of faith in him......LOL

When the committee leaves the bruins out, maybe you can ask Al why he left him on the bench? If he really is that good, then maybe the bruins should have played their hand becuase it cost you a trip to the FF............. Bitch as you will, the committee wants the best teams in the tournament.

[VBaller23]

UCLA beat Pepp and LBSU early in the season, when teams started to progress and get better, UCLA did not. You can make up as many excuses u want for UCLA doing so poorly in the later part of the season and why they lost in the FIRST ROUND OF PLAYOFFS. But it doesn't change the fact that LBSU deserves the at large bid for making it as far as they did when it really mattered... the playoffs. They have shown why they got to the MPSF finals and UCLA showed exactly why they didn't, and don't deserve to go tot he final four

[TheProfessor]

VBaller23 said:

UCLA beat Pepp and LBSU early in the season, when teams started to progress and get better, UCLA did not. You can make up as many excuses u want for UCLA doing so poorly in the later part of the season and why they lost in the FIRST ROUND OF PLAYOFFS. But it doesn't change the fact that LBSU deserves the at large bid for making it as far as they did when it really mattered... the playoffs. They have shown why they got to the MPSF finals and UCLA showed exactly why they didn't, and don't deserve to go tot he final four

It's just too damn bad the NCAA Selection Committee actually takes into account those earlier games, isn't it? There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about playoff games mattering more than regular season games when it comes to selecting the at-large bid. Maybe the rules needed to be modified this offseason, but for now, them's the breaks.

We see a similar thing in men's basketball with the smaller conferences. Look at the Big West this season. Pacific was clearly the best team in the conference by far, going 18-0 in conference. But then in the conference tournament, Pacific lost to Utah State, a good team, but not at Pacific's caliber. Utah State "got hot" and knocked off Pacific, but does that diminish what Pacific accomplished? Luckily, Pacific still got to show their stuff in the NCAA Tournament.

But I remember other years where a school went something like 25-3, clearly dominated their conference, but lost in the conference tournament, and the automatic bid from that conference went to a school with something like a 12-18 record, and the 25-3 team was left out of the NCAA Tournament. Now, which team would've given you a better performance in the NCAA Tournament?