|
Post by Bearkitten on May 6, 2005 9:11:52 GMT -5
In the interview on ESPNU last night with the chair of the NCAA men's volleyball committee from Long Beach State, he said the NCAA is moving toward expanding the NCAA tournament to 8 teams. He seemed very confident this was going to happen. This is great news for men's volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on May 6, 2005 9:44:31 GMT -5
In the interview on ESPNU last night with the chair of the NCAA men's volleyball committee from Long Beach State, he said the NCAA is moving toward expanding the NCAA tournament to 8 teams. He seemed very confident this was going to happen. This is great news for men's volleyball. Gawd, if it will get Beachdork and the rest of the forty-whiners to SHUT THE HELL UP then it will be the greatest thing to happen in men's volleyball since Wink Davenport retired from officiating. Of course, knowing the way LBSU performs in the post-season, they'll probably be the #9 looking in when they institute the 8-team format, which will subject us to even MORE WHINING. Can't win for losing, I tell ya.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2005 9:59:48 GMT -5
Uh, wait a sec. So eight of the seven teams playing college VB make the tournament? How's that going to work?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Pink on May 6, 2005 10:18:03 GMT -5
Ruff...go back to your girly section of the site. Its that sort of attitude that keeps mens volleyball from expanding. The very sad truth is most men associated with mens vb have a hard time watching women's COLLEGIATE vb because it is slow and uneventful. I enjoy vb at any level...but having to choose to watch one level or the other for EXCITEMENT, I choose Men's. For hotness...women.
No...instead of being negative, help us promote and find better solutions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2005 10:52:28 GMT -5
Ruff...go back to your girly section of the site. Its that sort of attitude that keeps mens volleyball from expanding. Now, it's my fault? I thought it was Title IX? Fact is, men's volleyball only has seven teams because men don't play the sport. That's not the fault of the women. Whose fault is it? Uh, I'm guessing men. Golly. Who is it that has the attitude that needs adjusting? Methinks it's Mr. Pink. I'll try. But first, I'm going back to my "girly section", Mr. Positive. (Obviously, humor is not appreciated in the "manly section.")
|
|
|
Post by gobears on May 6, 2005 13:17:18 GMT -5
men don't play the sport?
NIRSA Nationals had 260 teams and there are more that didn't come.
Move any of these teams up to NCAA status and they would start improving.
Most AD's don't know a vb from a door knob and having to work at funding their wvb program so it operates in the black, let along a mvb program is beyond them.
I am hoping that the new generation of ADs coming along will WORK at funding vb both women's and men's instead of just bball and fball and threatening to cut sports when their fundraising isn't geared up. Hopefully LIsa Love will lead the way.
|
|
|
Post by roy on May 6, 2005 13:17:58 GMT -5
Good news, but I agree with SoBB. Let's wait to hear the proposal before getting too excited. I want to know what the selection criteria will be first. I am going to make a strong assumption that the 5 remaining spots outside of the conference champion will not be all from the MPSF. I suspect that a regular season winner will be part of the criteria, meaning Loyola might be in. Maybe 2 picks from each conference, so the EIVA might get another team in.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 6, 2005 13:21:07 GMT -5
This is good news for Mens Volleyball, despite what that girly man (R)uffda has to say. Obviously, the current setup is flawed so changes are welcomed. This is also good news for SonofBarcelonaBob, more male booty for him to enjoy at the NCAA's.
|
|
|
Post by gobears on May 6, 2005 13:21:27 GMT -5
I think the info in Knipe's thread is more likely.
Splitting apart the BIG West teams from the MPSF to form a new conference.
MPSF BYU, USC, UCLA, Pepp, Stanf, UCSD Big West LB, UCI, UCSB, CSUN, UH, Pacific
A bit of fiddling around with the NCAA first, but I think it will be more likely to happen and keep the Final 4.
Eliminate the 'at large'. EIVA, MPSF, Big West, MIVA
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 6, 2005 13:26:39 GMT -5
I think the info in Knipe's thread is more likely. Splitting apart the BIG West teams from the MPSF to form a new conference. MPSF BYU, USC, UCLA, Pepp, Stanf, UCSD Big West LB, UCI, UCSB, CSUN, UH, Pacific A bit of fiddling around with the NCAA first, but I think it will be more likely to happen and keep the Final 4. Eliminate the 'at large'. EIVA, MPSF, Big West, MIVA That still doesn't solve the problem because both the MIVA and EIVA will be equally represented. Better West Coast teams will still be left out in favor of weaker Eastern and Midwest teams. If last night's performance by Penn State, and to a lesser extent, Ohio State, doesn't prove equal representation is a bad idea, nothing will.
|
|
|
Post by sistahsledge on May 6, 2005 13:47:27 GMT -5
I think the info in Knipe's thread is more likely. Splitting apart the BIG West teams from the MPSF to form a new conference. MPSF BYU, USC, UCLA, Pepp, Stanf, UCSD Big West LB, UCI, UCSB, CSUN, UH, Pacific A bit of fiddling around with the NCAA first, but I think it will be more likely to happen and keep the Final 4. Eliminate the 'at large'. EIVA, MPSF, Big West, MIVA This is hilarious!!! So Knipe's solution is to put LBSU in a conference that has won only ONE national title in the past 35 years. That's roughly the same number as the EIVA. That's a great piece of political re-districting. So what would Knipe say if UCLA, Pepp, BYU, Stanford are ranked 1-2-3-4 and LBSU is barely in the top 10 but gets a free pass into the Final Four because they're in a weakass conference? He better get some good soundbites from the Pavlik and Hansen.
|
|
|
Post by Mac on May 6, 2005 14:40:03 GMT -5
[quote author=BiK link=board=menvb&thread=1115388712&start=9#0 date=1115403999]
That still doesn't solve the problem because both the MIVA and EIVA will be equally represented. Better West Coast teams will still be left out in favor of weaker Eastern and Midwest teams. If last night's performance by Penn State, and to a lesser extent, Ohio State, doesn't prove equal representation is a bad idea, nothing will.[/quote]
Just to provide a key ingredient to this discussion... I've heard it from highly influential MPSF people, and it makes sense to me too...
... the vitality and health of the Men's game must be maintained for obvious reasons. We must not let any other schools drop MVB. In light of the pressures the athletic administrations have financially, and in Title IX compliance, none of us want to see any more schools drop the sport. The opposite is the goal, to give them added incentives to keep the sport, and to encourage more schools, especially those with money (successful football and basketball) to add the sport.
The general consensus is that if two schools from the East weren't allowed to be in the playoffs in given years, there would be less interest from those schools to continue the sport because they'd feel it is too tough to realize success and the respect that comes with making the FF. So many of the MPSF coaches have actually encouraged the current system for the greater good of the sport. (Don't shoot the messenger.)
When I saw the 2 Eastern teams play last night my opinion was that Knipe shouldn't be focussing on why UCLA is in the playoffs, instead he should be focussing on why PSU and OSU were in them. LBS was far better. But, given that I want to see the sport thrive and grow, especially in the East, I have the complacency that comes with understanding these agendas. (After all, we sat by last year and watched #3 ranked UCLA sit at home while the two lessor (IMSO) teams went to Hawaii, and no one in Bruinland complained.)
My feeling is that in order to be really fair, the best 8 teams in the country need to be in an 8 team tourney. But you have to have to have Eastern representation for the reasons stated above, regardless if in a given year, say the best an Eastern team is ranked is #9. (I thought that was the case last year, BTW.)
So I would be pro having the two winners of the two Eastern conferences be given automatic births, as long as the seedings for the 8 team tourney are real seedings that will allow the truly best 4 teams to end up in the Final Four.
I think splitting up the MPSF into two conferences here would be non productive. The strength of the conference is its incredible competitive nature. Putting the Big West schools into their own conference will potentially only achieve having another undeserving team making the FF.
Now, if more schools can be convinced to establish Men's VB in the So. Cal area, say CS Fullerton, UC Riverside, etc., then perhaps just because of the numbers adding another conference is sensible. I'd love to see other Pac 10 schools that have good club programs such as Cal, and Arizona, as well as Cal Baptist join in the NCAA D-1/2 ranks.
|
|
|
Post by gobears on May 6, 2005 15:01:26 GMT -5
I believe I read that the NCAA won't expand to 8 until more schools have mvb at D1 level.
Splitting off the Big West to a separate conf from MPSF, lends itself to looking at adding teams to those conferences. It is more likely that mvb will be added out west maybe???
And Davis and Cal Poly SLO men's vball teams are very good and their schools are in the Big West.
Davis has an incredible pro sports atmosphere on campus as they are moving up, with new facilities, new student fees passed, and a fine mvb program. Well run, and their fundraising is in place. Endowing the sport could work well with their alum base.
Volleyball will have a LARGE presence at Cal Poly SLO in short order on the women's side likely with their new head women's coach. I have a hunch their campus likes that idea a lot. And their men's team at SLO is now as good as it was 10-15 years ago, or even better. MVb will be a nice sport for them to move up to D1 status.
And I would think the Big West mvb teams would highly encourage them to do so if they have a separate conf.
The talk I heard recently on campus (whatever that is worth) is that if Cal mvb went D1, then Ariz and ASU would go too, quickly. But maybe ASU will have to lead the way with Lisa L. as AD. New Cal Ad is getting her feet wet around here and we'll see what's up. Football stadium upgrade is first on the list for $$ and attention. The up and coming wvb at Cal can't hurt for the sport's visibiity around here either.
It is also very important that the wvb coaching staff at the various colleges be supportive of the men's program at whatever level it is. Without that, an AD is not gonna pay attention.
Up north, UW wvb program is giving tremendous visibility to vb. WSU has had the stronger men's program historically, but right now neither make any waves.
OSU and UO have to both do well in wvb for mvb to create more interest. We see UO down in Calif once a year usually for a tourney or two.
I can't speak for midwest and east and mtn and south states for colleges to upgrade mvb to D1, but the more noise and visibility the women's program has, it creates...... at times....an eager fan base for the men's side on each campus.
In 20 years the men's club program has gone from 20 teams to 300. There is plenty of mvb going on all over.
|
|
|
Post by rayson on May 6, 2005 15:41:02 GMT -5
... the vitality and health of the Men's game must be maintained for obvious reasons. We must not let any other schools drop MVB. In light of the pressures the athletic administrations have financially, and in Title IX compliance, none of us want to see any more schools drop the sport. The opposite is the goal, to give them added incentives to keep the sport, and to encourage more schools, especially those with money (successful football and basketball) to add the sport. The general consensus is that if two schools from the East weren't allowed to be in the playoffs in given years, there would be less interest from those schools to continue the sport because they'd feel it is too tough to realize success and the respect that comes with making the FF. So many of the MPSF coaches have actually encouraged the current system for the greater good of the sport. (Don't shoot the messenger.) When I saw the 2 Eastern teams play last night my opinion was that Knipe shouldn't be focussing on why UCLA is in the playoffs, instead he should be focussing on why PSU and OSU were in them. LBS was far better. But, given that I want to see the sport thrive and grow, especially in the East, I have the complacency that comes with understanding these agendas. (After all, we sat by last year and watched #3 ranked UCLA sit at home while the two lessor (IMSO) teams went to Hawaii, and no one in Bruinland complained.) My feeling is that in order to be really fair, the best 8 teams in the country need to be in an 8 team tourney. But you have to have to have Eastern representation for the reasons stated above, regardless if in a given year, say the best an Eastern team is ranked is #9. (I thought that was the case last year, BTW.) So I would be pro having the two winners of the two Eastern conferences be given automatic births, as long as the seedings for the 8 team tourney are real seedings that will allow the truly best 4 teams to end up in the Final Four. Though I would love to see a final 4 that actually had the 4 most deserving teams playing, the present system, flawed as it is, may be the best solution for the reasons you point out. And given those reasons, expanding to an 8 team tourney solves nothing. If we take the best 8 teams in the country then MPSF teams will dominate with maybe 1 or 2 token MIVA/EIVA teams thrown in the mix. If we take 2 per conference and 2 at large there is still a good chance that the MPSF will own the final four. Yes, this would mean that one additional team from both the EIVA & MIVA would get to participate in the tourney; but it would also most likely mean that all the EIVA & MIVA teams would have a greater chance of being eliminated one round earlier than in the present system and have an even slimmer chance of getting to the championship match. The only way to guaranty EIVA and MIVA representation in the final four would be to fudge the seedings so that the 2 EIVA teams play each other and the 2 MIVA teams play each other in the 1st round. But why would yoyu do that. You'd just end up with what we have now so why bother. I'm not trying to insult the EIVA and MIVA teams but until there is more parity in the men's game expanding the tourney does little for the "greater good" of the sport. OTOH, it would mean we get to see more volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by sjhaysuess on May 6, 2005 20:35:29 GMT -5
The deal would be this...
1 EIVA 1 MIVA 6 MPSF
The EIVA and MIVA teams would lose in the first round. Hence we'd have a 4 team all-mpsf final four, the way God intended.
|
|