|
|
Post by naitsric on Nov 10, 2009 20:48:48 GMT -5
Making sure there is a possibility of an all-Pac10 (or any other conference) Final Four has not been a priority of the selection committee in the past. Really? As of late, that seems to be becoming more and more like the trend. Not sure if it has been intentional or not. 2008: Texas regional: UCLA, Oregon PSU regional: Cal CSU regional: Stanford, USC Washington regional: Washington 2007: Stanford regional: Stanford, UCLA, Oregon PSU regional: Washington Florida regional: USC Wisconsin regional: Cal 2006: Texas regional: Stanford, Cal Hawaii regional: USC, UCLA, Oregon Washington regional: Washington Florida regional: Arizona St. 2005: Stanford regional: Stanford, Arizona, USC TAMU regional: Washington, Cal Nebraska regional: UCLA 2004: Louisville regional: USC, Arizona Washington regional: UCLA, Washington, Cal Wisconsin regional: Stanford Actually, Oregon was not in the Honolulu Regional. It was Oklahoma. Hawaii played Oregon in the first round on the mainland. I believe it was at the Beach Pyramid. Hawaii vs LBSU was the second round match. |
|
|
|
Post by naitsric on Nov 10, 2009 20:51:47 GMT -5
Great looking bracket. Keeping the #1 seeds in their natural geographic regions (close to home) is usually a top priority for the committee; but, this year, the seeding of the host teams is gonna dictate where the #1 seeds get sent, IMO. Florida Regional:1. Penn State 2. Iowa State 3. Cal 4. Florida Minnesota Regional:1. Texas 2. UCLA 3. Minnesota 4. Kentucky Stanford Regional:1. Hawaii 2. Illinois 3. Stanford 4. Oregon Nebraska Regional:1. Washington 2. Nebraska 3. Florida State 4. Michigan I feel like the #1-#4 seeds are tougher than the sweet 16 matchups between the #2-#3 Hawaii-Oregon could REALLY go either way.....whereas Stanford and Illinois would probably be a Stanford victory Washington-Michigan could be really tough if Michigan plays to what they are capable of....whereas Nebraska is coming on strong and it's hard to determine just how strong FSU is, though I don't think they are that tough Texas-Kentucky at this point is a more intriguing matchup than UCLA-Minnesota. UCLA is hot right now, Minnesota's prospects are dropping pretty fast. only the PSU regional actually pits the weakest team of the 4 with Penn State in the sweet 16 Why would Hawaii and Oregon go either way and it would be a given for Stanford to win against Illinois? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 10, 2009 20:52:09 GMT -5
Really? As of late, that seems to be becoming more and more like the trend. Not sure if it has been intentional or not. 2008: Texas regional: UCLA, Oregon PSU regional: Cal CSU regional: Stanford, USC Washington regional: Washington 2007: Stanford regional: Stanford, UCLA, Oregon PSU regional: Washington Florida regional: USC Wisconsin regional: Cal 2006: Texas regional: Stanford, Cal Hawaii regional: USC, UCLA, Oregon Washington regional: Washington Florida regional: Arizona St. 2005: Stanford regional: Stanford, Arizona, USC TAMU regional: Washington, Cal Nebraska regional: UCLA 2004: Louisville regional: USC, Arizona Washington regional: UCLA, Washington, Cal Wisconsin regional: Stanford Actually, Oregon was not in the Honolulu Regional. It was Oklahoma. Hawaii played Oregon in the first round on the mainland. I believe it was at the Beach Pyramid. Hawaii vs LBSU was the second round match. They didn't mean all those teams made the round of 16. Just that they were seeded in that region. |
|
|
|
Post by naitsric on Nov 10, 2009 20:54:20 GMT -5
Actually, Oregon was not in the Honolulu Regional. It was Oklahoma. Hawaii played Oregon in the first round on the mainland. I believe it was at the Beach Pyramid. Hawaii vs LBSU was the second round match. They didn't mean all those teams made the round of 16. Just that they were seeded in that region. okay. I guess that would be an example of seeding meaning nothing. What it all comes down to is winning. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 10, 2009 20:57:11 GMT -5
They didn't mean all those teams made the round of 16. Just that they were seeded in that region. okay. I guess that would be an example of seeding meaning nothing. What it all comes down to is winning. The context was whether the committee cares about the chance of an all-Pac10 (or all- any conference) Final Four. Whether it is likely or not (and it isn't), if there is not at least one team from the conference placed into each region then obviously it can't happen. If there is, then it could happen (but only if those teams advance). |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 10, 2009 21:12:08 GMT -5
I feel like the #1-#4 seeds are tougher than the sweet 16 matchups between the #2-#3 Hawaii-Oregon could REALLY go either way.....whereas Stanford and Illinois would probably be a Stanford victory Washington-Michigan could be really tough if Michigan plays to what they are capable of....whereas Nebraska is coming on strong and it's hard to determine just how strong FSU is, though I don't think they are that tough Texas-Kentucky at this point is a more intriguing matchup than UCLA-Minnesota. UCLA is hot right now, Minnesota's prospects are dropping pretty fast. only the PSU regional actually pits the weakest team of the 4 with Penn State in the sweet 16 Why would Hawaii and Oregon go either way and it would be a given for Stanford to win against Illinois? because Oregon is a tough team, battle tested...they can serve tough and Newcombe can go off any night....we have no clue how good Hawaii is against ranked competition at this point and it will be the Wahine's first match away from home against a good team....it can go either way. I never said Stanford-Illinois was a "given" I said it would probably be Stanford. They are playing at Maples and Illinois is a tad overrated and they just lost their primary passer and defender. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 20:25:56 GMT -5
Does anybody have/know of a list of the conferences that determine their auto-bid via conference tournament? 22 conferences: All 31 except for Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big 10, Big West, Ivy, Mountain West, Pac 10, Southeastern and WCC. (Great West also has a conference tournament, but as far as I can tell, they cannot qualify for the NCAA's. Can anyone confirm this?) Members of RichKern can see the schedules of the 22 conference tournaments at www.richkern.com/vb/conference/conf09.aspIf there are only 31 conferences eligible for the NCAA's, that would mean there are 33 at-large teams. Yet a number of posters say there are only 31 at-large bids. Can anyone confirm whether 31 or 33 is the correct number of at-larges? |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 17, 2009 21:00:20 GMT -5
Does anybody have/know of a list of the conferences that determine their auto-bid via conference tournament? 22 conferences: All 31 except for Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big 10, Big West, Ivy, Mountain West, Pac 10, Southeastern and WCC. (Great West also has a conference tournament, but as far as I can tell, they cannot qualify for the NCAA's. Can anyone confirm this?) Members of RichKern can see the schedules of the 22 conference tournaments at www.richkern.com/vb/conference/conf09.aspIf there are only 31 conferences eligible for the NCAA's, that would mean there are 33 at-large teams. Yet a number of posters say there are only 31 at-large bids. Can anyone confirm whether 31 or 33 is the correct number of at-larges? It's listed here: web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/volleyball/2009/09_1_w_volleyball.pdfI didn't make any corrections. That was from the 2009 handbook, although I figure they copied and pasted from 2008 without making the change. I've seen that before. I think if we look at the RPI list, the Great West teams are classified as independents. Technically the teams should be eligible for at-large bids since they're not reclassifying divisions. I don't see that happening though. It should be 31 auto bids and 33 at-large bids. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 17, 2009 21:03:32 GMT -5
I think at least some of the teams in the Great West are "transitional" and not eligible for Div1 post-season play yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 17, 2009 21:10:56 GMT -5
I know in men's NCAA basketball, there is a rule that there will be something like 32 or 33 at-large teams (I still think 33). However, there are now 33 or 32 conferences (I think 32) which is why they have 65 teams in the tournament and have that play-in game.
I still think they should just include everyone :-) It would add at most 3 games (1 week) to the tournament. Bag the conference tourneys and let them fly!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 17, 2009 21:13:20 GMT -5
I still think they should just include everyone :-) It would add at most 3 games (1 week) to the tournament. Bag the conference tourneys and let them fly!!!!!! The conference tourneys are pretty nearly the same thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 21:16:29 GMT -5
I just hope Washington and Hawaii meet at some point.
I wanna see how many aces Amber Kaufman can get on them one more time.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Nov 17, 2009 21:19:36 GMT -5
I still think they should just include everyone :-) It would add at most 3 games (1 week) to the tournament. Bag the conference tourneys and let them fly!!!!!! On one hand I like the idea as proportionally compared to the other premier sports, DI volleyball has the lowest ratio of post-season opportunities for the number of teams competing. However, either means we shorten the regular season, or be playing the championship between around the holidays. How about 128 teams...8 teams at the initial site played over 3 days, everything else stays the same. Of course the only problem is when you start getting that far down...you'll have to come up with some reasoning to separate a whole lot more teams that are of comparable level. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 17, 2009 21:22:56 GMT -5
I still think they should just include everyone :-) It would add at most 3 games (1 week) to the tournament. Bag the conference tourneys and let them fly!!!!!! The conference tourneys are pretty nearly the same thing. Except of course 1) Not every conference has a conference tourney (why should Eastern Michigan get a chance to make the tournament with 4 wins, but Northwestern doesn't?) 2) Not all teams are invited to the conference tourneys (why should Eastern Michigan get a chance to make the tournament with 4 wins, but Bradley and Indiana State don't?) 3) Many teams are allowed into the final 64 without winning the conference tourneys. Hence, they are not necessarily elimination matches. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 17, 2009 21:25:51 GMT -5
I still think they should just include everyone :-) It would add at most 3 games (1 week) to the tournament. Bag the conference tourneys and let them fly!!!!!! On one hand I like the idea as proportionally compared to the other premier sports, DI volleyball has the lowest ratio of post-season opportunities for the number of teams competing. However, either means we shorten the regular season, or be playing the championship between around the holidays. Cutting out conference tournaments would not shorten the regular season for those teams. The regular season would be shortened for conferences that don't have conference tournaments, but they can figure out how to adapt (since there would not be an emphasis on winning the conference (no auto berth for the conference champ) a home-and-home round robin would not be as needed) |
|
