|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 17, 2009 21:28:03 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? Oregon and Hawaii play a very similar style and have approx. the same height but Oregon has a slight home field advantage because they play at Maples every year. Stanford would probably sweep the Illini because of the height matchup, plus they are playing at home, and Illini has one big time hitter (which Stanford should be able to hold in check). |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 17, 2009 21:30:42 GMT -5
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. Thus "pretty nearly". For that matter, I bet ASU is a much better team than many of the teams that get in via the auto bid. But the Pac10 is tough, and even if they did have a conference tournament, their chances of advancing through it are much smaller than their chances would be to make it to the round of 64 in an open national tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 17, 2009 21:33:28 GMT -5
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) I rather like the home-and-home round robin. I wouldn't want to give that up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2009 21:34:22 GMT -5
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. Thanks, BC. I had seen that the NCAA RPI classified Utah Valley and North Dakota (both members of the Great West) as independents, but wasn't sure if the language you quoted was still up-to-date, given the 2008 reference. Given that UVU and ND have the highest rated RPIs, 129 and 153, it is pretty reasonable to conclude their seasons end after the first-ever Great West tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 17, 2009 21:37:28 GMT -5
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) I rather like the home-and-home round robin. I wouldn't want to give that up. Then don't. There are other ways to accomodate it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 17, 2009 21:39:41 GMT -5
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. Thus "pretty nearly". For that matter, I bet ASU is a much better team than many of the teams that get in via the auto bid. But the Pac10 is tough, and even if they did have a conference tournament, their chances of advancing through it are much smaller than their chances would be to make it to the round of 64 in an open national tournament. But remember, teams that make it "through" the conference tournament would be nominally in the final 32. By definition, the 3X at large teams are teams that didn't win their conference. So, yeah, it should be harder to win the conference tournament than to make the round of 64. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Nov 17, 2009 21:41:19 GMT -5
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. Thanks, BC. I had seen that the NCAA RPI classified Utah Valley and North Dakota (both members of the Great West) as independents, but wasn't sure if the language you quoted was still up-to-date, given the 2008 reference. Given that UVU and ND have the highest RPIs, 129 and 153, it is pretty reasonable to conclude their seasons end after the first-ever Great West tournament. The language in the NCAA handbook says those are the conferences for "2008," but on the front page of the handbook, it says it was updated in September 2009. So I think we're solid on the 31 auto, 33 at-large numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 17, 2009 21:42:57 GMT -5
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. Thus "pretty nearly".. Actually, in volleyball, it is not near as nearly as you might think. Last year, for example, 156 teams played in conference tournaments. That is less than half. Some conferences had all its members playing (MAC, for example, which is why I mentioned EMU). Most had some subset of their members. |
|
