|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 29, 2009 20:36:51 GMT -5
Oh, geez...I'm not interested in starting a whole new RPI relevance discussion...my only point (made sarcastically to what'sitsname, is that the committee follows its own logic (which may or may not be valid; we simply are not in a position to ever know what it is), and as fans we follow our own.
It is so unusual for any team outside of the top 20 or so to even have a shot at the final rounds of the tournament, that I don't really care that much about who is on the bubble or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by udflyerskw on Nov 29, 2009 21:12:03 GMT -5
Have you seen MSU play? As others here have said, they're better than their W-L record shows. I have seen them play, but "better than their record says"  ? Its your record that is supposed to get you in. Everyone keeps saying this team is really good, and maybe they are but wouldnt they be winning matches if they were. 13 out of 16 is awful regardless of what conference you are in. This is a joke. If MSU is better than their record says, why aren't teams like San Diego, North Dakota State, Furman, Tulsa, Delaware, VCU, Southern Miss or Pepperdine considered "better than their RPI indicates" Michigan State is a good team, sure. One of the top 64? Why not. But the tournament isn't for the best 64 teams regardless of performance. |
|
|
|
Post by udflyerskw on Nov 29, 2009 21:14:27 GMT -5
It is so unusual for any team outside of the top 20 or so to even have a shot at the final rounds of the tournament, that I don't really care that much about who is on the bubble or not. Exactly, so why give those last spots to the eighth and ninth teams in the Pac 10 and Big Ten? Let Furman enjoy going to the dance, let North Dakota State hang a banner. Instead of watching MSU lose to an NCAA team for the 10th time this season (of course, MSU will win, just so people can say "See!" |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 21:24:46 GMT -5
Bah. North Dakota State has no business in this tournament.
The part that is boggling my mind is, it's not like they even had the best record, so you can't even say, "Well, they beat the teams they faced." No, they didn't. The only teams they beat were outside of the top 100. Play a team just in the top 100? Lose.
Letting teams like that in the tournament is a recipe for disaster. All it will do will lead teams in weak conferences to schedule weak-ass competition outside of their conference.
I absolutely support the committee's motive of forcing teams to schedule tough outside their conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 21:28:46 GMT -5
It is so unusual for any team outside of the top 20 or so to even have a shot at the final rounds of the tournament, that I don't really care that much about who is on the bubble or not. Exactly, so why give those last spots to the eighth and ninth teams in the Pac 10 and Big Ten? Let Furman enjoy going to the dance, let North Dakota State hang a banner. Instead of watching MSU lose to an NCAA team for the 10th time this season (of course, MSU will win, just so people can say "See!" Funny you should mention Furman. 9/18/2009 Neutral L Michigan State 17-25, 21-25, 12-25 They scored all of 50 points against "the last place team in the Big Ten" Although they actually have a leg up on ND State in that they did beat a team in the top 100. They beat #95 College of Charleston twice. |
|
|
|
Post by Tex_VB_Fan on Nov 29, 2009 21:38:54 GMT -5
p-dub - It's pretty obvious you are on the committee or closely related. Be on your merry way....
|
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Nov 29, 2009 21:42:38 GMT -5
Bah. North Dakota State has no business in this tournament. The part that is boggling my mind is, it's not like they even had the best record, so you can't even say, "Well, they beat the teams they faced." No, they didn't. The only teams they beat were outside of the top 100. Play a team just in the top 100? Lose. Letting teams like that in the tournament is a recipe for disaster. All it will do will lead teams in weak conferences to schedule weak-ass competition outside of their conference. I absolutely support the committee's motive of forcing teams to schedule tough outside their conference. I agree. Furman, NDSU, etc., are just victims of a conference tournament that their conference probably shouldn't have. It's unfortunate, but they don't deserve to be in because they ran roughshod over their conference in the regular season. Here's a question: If Purdue wins all their preconference matches and loses the same amount of Big Ten matches, do they get in? |
|
|
|
Post by macroman on Nov 29, 2009 21:42:53 GMT -5
Bah. North Dakota State has no business in this tournament. The part that is boggling my mind is, it's not like they even had the best record, so you can't even say, "Well, they beat the teams they faced." No, they didn't. The only teams they beat were outside of the top 100. Play a team just in the top 100? Lose. Letting teams like that in the tournament is a recipe for disaster. All it will do will lead teams in weak conferences to schedule weak-ass competition outside of their conference. I absolutely support the committee's motive of forcing teams to schedule tough outside their conference. The final RPI will show N. Colorado in the top 100. NDSU is still 1-3 against 1-100 1-2 against 51-100 0-1 against 1-25. Looking at it objectively I understand why NDSU was not selected even though they have better RPI (45) than at-large teams Miami-FL (47 but with HTH win against NDSU), GA Tech (50), Oklahoma (48) and Washington State (53). If the committee were selecting the best teams according to RPI they should have chosen NDSU. There are of course other criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 21:47:21 GMT -5
Bah. North Dakota State has no business in this tournament. The part that is boggling my mind is, it's not like they even had the best record, so you can't even say, "Well, they beat the teams they faced." No, they didn't. The only teams they beat were outside of the top 100. Play a team just in the top 100? Lose. Letting teams like that in the tournament is a recipe for disaster. All it will do will lead teams in weak conferences to schedule weak-ass competition outside of their conference. I absolutely support the committee's motive of forcing teams to schedule tough outside their conference. I agree. Furman, NDSU, etc., are just victims of a conference tournament that their conference probably shouldn't have. It's unfortunate, but they don't deserve to be in because they ran roughshod over their conference in the regular season. Here's a question: If Purdue wins all their preconference matches and loses the same amount of Big Ten matches, do they get in? This year? I think they do, easily. Baylor and Dayton are great wins. Even with those losses, Purdue's RPI is 60 or so. Win those matches, and they are in the top 40, I would guess, with some very good wins. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 29, 2009 21:47:34 GMT -5
I'm not surprised either, there's plenty of consistency in the selections. The trouble is that you have to leave the mental fantasy land of Volleytalk, where we try to create a perfect world, for the reality that the selection committee leans heavily on RPI. And they have certain favorites that they try and look out for. As I mentioned over the past couple of weeks, they tend to let Colorado State host if there's any way it can be made to work, and once UNC beat Portland State, that sealed it. I'm not saying it is fair, but it is consistent with past tournaments, even down to sending Washington to the state of Colorado again (3rd time in the past 4 or 5 seasons). I also wondered why CSU seems to host a lot, especially for a team that generally is not the seeded team in the subregional. |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Nov 29, 2009 21:48:10 GMT -5
I have seen them play, but "better than their record says" ? Its your record that is supposed to get you in. Everyone keeps saying this team is really good, and maybe they are but wouldnt they be winning matches if they were. 13 out of 16 is awful regardless of what conference you are in. This is a joke. Yes, playing against Illinois, Minnesota, Penn State, and Michigan certainly didn't help their record, but they're much better than people think. 1) This is not a national championship tournament between the 64 best teams in the country and never has been. 2) Your second sentence is missing a crucial component. We all know there are 20+ relatively weak auto-qualifiers. What you should be focusing on is how many other at-large bid teams MSU could "easily beat on any night of the week". I'd like to see your list of 20 at-large teams that would easily lose to MSU any time. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Nov 29, 2009 21:51:13 GMT -5
Bah. North Dakota State has no business in this tournament. The part that is boggling my mind is, it's not like they even had the best record, so you can't even say, "Well, they beat the teams they faced." No, they didn't. The only teams they beat were outside of the top 100. Play a team just in the top 100? Lose. Letting teams like that in the tournament is a recipe for disaster. All it will do will lead teams in weak conferences to schedule weak-ass competition outside of their conference. I absolutely support the committee's motive of forcing teams to schedule tough outside their conference. Agreed...Furman has no real argument as you've mentioned. Neither does NDSU with their best win being a 5 set match against #105. The others have slight arguments at best. Overall, I'm fine with the selections...although the seedings and pairings irk me to no end. |
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Nov 29, 2009 21:51:15 GMT -5
I agree. Furman, NDSU, etc., are just victims of a conference tournament that their conference probably shouldn't have. It's unfortunate, but they don't deserve to be in because they ran roughshod over their conference in the regular season. Here's a question: If Purdue wins all their preconference matches and loses the same amount of Big Ten matches, do they get in? This year? I think they do, easily. Baylor and Dayton are great wins. Even with those losses, Purdue's RPI is 60 or so. Win those matches, and they are in the top 40, I would guess, with some very good wins. So, logically, teams in the lower half of the Big Ten only need focus on preseason in order to secure a tournament berth. Sure, you want to move up in the Big Ten, etc., but you don't really need to feel any pressure if you're interested in getting to the tournament. (And how bad, in retrospect, is IU's loss to UT-M?) |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 21:53:22 GMT -5
Bah. North Dakota State has no business in this tournament. The part that is boggling my mind is, it's not like they even had the best record, so you can't even say, "Well, they beat the teams they faced." No, they didn't. The only teams they beat were outside of the top 100. Play a team just in the top 100? Lose. Letting teams like that in the tournament is a recipe for disaster. All it will do will lead teams in weak conferences to schedule weak-ass competition outside of their conference. I absolutely support the committee's motive of forcing teams to schedule tough outside their conference. The final RPI will show N. Colorado in the top 100. NDSU is still 1-3 against 1-100 1-2 against 51-100 0-1 against 1-25. Looking at it objectively Good for you  The committee has made it clear that, while they value RPI, they do not rely on it exclusively. The things they look for in addition to RPI are wins against good teams. If you look at the high RPI teams that have not been selected in the past, the one thing they have in common is that they don't have any good wins. In particular, they lack wins against the top 50. I think in my analysis a couple of days ago, I concluded that if you didn't have a win against the top 50, you were chucked aside. I knew very well that NDSU didn't have a shot. That is an awfully weak schedule, and they didn't even beat it up. |
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Nov 29, 2009 21:56:06 GMT -5
The committee has made it clear that, while they value RPI, they do not rely on it exclusively. ...except when seeding Florida State 3rd overall. |
|
? Its your record that is supposed to get you in. Everyone keeps saying this team is really good, and maybe they are but wouldnt they be winning matches if they were. 13 out of 16 is awful regardless of what conference you are in. This is a joke.
