Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2009 23:11:10 GMT -5
UH was let down by the WAC. If it wasn't such a down year for the conference, those early season wins would have kept their RPI higher.
But it's the same old story. They don't go off the island, so no one knows how good they really are. Now we won't know in the NCAAs (if they lose) because they've been screwed over again.
It's the same stories every year, it seems. The same teams get screwed and many of the same teams get incredible breaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 29, 2009 23:27:58 GMT -5
Hawaii's Dave Shoji was just interviewed during halftime of the Wahine Basketball game on TV. He said he felt that their early season wins over UCLA and Stanford didn't count for anything in the eyes of the Selection Committee, This is clearly not the case. If those wins didn't count for anything, Hawaii wouldn't have been seeded at all. Such hyperbole isn't all that endearing. I agree. Hawaii's entire justification for being seeded is those two wins. Obviously the committee took account of them, because they were seeded. |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Nov 29, 2009 23:28:29 GMT -5
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. 2) I don't have a list of 20 at-large teams because that's not what I originally said. Regardless, if MSU can beat a third of the teams in the bracket, they deserve their spot. No one is bitching and complaining about Binghamton who is 15-15, or the two teams that are 18-12. I don't see the fascination with Michigan State's bid... I know you didn't say that. Which is what I'm saying -- you NEED to be saying that. Otherwise you're arguing circularly that MSU "earned" a place in the tournament because they can beat a bunch of teams "earned" their places in the tournament via a qualification process even less related to team strength than MSU's at large bid. I'd bet Kansas, Missouri, Arizona State, probably even Oregon State and Kansas State, could beat a bunch of those auto-qualifiers too, because AQ bids aren't in any way a consequence of national ranking whether you use RPI, Pablo, the AVCA poll, or the RK poll. The consequence of what you're suggesting could lead to ~28 teams from the three major conferences, and then a couple token at-large bids from the SEC or Big West. |
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Nov 29, 2009 23:32:00 GMT -5
Lots of good arguments. Be thankful that this isn't like the BCS or there would be only 2 teams going for the National Championship.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 23:36:11 GMT -5
2) I don't have a list of 20 at-large teams because that's not what I originally said. Regardless, if MSU can beat a third of the teams in the bracket, they deserve their spot. No one is bitching and complaining about Binghamton who is 15-15, or the two teams that are 18-12. I don't see the fascination with Michigan State's bid... I know you didn't say that. Which is what I'm saying -- you NEED to be saying that. Otherwise you're arguing circularly that MSU "earned" a place in the tournament because they can beat a bunch of teams "earned" their places in the tournament via a qualification process even less related to team strength than MSU's at large bid. I'd bet Kansas, Missouri, Arizona State, probably even Oregon State and Kansas State, could beat a bunch of those auto-qualifiers too, because AQ bids aren't in any way a consequence of national ranking whether you use RPI, Pablo, the AVCA poll, or the RK poll. The consequence of what you're suggesting could lead to ~28 teams from the three major conferences, and then a couple token at-large bids from the SEC or Big West. If you just took the top 64 teams in Pablo, you would indeed have 28 teams from the Big Three conferences, but that means there are 36 teams outside of them. Now, if you still had auto-berths, then typically the top 50 or so teams make it either as an auto-bid or at large. In that case, then 24 teams from the big three would go, meaning 21 of the 33 at larges are from the Big Three (less if the .500 restriction is still in place) |
|
|
|
Post by TDCincy on Nov 30, 2009 0:09:19 GMT -5
Hawaii's Dave Shoji was just interviewed during halftime of the Wahine Basketball game on TV. He said he felt that their early season wins over UCLA and Stanford didn't count for anything in the eyes of the Selection Committee, that he felt that the members of the Selection Committee don't really know anything about volleyball and were therefore tied to the RPI to make their selections. Fully agree! But isn't Hawai'is RPI in the 20's? Looks like they got a good break then. ...oops, now I see that p-dub & MG already made this pt. |
|
|
|
Post by csuramfan on Nov 30, 2009 0:19:14 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. As I indicated in a different thread, CSU hosts well. The people on the selection committee over the years are familiar with CSU. They know the administration takes volleyball seriously, and that the staff at Moby will run a smooth program that keeps all the teams present happy. There'll be decent fan turnout, in a nice building. Why take a chance on some school that has never hosted a major volleyball event, and which considers volleyball an afterthought, even if their team has some success? I'm not suggesting that most other schools lack these advantages. I'm sure there's others that are similar. But we've all heard stories of teams that average 200 fans per match, and in which the AD hardly realizes that there is a volleyball team. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Nov 30, 2009 0:34:50 GMT -5
Tulsa: 4-3 record vs NCAA Tournament teams. Better than... New Mexico 1-7 Washington St 3-11 Michigan St 3-9 Texas A&M 3-8 Miami 3-8 Cincinnati 3-5 Ga Tech 3-7 Clemson 4-6 Oklahoma 4-8 UCSB 1-2 Notre Dame 4-6 And if that were the only reason a team got in, you'd have something. I would also add that those records don't tell the whole story. Tulsa's 4 wins against the field were 2 wins over Rice and 2 more over Tulane, while many of the other teams listed had better wins against the field...better losses against the field, and not as many bad losses. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 30, 2009 1:15:50 GMT -5
This is clearly not the case. If those wins didn't count for anything, Hawaii wouldn't have been seeded at all. Such hyperbole isn't all that endearing. I agree. Hawaii's entire justification for being seeded is those two wins. Obviously the committee took account of them, because they were seeded. Washington got a HUGE break, by losing to Oregon. That was UW's ticket out of Omaha. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 30, 2009 1:26:59 GMT -5
Sorry, didn't mean to get you upset. I wasn't picking on Washington. Just meant that there was no reason to put the three top teams in the Big 12 in the same regional. I suspect their reasoning was that Nebraska had a better chance of getting past Iowa State than getting past Washington. They know that Nebraska decisively swept Iowa State the last time they met. How good the Pac-10 teams are is a real mystery, however. They want Texas and Nebraska in the regional final, because their fans will fill the seats. Now, if Washington hadn't lost to Oregon and mucked everything up... |
|
|
|
Post by ibleedgreen on Nov 30, 2009 5:13:06 GMT -5
aarrggghh... I want this tournament to be over already... This is the most f*cked up bracket ever.
So stupid..........
|
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Nov 30, 2009 6:57:05 GMT -5
Big advantage for Stanford - hosting both first/second round and the regional final. With this in mind, I want a re-match between Stanford and Hawaii. Only because Stanford will have a large advantage as the host of the 1st and 2nd rounds, you want a rematch? Geez, where's your confidence? Stanford probably will have to face Hawaii anyway to reach the final four. If Hawaii could sweep Stanford at the outset, why couldn't it do it again? (or at least win?) I know Stanford has gotten better. Hawaii has too. I bet you really don't want a rematch. I can truly say I want one.  |
|
|
|
Post by justavolleyballfan on Nov 30, 2009 7:07:40 GMT -5
I agree. Hawaii's entire justification for being seeded is those two wins. Obviously the committee took account of them, because they were seeded. Washington got a HUGE break, by losing to Oregon. That was UW's ticket out of Omaha. That's nonsense. UW's 'punishment' for losing their last match is that they get to wear a different color jersey should they play FSU. Before this last weekend, the committee had #3 Washington #4 Stanford. Now Washington needed to be seeded below Stanford, so they simply switched Washington and FSU. |
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Nov 30, 2009 8:42:59 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. I disagree. Michigan State is one of the top 64 teams in the country, and therefore, should receive a bid into the tournament. There are probably 20+ teams from the bracket that Michigan State could easily beat on any night of the week. Yes, playing against Illinois, Minnesota, Penn State, and Michigan certainly didn't help their record, but they're much better than people think. It isnt the Big 5, its the Big 10. You conveniently only listed Illinois, PSU, Minn and Michigan in explaining MSU's pitiful conference record. How about IU, Iowa, Purdue, Wisconsin, Nwestern? |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 30, 2009 8:57:08 GMT -5
For all the perseveration going on about Mich State's inclusion, it may be helpful to know that offensively, they ranked 6th in the Big 10 conference which would be consistent with their being the 6th team invited to the tournament. Also, unlike the other bottom dwellers, MSU hit over .200 percent which probably should be another benchmark of some sort.
|
|
? 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.