UCI Gets At Large to final 4

[D1VBFan]

Just announced on ESPN News

Seeds are:

UCI #1
UCLA #2
IPFW #3
PSU #4

Semis are:
UCI v PSU
UCLA v IPFW

[AAVolley]

I don't understand how the at large team could get the #1 seed? That makes no sense.

[D1VBFan]

Well, who would you put ahead of them? Certainly not IPFW or Penn State. Look at where they are in the national rankings based on vote of the coaches.

You could make a case for UCLA since LBS pounded UCI and then UCLA pounded LBS. But, UCI beat UCLA 3-0 twice during the regular season. UCLA was ranked #7 before the MPSF tournament vs. UCI at #1. I think UCI deserved the #1 seed.

UCI had one bad match vs. LBS at a very bad time after 10 days off. I expect them to win the NCAA and justify the #1 seed.

[AAVolley]

I think UCLA should have got the #1 if only because UCI should have SOME disadvantage from getting knocked out in the semis of MPSF. They 100 percent deserve the at large, but they shouldn't be in the EXACT same position they would be had they won the conference tournament. I personally think UCI is thrilled that UCLA knocked off LBSU because they for sure didn't want to see them again (although beating LBSU would make for a more legitimate national championship). This is what frustrates me though, because if UCI wins the whole thing its great, but they didn't even have to play the team that kicked their butts less than a week before.

[midwestfan]

I just always assumed (apparently incorrectly) that the #1 seed always went to the winner of the MPSF tourney. From some of the volleyball historians... has this happened before?

[D1VBFan]

aavolley said:

if UCI wins the whole thing its great, but they didn't even have to play the team that kicked their butts less than a week before.

So, you think the regular MPSF season (22 matches) is irrelevant? UCI beat LBS 3-1 twice in season and beat UCLA twice 3-0. They also beat PSU twice in pre-season (last November at PSU), then beat them again 3-0 at UCI. I just don't see how you can put UCLA with a mediocre season record ahead of them. You might even make the case that being #1 seed as a bad break for UCI as they have to play PSU at home.

In any event, it hardly matters. It will be UCI vs. UCLA in the finals and as far as I know, there's no advantage to being the higher seed at that stage in the tournament.

[future]

Plenty of times in NCAA Basketball where a team loses the conference title , heck even going out in the first round of an ACC or Big East Tourney and the team still gets a #1 seed in a bracket.

All things considered the seed are correct.

Not sure if I want to be in UCI shoes though. Lots of pressure on them and their program to come through this year. Pretty embarrassing if they lose to an East Coast team in front of a National audience.

[sizzle the pitts]

It really doesn't matter if UCLA or UCI gets the #1 seed just because they are the two best teams in the field and they should be playing in the final. The Semi-Finals is just a tune up for the finals. Sorry all of you PSU and IPFW fans but that is really how it is gonna be.


GO BEACH!!!!

[BeachBoy]

VEGAS ODDS ARE IN THE MPSF SCHOOLS FAVOR......BUT WHO DOESN'T LOVE AN UNDERDOG!

[gobears]

Confident or not, I can't imagine that UCLA and Al Scates would be mailing it in at the Semi Finals. And as Speraw learned how to win from Scates, I highly doubt UCI will be either.

If they do, they deserve to get beat.

[topgun12]

I am sick of hearing "UCI deserves it becuase they had a great regular season..." They didn't win when it counted the most right? So how did they get picked to be in the #1 spot??

That is a joke!! I love Men's Volleyball but I do not understand how this happens day in and day out.

Last year it was how UCLA got the At-Large Bid when it was clear that Long Beach State should have gotten it...

Now don't get me wrong...UCI deserves the At-Large bid but THEY LOST IN THE SEMI FINALS!!

Being an IPFW fan.....I do have to say it works in our favor becuase I think UCI is going to come out on fire because of that lost.

[chilulu]

Anyone else think this is a down year for the Final 4.

1. UCI, probably the best team, but still young and not "dominant"
2. UCLA, ranked 7th in the MPSF, but got hot at the right time.
3. IPFW, rely on Macias and he hit .000 in the MIVA Semis
4. Penn State, Definately a down year for Penn with a lot of losses on their record. They got helped out by St. Francis, because I don't think they would have beat Mason.

There are a combined 30 losses between the four teams. Maybe I'm wrong but theres not a lot of excitement about watching these four teams play. Unless UCI wins it would be hard calling any of the other teams the "best in the country" this year.

[NobodySpecial]

Decisions on the at-large and seeding are based on the criteria as outlined on another thread. It has nothing to do with who won the MPSF Tournament. The use of the criteria by the committee selects not only the at-large team, but also seeds the four-team field. For example, would you seed a team other than first if its only loss of the season is in the MPSF final and all other teams have at least six losses? The criteria has a two-fold purpose.

[gitrdun]

future said:

Plenty of times in NCAA Basketball where a team loses the conference title , heck even going out in the first round of an ACC or Big East Tourney and the team still gets a #1 seed in a bracket.

All things considered the seed are correct.

Not sure if I want to be in UCI shoes though. Lots of pressure on them and their program to come through this year. Pretty embarrassing if they lose to an East Coast team in front of a National audience.

Duke?

[newburyvball]

record against teams in the tournament is a huge seeding factor