|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 7, 2012 12:25:26 GMT -5
I don't know where people get the idea that a change from (0.500 + one win) to (0.500) as a selection criterion would have any bearing on an incentive to play just one more match late in the season.
Sure, if it becomes clear that you are going to go 0.500, then previously you had an incentive to get just one more win somehow. But imagine the case where you are now projected to go 14-15 and you have one date of competition left. Guess what? Same incentive to add another match.
As long as there is a fixed cutoff at all, that same incentive will exist. So if this was in fact some kind of a rule that was supposed to prevent it, it was seriously misguided.
|
|
stc23
Sophomore
Posts: 196
|
Post by stc23 on Nov 7, 2012 19:37:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 7, 2012 20:05:26 GMT -5
The deletion of that sentence is deliberate. I think we can absolutely interpret it to indicate that the committee is now allowed to use other factors, although it is not required.
That is also consistent with rumors I have been hearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 7, 2012 20:11:06 GMT -5
I don't know where people get the idea that a change from (0.500 + one win) to (0.500) as a selection criterion would have any bearing on an incentive to play just one more match late in the season. Sure, if it becomes clear that you are going to go 0.500, then previously you had an incentive to get just one more win somehow. But imagine the case where you are now projected to go 14-15 and you have one date of competition left. Guess what? Same incentive to add another match. As long as there is a fixed cutoff at all, that same incentive will exist. So if this was in fact some kind of a rule that was supposed to prevent it, it was seriously misguided. So the claim that the rule was changed to keep teams from throwing in an extra match A) has a faulty premise (why wouldn't teams do it anyway) and B) begs the question (why shouldn't they do it?) other than that, it's a wise move |
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Nov 8, 2012 8:49:23 GMT -5
Last year the requirement was "over .500". This year the requirement is "at or above .500". Where did you get this information? Why should we believe it? If further confirmation is needed, the change was announced 5 times during the Washington / Cal match on ESPNU last night. |
|
PTW winner
Junior
Enter your message here...
Posts: 465
|
Post by PTW winner on Nov 12, 2012 12:25:53 GMT -5
This thread is a much clearer look at bubble teams. (Idahoboy's thread is not as good) Look forward to the RPI update today.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 12, 2012 13:07:54 GMT -5
This thread is a much clearer look at bubble teams. (Idahoboy's thread is not as good) Look forward to the RPI update today. Yes, less subjective and more in-line with how recent history has rewarded at-larges |
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Nov 12, 2012 22:17:37 GMT -5
At-Large bids as of 11/12 (Taking out highest ranked team in each conference as auto-bid winner and counting down strictly along RPI lines; which in the past few years has been the case)
1. Nebraska 4
2. UCLA 6
3. Kansas 7
4. Minnesota 8
5. Oregon 9
6. USC 13
7. Washington 14
8. Kansas St 15
9. Tennessee 16
10. Texas AM 17
11. North Carolina 18
12. Purdue 20
13. Miami 21
14. Kentucky 22
15. Ohio State 23
16. San Diego 24
17. Arkansas 25
18. Michigan 26
19. Oklahoma 27
20. Iowa St 28
21. St. Mary's 32
22. Marquette 33
23. Notre Dame 34
24. Pepperdine 36
25. Cal 37
26. Michigan St 38
27. Arizona St 39
28. Illinois 40
29. Santa Clara 41
30. Wichita St 42
31. NC State 43
32. Northern Iowa 44
33. Arizona 45
(some of these teams will have issues with finishing with a winning record: St. Mary's, Illinois and Cal;)
Next 4: San Diego St, Missouri, LMU, Auburn
|
|
