|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 20, 2014 19:38:14 GMT -5
As far as I know, there are no pre-assigned regionals toward the seeds, so unless Kentucky is in a regional with some other host, what's wrong with assigning them to the Louisville regional? Unless someone seeded higher in their regional has a location as nearby, what would be the issue? It's not seeding according to geography, it's putting them in a regional that is close by. The issue came up when AY proposed putting them in the same region as Washington. That region definitely will be played in Seattle, by NCAA rule. So if that is where they would be placed, then obviously they wouldn't be in Louisville.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 20, 2014 20:17:53 GMT -5
As far as I know, there are no pre-assigned regionals toward the seeds, so unless Kentucky is in a regional with some other host, what's wrong with assigning them to the Louisville regional? Unless someone seeded higher in their regional has a location as nearby, what would be the issue? It's not seeding according to geography, it's putting them in a regional that is close by. because the only assigning of seed to a regional should be to the host school (which Kentucky is not) and then to the top 4 seeds,...the rest of the seeds then should fall into place. It shouldn't be the other way around. That's how we get unbalanced regionals. Kentucky's seed should not be dependent on the fact that they are close to Louisville. It's patently unfair. Kentucky was not selected to host a regional. Non host seeds should have to go anywhere their seed take them, period, otherwise, like I said, it completely degrades the seeding process. regionalization happens in the subregionals, do we really need it in the regionals to?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 20, 2014 20:19:03 GMT -5
Although geography should not interfere with seeding, as a general rule it is not unusual to find situations like Washington and BYU(Hawaii) in the SC regional last year, with Kansas as fourth. Teams do get seeded geographically, if feasible. Then there is Stanford in Kentucky. Oh, well. the fact that it happens doesn't mean it's right. What is the point of a national tournament if the first 4 rounds are based regionally? Do you really get the 4 best teams in the final four if the west coast teams play each other for a spot, midwest teams play for a spot, south teams play for a spot, and east teams play for a spot? no.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 20, 2014 20:25:46 GMT -5
THAT completely degrades the integrity of the seeding process. I can understand adjusting seeds for the actual host school, but Kentucky is not the host school and therefore should receive any other benefit other than what can be applicable to other schools also wanting a seed. Stanford was sent to the Cal regional when Cal wasn't seeded as recently as 2012. Do you believe that was just how the seedings fell? Since 2001, there was only one time where 2 regions were without a host. This year it will likely be 3. Coupled with the fact you have so many regionals in the center of the country, I would not be surprised to see Kentucky as a lock for the Louisville regional and Nebraska as a lock for Ames. They are not going to want 3 regionals with less than 500 fans. That 2012 scenario is not a good example. Stanford was the #2 seed overall in the tournament, which means, theoretically, they get second pick at the regional closest to them, which would have been Cal anyway, just like PSU as the #1 went to Purdue because it was the closest regional to them, 3 Texas hosted a regional, as did Nebraska as #4.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Oct 20, 2014 20:28:50 GMT -5
Although geography should not interfere with seeding, as a general rule it is not unusual to find situations like Washington and BYU(Hawaii) in the SC regional last year, with Kansas as fourth. Teams do get seeded geographically, if feasible. Then there is Stanford in Kentucky. Oh, well. the fact that it happens doesn't mean it's right. What is the point of a national tournament if the first 4 rounds are based regionally? Do you really get the 4 best teams in the final four if the west coast teams play each other for a spot, midwest teams play for a spot, south teams play for a spot, and east teams play for a spot? no. The first 2 rounds are already played regionally. The top 8 seeds should be seeded accordingly, but the bottom 8 seeds have always been fudged with regional and other considerations.
|
|
|
Post by tempesthorn on Oct 21, 2014 13:27:20 GMT -5
Stanford was sent to the Cal regional when Cal wasn't seeded as recently as 2012. Do you believe that was just how the seedings fell? Since 2001, there was only one time where 2 regions were without a host. This year it will likely be 3. Coupled with the fact you have so many regionals in the center of the country, I would not be surprised to see Kentucky as a lock for the Louisville regional and Nebraska as a lock for Ames. They are not going to want 3 regionals with less than 500 fans. That 2012 scenario is not a good example. Stanford was the #2 seed overall in the tournament, which means, theoretically, they get second pick at the regional closest to them, which would have been Cal anyway, just like PSU as the #1 went to Purdue because it was the closest regional to them, 3 Texas hosted a regional, as did Nebraska as #4. In 2010 unseeded Washington got to host seeded Hawaii in order to help them make their regional. In 2004 Wisconsin was sent to Green Bay. In 2003 Pepperdine was sent to Long Beach. In those few cases where a regional host was not seeded they've made adjustments. This year they'll have 3 sites. Your naivete regarding the Ncaa wanting a fair tourney over not losing money at the gates is quite laughable.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 21, 2014 13:48:28 GMT -5
That 2012 scenario is not a good example. Stanford was the #2 seed overall in the tournament, which means, theoretically, they get second pick at the regional closest to them, which would have been Cal anyway, just like PSU as the #1 went to Purdue because it was the closest regional to them, 3 Texas hosted a regional, as did Nebraska as #4. In 2010 unseeded Washington got to host seeded Hawaii in order to help them make their regional. In 2004 Wisconsin was sent to Green Bay. In 2003 Pepperdine was sent to Long Beach. In those few cases where a regional host was not seeded they've made adjustments. This year they'll have 3 sites. Your naivete regarding the Ncaa wanting a fair tourney over not losing money at the gates is quite laughable. I'm not naïve, I KNOW that geography plays a role to some extent, no matter how unfair it is, but I was just saying your 2012 example with Stanford is NOT applicable. Also, using Hawaii as an example BEFORE auto-hosting privileges for seeds was a rule, doesn't really make your point either. They have traditionally got hosed by not hosting the first two rounds, regardless of who the other regional hosts were. 2010 was no different. That year Tennessee didn't host the 1st rounds either, even though they were seeded. Neither did LSU. And this is actually a different argument all together because Washington was actually the host regional site, Kentucky is not. And in 2003 the top seeds were USC, Hawaii, Florida, and Pepperdine. In that same year Florida and Hawaii hosted a regional which left either USC or Pepperdine (both in the LA area) HAVING to go to Long Beach anyway, so, again, this example isn't applicable either. If anything this proves your point less because the committee literally flew USC AND UCLA as a 1/8 seed to Nebraska...wouldn't it have made sense to keep them both in Long Beach especially considering that BOTH schools are closer to Long Beach than Pepperdine? In 2004, you have a point with Wisconsin. Again, I know geography plays a role to some extent...I've never argued against that. I just don't think that many of your examples prove this.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 21, 2014 13:52:48 GMT -5
In 2010 unseeded Washington got to host seeded Hawaii in order to help them make their regional. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Hawaii never got to host a 1/2 round in the entire time that the NCAA was basing them on travel restrictions, for the simple reason that there are never any schools within driving distance of Hawaii. It has nothing at all to do with "helping Washington make their regional." It had everything to do with Portland State getting into the tournament, and therefore providing a team that was within driving distance of Seattle. During the whole time when the NCAA selected the 1/2 sites based on driving distances, Washington only got to host when unseeded teams from Oregon, Idaho, or Utah made the tournament. In 2006 they went on the road in rounds 1/2 even though they were seeded and the hosts of the Seattle Regional.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 21, 2014 14:00:14 GMT -5
Is Kentucky actually going to contribute that much to a gate at Louisville that you'd consider moving it? It's also not like they're a lock to get out of their own subregional. They'll be one of the most vulnerable seeds and they'll have to get past a quality Big Ten at-large (Ohio St? Purdue? one of the Michigans?) to get there.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Oct 21, 2014 14:43:21 GMT -5
In 2010 unseeded Washington got to host seeded Hawaii in order to help them make their regional. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Hawaii never got to host a 1/2 round in the entire time that the NCAA was basing them on travel restrictions, for the simple reason that there are never any schools within driving distance of Hawaii. It has nothing at all to do with "helping Washington make their regional." It had everything to do with Portland State getting into the tournament, and therefore providing a team that was within driving distance of Seattle. During the whole time when the NCAA selected the 1/2 sites based on driving distances, Washington only got to host when unseeded teams from Oregon, Idaho, or Utah made the tournament. In 2006 they went on the road in rounds 1/2 even though they were seeded and the hosts of the Seattle Regional. In 2005, when Washington was ranked in the top 5 the entire season and ended up winning the national title without dropping a set, they did not play one single match at home in the tournament. They played a regional final in College Station TX in front of an official crowd of 279. In reality it was closer to 79 than 279. And just like Hawaii being forced to play all those early rounds on the road year after year, not only is it unfair but it's also a stupid business model if you want to increase your fan base.
|
|
|
Post by tempesthorn on Oct 21, 2014 15:22:34 GMT -5
In 2010 unseeded Washington got to host seeded Hawaii in order to help them make their regional. In 2004 Wisconsin was sent to Green Bay. In 2003 Pepperdine was sent to Long Beach. In those few cases where a regional host was not seeded they've made adjustments. This year they'll have 3 sites. Your naivete regarding the Ncaa wanting a fair tourney over not losing money at the gates is quite laughable. I'm not naïve, I KNOW that geography plays a role to some extent, no matter how unfair it is, but I was just saying your 2012 example with Stanford is NOT applicable. Also, using Hawaii as an example BEFORE auto-hosting privileges for seeds was a rule, doesn't really make your point either. They have traditionally got hosed by not hosting the first two rounds, regardless of who the other regional hosts were. 2010 was no different. That year Tennessee didn't host the 1st rounds either, even though they were seeded. Neither did LSU. And this is actually a different argument all together because Washington was actually the host regional site, Kentucky is not. And in 2003 the top seeds were USC, Hawaii, Florida, and Pepperdine. In that same year Florida and Hawaii hosted a regional which left either USC or Pepperdine (both in the LA area) HAVING to go to Long Beach anyway, so, again, this example isn't applicable either. If anything this proves your point less because the committee literally flew USC AND UCLA as a 1/8 seed to Nebraska...wouldn't it have made sense to keep them both in Long Beach especially considering that BOTH schools are closer to Long Beach than Pepperdine? In 2004, you have a point with Wisconsin. Again, I know geography plays a role to some extent...I've never argued against that. I just don't think that many of your examples prove this. In answer to your question they have not really ever stacked a regional with a bunch of nearby schools. So your USC and UCLA point is ridiculous. Believe my examples are bad if you want, I could care less. But in a non-revenue producing sport, to believe that adjustments won't be made to try to get some sort of draw into three arenas is naive.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Oct 21, 2014 15:37:57 GMT -5
I'm not naïve, I KNOW that geography plays a role to some extent, no matter how unfair it is, but I was just saying your 2012 example with Stanford is NOT applicable. Also, using Hawaii as an example BEFORE auto-hosting privileges for seeds was a rule, doesn't really make your point either. They have traditionally got hosed by not hosting the first two rounds, regardless of who the other regional hosts were. 2010 was no different. That year Tennessee didn't host the 1st rounds either, even though they were seeded. Neither did LSU. And this is actually a different argument all together because Washington was actually the host regional site, Kentucky is not. And in 2003 the top seeds were USC, Hawaii, Florida, and Pepperdine. In that same year Florida and Hawaii hosted a regional which left either USC or Pepperdine (both in the LA area) HAVING to go to Long Beach anyway, so, again, this example isn't applicable either. If anything this proves your point less because the committee literally flew USC AND UCLA as a 1/8 seed to Nebraska...wouldn't it have made sense to keep them both in Long Beach especially considering that BOTH schools are closer to Long Beach than Pepperdine? In 2004, you have a point with Wisconsin. Again, I know geography plays a role to some extent...I've never argued against that. I just don't think that many of your examples prove this. In answer to your question they have not really ever stacked a regional with a bunch of nearby schools. So your USC and UCLA point is ridiculous. Believe my examples are bad if you want, I could care less. But in a non-revenue producing sport, to believe that adjustments won't be made to try to get some sort of draw into three arenas is naive. Calling volleyball a 'non-revenue' sport is, let me say for the 1,000th time, absurd. There is plenty, plenty, plenty of revenue in Volleyball. If someone wants to call it a 'non-profitable' sport, that's fine. But calling it 'non-revenue' is butchering the language.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 21, 2014 16:07:02 GMT -5
I'm not naïve, I KNOW that geography plays a role to some extent, no matter how unfair it is, but I was just saying your 2012 example with Stanford is NOT applicable. Also, using Hawaii as an example BEFORE auto-hosting privileges for seeds was a rule, doesn't really make your point either. They have traditionally got hosed by not hosting the first two rounds, regardless of who the other regional hosts were. 2010 was no different. That year Tennessee didn't host the 1st rounds either, even though they were seeded. Neither did LSU. And this is actually a different argument all together because Washington was actually the host regional site, Kentucky is not. And in 2003 the top seeds were USC, Hawaii, Florida, and Pepperdine. In that same year Florida and Hawaii hosted a regional which left either USC or Pepperdine (both in the LA area) HAVING to go to Long Beach anyway, so, again, this example isn't applicable either. If anything this proves your point less because the committee literally flew USC AND UCLA as a 1/8 seed to Nebraska...wouldn't it have made sense to keep them both in Long Beach especially considering that BOTH schools are closer to Long Beach than Pepperdine? In 2004, you have a point with Wisconsin. Again, I know geography plays a role to some extent...I've never argued against that. I just don't think that many of your examples prove this. In answer to your question they have not really ever stacked a regional with a bunch of nearby schools. So your USC and UCLA point is ridiculous. Believe my examples are bad if you want, I could care less. But in a non-revenue producing sport, to believe that adjustments won't be made to try to get some sort of draw into three arenas is naive. Whether or not they've never stacked a regional with a bunch of nearby schools doesn't change the fact that in 2003 either USC or Pepperdine HAD to be in LBSU regional because the other 2 top seeds were hosting their own regional, so using Pepperdine going to LBSU to bolster the claim that the committee put them there because LBSU wasn't seeded is just wrong. It's not a question of whether I "believe" that some of your examples are bad.
|
|
|
Post by tempesthorn on Oct 21, 2014 17:41:37 GMT -5
In answer to your question they have not really ever stacked a regional with a bunch of nearby schools. So your USC and UCLA point is ridiculous. Believe my examples are bad if you want, I could care less. But in a non-revenue producing sport, to believe that adjustments won't be made to try to get some sort of draw into three arenas is naive. Calling volleyball a 'non-revenue' sport is, let me say for the 1,000th time, absurd. There is plenty, plenty, plenty of revenue in Volleyball. If someone wants to call it a 'non-profitable' sport, that's fine. But calling it 'non-revenue' is butchering the language. Silly me I thought we were talking RPI and tourney seeding not playing another game of %*$# you girls decide to get your panties in a wad over. Plenty, plenty, plenty of revenue in NCAA volleyball. Really?. Must be some inept AD's out there not turning profits. Non-revenue generating is a very common term to describe the sports that do not generate a profit. Which is the context I used it in. It's hardly butchering the language.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 21, 2014 18:07:30 GMT -5
Calling volleyball a 'non-revenue' sport is, let me say for the 1,000th time, absurd. There is plenty, plenty, plenty of revenue in Volleyball. If someone wants to call it a 'non-profitable' sport, that's fine. But calling it 'non-revenue' is butchering the language. Silly me I thought we were talking RPI and tourney seeding not playing another game of %*$# you girls decide to get your panties in a wad over. Plenty, plenty, plenty of revenue in NCAA volleyball. Really?. Must be some inept AD's out there not turning profits. Non-revenue generating is a very common term to describe the sports that do not generate a profit. Which is the context I used it in. It's hardly butchering the language. And in comparison to what the NCAA classifies as "revenue" sports, Volleyball IS, essentially, non-revenue. Shoot, even womens' basketball is close to the line of being a non-revenue sport. It just doesn't make any sense for the NCAA to piss around worrying about whether it is "low revenue" or a "less than low revenue" sport. They are close enough to be lumped together, and the differences don't matter.
|
|