|
Post by d3follower on Nov 10, 2015 22:35:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joc on Nov 10, 2015 23:48:16 GMT -5
This is categorically false. The at-large bids are picked. THEN they proceed to figuring out which possible hosting sites would be allow for the most economical tournament. You can blame site assignments on money but not team selection. So how does #19 La Verne not get an at-large bid? I have to ask. Have you ever read the criteria for At-large selection? You keep asking the same question and stressing La Verne's national ranking, which doesn't mean a single thing in terms of selection. Same goes for RPI. Considering La Verne was sitting behind another team that didn't get selected in their own region, they were likely too far back to warrant a bid.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Nov 11, 2015 6:31:06 GMT -5
Every year there are D3 teams nationally ranked in the top 20 who don't get in. There are more AQ's in d3 than d1 which limits the at large bids significantly. The biggest issue though is that the arguments are made using regional performance mainly, and this is compounded by a lot of teams in weaker regions not playing teams outside the region. This makes comparison using the NCAA criteria very difficult.
Teams like LaVerne and ONU don't get in because of numbers. Even though they may pass the eye test, if they don't have the right numbers they are SOL.
Once it gets to the national level each regional rep picks their top available team and they all compare their numbers to see which one gets the bid. It's just a flawed process because numbers will never tell you the best teams available, they will just tell you at best who performed the best in each region, and sometimes if they travel, who had a big win/loss against another region which may or may not be magnified once it is compared head to head to one other random team.
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Nov 11, 2015 9:23:12 GMT -5
This is categorically false. The at-large bids are picked. THEN they proceed to figuring out which possible hosting sites would be allow for the most economical tournament. You can blame site assignments on money but not team selection. So how does #19 La Verne not get an at-large bid? I'm looking at the LaVerne schedule now and what I see is that they lost 4 of their last 5, including 2 matches to unranked teams, and Pomona is below .500. Results over the Last 25% of the season is a column and they'd lose to almost anybody on that one. They are 19-8 but only 5 of the 19 wins are over teams with a winning record, and they went 1-2 vs CMS and 1-1 vs Cal Lu so while those are nice wins, when you then lose to both of them nobody believes they are better than either of those teams. They have a .562 SOS on the chart, but that's a pretty hollow number, inflated by high losses to teams like Carthage, Juniata and Southwestern. You want me to tell you why they didn't get an at-large bid, but I don't see where they'd even be in the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on Nov 11, 2015 9:25:48 GMT -5
Every year there are D3 teams nationally ranked in the top 20 who don't get in. There are more AQ's in d3 than d1 which limits the at large bids significantly. The biggest issue though is that the arguments are made using regional performance mainly, and this is compounded by a lot of teams in weaker regions not playing teams outside the region. This makes comparison using the NCAA criteria very difficult. Teams like LaVerne and ONU don't get in because of numbers. Even though they may pass the eye test, if they don't have the right numbers they are SOL. Once it gets to the national level each regional rep picks their top available team and they all compare their numbers to see which one gets the bid. It's just a flawed process because numbers will never tell you the best teams available, they will just tell you at best who performed the best in each region, and sometimes if they travel, who had a big win/loss against another region which may or may not be magnified once it is compared head to head to one other random team. Numbers are not the best way, but keep in mind, the only teams who need an at large bid are the one that already lost their conference tournament. If your team is really good but doesn't have great numbers, just win your conference bid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 9:56:17 GMT -5
In a field of 64, I have to think the #19 ranked team in the country should be in. Maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by awgriffey on Nov 11, 2015 10:00:53 GMT -5
Every year there are D3 teams nationally ranked in the top 20 who don't get in. There are more AQ's in d3 than d1 which limits the at large bids significantly. The biggest issue though is that the arguments are made using regional performance mainly, and this is compounded by a lot of teams in weaker regions not playing teams outside the region. This makes comparison using the NCAA criteria very difficult. Teams like LaVerne and ONU don't get in because of numbers. Even though they may pass the eye test, if they don't have the right numbers they are SOL. Once it gets to the national level each regional rep picks their top available team and they all compare their numbers to see which one gets the bid. It's just a flawed process because numbers will never tell you the best teams available, they will just tell you at best who performed the best in each region, and sometimes if they travel, who had a big win/loss against another region which may or may not be magnified once it is compared head to head to one other random team. Numbers are not the best way, but keep in mind, the only teams who need an at large bid are the one that already lost their conference tournament. If your team is really good but doesn't have great numbers, just win your conference bid. You really don't see why they'd be in the conversation? They lost to 6 teams ranked in the top 13, and one in Trinity that ended up 15th in the PrepVolleyball rankings. One bad loss to Pomona cost them a shared league title. I just went through the regional list above, and I guarantee you that La Verne beats at least 15 of the 20 at large bids. They are in a league with two of the top teams in the country in Cal Lu, and Claremont, both of which La Verne beat once. I may be new to the D3 thing, but i'm not new to volleyball. i'd heard there was some East Coast bias, and both the seeding, and your posts have proven that. Go through the regional previews listed above, and look at the competition some of these at large teams played, and then once again tell me that a team that finishes top 20 in the NCAA poll, 22 in the PrepVolleyball poll, and top 25 in the Pablo rankings shouldn't have gotten in. Rankings should mean something. I can accept that La Verne didn't get in, i just didn't understand the process that kept them out. I now understand that the problem is that you are on the East coast, as are the majority of the D3 programs.
|
|
|
Post by awgriffey on Nov 11, 2015 10:03:39 GMT -5
In a field of 64, I have to think the #19 ranked team in the country should be in. Maybe I'm wrong. Not sure how that could be wrong either, but i'm sure once again Nor Easter will tell me.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 11, 2015 10:13:14 GMT -5
In a field of 64, I have to think the #19 ranked team in the country should be in. Maybe I'm wrong. Not sure how that could be wrong either, but i'm sure once again Nor Easter will tell me. Maybe La Verne is not actually the 19th best team in the country? In the end, the question is not "should they be in?" but "Who should they replace?" And you can only do that by comparing their record, according to the criteria used by the committee, to other teams that got it. Rule #1: The committee does not use the AVCA ranking. So other than the AVCA ranking, what is the case for La Verne to be in the tournament over a team that is already there? The problem with this challenge is that you actually have to use the criteria used by the committee, which means you have to understand what they do. When you have that, that's how you make the case for La Verne. You have to look at it how the committee does it. If you don't do that, you are never going to understand why things happen.
|
|
diiifan
Freshman
https://d3vbwest.wordpress.com/
Posts: 96
|
Post by diiifan on Nov 11, 2015 10:19:07 GMT -5
In a field of 64, I have to think the #19 ranked team in the country should be in. Maybe I'm wrong. I can't really disagree with some of the things said with respect to La Verne and why they didn't get in. Some additional points: The coaches poll is not used for selection (as had been stated). It might influence a decision slightly when it comes to the RAC meetings but it's not supposed to have any impact at all. The regional rankings are supposed to be used for the selection. In the last rankings ETBU was ahead of La Verne. Now both teams suffered losses in the last week and my original guess was that La Verne was moved ahead of ETBU. ETBU lost to two average to below average teams while La Verne lost to a very good team in the last week of play. If true, then La Verne would be fighting the CWRU, Mary Washington, Williams and Birmingham-Southern teams (among others) for selection. Those two HUGE wins over Cal Lu and CMS, in my mind, should have been enough to get selected. If you want to look for blame (outside of La Verne) then the West RAC was defeated by the other RACs when it came to selection. Now, I'm one of those people that thinks the NCAA does have travel costs in the back of their minds. When it comes down to the end of the selection game, I do think the final NCAA review (and there is a review by the NCAA each and every week) can be influenced by this. Having said that, this could have only helped La Verne since it was probably pretty obvious there was going to be a California regional. I'm either dead wrong about travel costs being a factor or... ETBU was ranked ahead of La Verne at the end by the West RAC. If that's the case, then ETBU failed to get selected and the West RAC never got a chance to pitch La Verne. ETBU did have better wins (Colorado College and Southwestern) per the regional rankings than La Verne so it probably came down to the criteria and who had better losses. In the end, another entity to blame is UCSC but they are just looking out for themselves. Same thing happens in other regions (average/bad AQ teams get in while good teams are left out). If you are a La Verne supporter then this hurts. Hurts bad. Nothing anyone writes can help. Time will heal. Scheduling a weekend of games in New England next year will probably help the healing, too.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Nov 11, 2015 11:03:50 GMT -5
So, I write this every year.
The purpose of the NCAA tournament is NOT to have the best 64 teams compete. The purpose is to crown a national champion. Period. That's it.
Automatic qualifiers will never go away.
Has there ever been a year when a team didn't get in that could realistically win the championship? No. Even if LaVerne got in, I can't imagine them getting to the championship.
With the lack of travel in D2 and D3, there really is no way to qualify and rank teams from all over the country. So the regional model works the best to reach their goal - to crown a national champion. If you can't win your region, then you can't claim to have a shot at the national championship.
The NCAA will not, and will never spend a ton of money on the D2 and D3 tournaments. Those divisions don't bring in the money. And if they did this for volleyball, then they would have to do the same for every other sport. So what is perceived as a slight increase in costs increases exponentially, and quickly.
|
|
|
Post by joc on Nov 11, 2015 11:11:18 GMT -5
Numbers are not the best way, but keep in mind, the only teams who need an at large bid are the one that already lost their conference tournament. If your team is really good but doesn't have great numbers, just win your conference bid. You really don't see why they'd be in the conversation? They lost to 6 teams ranked in the top 13, and one in Trinity that ended up 15th in the PrepVolleyball rankings. One bad loss to Pomona cost them a shared league title. I just went through the regional list above, and I guarantee you that La Verne beats at least 15 of the 20 at large bids. They are in a league with two of the top teams in the country in Cal Lu, and Claremont, both of which La Verne beat once. I may be new to the D3 thing, but i'm not new to volleyball. i'd heard there was some East Coast bias, and both the seeding, and your posts have proven that. Go through the regional previews listed above, and look at the competition some of these at large teams played, and then once again tell me that a team that finishes top 20 in the NCAA poll, 22 in the PrepVolleyball poll, and top 25 in the Pablo rankings shouldn't have gotten in. Rankings should mean something. I can accept that La Verne didn't get in, i just didn't understand the process that kept them out. I now understand that the problem is that you are on the East coast, as are the majority of the D3 programs. The NCAA stresses regional play at the Division III level due to finances. Is it widely known that the Northeast tends to be weaker and more diluted than other parts of the country. With around half the colleges in D3 being in the NorthEast though, the NCAA has adjusted their policy regarding how many teams get regionally ranked, thereby allowing more access to the tournament for more teams from this part of the country because they will have advantages in gaining ranked wins in that primary criteria. With so many teams and New England being the largest region of all, one can still create a very diverse schedule without needing to go very far for those who reside there. On the flip side, the committees are still made up of human beings who have an idea of who the strong programs are across the country. And according to my spies, some of those numbers advantages that NorthEast teams may have had were looked at accordingly as opposed to taken as gospel. We not only took the number of wins into account when I was on those committees, but the quality of those ranked wins. The NCAA does leave some vague generalizations about how to interpret the numbers in that sense. So while the NCAA sets up advantages for access for teams from larger regions (aka, East Coast bias), committees of coaches still decide who really gets in, with five of the eight regions not being in the NorthEast and allowing for a similar voting philosophy based on quality, not quantity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 12:53:51 GMT -5
Last thing I'll say about La Verne-
I'm biased. I played them a few years ago in the NCAA tournament. We were the higher seed and they beat us. I know how good that team was. If the current team is even close to being that good (and they were not ranked when we played them), then they deserve to be in.
|
|
|
Post by awgriffey on Nov 11, 2015 13:20:47 GMT -5
Last thing I'll say about La Verne- I'm biased. I played them a few years ago in the NCAA tournament. We were the higher seed and they beat us. I know how good that team was. If the current team is even close to being that good (and they were not ranked when we played them), then they deserve to be in. I'm admittedly also biased, and saw how good the La Verne team could be this year. I do not believe that La Verne would have won the tournament, but having wins over two top ten teams, that both had beaten top 5 teams, i do believe that there was the actual possibility of this team going deep in the tournament. This has been a fun conversation, and i appreciate everybody's input. I now believe that La Verne should simply join the GSAC with Santa Cruz. Problem solved.
|
|
tncoach
Junior
"what we do in life echoes through eternity!"
Posts: 496
|
Post by tncoach on Nov 11, 2015 13:34:19 GMT -5
As a LaVerne alumnus, I just want to say I am personally glad to see the Leopards back in the national conversation. Jenna has done a great job rebuilding the program. This conversation was refreshing, and although we alumni may feel slighted, I can see the rationale behind the DIII format and grudgingly accept it. I know that the Leopards will be back next year with a chip on their shoulders. GO LEOS! Good luck to my other DIII coaching friends in the west and the south. Enjoy the experience!
|
|