bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 19, 2015 15:31:09 GMT -5
There are 4 teams that will almost have no chance of a team flying in to play them: Penn State, Ohio State, Missouri, and Louisville. There are 3 more teams that may or may not have teams flying in: Kansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota. There are 8 teams virtually guaranteed of having teams fly in: USC, BYU, UCLA, Wisconsin, Texas A&M, Texas, Washington, and Stanford. And the best of the teams that will automatically have to fly somewhere: Hawaii, Michigan, Florida State/Miami, Colorado State, Arizona State, North Carolina, Arizona/Oregon/Michigan State. In addition, I think there is a strong probability that either Illinois or Purdue will have to travel (I am guessing it will be Purdue). I see no reason to assume that Hawaii ends up in Washington. I would think Stanford or BYU are just as or more likely. There are a lot of fly-in options for Washington (Michigan/Purdue/UNC). History is a good indicator. Since 2010, the Committee has sent Hawai'i to Seattle 3 times (2010, 2012, 2014). The other two times (2011,2013) Hawai'i played at home during the first two rounds. You now have me thinking that Washington is much more likely than I thought.
I will say - 2012 Hawaii going to Washington was probably the best choice. Washington was the #13 seed and lower than Oregon, USC, UCLA, Stanford, and BYU. Among those likely destinations - Washington was probably the best choice. 2014 is more problematic. Arizona and UCLA would seem like better destinations then Washington who was the #3 seed. However, Hawaii may not have been considered among the better unseeded teams last year (it was kind of an off year). BYU going to Arizona instead of Hawaii makes sense. Not sure why Washington was chosen over UCLA? Wasn't following back in 2010 - but looking at the bracket, Hawaii was the #15 seed and Washington hosted?
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,598
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 19, 2015 15:42:53 GMT -5
Wasn't following back in 2010 - but looking at the bracket, Hawaii was the #15 seed and Washington hosted? Yeah, that's how it went for Hawaii until recent years. 2009 & 2008 Hawaii was sent to unseeded USC (and won both matches) Before that they took trips to MTSU, Washington State, and others I cannot recall for the opening rounds.. Often times Hawaii was seeded very high. |
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 19, 2015 15:48:08 GMT -5
UW & Hawaii meeting in round 2 is borderline criminal. Someone at NCAA should have to do a perp walk at Federal Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 19, 2015 15:49:04 GMT -5
There are 4 teams that will almost have no chance of a team flying in to play them: Penn State, Ohio State, Missouri, and Louisville. There are 3 more teams that may or may not have teams flying in: Kansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota. There are 8 teams virtually guaranteed of having teams fly in: USC, BYU, UCLA, Wisconsin, Texas A&M, Texas, Washington, and Stanford. And the best of the teams that will automatically have to fly somewhere: Hawaii, Michigan, Florida State/Miami, Colorado State, Arizona State, North Carolina, Arizona/Oregon/Michigan State. In addition, I think there is a strong probability that either Illinois or Purdue will have to travel (I am guessing it will be Purdue). I see no reason to assume that Hawaii ends up in Washington. I would think Stanford or BYU are just as or more likely. There are a lot of fly-in options for Washington (Michigan/Purdue/UNC). Washington will have three fly-ins, since there are no drive-ins within 400 miles. That, by itself, could increase the chances of getting Hawaii, again. If Michigan is sent to Seattle, that'll be the third time since 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 19, 2015 15:59:08 GMT -5
Wasn't following back in 2010 - but looking at the bracket, Hawaii was the #15 seed and Washington hosted? [/p]
[/quote] No guarantee then that you got to host if seeded. The same thing happened to #6 seed UW in 2009: they were sent to Fort Collins (because there were no drive-ins within 400 miles of Seattle), where they lost to CSU in the second round. |
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Nov 20, 2015 0:36:02 GMT -5
Wasn't following back in 2010 - but looking at the bracket, Hawaii was the #15 seed and Washington hosted? [/p]
[/quote] No guarantee then that you got to host if seeded. The same thing happened to #6 seed UW in 2009: they were sent to Fort Collins (because there were no drive-ins within 400 miles of Seattle), where they lost to CSU in the second round. [/quote] i think the if you are in the top 16 seeds and put in a bid, you will get chosen to host. last i knew |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 20, 2015 0:37:38 GMT -5
i think the if you are in the top 16 seeds and put in a bid, you will get chosen to host. last i knew That is true now. It was not in 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by seymour8 on Nov 20, 2015 11:44:54 GMT -5
Projected Seeds [RPI Futures] (fixed this) Lexington?: 1. [3]USC v 16. [16]Louisville 8. [8]Kansas v 9. [9]Nebraska Des Moines: 2. [1]Minnesota v 15. [16]Missouri 7. [4]Florida v 10. [11]BYU Austin: 3. [2]Texas v 14. [14]Ohio State 6. [5]Wisconsin v 11. [12]TAMU San Diego?: 4. [6]Penn State v 13. [10]UCLA 5. [7]Washington v 12. [13]Stanford [17]Western Kentucky [18]Kentucky [19]Arkansas State Lexington looks like a breeze for USC. Why not San Diego? I'm assuming that Louisville, Western Kentucky, and Kentucky will be in the same subregional, with a weaker drive-in, to help ensure one of the three makes it to Lexington. San Diego regional, as you would have it, is brutal, with Penn State and three of the top four Pac-12 teams. Why Louisville, Western Kentucky and Kentucky in same sub regional?? That makes no sense. One would have to be a 3 seed in that subregional. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 20, 2015 11:56:53 GMT -5
Projected Seeds [RPI Futures] (fixed this) Lexington?: 1. [3]USC v 16. [16]Louisville 8. [8]Kansas v 9. [9]Nebraska Des Moines: 2. [1]Minnesota v 15. [16]Missouri 7. [4]Florida v 10. [11]BYU Austin: 3. [2]Texas v 14. [14]Ohio State 6. [5]Wisconsin v 11. [12]TAMU San Diego?: 4. [6]Penn State v 13. [10]UCLA 5. [7]Washington v 12. [13]Stanford [17]Western Kentucky [18]Kentucky [19]Arkansas State Lexington looks like a breeze for USC. Why not San Diego? I'm assuming that Louisville, Western Kentucky, and Kentucky will be in the same subregional, with a weaker drive-in, to help ensure one of the three makes it to Lexington. San Diego regional, as you would have it, is brutal, with Penn State and three of the top four Pac-12 teams. Why Louisville, Western Kentucky and Kentucky in same sub regional?? That makes no sense. One would have to be a 3 seed in that subregional. That's not really how it works for volleyball. After the 16 seeds are selected, the committees first job is to minimize flights. Only then can they attempt to balance the subregionals if possible. In 2014, Arkansas-Little Rock and Santa Clara were the bottom seed and had to play the host in round one despite certainly being at-large caliber. In 2013, the same thing happened to UCSB and Wichita State. Edit: You're probably right though. I can't see them putting three Top 20 teams in the same subregional when they can easily send one to Ohio State. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 20, 2015 12:16:44 GMT -5
Projected Seeds [RPI Futures] (fixed this) Lexington?: 1. [3]USC v 16. [16]Louisville 8. [8]Kansas v 9. [9]Nebraska Des Moines: 2. [1]Minnesota v 15. [16]Missouri 7. [4]Florida v 10. [11]BYU Austin: 3. [2]Texas v 14. [14]Ohio State 6. [5]Wisconsin v 11. [12]TAMU San Diego?: 4. [6]Penn State v 13. [10]UCLA 5. [7]Washington v 12. [13]Stanford [17]Western Kentucky [18]Kentucky [19]Arkansas State Lexington looks like a breeze for USC. Why not San Diego? I'm assuming that Louisville, Western Kentucky, and Kentucky will be in the same subregional, with a weaker drive-in, to help ensure one of the three makes it to Lexington. San Diego regional, as you would have it, is brutal, with Penn State and three of the top four Pac-12 teams. Why Louisville, Western Kentucky and Kentucky in same sub regional?? That makes no sense. One would have to be a 3 seed in that subregional. Yeah, and? The NCAA only seeds the top 16. They might seed within the sub-regional, but there is no reason to shift teams around. Of course, if you look at something like Pablo, Kentucky vs Western Kentucky in the first round is not only not non-sensical, but would almost be perfect (#31 vs #32). |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 20, 2015 12:29:38 GMT -5
Why Louisville, Western Kentucky and Kentucky in same sub regional?? That makes no sense. One would have to be a 3 seed in that subregional. That's not really how it works for volleyball. After the 16 seeds are selected, the committees first job is to minimize flights. Only then can they attempt to balance the subregionals if possible. In 2014, Arkansas-Little Rock and Santa Clara were the bottom seed and had to play the host in round one despite certainly being at-large caliber. In 2013, the same thing happened to UCSB and Wichita State. Edit: You're probably right though. I can't see them putting three Top 20 teams in the same subregional when they can easily send one to Ohio State.I agree they will probably end up doing this, and I can easily see them driving Purdue (or Illinois) to Louisville and Kentucky (WKU) to Ohio State. This would require OSU to be in the Lexington regional and some lower ranked school being flown to a site.
Would this make the Louisville sub less tough? Western Kentucky is #31 and Kentucky #32 in Pablo - which would not necessarily be an unusually 'strong' sub-regional. Adding Purdue would make it more difficult as they are #20. The committee may think that it is 3 top 20 teams in the same sub, but it really isn't. If I was Louisville, I would much rather see Kentucky and Western Kentucky then Purdue/Illinois as a replacement. And if I was Western Kentucky, I would rather take my chances against Kentucky then Purdue/Illinois (same if I was Kentucky playing WKU).
|
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Nov 20, 2015 13:05:13 GMT -5
Projected Seeds [RPI Futures] (fixed this) Lexington?: 1. [3]USC v 16. [16]Louisville 8. [8]Kansas v 9. [9]Nebraska Des Moines: 2. [1]Minnesota v 15. [16]Missouri 7. [4]Florida v 10. [11]BYU Austin: 3. [2]Texas v 14. [14]Ohio State 6. [5]Wisconsin v 11. [12]TAMU San Diego?: 4. [6]Penn State v 13. [10]UCLA 5. [7]Washington v 12. [13]Stanford [17]Western Kentucky [18]Kentucky [19]Arkansas State Lexington looks like a breeze for USC. Why not San Diego? I'm assuming that Louisville, Western Kentucky, and Kentucky will be in the same subregional, with a weaker drive-in, to help ensure one of the three makes it to Lexington. San Diego regional, as you would have it, is brutal, with Penn State and three of the top four Pac-12 teams. Why Louisville, Western Kentucky and Kentucky in same sub regional?? That makes no sense. One would have to be a 3 seed in that subregional. In 2013, LIU Brooklyn, Utah and Yale were sent to Penn St. Penn State was the #2 overall. In 2012, Yale, Binghamton and Bowling Green were in the Penn St subregional. I guess one of those had to be the "2" seed and one had to be the "3". PSU was #1 overall. In 2011, Liberty, Delaware and American in PSU subregional. PSU was the 8 seed overall. Texas, the #1 seed, got Texas State, Michigan State and Arizona in their sub. In 2010, Niagara, Delaware, Virginia Tech in PSU sub. PSU was 4 overall. Florida, #1 seed, got SC State, Ga Southern and Florida State. In 2009, Binghamton, Army and Penn in PSU sub, PSU #1 overall. The #2 and #3 seeds also had pretty easy subregionals. As the others have stated, in the Women's Volleyball Tournament the committee does not place teams for equality, but rather for $$$. |
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Nov 20, 2015 13:09:53 GMT -5
Just curious how you chose the Auto-qualifiers. I see some of them are 4th or 5th seeds in their conf tournament. Is the number in ( ) the RPI or Pablo? The number in parentheses is the RPI Ranking. I chose the projected auto qualifiers based on results, how I think the teams match up, etc. If you think about it, there's 22 conference tournaments. I projected the #1 seed to win 17 of those tournaments. I think that's a pretty fair number. Here are the teams I projected to take down the #1 seed in conference tournament: Albany #2 seed UNC wilmington #3 seed Rider #5 seed Bryant #3 seed IUPUI #2 seed Sure, maybe I'm wrong on Rider, but actually the MAAC Tournament is pretty unpredictable. Not a high level of volleyball at all. UNC Wilmington and Bryant as #3 seeds are my dark-horse picks, upsets happen. IUPUI and Albany have a very good chance as #2 seeds. Albany actually went 11-1 in conference. I also think that Wichita State, Dayton and Ohio are teams that I think may be upset in their conference tournament. Conference tournaments are weird. Like, they just started today, and already #7 seed Idaho is about to upset #2 North Dakota in the Big Sky Tournament. OK, sounds good to me. I was certainly not disagreeing with you, I was just curious. I didn't know if it was based on those teams having a higher Pablo or RPI, or your own studying of the teams. Thanks for putting this together. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 20, 2015 13:11:29 GMT -5
As the others have stated, in the Women's Volleyball Tournament the committee does not place teams for equality, but rather for $$$. It's worth noting that this is not just for women's volleyball, but every sport outside of basketball. And even men's basketball has been making strides to become more and more regional. After a team gets seeded, they try to place them at the tournament site closest to home - something I don't think used to do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 16:48:16 GMT -5
New to this site and an avid fan of volleyball. I don't understand RPI and it appears I am not alone for the average viewer/fan. If the RPI determines who/where teams play and is so darn important...why is it not utilized all season, on all media. If I watch (for example) #1 USC play #3 Washington, that ranking comes from the coaches poll. Why not the RPI rankings? Is this done to confuse the average fan or to frustrate the average fan so that they stop paying attention? Why have two ranking systems? It just feels wrong, feels like a cloak and daggers type situation.
|
|
