|
|
Post by surfh2ovolleyjock on Nov 22, 2015 13:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 22, 2015 13:55:40 GMT -5
Nebraska was seeded 14 last year. Hard to justify giving them a close regional with that. If they can justify the seed that places teams within their region - without overloading one regional with more than two teams from a conference - they tend to do so. So whether Minny is seeded 1,2, 3 or 4, it makes sense to send them to Des Moines, keep USC in San Diego, send PSU to Lexington, etc. Again, if they can justify the seeding. Your logic really only applies to the top 4 seeds (assuming no conflicts with the regional hosts). For teams 5-16, the committee doesn't place them in the regional closest to them; they are placed based on their actual seeding, where possible. So, just because A&M is close to Austin, they aren't gonna send the Aggies to the Texas regional unless their seed aligns with the quadrant of the bracket in which Texas is placed. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 22, 2015 14:44:48 GMT -5
The question to me is, after the Minneapolis Regional last year, whether the Committee is going to consider (or at least keep half an eye on) attendance implications in assigning teams to regionals. If this was not a major concern, why the proposal for abandoning pre-determined regionals? How do attendance revenues and travel costs compare in impacting the bottom line? With attendance in mind:
Austin:
1. Texas v 16 Missouri
8. Penn State v 9. Texas A&M
Des Moines:
2. Minnesota v 15. Ohio State
7. Nebraska v 10. Stanford
San Diego:
3. USC v 14. BYU
6. Washington v 11. Kansas
Lexington:
4. Wisconsin 13. Louisville
5. Florida v 12. UCLA
|
|
|
|
Post by brunie on Nov 22, 2015 14:55:28 GMT -5
The question to me is, after the Minneapolis Regional last year, whether the Committee is going to consider (or at least keep half an eye on) attendance implications in assigning teams to regionals. If this was not a major concern, why the proposal for abandoning pre-determined regionals? How do attendance revenues and travel costs compare in impacting the bottom line? With attendance in mind: Austin: 1. Texas v 16 Missouri 8. Penn State v 9. Texas A&M Des Moines: 2. Minnesota v 15. Ohio State 7. Nebraska v 10. Stanford San Diego: 3. USC v 14. BYU 6. Washington v 11. Kansas Lexington: 4. Wisconsin 13. Louisville 5. Florida v 12. Stanford I don't think Stanford has the depth to field two teams |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 22, 2015 15:32:44 GMT -5
Austin: 1. Texas v 16 Missouri 8. Penn State v 9. Texas A&M Des Moines: 2. Minnesota v 15. Ohio State 7. Nebraska v 10. Stanford San Diego: 3. USC v 14. BYU 6. Washington v 11. Kansas Lexington: 4. Wisconsin 13. Louisville 5. Florida v 12. StanfordUCLAI don't think Stanford has the depth to field two teams[/quote] Oops, fixed it. |
|
|
|
Post by usvballfan on Nov 22, 2015 16:59:56 GMT -5
I don't see Minnesota as #2. Or Florida as #5
|
|
|
|
Post by JHAM on Nov 22, 2015 17:05:02 GMT -5
I don't see Minnesota as #2. Or Florida as #5 I see MN as #2 if they win the B1G outright (ie: they win their last 2 matches). They have played the most top 25 teams out of all the top 16 teams and would win which is arguably the best conference this year with 8 teams in the NCAA field. Florida at #5 I agree with especially since it looks like they'll finish 4th in the SEC. |
|
|
|
Post by usvballfan on Nov 22, 2015 17:12:53 GMT -5
I think USC and Washington have earned it and should have higher seeds than Minnesota or Wisconsin (based on their win/loss records). The top four are so critical.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 22, 2015 17:16:09 GMT -5
I think USC and Washington have earned it and should have higher seeds than Minnesota or Wisconsin (based on their win/loss records). The top four are so critical. If there is one thing that the committee is ever consistent about, it's that you better schedule some legitimate teams in the non-conference. I think Washington gets a lower seed than their true strength because of that. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 22, 2015 17:24:48 GMT -5
I think USC and Washington have earned it and should have higher seeds than Minnesota or Wisconsin (based on their win/loss records). The top four are so critical. But you have to put it in context. The Pac 12 isn't as strong as the Big 10. Minny has more losses but they also played more tough teams. I'd be absolutley shocked if they took two pac 12 teams over a big 10 team. There is absolutley no doubt in my mind that both UW and USC would have more losses if they played in the Big 10. |
|
|
|
Post by JHAM on Nov 22, 2015 17:38:49 GMT -5
I also think Wash will be a bad draw for any team because from what I've seen they have the most consistent ball control in the Top 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 22, 2015 17:42:53 GMT -5
USC, Texas and Minnesota (assuming all win out) are likely the top 3 seeds. After that, I'd say Washington and Wisconsin. Next would come the winner between PSU@Nebraska, Kansas, and Floridaa. Then, the loser of PSU@Nebraska.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 22, 2015 17:46:45 GMT -5
I think USC and Washington have earned it and should have higher seeds than Minnesota or Wisconsin (based on their win/loss records). The top four are so critical. PSU should be a top seed in one of the regionals. They are going to be terror when all is said and done. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Nov 22, 2015 17:51:52 GMT -5
I don't think PSU is a top 4 seed with this last loss to Michigan, along with the 3 other losses in conference. Last year a clearly better team only got a 5 seed. A lot may depend on what happens in Lincoln.
That said, if Rose gets his troops together, they could go on a run.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 22, 2015 17:58:14 GMT -5
I don't think PSU is a top 4 seed with this last loss to Michigan, along with the 3 other losses in conference. Last year a clearly better team only got a 5 seed. A lot may depend on what happens in Lincoln. That said, if Rose gets his troops together, they could go on a run. Whatever regional PSU ends up in regardless of seed............................PSU is the defending champ..................nobody seeded higher will want to face them. |
|
