|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2015 11:44:13 GMT -5
I agree that is why we have a committee ..so in that respect, The way Missouri scheduales their out of conference games and the fact Western Kentucy is in Conference USA...neither will be a host..my guess is that they will do something with seeds 14,15,16. That will cause some controversy ...oh well maybe Missouri should play a Pac team or a Big or even an ACC team then they might get some respect..Remember a few years ago...the coaches in the AVCA were reluctant to give them any credit and it was justified..the minute they entered the tournament..played Purdue in the second round...they were out..eliminated... Funny how most people has this opinion of Missouri and their scheduling while thinking that Washington should be seeded higher than their seed despite scheduling even easier.
|
|
|
Post by flvoldad on Nov 26, 2015 11:52:35 GMT -5
I agree that is why we have a committee ..so in that respect, The way Missouri scheduales their out of conference games and the fact Western Kentucy is in Conference USA...neither will be a host..my guess is that they will do something with seeds 14,15,16. That will cause some controversy ...oh well maybe Missouri should play a Pac team or a Big or even an ACC team then they might get some respect..Remember a few years ago...the coaches in the AVCA were reluctant to give them any credit and it was justified..the minute they entered the tournament..played Purdue in the second round...they were out..eliminated... Funny how most people has this opinion of Missouri and their scheduling while thinking that Washington should be seeded higher than their seed despite scheduling even easier.
|
|
jiml
Sophomore
Go Badgers
Posts: 234
|
Post by jiml on Nov 26, 2015 11:54:03 GMT -5
How does the PAC-12 do tiebreakers? USC and WA are tied, and split head-to-head. So which teams gets the automatic bid, as opposed to a mere :-) top-4 seed and first round host?
|
|
|
Post by flvoldad on Nov 26, 2015 11:55:30 GMT -5
Now we are comparing Missouri to Washington...your joking right?Even if you judge conference play only...on road games..look at just that..road games in conference...Missouri lost to both Florida and Texas A&M swept both times...That did not happen to Washington...so really..are you just joking?
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Nov 26, 2015 11:55:58 GMT -5
Funny how most people has this opinion of Missouri and their scheduling while thinking that Washington should be seeded higher than their seed despite scheduling even easier. ...the difference being that Washington is in a conference that offers lots of opportunity for good wins
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2015 12:09:39 GMT -5
I agree that is why we have a committee ..so in that respect, The way Missouri scheduales their out of conference games and the fact Western Kentucy is in Conference USA...neither will be a host..my guess is that they will do something with seeds 14,15,16. That will cause some controversy ...oh well maybe Missouri should play a Pac team or a Big or even an ACC team then they might get some respect..Remember a few years ago...the coaches in the AVCA were reluctant to give them any credit and it was justified..the minute they entered the tournament..played Purdue in the second round...they were out..eliminated... Frankly, I don't think this years' committee gives two sh*ts about their decision regarding Missouri two years ago, nor should they, according to the rules.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2015 12:18:20 GMT -5
I agree that is why we have a committee ..so in that respect, The way Missouri scheduales their out of conference games and the fact Western Kentucy is in Conference USA...neither will be a host..my guess is that they will do something with seeds 14,15,16. That will cause some controversy ...oh well maybe Missouri should play a Pac team or a Big or even an ACC team then they might get some respect..Remember a few years ago...the coaches in the AVCA were reluctant to give them any credit and it was justified..the minute they entered the tournament..played Purdue in the second round...they were out..eliminated... Funny how most people has this opinion of Missouri and their scheduling while thinking that Washington should be seeded higher than their seed despite scheduling even easier. I don't think that "most" people feel that Missouri should be unseeded because of scheduling and Washington should be seeded up regardless of their lack of scheduling. Regardless, the ONLY reason why Missouri's non conference SOS looks "better" is because they played Southern Illinois and Arkansas State. But, lets face it, those teams aren't actually quality teams and only really have high RPI's because of the inherent flaws in the rpi.
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Nov 26, 2015 12:29:19 GMT -5
Now we are comparing Missouri to Washington...your joking right?Even if you judge conference play only...on road games..look at just that..road games in conference...Missouri lost to both Florida and Texas A&M swept both times...That did not happen to Washington...so really..are you just joking? Shhhh, not so loud, the weauxf gawds might hear you!
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 26, 2015 12:56:05 GMT -5
Pablo: 1. Washington
...
...
...
30. Missouri
I think that's why people are complaining.....
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2015 12:59:52 GMT -5
How does the PAC-12 do tiebreakers? USC and WA are tied, and split head-to-head. So which teams gets the automatic bid, as opposed to a mere :-) top-4 seed and first round host? Oddly enough, the Stanford/UCLA match will determine the auto-bid winner. It goes record, head to head, record against #3, #4, #5 etc. (until the tie is broken). UW and USC both have identical records, and they are 1-1 against each other. The rub is who finishes 3rd in conference. If it's Stanford then I think USC gets the auto-bid, if it's UCLA, then I think UW gets the auto-bid. The winner of the Stanford/UCLA will determine who technically finished 3rd in the conference. An additional wrinkle is the unbalanced schedule. USC went 1-0 against Stanford whereas UW went 1-1, but USC only played Stanford once. I don't think the unbalanced schedule will matter as they will still award USC the auto bid, but it's still something to consider. if UCLA wins against Stanford, they finish 3rd, and UW wins the auto-bid having a 2-0 record against UCLA whereas USC is 1-1.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2015 13:04:11 GMT -5
Pablo: 1. Washington ... ... ... 30. Missouri I think that's why people are complaining..... Great, and this is an argument about seeding. Pablo is not a criteria for that. I'd bet my house on Washington if the two teams played each other. That doesn't mean you can go out and schedule nobody non-conference. Not to mention the Pac-12 is considerably down this season (still easily one of the two best conferences). Heck, it's not completely unreasonable that the conference only gets 4 bids (although I don't think that will happen). I think the same criticism applies to Missouri and that they should not get seeded.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Nov 26, 2015 13:09:43 GMT -5
How does the PAC-12 do tiebreakers? USC and WA are tied, and split head-to-head. So which teams gets the automatic bid, as opposed to a mere :-) top-4 seed and first round host? Oddly enough, the Stanford/UCLA match will determine the auto-bid winner. It goes record, head to head, record against #3, #4, #5 etc. (until the tie is broken). UW and USC both have identical records, and they are 1-1 against each other. The rub is who finishes 3rd in conference. If it's Stanford then I think USC gets the auto-bid, if it's UCLA, then I think UW gets the auto-bid. The winner of the Stanford/UCLA will determine who technically finished 3rd in the conference. An additional wrinkle is the unbalanced schedule. USC went 1-0 against Stanford whereas UW went 1-1, but USC only played Stanford once. I don't think the unbalanced schedule will matter as they will still award USC the auto bid, but it's still something to consider. if UCLA wins against Stanford, they finish 3rd, and UW wins the auto-bid having a 2-0 record against UCLA whereas USC is 1-1. ay, are you sure about that? I am pretty sure head-to-head goes to games as the second tie-breaker and UW is 4-3 in games against USC this year. I know that came up a few years ago as a tie-breaker, but maybe that was further down the list. Edit: I looked up the rules on the PAC-12 website. For some reason cut-and-paste is just giving gobbledygook but the second criteria (after a season sweep of head-to-head) is "If both teams have won an equal number of matches in head-to-head Conference competition, the team having won the most games in the Conference matches between the two teams shall be declared the automatic qualifier."
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 26, 2015 13:10:45 GMT -5
USC, UW, UCLA and Stanford are the teams conventional wisdom would suggest have the potential to make a deep run in the tournament.
Outside of those 4, the team, IMO, that has the most tournament potential is Oregon. But their season has been so up and down it's still a question mark if they even make the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 26, 2015 13:12:20 GMT -5
Pablo: 1. Washington ... ... ... 30. Missouri I think that's why people are complaining..... Great, and this is an argument about seeding. Pablo is not a criteria for that. I'd bet my house on Washington if the two teams played each other. That doesn't mean you can go out and schedule nobody non-conference. Not to mention the Pac-12 is considerably down this season (still easily one of the two best conferences). Heck, it's not completely unreasonable that the conference only gets 4 bids (although I don't think that will happen). I think the same criticism applies to Missouri and that they should not get seeded. Uhh.. UW did go out and schedule "somebody" - that team just didn't show up. UW also scheduled a couple of other teams (Gonzaga, Oklahoma) that were expected to be Top 50 and had really down years. And even then, with the nobody OOC, they still have a clearly better resume than Mizzou for a seed. UW has played 11 Top 50 RPI matches (9 wins) (this will jump to 13/11 when Oregon enters Top 50 this week), while Missouri has played 6 (4 wins). UW's worst loss is to RPI #12 Stanford on the road, Mizzou has lost to #70 and #82. Even by the "criteria" UW has a completely solid case for a seed.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Nov 26, 2015 13:15:15 GMT -5
Great, and this is an argument about seeding. Pablo is not a criteria for that. I'd bet my house on Washington if the two teams played each other. That doesn't mean you can go out and schedule nobody non-conference. Not to mention the Pac-12 is considerably down this season (still easily one of the two best conferences). Heck, it's not completely unreasonable that the conference only gets 4 bids (although I don't think that will happen). I think the same criticism applies to Missouri and that they should not get seeded. Don't forget that Washington scheduled a match against Wisconsin this year, but Wisconsin backed out and Washington (and USC) end up substituting Oklahoma instead. Wisconsin was probably smart since playing Washington and USC with the team they had at that time was probably two sure losses but still...
|
|