|
|
Post by southie on Nov 22, 2016 14:18:02 GMT -5
Based on what we've speculated, neither Kansas nor UCLA has the facility to host the regional.
Based on watching them play a few times, I definitely believe that Kansas and Washington are quality teams, and definitely in the Top 8 in my book. But, if the committee awards either of them the #4 seed based solely on a conference championship, it sends the signal to everyone else that there is no reason to schedule a tough non-conference slate. KU had the #72 SOS. I hope they don't ignore that; the strength of your non-conference should count.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 22, 2016 14:23:05 GMT -5
Wouldn't that make it easier on the Committee if they want to balance geographically? They can slot PAC winner as a 5 seed and host out West. As I said in my projection, UCLA/UW winner will get a big boost provided they don't lose their rivalry match. But I thought UCLA couldn't host either. Or am I remembering incorrectly. Lol. #12 San Diego step on down. Kansas can't hate that too much actually. Good memories there for them |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 22, 2016 14:23:58 GMT -5
Based on what we've speculated, neither Kansas nor UCLA has the facility to host the regional. Based on watching them play a few times, I definitely believe that Kansas and Washington are quality teams, and definitely in the Top 8 in my book. But, if the committee awards either of them the #4 seed based solely on a conference championship, it sends the signal to everyone else that there is no reason to schedule a tough non-conference slate. KU had the #72 SOS. I hope they don't ignore that; the strength of your non-conference should count. In theory yes. But the other teams need to win more to keep them out. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 22, 2016 14:36:16 GMT -5
Based on what we've speculated, neither Kansas nor UCLA has the facility to host the regional. Based on watching them play a few times, I definitely believe that Kansas and Washington are quality teams, and definitely in the Top 8 in my book. But, if the committee awards either of them the #4 seed based solely on a conference championship, it sends the signal to everyone else that there is no reason to schedule a tough non-conference slate. KU had the #72 SOS. I hope they don't ignore that; the strength of your non-conference should count. In theory yes. But the other teams need to win more to keep them out. That goes without saying. And, there could be 2-3 teams with better RPIs than Kansas, and you'd point directly to non-conference scheduling as the reason. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 22, 2016 14:45:16 GMT -5
Based on what we've speculated, neither Kansas nor UCLA has the facility to host the regional. Based on watching them play a few times, I definitely believe that Kansas and Washington are quality teams, and definitely in the Top 8 in my book. But, if the committee awards either of them the #4 seed based solely on a conference championship, it sends the signal to everyone else that there is no reason to schedule a tough non-conference slate. KU had the #72 SOS. I hope they don't ignore that; the strength of your non-conference should count. While I think we'd find a lot of common ground here, the issue is that the committee has frequently given us top seeds that don't have a particularly strong non-conference RPI, or at the very least seeded above a team that has a significantly better non-conference RPI. SOS is not the only criteria, and it's certainly not applied equally. Just last year USC was the top overall seed, but their non conference SOS was distinctly lower than a team like Minneosta. In 2014 Washington got the 3 seed despite having a weak non-conference SOS. And this is a slight tangent, but while I do wish that Washington had a stronger preseason schedule (and perhaps we will start to see more of that), non-conference SOS should be balanced with winning. Just look at your team, for example. Sure Texas had 3 ranked teams on its preseason slate, but it did LOSE two of the three. I'm not saying that Texas should in anyway be penalized, but I also subscribe to the idea that scheduling tough and winning against quality opponents is what should be rewarded, not merely just scheduling tough. Additionally, I think you may be conflating the "not very strong non-conference SOS" with "not very good". We aren't talking about fleeting teams here, we are talking about teams who will likely be the winner (perhaps outright) of conferences that dominate the AVCA and RPI rankings and that will have upwards of 8 bids in the tournament. The mere fact that they *could* or *should* have a particular number of pre=season opponents that are on the "approved" list, doesn't change the fact that they played in and won in a conference that is going to be heavily rewarded by the NCAA selection committee. Like I said, there ARE other factors at play. |
|
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: 13,348 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 22, 2016 15:13:18 GMT -5
Based on what we've speculated, neither Kansas nor UCLA has the facility to host the regional. Based on watching them play a few times, I definitely believe that Kansas and Washington are quality teams, and definitely in the Top 8 in my book. But, if the committee awards either of them the #4 seed based solely on a conference championship, it sends the signal to everyone else that there is no reason to schedule a tough non-conference slate. KU had the #72 SOS. I hope they don't ignore that; the strength of your non-conference should count. I am not sure what kind of factor being a conference champion will play - I don't think it is listed as part of their criteria. I do think it will at least play indirectly when comparing teams - particularly if comparing two teams from the same conference. Wisconsin probably will end up with a better RPI than Nebraska and Nebraska will probably end up with a better seed. I don't think this is directly related to winning the conference, but because Nebraska won the conference they are going to look better in other areas (Top 25 and Top 50 wins, H2H, common opponents, etc...).
If it was me - I would probably have Texas ahead of Kansas, but it is very close. However, I would caution on looking at RPI SOS to determine the strength of a team's schedule. This is terribly flawed in the same ways that RPI is flawed. Kansas didn't have a particularly tough non-conference schedule - although @ Creighton and @ Purdue were good teams. Kansas could have dramatically improved their RPI SOS w/o materially impacting the real toughness of their schedule. Their SOS is unnecessarily bad because they scheduled some horrible record teams: Lamar 6-22, Chicago State 3-26, Southeastern Louisiana 7-23. These were teams anyone knew was going to be bad - yet you replace them with .500 teams from those same conferences and their RPI SOS would have been in the 20's while they wouldn't have been any closer to losing those matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 22, 2016 15:22:30 GMT -5
Based on what we've speculated, neither Kansas nor UCLA has the facility to host the regional. Based on watching them play a few times, I definitely believe that Kansas and Washington are quality teams, and definitely in the Top 8 in my book. But, if the committee awards either of them the #4 seed based solely on a conference championship, it sends the signal to everyone else that there is no reason to schedule a tough non-conference slate. KU had the #72 SOS. I hope they don't ignore that; the strength of your non-conference should count. I am not sure what kind of factor being a conference champion will play - I don't think it is listed as part of their criteria. I do think it will at least play indirectly when comparing teams - particularly if comparing two teams from the same conference. Wisconsin probably will end up with a better RPI than Nebraska and Nebraska will probably end up with a better seed. I don't think this is directly related to winning the conference, but because Nebraska won the conference they are going to look better in other areas (Top 25 and Top 50 wins, H2H, common opponents, etc...).
If it was me - I would probably have Texas ahead of Kansas, but it is very close. However, I would caution on looking at RPI SOS to determine the strength of a team's schedule. This is terribly flawed in the same ways that RPI is flawed. Kansas didn't have a particularly tough non-conference schedule - although @ Creighton and @ Purdue were good teams. Kansas could have dramatically improved their RPI SOS w/o materially impacting the real toughness of their schedule. Their SOS is unnecessarily bad because they scheduled some horrible record teams: Lamar 6-22, Chicago State 3-26, Southeastern Louisiana 7-23. These were teams anyone knew was going to be bad - yet you replace them with .500 teams from those same conferences and their RPI SOS would have been in the 20's while they wouldn't have been any closer to losing those matches.
Agreed also Arkansas would be a much better team with a healthy Pilar Victoria, who missed the season due to injury. Shoot Kansas almost lost that match without her playing to Arkansas in 5. Sometimes you hit the RPI jackpot examples like UNLV show this. I am saying here though I am predicting a Kansas loss to Baylor. Staiger is All American good and the game is away. I also am anticipating that Kelsie Payne won't play cause she was still in a boot on Sunday and they have gone 5 sets the last couple matches. If Kansas loses I think things will get very interesting looking at the 4 seed. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 22, 2016 15:44:24 GMT -5
Based on what we've speculated, neither Kansas nor UCLA has the facility to host the regional. Based on watching them play a few times, I definitely believe that Kansas and Washington are quality teams, and definitely in the Top 8 in my book. But, if the committee awards either of them the #4 seed based solely on a conference championship, it sends the signal to everyone else that there is no reason to schedule a tough non-conference slate. KU had the #72 SOS. I hope they don't ignore that; the strength of your non-conference should count. I am not sure what kind of factor being a conference champion will play - I don't think it is listed as part of their criteria. I do think it will at least play indirectly when comparing teams - particularly if comparing two teams from the same conference. Wisconsin probably will end up with a better RPI than Nebraska and Nebraska will probably end up with a better seed. I don't think this is directly related to winning the conference, but because Nebraska won the conference they are going to look better in other areas (Top 25 and Top 50 wins, H2H, common opponents, etc...).
If it was me - I would probably have Texas ahead of Kansas, but it is very close. However, I would caution on looking at RPI SOS to determine the strength of a team's schedule. This is terribly flawed in the same ways that RPI is flawed. Kansas didn't have a particularly tough non-conference schedule - although @ Creighton and @ Purdue were good teams. Kansas could have dramatically improved their RPI SOS w/o materially impacting the real toughness of their schedule. Their SOS is unnecessarily bad because they scheduled some horrible record teams: Lamar 6-22, Chicago State 3-26, Southeastern Louisiana 7-23. These were teams anyone knew was going to be bad - yet you replace them with .500 teams from those same conferences and their RPI SOS would have been in the 20's while they wouldn't have been any closer to losing those matches.
Yes, 100% agree re the aggregate SOS versus the teams actually played. Playing and beating a top team that has a final record of 22-4 is completely negated in the aggregate SOS if you also play and beat a team that is 4-22. Also, some of this stuff is hindsight. You could easily craft a very good SOS knowing what we know now against teams we know aren't particularly strong. Coastal Carolina, Cleveland State, Temple, Florida Gulf Coast, A&M Corpus Christie, Princeton, Northern Arizona, Yale, Southern Mississippi would yield an very good non conference SOS. It would be a 80% winning percentage for non conference opponent records, which would surely be the highest non-conference SOS this year. I also bet most ranked teams would destroy almost all of these teams. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 22, 2016 15:49:12 GMT -5
I don't think I ever recall seeing the committee seed teams in a conference over the regular-season champion of that conference. At least to that extent, they certainly do pay note of conference championships.
|
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 22, 2016 18:33:30 GMT -5
I don't think I ever recall seeing the committee seed teams in a conference over the regular-season champion of that conference. At least to that extent, they certainly do pay note of conference championships. I think you are right. I recall in 2013 that Mizzou and Florida were seeded #4 and #5 nationally; I think UF may have had the higher RPI, but Mizzou was the sole SEC champion. But, we know the committee doesn't steer away for having the 4/5 seeds from the same conference -- Wisconsin/PSU and Mizzou/Florida come to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster71 on Nov 22, 2016 19:02:43 GMT -5
I don't think I ever recall seeing the committee seed teams in a conference over the regular-season champion of that conference. At least to that extent, they certainly do pay note of conference championships. There has been sorta one that I can remember. 2010, Stanford and Cal tied for the conference championship. Cal got the autobid since they beat Stanford in both of their matches. Stanford got seeded 3rd, USC seeded 6th, and Cal seeded 7th overall. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 22, 2016 19:07:42 GMT -5
I don't think I ever recall seeing the committee seed teams in a conference over the regular-season champion of that conference. At least to that extent, they certainly do pay note of conference championships. There has been sorta one that I can remember. 2010, Stanford and Cal tied for the conference championship. Cal got the autobid since they beat Stanford in both of their matches. Stanford got seeded 3rd, USC seeded 6th, and Cal seeded 7th overall. Yeah, kind of. Obviously when multiple teams are co-champions, only one of them can be the highest seed from that conference. USC being slotted in over Cal might have fallen into the rule the committee was using at the time about moving seeds up or down by one place in order to work with the pre-determined regional site selections. But let modify my proposed rule of thumb: "The committee will make sure that the top-seeded team from any conference is (one of) the team(s) that won the conference regular season." |
|
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: 31,784
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 22, 2016 19:33:37 GMT -5
There has been sorta one that I can remember. 2010, Stanford and Cal tied for the conference championship. Cal got the autobid since they beat Stanford in both of their matches. Stanford got seeded 3rd, USC seeded 6th, and Cal seeded 7th overall. Yeah, kind of. Obviously when multiple teams are co-champions, only one of them can be the highest seed from that conference. USC being slotted in over Cal might have fallen into the rule the committee was using at the time about moving seeds up or down by one place in order to work with the pre-determined regional site selections. But let modify my proposed rule of thumb: "The committee will make sure that the top-seeded team from any conference is (one of) the team(s) that won the conference regular season." Well, and USC beat Cal twice that season. They lost the one that mattered |
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Nov 22, 2016 20:17:07 GMT -5
If Oregon beats Stanford, can they possibly get seeded?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 22, 2016 20:23:18 GMT -5
If Oregon beats Stanford, can they possibly get seeded? This question is pointless, since the Ducks are going down tomorrow!  |
|
