|
|
Post by gobruins on Oct 31, 2017 5:40:19 GMT -5
What is the deal with Texas A&M? They are 7-11, with 7 matches left to play. They would need to go 6-1 to get over .500, with one of their remaining matches against Florida (almost certain loss).
So, why did Texas A&M only schedule 25 matches? Aren't they allowed 28 (or is it 29)? Could they add another match to their schedule to help them get to .500?
|
|
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: 31,804 
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 31, 2017 7:14:55 GMT -5
updated for Halloween! Bubble profiles, predicted seeds to come next week! Did you wait until after midnight just so you could say "updated for Halloween"? No actually it was done a little before then on the 30th but nobody's up that late to notice. then i fixed a couple errors |
|
jiml
Sophomore
Go Badgers
Posts: 239
|
Post by jiml on Oct 31, 2017 9:22:26 GMT -5
Thanks for doing this. Note that the Big Ten automatic bid is likely to be Nebraska, rather than Penn State. They are both 11-1 in-conference so far, but Nebraska has no top-10 teams left on its schedule while Penn State has 3, and Nebraska won their sole head-to-head match. So Penn State is more likely to end up 18-2 than Nebraska, and if they both finish 19-1, Nebraska wins the tie-breaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Oct 31, 2017 10:08:56 GMT -5
What is the deal with Texas A&M? They are 7-11, with 7 matches left to play. They would need to go 6-1 to get over .500, with one of their remaining matches against Florida (almost certain loss). So, why did Texas A&M only schedule 25 matches? Aren't they allowed 28 (or is it 29)? Could they add another match to their schedule to help them get to .500? It was a little weather event they refer to as a hurricane in the area. You may have seen some news about it. They cancelled 5-6 matches during those two weekends. |
|
|
|
Post by watchervb on Oct 31, 2017 10:26:25 GMT -5
Could they add another match or two before the end of the season? Can matches be added this late in the season?
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Oct 31, 2017 10:40:51 GMT -5
A&M’s problem is not the amount of matches it played but the fact that they are in 11th place in the discounted (on this thread ... smh) SEC. The SEC should have more teams in the tourney than the Big12 or the really weak ACC. The credibility of the field will be deminished if that’s not the case. And, unfortunately, it will probably be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 31, 2017 11:36:09 GMT -5
A&M’s problem is not the amount of matches it played but the fact that they are in 11th place in the discounted (on this thread ... smh) SEC. The SEC should have more teams in the tourney than the Big12 or the really weak ACC. The credibility of the field will be deminished if that’s not the case. And, unfortunately, it will probably be the case. I thought their problem was simply their record. Can't qualify for tournament with a losing record. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 31, 2017 11:42:20 GMT -5
A&M’s problem is not the amount of matches it played but the fact that they are in 11th place in the discounted (on this thread ... smh) SEC. The SEC should have more teams in the tourney than the Big12 or the really weak ACC. The credibility of the field will be deminished if that’s not the case. And, unfortunately, it will probably be the case. Which SEC team who has beaten somebody is not going to make the tournament? Mizzou? But they are clearly a very different team without Crow. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Oct 31, 2017 12:03:01 GMT -5
A&M’s problem is not the amount of matches it played but the fact that they are in 11th place in the discounted (on this thread ... smh) SEC. The SEC should have more teams in the tourney than the Big12 or the really weak ACC. The credibility of the field will be deminished if that’s not the case. And, unfortunately, it will probably be the case. I thought their problem was simply their record. Can't qualify for tournament with a losing record. It is from a technical standpoint, but they are not very good in conference. If they were the technical requirement to have a .500 record would not be in play. They are what they are and that’s currently the 11th best team in a very deep championship conference |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Oct 31, 2017 12:12:57 GMT -5
A&M’s problem is not the amount of matches it played but the fact that they are in 11th place in the discounted (on this thread ... smh) SEC. The SEC should have more teams in the tourney than the Big12 or the really weak ACC. The credibility of the field will be deminished if that’s not the case. And, unfortunately, it will probably be the case. Which SEC team who has beaten somebody is not going to make the tournament? Mizzou? But they are clearly a very different team without Crow. Ok. Tell me the power house wins that NC State & Syracuse have that Tenn, Bama & Arkansas don’t have. I know one that Arkansas has...ha. Also teams like UGA and OM help form a very deep conference that knocks off the middle tier teams. Uga has 3 Top 50 wins in conference. I see nothing in out of conference wins that justify more ACC teams than SEC. Nothing! The only thing that gives the ACC a boost is that the bottom half of the conference is horrendous and doesn’t put up a fight. To me that shouldn’t bolster the top half’s resumes. And head to head this year the ACC v SEC is like 15-1 in the SECs favor. And my last sentence clearly states that I know the committee won’t take common sense things like this into account but they should. They consumed with RPI. Let me word it another way. Would A&M be in the tournament if they played in the ACC. Of course they would because they would be guaranteed an over .500 record with the bottom half of the conference on the schedule. That’s not the case on the sec |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 31, 2017 12:30:26 GMT -5
Which SEC team who has beaten somebody is not going to make the tournament? Mizzou? But they are clearly a very different team without Crow. Ok. Tell me the power house wins that NC State & Syracuse have that Tenn, Bama & Arkansas don’t have. I know one that Arkansas has...ha. Also teams like UGA and OM help form a very deep conference that knocks off the middle tier teams. Uga has 3 Top 50 wins in conference. I see nothing in out of conference wins that justify more ACC teams than SEC. Nothing! The only thing that gives the ACC a boost is that the bottom half of the conference is horrendous and doesn’t put up a fight. To me that shouldn’t bolster the top half’s resumes. And head to head this year the ACC v SEC is like 15-1 in the SECs favor. And my last sentence clearly states that I know the committee won’t take common sense things like this into account but they should. They consumed with RPI. Let me word it another way. Would A&M be in the tournament if they played in the ACC. Of course they would because they would be guaranteed an over .500 record with the bottom half of the conference on the schedule. That’s not the case on the sec Syracuse is not even close to getting into the tournament. Why are you bringng them up? NC State's wins at Pitt and against Notre Dame are better than anything Georgia has (by a lot), and they also didn't lose to High Point and Wofford. Georgia beat Mizzou without Crow (who they also lost to without Crow) and Arkansas - who hasn't beaten anyone themselves. Georgia, seriously? And the SEC is the last conference that should be looking at what teams did out of conference. Only 3 teams did anything at all (UK, UF, Auburn) - 2 of whom aren't getting beaten by anyone else) and the other 10 teams can't bask in that. And UNC (a bubble-out ACC team) beat LSU (a tourney SEC team) and FSU (a bubble-in ACC team) beat Auburn (a bubble-in SEC team), so it's clearly not 15-1, and the H2H isn't supporting better SEC teams getting passed over for weaker ACC teams. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 31, 2017 12:37:06 GMT -5
I thought their problem was simply their record. Can't qualify for tournament with a losing record. It is from a technical standpoint, but they are not very good in conference. If they were the technical requirement to have a .500 record would not be in play. They are what they are and that’s currently the 11th best team in a very deep championship conference "championship" conference? I'm pretty sure the SEC has zero volleyball championships..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 31, 2017 12:39:01 GMT -5
I thought their problem was simply their record. Can't qualify for tournament with a losing record. It is from a technical standpoint, but they are not very good in conference. If they were the technical requirement to have a .500 record would not be in play. They are what they are and that’s currently the 11th best team in a very deep championship conference I'm not sure what a "deep championship conference" is, or what that means. However, I do see the writing on the wall. To me it is obvious the SEC is improving very rapidly. They are committed to being a top conference in volleyball. It's hard to predict if it will be 3 years or 7 years; but I believe they will be equal with B1G and PAC very shortly. It will make things very interesting! |
|
|
|
Post by HeyHey on Oct 31, 2017 12:52:07 GMT -5
It is from a technical standpoint, but they are not very good in conference. If they were the technical requirement to have a .500 record would not be in play. They are what they are and that’s currently the 11th best team in a very deep championship conference I'm not sure what a "deep championship conference" is, or what that means. However, I do see the writing on the wall. To me it is obvious the SEC is improving very rapidly. They are committed to being a top conference in volleyball. It's hard to predict if it will be 3 years or 7 years; but I believe they will be equal with B1G and PAC very shortly. It will make things very interesting! IMO, if the SEC is committed to being a top conference in volleyball you would think they would demand that Vanderbilt start a Women's VB program. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Oct 31, 2017 13:08:16 GMT -5
Which SEC team who has beaten somebody is not going to make the tournament? Mizzou? But they are clearly a very different team without Crow. Ok. Tell me the power house wins that NC State & Syracuse have that Tenn, Bama & Arkansas don’t have. I know one that Arkansas has...ha. Also teams like UGA and OM help form a very deep conference that knocks off the middle tier teams. Uga has 3 Top 50 wins in conference. I see nothing in out of conference wins that justify more ACC teams than SEC. Nothing! The only thing that gives the ACC a boost is that the bottom half of the conference is horrendous and doesn’t put up a fight. To me that shouldn’t bolster the top half’s resumes. And head to head this year the ACC v SEC is like 15-1 in the SECs favor. And my last sentence clearly states that I know the committee won’t take common sense things like this into account but they should. They consumed with RPI. Let me word it another way. Would A&M be in the tournament if they played in the ACC. Of course they would because they would be guaranteed an over .500 record with the bottom half of the conference on the schedule. That’s not the case on the sec The HTH this season was actually 13-2 in favor of the SEC. That said, conferences don't play each other, it's individual teams. If you look at the HTH in terms of Pablo, the SEC teams would have been favored in 12 of those 15 matches, so the actual HTH record is not really surprising. |
|
