|
|
Post by dd2000 on Nov 26, 2017 18:10:03 GMT -5
Hawaii could be literally sent anywhere - USC, Stanford, UCLA, Washington... even Baylor or Texas! Hawaii was sent to: Minnesota (2016), Texas A&M (2015), Washington (2014), Hawaii (2013), Washington (2012), Hawaii (2011), Washington (2010). In other words, when not seeded, Hawaii has been sent to Washington three out of the last five times. They were sent to USC in both 2009 and 2008. TrojanSC was trying to not repeat where teams go as he thought the committee would avoid sending team X to team Y two years back to back. Its been my experience/memory that they do this quite freely. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 26, 2017 18:11:08 GMT -5
I know others have said this, but I really wish that the committee had enough flexibility in seeding to avoid intraconference matchups in the regional rounds. In basketball they instituted a guideline a few years back that the top 4 teams from any conference must be placed in different regions as long as they're on the top 4 seed lines (the equivalent of being a seeded team in volleyball). I'd really like something like this in the volleyball tournament. I don't want to see Washington-Utah in the 3rd round, or Florida-Kentucky in the regional final. Give those teams a shot at someone else. It sounds like a good idea until the team you follow gets affected adversely. Two years ago in hoops, Texas was having a very good season and playing well towards the end of the season; most mock brackets had Texas pegged for a #6 national seed (#7 at the worst). Well, because there were 4 PAC teams among the Top 16 who were required to be placed in different regionals, Texas was moved down to the #8 seed and opposite #1 UConn (in order to accommodate Arizona State's placement); and, that regional would be played in UConn's backyard where they defeated Texas and advanced to another Final Four. If the committee had just kept the integrity of the bracket in place, Texas would have been anywhere but UConn's bracket. If that same rule was employed for volleyball, based on the number of PAC and B1G schools among the top 16, schools from other conferences would more often than not be bumped our of their deserved seeding . |
|
|
|
Post by brybast on Nov 26, 2017 18:33:06 GMT -5
I know others have said this, but I really wish that the committee had enough flexibility in seeding to avoid intraconference matchups in the regional rounds. In basketball they instituted a guideline a few years back that the top 4 teams from any conference must be placed in different regions as long as they're on the top 4 seed lines (the equivalent of being a seeded team in volleyball). I'd really like something like this in the volleyball tournament. I don't want to see Washington-Utah in the 3rd round, or Florida-Kentucky in the regional final. Give those teams a shot at someone else. It sounds like a good idea until the team you follow gets affected adversely. Two years ago in hoops, Texas was having a very good season and playing well towards the end of the season; most mock brackets had Texas pegged for a #6 national seed (#7 at the worst). Well, because there were 4 PAC teams among the Top 16 who were required to be placed in different regionals, Texas was moved down to the #8 seed and opposite #1 UConn (in order to accommodate Arizona State's placement); and, that regional would be played in UConn's backyard where they defeated Texas and advanced to another Final Four. If the committee had just kept the integrity of the bracket in place, Texas would have been anywhere but UConn's bracket. If that same rule was employed for volleyball, based on the number of PAC and B1G schools among the top 16, schools from other conferences would more often than not be bumped our of their deserved seeding . Every single bracketing decision and guideline has incidental beneficiaries and incidental victims. That's the nature of the beast. You're right that it would mean bumping teams from their "true" seeding, but it's equally as likely that these teams could be bumped up as bumped down. As for your anecdote on Texas, I'm guessing you mean the 2016 tournament when Texas was the #3 seed in UConn's region and then beat #2 UCLA in the Sweet 16 before losing to UConn? I really don't think we can be certain that Texas was bumped to accommodate Arizona State's placement. Bracketology predictions are only that, predictions, and the committee's opinion can vary. |
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on Nov 26, 2017 18:36:25 GMT -5
Is there a place to print blank NCAA brackets...so i can fill them out as announced?
|
|
|
|
Post by brybast on Nov 26, 2017 18:40:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Nov 26, 2017 18:40:23 GMT -5
Is there a place to print blank NCAA brackets...so i can fill them out as announced? is currently blank. |
|
|
|
Post by azsker on Nov 26, 2017 18:43:10 GMT -5
Is there a place to print blank NCAA brackets...so i can fill them out as announced? It won’t have the NCAA logo and such with the times and locations (which you still don’t know anyways) but if you just google 64 team single elimination bracket there should be some blank copies come up. Then you can fill those out. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 26, 2017 18:44:15 GMT -5
It sounds like a good idea until the team you follow gets affected adversely. Two years ago in hoops, Texas was having a very good season and playing well towards the end of the season; most mock brackets had Texas pegged for a #6 national seed (#7 at the worst). Well, because there were 4 PAC teams among the Top 16 who were required to be placed in different regionals, Texas was moved down to the #8 seed and opposite #1 UConn (in order to accommodate Arizona State's placement); and, that regional would be played in UConn's backyard where they defeated Texas and advanced to another Final Four. If the committee had just kept the integrity of the bracket in place, Texas would have been anywhere but UConn's bracket. If that same rule was employed for volleyball, based on the number of PAC and B1G schools among the top 16, schools from other conferences would more often than not be bumped our of their deserved seeding . Every single bracketing decision and guideline has incidental beneficiaries and incidental victims. That's the nature of the beast. You're right that it would mean bumping teams from their "true" seeding, but it's equally as likely that these teams could be bumped up as bumped down. As for your anecdote on Texas, I'm guessing you mean the 2016 tournament when Texas was the #3 seed in UConn's region and then beat #2 UCLA in the Sweet 16 before losing to UConn? I really don't think we can be certain that Texas was bumped to accommodate Arizona State's placement. Bracketology predictions are only that, predictions, and the committee's opinion can vary. We were bumped down; it wasn't an anecdote. All numbers favored Texas over Arizona State; there might have been another PAC team who was also part of the reasoning. Like I said, until it's your team who is affected adversely, it sounds like a good idea. Even getting "bunped up" has its downfalls. If you are the true #10 or #11 seed, and you get bumped up to the #8 or #9 seed and into the same region as the overall #1 national seed, now that makes your ultimate goal that much more difficult earlier than expected. The one rule I would like to see implemented is not to seed more than 2 teams from the same conference in the same regional; doesn't matter to me if they square off in the regional semi-final. |
|
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: 13,308 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2017 18:51:31 GMT -5
It sounds like a good idea until the team you follow gets affected adversely. Two years ago in hoops, Texas was having a very good season and playing well towards the end of the season; most mock brackets had Texas pegged for a #6 national seed (#7 at the worst). Well, because there were 4 PAC teams among the Top 16 who were required to be placed in different regionals, Texas was moved down to the #8 seed and opposite #1 UConn (in order to accommodate Arizona State's placement); and, that regional would be played in UConn's backyard where they defeated Texas and advanced to another Final Four. If the committee had just kept the integrity of the bracket in place, Texas would have been anywhere but UConn's bracket. If that same rule was employed for volleyball, based on the number of PAC and B1G schools among the top 16, schools from other conferences would more often than not be bumped our of their deserved seeding . Every single bracketing decision and guideline has incidental beneficiaries and incidental victims. That's the nature of the beast. You're right that it would mean bumping teams from their "true" seeding, but it's equally as likely that these teams could be bumped up as bumped down. As for your anecdote on Texas, I'm guessing you mean the 2016 tournament when Texas was the #3 seed in UConn's region and then beat #2 UCLA in the Sweet 16 before losing to UConn? I really don't think we can be certain that Texas was bumped to accommodate Arizona State's placement. Bracketology predictions are only that, predictions, and the committee's opinion can vary. I am with brybast on this one. I would like to see the 'basketball' rule - it has been 10 weeks since teams have been playing outside their conference. The biggest error is playing a team from your own conference before you have to as opposed to a 1 spot difference in seed. That said, I believe they shouldn't change regional hosting sites because of this. It is easier for basketball to do this since they are seeding 16 per region. It usually doesn't matter if you are #2 in this region compared to #2 in that region - it still has the #2 seed. But in volleyball - it becomes the difference between #5 and #6 - and that looks like a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by brybast on Nov 26, 2017 18:54:13 GMT -5
Every single bracketing decision and guideline has incidental beneficiaries and incidental victims. That's the nature of the beast. You're right that it would mean bumping teams from their "true" seeding, but it's equally as likely that these teams could be bumped up as bumped down. As for your anecdote on Texas, I'm guessing you mean the 2016 tournament when Texas was the #3 seed in UConn's region and then beat #2 UCLA in the Sweet 16 before losing to UConn? I really don't think we can be certain that Texas was bumped to accommodate Arizona State's placement. Bracketology predictions are only that, predictions, and the committee's opinion can vary. We were bumped down; it wasn't an anecdote. All numbers favored Texas over Arizona State; there might have been another PAC team who was also part of the reasoning. Like I said, until it's your team who is affected adversely, it sounds like a good idea. Even getting "bunped up" has its downfalls. If you are the true #10 or #11 seed, and you get bumped up to the #8 or #9 seed and into the same region as the overall #1 national seed, now that makes your ultimate goal that much more difficult earlier than expected. The one rule I would like to see implemented is not to seed more than 2 teams from the same conference in the same regional; doesn't matter to me if they square off in the regional semi-final. Well, as I said, every bracketing principle and decision will work to the apparent favor of some and the disfavor of others. Ultimately no one wants to go to UConn's bracket, so anyone who ends up sent there can complain about whatever decision or principle is to blame. Most fans don't enjoy seeing the same ol' matchups in the regional semifinal. What makes the NCAA tournament fun is the new and different matchups from teams who ordinarily might not play each other. |
|
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: 13,308
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2017 18:56:22 GMT -5
Since we're all just guessing, I'll provide my Top 16 seeds where I place an emphasis on RPI and Top 25 RPI W/L records (since that helps my agenda). And, I will throw a bone out to the #16 seed: 1- Penn State 8- Washington 9- Utah 16- Wichita State 2- Stanford 7- Minnesota 10- USC 15- Wisconsin 3- Nebraska 6- Kentucky 11- Baylor 14- UCLA 4- Texas 5- Florida 12- Creighton 13- Iowa State Yeah - I think this is pretty much it, with the main questions being; 1) Is it Texas or Florida at #4. 2) Who are the last two teams to get a seed (BYU, Wisconsin, Wichita State, Cal Poly, Kansas). As a Kansas fan - I would like this draw. No offense to Wichita State, but that sounds better than Nebraska - which becomes the likely scenario w/o either a Wichita State or Kansas seed. |
|
|
|
Post by brybast on Nov 26, 2017 19:08:15 GMT -5
Very interesting to see how seeds 2 through 7 shake out. I'm seeing predictions all over the map in this range.
I do think it would just suck in principle for Florida to be denied a top-4 seed. They get two HUGE wins in the OOC, and they lose only one match all season to a Kentucky team who they also beat. For them to be frozen out of hosting a regional would seem harsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2017 19:10:32 GMT -5
I know others have said this, but I really wish that the committee had enough flexibility in seeding to avoid intraconference matchups in the regional rounds. In basketball they instituted a guideline a few years back that the top 4 teams from any conference must be placed in different regions as long as they're on the top 4 seed lines (the equivalent of being a seeded team in volleyball). I'd really like something like this in the volleyball tournament. I don't want to see Washington-Utah in the 3rd round, or Florida-Kentucky in the regional final. Give those teams a shot at someone else. I disagree. What the committee should do is figure out the 32 at large teams and then rank 1-64. Drive-ins should be removed from the list, but placed as close to the S curve as possible if other scenarios are possible. Th remainder of the bracket should then be formed on an S curve, and let the chips fall where they may. Volleyball is already hampered by regionalization, but you want regionals fudged around with by conference too! Besides, with so many Pac-12 and Big 10 teams in the top 16 (4 seed line), you could wind up with some pretty lame situations and seeds that make no sense and matchups that are unwarranted and unearned. |
|
|
|
Post by naujack85 on Nov 26, 2017 19:44:41 GMT -5
Very interesting to see how seeds 2 through 7 shake out. I'm seeing predictions all over the map in this range. I do think it would just suck in principle for Florida to be denied a top-4 seed. They get two HUGE wins in the OOC, and they lose only one match all season to a Kentucky team who they also beat. For them to be frozen out of hosting a regional would seem harsh. Nebraska should probably be more worried than Florida. But Texas, based on their comparative resumes, should not get a top 4 seed over either of them. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Nov 26, 2017 19:46:11 GMT -5
Very interesting to see how seeds 2 through 7 shake out. I'm seeing predictions all over the map in this range. I do think it would just suck in principle for Florida to be denied a top-4 seed. They get two HUGE wins in the OOC, and they lose only one match all season to a Kentucky team who they also beat. For them to be frozen out of hosting a regional would seem harsh. Nebraska should probably be more worried than Florida. But Texas, based on their comparative resumes, should not get a top 4 seed over either of them. Tell us your comparisons. |
|
