|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 27, 2004 21:32:58 GMT -5
[quote author= [glow=red,2,300]simply curious[/i][/b][/color][/glow] link=board=general&thread=1101594376&start=57#3 date=1101608333]Throw the other eight (ie. - 9-16) in there and it could be three teams from the same conference on the same side of the bracket - possibly in the same region....doesn't the committee 'frown' on this? That's what I was getting at...rather unsuccessfully.[/quote]
The Pac-10, Big Ten and Big 12 will all have 5 or more teams in the tournament and there are only four regions so I'm not sure how you're not going to double up someplace. No guarentee that both teams for those conferences won't make it to the Elite 8 anyway.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 27, 2004 21:42:17 GMT -5
[quote author=(R)uffda! link=board=general&thread=1101594376&start=58#3 date=1101608563]I like my 8 better. Not because that's how they should be seeded necessarily but because it distributes the teams better.[/quote]
Now I'm confussed.
You had: Nebraska vs Stanford Pac-10 vs Pac10 Big Ten vs Big Ten Hawaii vs Minnesota
I had: Nebraska vs Stanford Big Ten vs Big Ten Hawaii vs. Minnesota Pac-10 vs. Pac-10
So just how does your pairings distribute the teams better?
|
|
|
Post by simplycurious on Nov 27, 2004 21:46:16 GMT -5
The Pac-10, Big Ten and Big 12 will all have 5 or more teams in the tournament and there are only four regions so I'm not sure how you're not going to double up someplace. No guarentee that both teams for those conferences won't make it to the Elite 8 anyway. I agree that you can't avoid 'doubling up', but you can avoid 'tripling up', can't you!?
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 27, 2004 21:49:49 GMT -5
[quote author= [glow=red,2,300] simplycurious[/i][/b][/color][/glow] link=board=general&thread=1101594376&start=62#4 date=1101609976] I agree that you can't avoid 'doubling up', but you can avoid 'tripling up', can't you!? [/quote] I didn't put three teams in a region. You did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2004 21:54:02 GMT -5
I'm probably really biased here, but I think Wisconsin can contend with both PSU and Minnesota next season. PSU loses Nadeau and Pederson, and Minn loses Taatjes, Rhino, Martin, and Bratford. I know both teams are reloading with some high quality recruits, but Wisconsin only loses Jill Odenthal (and Marian Weidner -- off the bench). UW will probably convert some middle to RS (though I would LOVE to see Boler get time on the RS), so the block should be even better, and with a TON of the offense returning, plus Wack and Simpson and Reineke getting another year of experience under their belt -- and meierotto, carlini, and shaw returning for their junior/senior years, I think they'll be a force in the big ten. I think they will be competitive but they showed us nothing this year that would lead us to believe they can contend for the title. I think their only chance is if Minnesota and PSU slip a little--which could happen. I like Wisconsin. But they were a disappointment, again, this year. It is true that they have the most coming back, but I'm not sure that will be enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2004 21:56:57 GMT -5
Now I'm confussed. You had: Nebraska vs Stanford Pac-10 vs Pac10 Big Ten vs Big Ten Hawaii vs Minnesota I had: Nebraska vs Stanford Big Ten vs Big Ten Hawaii vs. Minnesota Pac-10 vs. Pac-10 So just how does your pairings distribute the teams better? Yep. I didn't type what I thought I had: 1--Nebraska 2--Washington 3--Penn State 4--Hawaii 5--Minnesota 6--USC 7--OSU 8--Stanford If Nebraska is in Minnesota's region, the Gophers got jobbed. But they received a terrific draw in 2003 AND the Committee may want to handicap them by making them play the #1. OTOH, the Committee may want to avoid having the #1 knocked off by a lower seed because of HCA.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 27, 2004 22:02:02 GMT -5
Who has Nebraska in Minnesota's region?
The pairings as far as I know has always went (if they all advance):
#1 meets #8 #2 meets #7 #3 meets #6 #4 meets #5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2004 22:08:14 GMT -5
Who has Nebraska in Minnesota's region? The pairings as far as I know has always went (if they all advance): #1 meets #8 #2 meets #7 #3 meets #6 #4 meets #5 No one. I'm saying IF they end up in Minnesota's region. (I know how the pairings work.)
|
|
|
Post by simplycurious on Nov 27, 2004 22:09:47 GMT -5
I didn't put three teams in a region. You did. Actually, I didn't do this either...all I ever did was ask and somehow got 'whacked' with this...I'm merely asking the questions, I don't claim to have any of the answers...for that talk to (R)uffda! and/or Gorf.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 27, 2004 22:12:39 GMT -5
[quote author= [glow=red,2,300]simplycurious[/i][/b][/color][/glow] link=board=general&thread=1101594376&start=68#4 date=1101611387] Actually, I didn't do this either...all I ever did was ask and somehow got 'whacked' with this...I'm merely asking the questions, I don't claim to have any of the answers...for that talk to (R)uffda! and/or Gorf.[/quote]
I don't know nuttin, I still think Hofstra ought to get the overall #1 seed.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 27, 2004 22:20:52 GMT -5
I do like it when the seedings work out so the top four teams from each conference are in different region. I just don't think we'll see them juggle the teams around to much to do it.
Last year in Lincoln they had #1 seed USC and #8 seed UCLA so we know it sure can happen.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Nov 27, 2004 23:19:15 GMT -5
wiscvb, I wouldn't call your assertion that Wisc will challenge PSU and UM as biased, because I think delusional is probably more appropriate. The gap between UW and PSU and MN will be greater next year thn this year. (and the gap was pretty big this year) Pete is a great guy, but he is on his own now and he can't come close to the standard Cook left him with.
|
|
|
Post by vballmaniac40 on Nov 28, 2004 0:06:21 GMT -5
Make sure everyone takes into account USC's loss to WSU tonight. That's a bad loss and could affect their seed big time. I don't think it can knock them out of the top 8 though since teams 9-16 really aren't that strong.
|
|
|
Post by simplycurious on Nov 28, 2004 1:41:47 GMT -5
This was posted on the Penn State website, so I thought I'd throw it out here and this seemed like as good a place as any:
Penn State women's volleyball quotes on winning the Big Ten Championship for the second consecutive year and its eighth title in 14 years since joining the Big Ten in 1991:
Freshman outside hitter Kate Price:
"This Big Ten championship is an amazing accomplishment that we achieved through teamwork and hard work all year long."
Junior setter Sam Tortorello:
"Winning the Big Ten is the reason I came to Penn State and it was one of the goals at the beginning of the season. It feels great. It's a culmination of hard work and togetherness, but we're not done yet. There's still some hard work left for this season."
Senior defensive specialist Tabitha Eshleman:
"Winning the Big Ten for a second year in a row is an amazing accomplishment because it proves our hard work and commitment. It shows that we have the ability to overcome anything because we're a team. We don't have any individuals. We're a team and that's what I love about us."
Junior libero Kaleena Walters:
"The Big Ten title shows our hard work and coming together as a team. It's very special that we were able to do it two years in a row. We don't have that one standout person, we just come together as a team, and that makes us special."
Head coach Russ Rose:
"This was a great effort by the team because it wasn't easy. No one picked them, but they made believers out of a lot of people. There isn't a player on this team that would go first in a lottery, but they get it done as a team. I'm sure they'll tell you that they're not done, but it was a great job by them."
|
|
|
Post by wiscvball on Nov 28, 2004 3:21:46 GMT -5
wiscvb, I wouldn't call your assertion that Wisc will challenge PSU and UM as biased, because I think delusional is probably more appropriate. The gap between UW and PSU and MN will be greater next year thn this year. (and the gap was pretty big this year) Pete is a great guy, but he is on his own now and he can't come close to the standard Cook left him with. I have to differ a bit here. For one, UW split with minnesota this year, which they haven't done in the past two years. UW also outplayed PSU at PSU, and lost in 4. If they don't commit 13 service errors, and give up 8 aces, then they win that match, easily. Without Odenthal's rash of service errors, and with everyone else growing up a year -- coupled with the players that the top 3 teams (OSU, PSU, and Minn) lose -- a LARGE portion of all of their offense, I don't see how the gap gets bigger. Sure, the Gophers still have Gentil, and the Lions still have Sam T, and OSU still has a bunch of sophomores, but the Badgers will be better than they were this year. I see no reason as of yet to think that any of the aforementioned three teams would be better next year. Maybe the freshman and transfers will step up, but that remains to be seen. As far as what returns team by team, Wisconsin should be near the top of the conference. This was always supposed to be a "rebuilding year". New setter, new libero, all new primary passers -- and without the blowup at Purdue on Friday night, this team would have equaled last year's team for their conference record at 14-6. As much as I can say that Wisconsin won't be worse next year than this year, I can also say that I'm not sure PSU, OSU, or Minnesota will be any better.
|
|