|
Post by gobigred25 on Nov 28, 2004 22:01:01 GMT -5
Don't leave out UCLA and Missouri being seeded as well. How the hell do those two get seeded? That's just ridiculous. Absolutely atrocious. Missouris should not have been seeded. They will be upset in the first or second round. This is just insane. If they wanted to reward the Big XII with 3 seeds, A&M was their team.(Well sorta...we had 2 teams deserving of a seed this year). Who matches up better with USC---Missouri, KSU, or Nebraska?
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 28, 2004 22:04:43 GMT -5
You'd like it a lot less if you had any intention of attending! How can they talk about travel restrictions and send Stanford to Tallahassee? Followed (I hope) by a trip to sunny Green Bay? We must have really pissed somebody off! If they had an on-campus facility seating 2000 available AND rent free, I think they'd be hosting. As it is, that Stanford doesn't have such a facility available makes it convenient to send one team to Florida rather than scatter three teams from Florida. I'm not saying it's fair or right, but that's how the selection committee thinks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2004 22:33:03 GMT -5
[quote author=BearClause link=board=general&thread=1101684707&start=31#2 date=1101697483] If they had an on-campus facility seating 2000 available AND rent free, I think they'd be hosting. As it is, that Stanford doesn't have such a facility available makes it convenient to send one team to Florida rather than scatter three teams from Florida. I'm not saying it's fair or right, but that's how the selection committee thinks.[/quote]
And how do you explain Cal hosting for St. Mary's and not even getting shipped out? Why couldn't higher rated Stanford host at San Jose State or Santa Clara? and again, Cal hosting? Sheeesh. Seems that this year 5 of 16 seeded teams are not hosting, and instead of being shipped out, those who got the host sites gratuitously stayed at home. Must be some anti-Lisa Love west coast payback conspiracy forged together by the coalition of the veggie-rights-Daughters-of-the American-Revolution wing of the land-mines-for-peaceful-seal-clubbing division of the blah, blah, blah.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 28, 2004 23:27:18 GMT -5
And how do you explain Cal hosting for St. Mary's and not even getting shipped out? Why couldn't higher rated Stanford host at San Jose State or Santa Clara? and again, Cal hosting? Sheeesh. Seems that this year 5 of 16 seeded teams are not hosting, and instead of being shipped out, those who got the host sites gratuitously stayed at home. Must be some anti-Lisa Love west coast payback conspiracy forged together by the coalition of the veggie-rights-Daughters-of-the American-Revolution wing of the land-mines-for-peaceful-seal-clubbing division of the blah, blah, blah. Well - again I go back to historical precedence. My guess is that Cal made Haas Pavilion available rent-free on the condition that Cal gets to play in that sub-regional. I'm guessing that's how Santa Clara got to "host" at San Jose State in 2000, when the Leavey Center was merely a construction site (as Maples is now). San Jose State was in that 2000 sub-regional, and I suppose made the Event Center available for nothing. However - in 2000 I noticed that much of the event management was handled by Santa Clara's staff. Perhaps they could have had Santa Clara playing in the same sub-regional as Stanford, and thus hosting. As it is, they made a choice and my guess is that of the four [ Correction: six] Northern California teams in the tournament, they chose based on geography to put those four (St Mary's, Cal, Sac State, Pacific) together and ship the two South Bay teams (Stanford and Santa Clara) out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2004 0:20:22 GMT -5
[quote author=BearClause link=board=general&thread=1101684707&start=33#2 date=1101702438] Well - again I go back to historical precedence. My guess is that Cal made Haas Pavilion available rent-free on the condition that Cal gets to play in that sub-regional. I'm guessing that's how Santa Clara got to "host" at San Jose State in 2000, when the Leavey Center was merely a construction site (as Maples is now). San Jose State was in that 2000 sub-regional, and I suppose made the Event Center available for nothing. However - in 2000 I noticed that much of the event management was handled by Santa Clara's staff.
Perhaps they could have had Santa Clara playing in the same sub-regional as Stanford, and thus hosting. As it is, they made a choice and my guess is that of the four Northern California teams in the tournament, they chose based on geography to put those four (St Mary's, Cal, Sac State, Pacific) together and ship the two South Bay teams (Stanford and Santa Clara) out.[/quote]
Could be. Also could be that Cal was owed after last year when the Pacific Region named Rich Feller the Coach of the Year and the NCAA dissed him by naming Mick Haley (whom Feller had won over at the Regional level) the National Coach of the Year. Could also be the first step in a multi-year future agreement that will be revealed as time goes by. Could also be because the Pacific representative, from Santa Clara, was either about to give birth, was giving birth, or had just given birth, and was not as active a participant as she might otherwise have been. Could be because the NCAA believes in the dart-throw system of investing/seeding. Could be any permutation or none of the above. There is always a conflict between decision-making by committee and a knowing-all chief executive. Bottom line is teams need to step up to the line and forget everything except the match at hand.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Nov 29, 2004 0:24:40 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me for sure, I heard Maples was ready to go!
|
|
|
Post by FUBAR on Nov 29, 2004 0:31:46 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me for sure, I heard Maples was ready to go! Women's basketball played a home match at a rebranded Leveny Center (SCU) today... I guess Maples isn't ready quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 29, 2004 0:37:17 GMT -5
Could be. Also could be that Cal was owed after last year when the Pacific Region named Rich Feller the Coach of the Year and the NCAA dissed him by naming Mick Haley (whom Feller had won over at the Regional level) the National Coach of the Year. Could also be the first step in a multi-year future agreement that will be revealed as time goes by. Could also be because the Pacific representative, from Santa Clara, was either about to give birth, was giving birth, or had just given birth, and was not as active a participant as she might otherwise have been. Could be because the NCAA believes in the dart-throw system of investing/seeding. Could be any permutation or none of the above. There is always a conflict between decision-making by committee and a knowing-all chief executive. Bottom line is teams need to step up to the line and forget everything except the match at hand. Perhaps you forgot the most obvious. St Mary's was a #10 seed, while Stanford was a #11 seed. They were probably going to ship one of the two out to balance the geography and chose the lower seed. As for the COY thought, I believe the AVCA selections are deliberated by eight coaches in a smoke-filled conference room at the AVCA Convention. The NCAA Tournament selections are deliberated by a group of eight (mostly assistant) athletic directors in a smoke-filled conference room in Indiannapolis. Somehow I'm guessing the affiliations don't quite mesh up.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 29, 2004 0:40:23 GMT -5
Women's basketball played a home match at a rebranded Leveny Center (SCU) today... I guess Maples isn't ready quite yet. Apparently the first scheduled event at Maples is a women's BB game on 12/10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2004 0:42:11 GMT -5
Women's basketball played a home match at a rebranded Leveny Center (SCU) today... I guess Maples isn't ready quite yet. By contract, the Stanford mens and womens BB team are playing at the Leavy (not Leveny) Center at Santa Clara. After today, they are off for around two weeks with finals. When the Pac 10 season starts, they will be at Maples. Some sources say that Maples was ready to host NCAA VB, others say the NCAA wasn't happy with the lack of a guarantee in the form they wanted of availability, etc. Bottom line is Stanford got shipped out to unseeded Florida A&M, which reeks of punishment, but to some, that might be Nirvana.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2004 0:58:03 GMT -5
[quote author=BearClause link=board=general&thread=1101684707&start=37#2 date=1101706637] Perhaps you forgot the most obvious. St Mary's was a #10 seed, while Stanford was a #11 seed. They were probably going to ship one of the two out to balance the geography and chose the lower seed. [/quote]
If you believe this, I have some rent control-free rental property to sell you in the PR of Berkeley. Why is UCLA hosting as are Washington, USC, and San Diego, when Stanford isn't? After all, Stanford finished second in the Pac 10: ahead of hosts USC, UCLA and California. At least, UCSB, which deserved to host but confirmed it was unable to do so, got very favorable match-ups at its "away" site.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Nov 29, 2004 1:07:03 GMT -5
Our, Stanford, away match-ups suck!
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 29, 2004 1:25:48 GMT -5
If you believe this, I have some rent control-free rental property to sell you in the PR of Berkeley. Why is UCLA hosting as are Washington, USC, and San Diego, when Stanford isn't? After all, Stanford finished second in the Pac 10: ahead of hosts USC, UCLA and California. At least, UCSB, which deserved to host but confirmed it was unable to do so, got very favorable match-ups at its "away" site. Washington and USC have more favorable seeds. Besides that, all these hosts you've brought up have their own on-campus facilities that meet the NCAA's requirements and a willingness to meet all the NCAA's conditions. If you want to blame anyone for this fiasco, I suggest the Stanford men's basketball team and its donors for pushing the Maples reconstruction.
|
|
|
Post by hwy101 on Nov 29, 2004 3:30:48 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me for sure, I heard Maples was ready to go! From what I was told, Stanford did not get the necessary City Hall permits (construction, etc.) in time for the NCAA 1st and 2nd rounds. In any case, Maples was slated to be re-opened by mid-December for basketball not volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by hwy101 on Nov 29, 2004 3:38:00 GMT -5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does the seeding committee know anything about volleyball??
|
|