|
Post by pineapple on Nov 30, 2004 1:12:13 GMT -5
Actually Freeball is right. Sure anyone can file a lawsuit but it would probably be thrown out. The NCAA committee is given a lot of discretion unfortunately. For every rule anyone can point to that was violated, they would be able to point to another to say that was what they based their decision on. I'm sure the NCAA has an appeal process but as I stated in another thread, UH has decided not to even file a formal complaint. No one else here has standing to pursue it. nope!
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Nov 30, 2004 1:43:53 GMT -5
I want to further elaborate. Due process is my point...not necessarily law suit. In the paper, the spokesperson for the selection committee gave the rationale for treating Hawaii the way it did. Her reasons were basically the same as the guesstimates of several posters, except when it came to Colorado St in the second round. She said the road to the regionals are relatively easy for Hawaii. We know this is not true. Still, she contends it's an easy road for Hawaii, because Hawaii, assuming it wins the 1st round, will be playing an unseeded team in the 2nd round! But we know that unseeded team is #9 Colorado St. This kind of talk smack right into the face and should not be left unfettered. Whether or not the courts will bother with this kind of issues is moot. Neither you nor I really know, unless you are of the courts. But one thing is clear: It is unfair and should be looked into. This is BiK's (was it IB's?) point. No doubt there is an appeal process. You hit it on the head about not wanting to file an appeal. And this also, to me, is IB's, or BiK's or Annie's (Mary's) basic gripe. If we have reforms in the selection process, it's because of people like BiK or IB.
|
|
|
Post by EagleEye on Nov 30, 2004 7:53:56 GMT -5
Purdue at 16 and 14 in the tourney, Arkansas at 17-15, Colorado at 14 and 13. Purdue and Colorado finish in the bottom half of their conference and are given an at-large bid to a tournament to determine the National Champion. As I said last year, any team that finishes in the bottom half of their conference does NOT deserve an at-large bid. I don't care what conference they are in or what teams are in that conference. By the way, I am somewhat of a fan of Purdue and know a couple of the girls personally. This is not intended to bash any of the three schools mentioned. I am just using them as an example. THE SELECTION PROCESS NEEDS A MAJOR OVERHAUL!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Nov 30, 2004 8:05:43 GMT -5
[quote author=IdahoBoy®® link=board=general&thread=1101773951&start=1#0 date=1101774430]Consequences that the NCAA does not consider:
For one: The University of Hawaii volleyball girls are packed and have tried to make all the arrangements to end their semester today. It's not even December (3-weeks of school left) and they quite likely will not be back in school this semester.
What kind of emphasis on the student-athlete does this show by the NCAA? [/quote]
This is where the NCAA, not necessarily the volleyball committee but the NCAA as a whole, is hypocritical. They continue to resist a football play-off for the D-1 schools claiming that it would take "student-athletes" away from school too long. However, it seems they do not have the same concerns for every other sport.
[quote author=IdahoBoy®® link=board=general&thread=1101773951&start=1#0 date=1101774430] Many schools like Hawaii, Florida, Stanford, etc. have spent the past 14+ years building up some of the best fan-bases in the country. Why should they be punished for their success? [/quote]
This to me is the biggest issue with some of the decisions. Schools that do have a solid fan base are not rewarded. Hawai'i averages over 7,000 fans/per match is sent to a school that averages around 1,800. Minnesota averaged over 4,500 for the Big 10 season and 3,700 overall is sent to a school that draws around 300. To me, that is the biggest disservice. Understandable, perhaps, if their seasons were mediocre but are seeded teams. And, as another poster mentioned, I'm sure there are teams that would love to play in front of 7,000 or more fans at SSC, hostile or not. And, I'm sure that Yale, Albany and Long Island University would enjoy playing in front of 5,000 fans at MN.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 30, 2004 8:07:06 GMT -5
Actually Freeball is right. Thank you for your support. (And thanks to pineapple for the very entertaining legal analysis!)
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Nov 30, 2004 8:28:04 GMT -5
Purdue at 16 and 14 in the tourney, Arkansas at 17-15, Colorado at 14 and 13. Purdue and Colorado finish in the bottom half of their conference and are given an at-large bid to a tournament to determine the National Champion. As I said last year, any team that finishes in the bottom half of their conference does NOT deserve an at-large bid. I don't care what conference they are in or what teams are in that conference. By the way, I am somewhat of a fan of Purdue and know a couple of the girls personally. This is not intended to bash any of the three schools mentioned. I am just using them as an example. THE SELECTION PROCESS NEEDS A MAJOR OVERHAUL!!!!!! I agree with you 100%. Those 3 teams should not be in.
|
|
TheWiseOne
Sophomore
"Potential doesn't win ball games" - Me
Posts: 164
|
Post by TheWiseOne on Nov 30, 2004 9:17:34 GMT -5
Purdue at 16 and 14 in the tourney, Arkansas at 17-15, Colorado at 14 and 13. Purdue and Colorado finish in the bottom half of their conference and are given an at-large bid to a tournament to determine the National Champion. As I said last year, any team that finishes in the bottom half of their conference does NOT deserve an at-large bid. I don't care what conference they are in or what teams are in that conference. By the way, I am somewhat of a fan of Purdue and know a couple of the girls personally. This is not intended to bash any of the three schools mentioned. I am just using them as an example. THE SELECTION PROCESS NEEDS A MAJOR OVERHAUL!!!!!! I don't follow the SEC or Big 12 as much as I do the Big Ten. All I can say is that I disagree. You cannot base an at-large bid on what 'half' of their conference they finish in. Purdue, at 9-11 in the Big Ten, has a good enough RPI to make the tourney. They have 5 wins over top 25. They definitely deserve it. 6th or 7th place teams in the Big Ten, at least in EVERY COMPUTER that does D1 volleyball, are better than the top two and three team from half the conferences in the nation. And many will agree. There is no doubt, the bubble burst for some good teams, but its not because teams came from a "good conference". Well, you can use that reason, but a better way of putting it is that those kinds of teams have an AMAZING strength of schedule. And that is huge.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 30, 2004 9:25:07 GMT -5
Purdue at 16 and 14 in the tourney, Arkansas at 17-15, Colorado at 14 and 13. Purdue and Colorado finish in the bottom half of their conference and are given an at-large bid to a tournament to determine the National Champion. As I said last year, any team that finishes in the bottom half of their conference does NOT deserve an at-large bid. I don't care what conference they are in or what teams are in that conference. By the way, I am somewhat of a fan of Purdue and know a couple of the girls personally. This is not intended to bash any of the three schools mentioned. I am just using them as an example. THE SELECTION PROCESS NEEDS A MAJOR OVERHAUL!!!!!! I guess you better kick out Arizona too since they finished as the 6th place team in the Pac 10. That's the bottom half of their conference afterall.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 30, 2004 9:41:08 GMT -5
Purdue at 16 and 14 in the tourney, Arkansas at 17-15, Colorado at 14 and 13. Purdue and Colorado finish in the bottom half of their conference and are given an at-large bid to a tournament to determine the National Champion. As I said last year, any team that finishes in the bottom half of their conference does NOT deserve an at-large bid. I don't care what conference they are in or what teams are in that conference. Everytime you say this, I give the same response and you never answer it: why shouldn't the committee just select the best 33 teams left after giving the automatic bids?
|
|
|
Post by EagleEye on Nov 30, 2004 14:53:56 GMT -5
Can you say politics and subjectivity? That is why. I repeat again - If a team finishes in the bottom half of the conference they do NOT deserve to be in the NCAA tournament as long as that tournament's main purpose is to select a national champion. There needs to be rules on how the teams are selected - rules that are fair to all teams regardless of their conference - and those rules need to be followed.
|
|
|
Post by EagleEye on Nov 30, 2004 15:04:10 GMT -5
An interesting observation. Team A received an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament with a record of two games over 500. Team B, with a record of 20 games over 500, did not receive an at-large bid. Team A and Team B had one common opponent - Team C who did not receive an at-large bid and had a record under 500. Team C defeated Team A twice including once in the last two weeks of the season. Team B played Team C once and defeated Team C in a match that was not really that close. The last time Team A and Team B met (not this season) Team B won. Team A is in the NCAA tournament. Team B is not. Interesting!! Well, it is time for me to take a vacation from my job and this message board. If I don't return before Christmas - MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE!!!
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 30, 2004 15:22:43 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Team B also lost to three teams outside of the top 100 in the country, and they didn't have any wins against any teams in the top 40, whereas Team A had, what, 5 wins against teams in the top 30?
Western Kentucky had all the bad losses of Purdue, without any of the good wins. Mary Wise scoffs at Purdue because they lost to Kentucky and Northwestern, but Western Kentucky lost to Denver, IUPUI, and Arkansas St.
At least Purdue beat some good teams here and there.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 30, 2004 15:30:30 GMT -5
Purdue at 16 and 14 in the tourney, Arkansas at 17-15, Colorado at 14 and 13. Purdue and Colorado finish in the bottom half of their conference and are given an at-large bid to a tournament to determine the National Champion. As I said last year, any team that finishes in the bottom half of their conference does NOT deserve an at-large bid. I don't care what conference they are in or what teams are in that conference. By the way, I am somewhat of a fan of Purdue and know a couple of the girls personally. This is not intended to bash any of the three schools mentioned. I am just using them as an example. THE SELECTION PROCESS NEEDS A MAJOR OVERHAUL!!!!!! You also forgot Kansas. Undefeat and a perfect 9-0 in non-conference play. Finished tied with Colorado in the the bottom half of the Big 12 at 9-11 for an 18-11 season record and final Pablo of 32nd.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Nov 30, 2004 16:35:22 GMT -5
Ok, here's one take...
First do away with some of the automatic qualifiers by making some conference champions face each other in a playing fashion.
I firmly believe that some of the lesser schools should have an opportunity to play in the tournament but just because you get 8 or so to join into a conference, they shouldn't automatically get a place in the field.
Look at how many conferences have no wins in the tournament even though they send 1 team every year. Granted they get matched up with some of the best teams in the country as R1 sacrifices but they could at least be somewhat competitive.
So take the top 9 conf and give them a auto-qualifier. Take the other 22 and make them have play-ins to give 20 auto-qualifiers. Playin conf can be decided by historical performance of a conference.
This leaves 44 AtLarge teams to chose.
Decide your 64 teams.
Seed the top 16 teams into 4 groups of 4. (A-D)
Group the remaining 48 into 6 groups of 8 based on perceived seeding. (E-J)
Take a team from each group (A-D) to regionally setup a 16 team bracket if possible. Ship out teams as needed.
Take 2 teams from each group E-J and assign regionally as much as possible into the existing brackets with the already defined top 16 hosts if possible.
There you have a regionalized based seeded bracket with somewhat minimalized travel.
Really, it could work...
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Nov 30, 2004 17:26:12 GMT -5
OK, I may have missed a few details and there may be a few subtleties to work out...
|
|