|
|
Post by Leftrightapproach on Apr 28, 2019 15:55:34 GMT -5
Based on the criteria comparisons above, I will stick with the predictions I've had since week 5: At-Large: SCarolina CalPoly Many comparisons are close, and it will depend on how much the committee values wins over USC/LSU for some OVREC evaluations. East #3: FIU by a hair. Criteria are tied but FIU has better SOS and H2H. Also no bad losses, while Stetson lost to TCU. If Stetson wins East bid #3, FIU will have a lot of close compares with other bubbles (much like Stetson). They will win SOS versus all and a mix in other criteria. However, the FIU wins over Stetson and SCarolina could put them in At-Large. Last teams out:Stetson/Hawaii I think a big question is which is more important, good wins or bad losses? FIU played a good schedule and had no wins over a team ranked higher than them (outside of Stetson who just jumped), but also didn't lose to any teams lower (Stetson again is a weird scenario). South Carolina beat the current #2 (USC should jump UCLA) and LSU, but lost to Charleston, TCU, and GSU. What is more important? A team that proves they can beat anybody or one that shows consistency but hasn't shown an ability to beat the best? |
|
|
|
Post by newbeach on Apr 28, 2019 16:00:40 GMT -5
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. FSU
4. LSU
5. PEP
6. FIU
7. Cal Poly
8. Hawaii
I value the whole body of work, not just one or two losses or a couple of wins. I don't like teams who have an inconsistent season and pull out a win here or there. Was it a fluke? Was is scheduling? Who knows? With your whole body of work we see consistency against your opponents versus what others have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandyfan on Apr 28, 2019 16:08:56 GMT -5
Hawaii is 1-9 against these teams. What "whole body of work" is showing consistency other than to lose to them?
|
|
|
|
Post by newbeach on Apr 28, 2019 16:09:23 GMT -5
Based on the criteria comparisons above, I will stick with the predictions I've had since week 5: At-Large: SCarolina CalPoly Many comparisons are close, and it will depend on how much the committee values wins over USC/LSU for some OVREC evaluations. East #3: FIU by a hair. Criteria are tied but FIU has better SOS and H2H. Also no bad losses, while Stetson lost to TCU. If Stetson wins East bid #3, FIU will have a lot of close compares with other bubbles (much like Stetson). They will win SOS versus all and a mix in other criteria. However, the FIU wins over Stetson and SCarolina could put them in At-Large. Last teams out:Stetson/Hawaii I think a big question is which is more important, good wins or bad losses? FIU played a good schedule and had no wins over a team ranked higher than them (outside of Stetson who just jumped), but also didn't lose to any teams lower (Stetson again is a weird scenario). South Carolina beat the current #2 (USC should jump UCLA) and LSU, but lost to Charleston, TCU, and GSU. What is more important? A team that proves they can beat anybody or one that shows consistency but hasn't shown an ability to beat the best? Again, I like consistency. Maybe a team hasn't beat the best of the best but are really close because they are a # 5, 6, 7, or 8 team (and not #1 or #2). I like what Travis said previously about Hawaii but it can apply to some other teams too, "They are beating who they should beat". It doesn't mean a team shouldn't get the recognition for their body of work if they have no great wins (Hawaii beat everyone they should with the exception of Poly and lost close matches to all the "best" teams). I think FIU is somewhat similar. But, if you are all over the place, it isn't a great season, in my opinion. An inconsistent team may have beat someone on a fluke. There are also some match-ups that are better than others. Even USC had some questionable losses, but because they were the only team to beat the #1 ranked UCLA, they get a pass. |
|
|
|
Post by sandyfan on Apr 28, 2019 16:16:01 GMT -5
I guess I'm the opposite. Give me a team that has Proven they can compete with the best. They don't have to worry about losing to a bad team any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by newbeach on Apr 28, 2019 16:17:36 GMT -5
Hawaii is 1-9 against these teams. What "whole body of work" is showing consistency other than to lose to them? They lost to UCLA, USC, PEPP x2, FSU, LSU. With the exception of Poly they haven't lost a match outside of the top ranked teams. Almost all their losses to these teams were 3-2 splits. Even with UCLA, the only team they were swept by, three of the 5 matches went to three sets and the other two matches were close. They have no bad losses. I consider Poly one of the best 6 or 7 teams (but they too have been inconsistent at times). Some of the other teams lost against some of the "average" or lower ranked teams. In my opinion, I don't like bad losses and I would rather have a consistent team. At least a consistent team you can say they had a decent season and lost to some better teams. If you had bad losses and an average season, with a couple of good wins, you didn't have a good season. Maybe you weren't playing at your potential or maybe it was a fluke or it was they got lucky to win against better teams. We don't know. That's why I will take consistency. Didn't Utah beat USC a couple of years ago? Or was it just their number one pair who beat Claes and Hughes on a super windy day? Maybe they were a decent team, but they also lost to a lot of other teams that year. |
|
|
|
Post by newbeach on Apr 28, 2019 16:28:09 GMT -5
I guess I'm the opposite. Give me a team that has Proven they can compete with the best. They don't have to worry about losing to a bad team any more. I can appreciate that. But does one win or two prove they can compete with the best? S.Carolina beat USC 3-2, Hawaii lost to them 2-3 and had some close matches that could have gone either way (I even said it way back when, and I am not a USC fan, but I thought their scheduling was quite ambitious to play some tough East-West competition and then get on a plane and travel to a different time-zone and play them at their home first thing in the morning). I guess that is why I look at what else a team did. Everyone has their opinion and obviously wants their own team to win. I guess that is why their is a committee instead of an algorithm. I suppose neither is right nor wrong in some cases. There is an element of subjectivity to whoever is going to get in when the teams are close. |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Apr 28, 2019 16:28:41 GMT -5
For those that want to count GSU and Charleston as bad losses you need to do the same with lbsu, Cal, Arizona etc. They all had similar records and that is all that the NCAA looks at not the silly avca rankings
|
|
|
|
Post by newbeach on Apr 28, 2019 16:33:21 GMT -5
For those that want to count GSU and Charleston as bad losses you need to do the same with lbsu, Cal, Arizona etc. They all had similar records and that is all that the NCAA looks at not the silly avca rankings I was considering bad losses outside of the the obviously top half dozen teams (since only 8 make the tournament), you don't want to lose to teams too far behind those 8 top teams. AVCA may be silly, but we also have the DIG polls etc. They are just another measure, subjective as they may be. |
|
|
|
Post by sandyfan on Apr 28, 2019 16:48:50 GMT -5
Carolina has also had some matches against FSU and another against LSU that they easily could have won. FSU was 4-1 but 4's and 5's lost 15-13 and 16-14 respectively in their 3rd games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 28, 2019 16:54:19 GMT -5
If it’s not Hawaii (which I believe will be the case) I’d much rather it be LMU, Stetson, or FIU. South Carolina would be a lousy selection. That program has done nothing in the NCAA tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 28, 2019 16:56:25 GMT -5
Carolina has also had some matches against FSU and another against LSU that they easily could have won. FSU was 4-1 but 4's and 5's lost 15-13 and 16-14 respectively in their 3rd games. Easily have won? I could make the case for multiple Hawaii loses (all to tournament teams). |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Apr 28, 2019 16:59:02 GMT -5
Seriously,
CalPoly lost to Cal, LBSU, LMU, and AZ
why isn't anyone talking about dinging them for that but doing so for SCarolina?
|
|
|
|
Post by kaipono on Apr 28, 2019 17:09:23 GMT -5
Hawaii is 1-9 against these teams. What "whole body of work" is showing consistency other than to lose to them? South Carolina is 2-6 against these teams, Stetson is 1-6, and Cal Poly is 0-6 (3-6 if you include Hawaii), so does that mean they are consistent (ignoring other losses to Cal, LBSU, Arizona, CoC, Georgia St, etc.)? Also, all of Hawaii's losses are from tournament teams, whereas for other non-tournament team losses, South Carolina has 4 losses, Cal Poly has 4 losses, and Stetson has 2 losses. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 17:09:24 GMT -5
Seriously, CalPoly lost to Cal, LBSU, LMU, and AZ why isn't anyone talking about dinging them for that but doing so for SCarolina? Because they beat the future #1 ranked team. That one win outweighs the losses. People want the potential. |
|
