|
|
Post by Wiswell on Oct 1, 2019 9:48:17 GMT -5
You have that wrong. It's annoying to be paired with Rutgers because Rutgers is in the Big Ten. But worse, is a split week with PSU-Rutgers. Fly to Happy Valley. Fly home. 48 hours later, fly to Rutgers. That pairing should always be a Friday/Saturday/Sunday matchup. How many mid-week matches are there?
If I recall correctly, most of those matches are on the weekends, no?
Way many more than there used to be. It used to be Friday/Sat or Friday/Sunday except you played your travel partner on Wednesdays. Now with the unbalanced scheduled there is a Wednesday match about every week, at least every other. |
|
|
|
Post by JT on Oct 1, 2019 10:17:04 GMT -5
Michigans Ne-IA Psu-Rutgers Mn-WI In-Purd Osu-MD Nw-Ill Unbalanced. 6 teams played once. It's so annoying that PSU gets paired with Rutgers every other year. The Big Ten teams don't need to prep for Rutgers so they can spend all their time and energy preparing for PSU each week. People like to poke fun at the early tournament "cupcakes" PSU plays, but they neglect this weekly imbalance in scheduling. Just like MN had when the B1G was 11 teams, and we got paired with IA (who has since gotten better, yay!) Except we were paired with them 9 out of 11 years (only different when we or they were the “odd” team). |
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Oct 1, 2019 10:55:52 GMT -5
Michigans Ne-IA Psu-Rutgers Mn-WI In-Purd Osu-MD Nw-Ill Unbalanced. 6 teams played once.
It's so annoying that PSU gets paired with Rutgers every other year.
The Big Ten teams don't need to prep for Rutgers so they can spend all their time and energy preparing for PSU each week.
People like to poke fun at the early tournament "cupcakes" PSU plays, but they neglect this weekly imbalance in scheduling.
Penn State is the most successful team in the Big Ten. They should be paired with the least successful team. |
|
|
|
Post by uwvbfan on Oct 1, 2019 13:01:13 GMT -5
Traveling Partners were first determined by geography so the partners would not need to travel very far for their Friday/Saturday matches. It was also good for the Wednesday match when traveling partners played each other (not too far to go and return for a 1-match road trip). Then came an 11th team to the conference and the traveling partners changed to accommodate this. Wisconsin had been paired with IA, MN, NW, and IL, its closest members of the conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by NittanyLions on Oct 1, 2019 13:22:40 GMT -5
It's so annoying that PSU gets paired with Rutgers every other year.
The Big Ten teams don't need to prep for Rutgers so they can spend all their time and energy preparing for PSU each week.
People like to poke fun at the early tournament "cupcakes" PSU plays, but they neglect this weekly imbalance in scheduling.
Penn State is the most successful team in the Big Ten. They should be paired with the least successful team.
LOL! You've got us confused with Nebraska. We haven't been relevant for the last 6 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by NittanyLions on Oct 1, 2019 13:23:41 GMT -5
How many mid-week matches are there?
If I recall correctly, most of those matches are on the weekends, no?
Way many more than there used to be. It used to be Friday/Sat or Friday/Sunday except you played your travel partner on Wednesdays. Now with the unbalanced scheduled there is a Wednesday match about every week, at least every other.
When do these poor kids get time to study?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2019 13:33:54 GMT -5
Penn State is the most successful team in the Big Ten. They should be paired with the least successful team. LOL! You've got us confused with Nebraska. We haven't been relevant for the last 6 years. Doing the math: 2014 - National Championship; 2015 - not relevant 2016 - not relevant 2017 - Final Four (I think that's relevant, no?) 2018 - Regional Final (in most eyes, not relevant, so I'll give you that one) 2019 - Absentee ballot, not yet processed Even if you say not relevant from 2015 through this year, that's five years, not six. And I think Penn State was very relevant in 2017. But, minds can differ (and do, almost all the time). |
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Oct 1, 2019 13:53:20 GMT -5
LOL! You've got us confused with Nebraska. We haven't been relevant for the last 6 years. Doing the math: 2014 - National Championship; 2015 - not relevant 2016 - not relevant 2017 - Final Four (I think that's relevant, no?) 2018 - Regional Final (in most eyes, not relevant, so I'll give you that one) 2019 - Absentee ballot, not yet processed Even if you say not relevant from 2015 through this year, that's five years, not six. And I think Penn State was very relevant in 2017. But, minds can differ (and do, almost all the time). 2017 - Dropped free ball on match point against eventual National Champion. Definitely relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Oct 1, 2019 13:55:19 GMT -5
Penn State is the most successful team in the Big Ten. They should be paired with the least successful team.
LOL! You've got us confused with Nebraska. We haven't been relevant for the last 6 years.
Uh. What? 10/01/2019 - 6 years = 10/01/2013. You've won 2 National Titles since October 1st, 2013! |
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Oct 1, 2019 14:30:32 GMT -5
Way many more than there used to be. It used to be Friday/Sat or Friday/Sunday except you played your travel partner on Wednesdays. Now with the unbalanced scheduled there is a Wednesday match about every week, at least every other. When do these poor kids get time to study?
About the same as the basketball and softball teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Oct 1, 2019 14:32:28 GMT -5
LOL! You've got us confused with Nebraska. We haven't been relevant for the last 6 years. Doing the math: 2014 - National Championship; 2015 - not relevant 2016 - not relevant 2017 - Final Four (I think that's relevant, no?) 2018 - Regional Final (in most eyes, not relevant, so I'll give you that one) 2019 - Absentee ballot, not yet processed Even if you say not relevant from 2015 through this year, that's five years, not six. And I think Penn State was very relevant in 2017. But, minds can differ (and do, almost all the time). Saying not relevant and PSU because they didn't win NC is like saying Yankees aren't relevant because they didn't win the World Series, but were actually in it. Oh wait. Yankees fans actually do say that. About 300 teams would love to have the success PSU had. Heck see, Creighton sweet 16. Great moment for them. |
|
|
|
Post by NittanyLions on Oct 1, 2019 20:21:38 GMT -5
LOL! You've got us confused with Nebraska. We haven't been relevant for the last 6 years.
Uh. What? 10/01/2019 - 6 years = 10/01/2013. You've won 2 National Titles since October 1st, 2013!
OK, let's break it up into 5-year increments, so it's fair.
The most successful team in the Big 10 the last 5 years should get paired with the worst team for the next 5 years.  
|
|
|
|
Post by NittanyLions on Oct 1, 2019 20:23:42 GMT -5
Doing the math: 2014 - National Championship; 2015 - not relevant 2016 - not relevant 2017 - Final Four (I think that's relevant, no?) 2018 - Regional Final (in most eyes, not relevant, so I'll give you that one) 2019 - Absentee ballot, not yet processed Even if you say not relevant from 2015 through this year, that's five years, not six. And I think Penn State was very relevant in 2017. But, minds can differ (and do, almost all the time). Saying not relevant and PSU because they didn't win NC is like saying Yankees aren't relevant because they didn't win the World Series, but were actually in it. Oh wait. Yankees fans actually do say that. About 300 teams would love to have the success PSU had. Heck see, Creighton sweet 16. Great moment for them. Just to be clear, the conversation began with regard to who should be paired with Rutgers every year. I don't think it's fair for PSU to be paired with Rutgers so often (based on PSU's proximity to them), but not everyone agrees. Truth is, I'm fine with that, as long as people (e.g., VT'ers usually from the Northwest) don't use that same argument to complain that we have an easy 2nd rounds matchup in the tournament (based on proximity to schools with weaker VB programs).
|
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Oct 2, 2019 7:37:40 GMT -5
Doing the math: 2014 - National Championship; 2015 - not relevant 2016 - not relevant 2017 - Final Four (I think that's relevant, no?) 2018 - Regional Final (in most eyes, not relevant, so I'll give you that one) 2019 - Absentee ballot, not yet processed Even if you say not relevant from 2015 through this year, that's five years, not six. And I think Penn State was very relevant in 2017. But, minds can differ (and do, almost all the time). Saying not relevant and PSU because they didn't win NC is like saying Yankees aren't relevant because they didn't win the World Series, but were actually in it. Oh wait. Yankees fans actually do say that. About 300 teams would love to have the success PSU had. Heck see, Creighton sweet 16. Great moment for them. Just to be clear, the conversation began with regard to who should be paired with Rutgers every year. I don't think it's fair for PSU to be paired with Rutgers so often (based on PSU's proximity to them), but not everyone agrees. Truth is, I'm fine with that, as long as people (e.g., VT'ers usually from the Northwest) don't use that same argument to complain that we have an easy 2nd rounds matchup in the tournament (based on proximity to schools with weaker VB programs).
Different problems to be solved. Or rather similar solutions with different objectives. When looking at conference scheduling if there are still going to be travel partners then a team's travel partner should be basically the opposite of themselves. 1-14, 2-13, 3-12, etc. When you examine the current travel partners from that angle, the only egregious example is not Penn State-Rutgers, it's Minnesota-Wisconsin. In a tournament setting, you should be balancing the cumulative strength of the teams in each section. So the best team should get the easiest subregional, but the second best team in the subregion should still be the 32nd best team in the tournament. However, the NCAA only seeds the top sixteen teams and then pretends that the rest of the tournament qualifiers are something close to the same strength. Which they clearly aren't. When people point out that Penn State has routinely benefited from this practice, they aren't wrong. The mistake is placing blame on Penn State themselves when it's clearly the NCAA that needs to start seeding the entire tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by NittanyLions on Oct 2, 2019 8:30:17 GMT -5
Just to be clear, the conversation began with regard to who should be paired with Rutgers every year. I don't think it's fair for PSU to be paired with Rutgers so often (based on PSU's proximity to them), but not everyone agrees. Truth is, I'm fine with that, as long as people (e.g., VT'ers usually from the Northwest) don't use that same argument to complain that we have an easy 2nd rounds matchup in the tournament (based on proximity to schools with weaker VB programs).
Different problems to be solved. Or rather similar solutions with different objectives. When looking at conference scheduling if there are still going to be travel partners then a team's travel partner should be basically the opposite of themselves. 1-14, 2-13, 3-12, etc. When you examine the current travel partners from that angle, the only egregious example is not Penn State-Rutgers, it's Minnesota-Wisconsin. In a tournament setting, you should be balancing the cumulative strength of the teams in each section. So the best team should get the easiest subregional, but the second best team in the subregion should still be the 32nd best team in the tournament. However, the NCAA only seeds the top sixteen teams and then pretends that the rest of the tournament qualifiers are something close to the same strength. Which they clearly aren't. When people point out that Penn State has routinely benefited from this practice, they aren't wrong. The mistake is placing blame on Penn State themselves when it's clearly the NCAA that needs to start seeding the entire tournament.
Regarding conference scheduling, how do you figure the weakest team should be paired with the strongest team? The issue that I'm concerned with, which Russ Rose has referenced many times, is that the opponents' prep time for those paired travel partners is uneven. If Wisconsin and Minnesota are paired, it should work to their benefit, not detriment.
For instance, when they both have to travel to Nebraska, then the Huskers must commit an equal amount of time preparing for both opponents in the days leading up to that weekend. On the other hand, when Rutgers and PSU are paired and travel to Minnesota, the Gophers can commit all/most of their time preparing for PSU, because Rutgers "should be" an easy out.
I'm with you regarding the tournament scheduling.
|
|
