|
|
Post by FreeBall on Dec 13, 2004 19:42:48 GMT -5
[quote author=IdahoBoy®® link=board=general&thread=1102913070&start=38#2 date=1102979854] Plus, Hawaii Volleyball makes money. Who else does? Nebraska, maybe Washington and Wisconsin this year? Not many more. [/quote]
This comment got me thinking - would Hawaii make money even if they played as many away matches as other teams?
I'm sure that Nebraska does not make money on VB and that playing roughly 1/2 of their matches on the road is the primary reason for this. It would be interesting to know if NU would make money on VB if the travel budget was reduced in a couple of ways:
1. By changing a couple of nonconference matches each year from away matches to home matches.
2. By returning the conference match schedule to a Friday-Saturday setup. I would think that the present Wednesday-Saturday schedule has to add travel costs.
With added revenue from more home matches and reduced travel costs I'm fairly sure that NU could make money on it's VB program.
|
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Dec 13, 2004 20:43:40 GMT -5
[quote author=(R)uffda! link=board=general&thread=1102913070&start=39#2 date=1102982634]And I can't stand not responding (50% sure I am right):
I still think you (and others) overstate what most of us are saying. We know WHY Hawaii's schedule is what it is and we know why it won't change. But it does not give an accurate reflection of how good the team is. They could be better. They could be worse.
They have a schedule and program unique to any other in D1. It's not their fault. It's almost entirely to their CREDIT. But it distorts the relative strength of the team.
Heck, I STILL don't know how good the 2004 version was! They could have been anywhere from a top 4 to a top 16.[/quote]
They can't be in the top 8, they lost in the sweet 16. I would be shocked if in the final ranking of the season showin them anything higher than 8th. Next year, maybe in the top 4 but not this year...
|
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 13, 2004 20:53:29 GMT -5
They can't be in the top 8, they lost in the sweet 16. I would be shocked if in the final ranking of the season showin them anything higher than 8th. Next year, maybe in the top 4 but not this year... That's not always true. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2004 22:30:21 GMT -5
I'm not talking about the AVCA poll. I'm talking about how good they really are. Playing a few more matches would have given us a better idea. (And, no, I'm not trying to be funny, or a smarta**--or stupid.)
Speaking of the AVCA poll, it will be interesting to see if Nebraska remains in the top 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 13, 2004 22:46:55 GMT -5
Have they ever not had the teams at the final four as the top four teams in the poll since they started releasing the final poll after the championship has been decided?
I know teams outside the top four have not always been in the ranges of their tournament finish, but I don't recall offhand if the top 4 has ever had any teams that were in the final four.
|
|
|
|
Post by JT on Dec 13, 2004 23:28:05 GMT -5
Have they ever not had the teams at the Final Four as the top four teams in the poll since they started releasing the final poll after the championship has been decided? Yes. 1994 is the most recent (using avca.org and Rich Kern's site for info). The 1994 AVCA final poll listed Nebraska, Stanford, UCLA, and Ohio State as 1-4. The Final Four consisted of Stanford, UCLA, Ohio State, and Penn State. Nebraska, that year, was beaten in the Regional Final by Penn State. At least.. I think they had a final poll after the final four. Since it's not dated, all I can tell is that it's later than the 11/15 poll (since it's different, and labeled "Final").  |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 13, 2004 23:40:33 GMT -5
Yes. 1994 is the most recent (using avca.org and Rich Kern's site for info). The 1994 AVCA final poll listed Nebraska, Stanford, UCLA, and Ohio State as 1-4. The Final Four consisted of Stanford, UCLA, Ohio State, and Penn State. Nebraska, that year, was beaten in the Regional Final by Penn State. At least.. I think they had a final poll after the Final Four. Since it's not dated, all I can tell is that it's later than the 11/15 poll (since it's different, and labeled "Final"). It was about that time frame that the final AVCA poll started being released after the championship was decided. If you look at the various final polls before that you'll even find instances where the top ranked team was not the national champion. I'm not sure which year they started releasing the final poll after the championship match. I'm pretty sure it was 1992 or later but don't recall off hand which year for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by fightingminime on Dec 14, 2004 1:10:04 GMT -5
That is only in football. Most teams don't come to Hawaii consistent enought (except for UCLA) to use it as a recruiting tool. Besides, since Hawaii is considered a top program, it would seem kind of pointless. If that recruit wants to play for a top program and wants to play in Hawaii, why not just play for Hawaii? I think the comment refers to teams in Hawaii's conference. I know for a fact that schools use the traveling to Hawaii as a recruiting tool. It happened to me. And it is a draw point for those of us who probably were not good enough to play AT Hawaii but wanted to experience playing in their enviornment. |
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Dec 14, 2004 1:33:44 GMT -5
Yes. 1994 is the most recent (using avca.org and Rich Kern's site for info). The 1994 AVCA final poll listed Nebraska, Stanford, UCLA, and Ohio State as 1-4. The Final Four consisted of Stanford, UCLA, Ohio State, and Penn State. Nebraska, that year, was beaten in the Regional Final by Penn State. At least.. I think they had a final poll after the Final Four. Since it's not dated, all I can tell is that it's later than the 11/15 poll (since it's different, and labeled "Final"). I think objectively the following should be observed in the final poll after the title game: *All final 4 participants should occupy the top 4 spot, with the national champion #1, and the runner up #2. #3 and #4 could depend on how bad the lost or how good they played against the top 2 teams *#5-#8 should be the other 4 team from how bad they lost or how well they played in the elite 8. I think it's not important to whom they lost, especially this year..all 8 teams are about on the same par. *#9-#16- Must be from the sweet 16 teams. same rule as above. *#17-#25- sorta at large..any of the remaining participant in the post tournament..or not..maybe more credit to teams from tough conferences.. I think it's acceptable prior to the post season tournament to rank a team based on how they perform AND the team potential. But once the post season tournament starts, there should be no reason why potential has any merit in the poll. How young a team is should have not factored in as well....a loss is a loss..They can be ranked highly next year...just IMHO |
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 14, 2004 1:48:08 GMT -5
I think objectively the following should be observed in the final poll after the title game: *All final 4 participants should occupy the top 4 spot, with the national champion #1, and the runner up #2. #3 and #4 could depend on how bad the lost or how good they played against the top 2 teams *#5-#8 should be the other 4 team from how bad they lost or how well they played in the elite 8. I think it's not important to whom they lost, especially this year..all 8 teams are about on the same par. *#9-#16- Must be from the sweet 16 teams. same rule as above. *#17-#25- sorta at large..any of the remaining participant in the post tournament..or not..maybe more credit to teams from tough conferences.. I think it's acceptable prior to the post season tournament to rank a team based on how they perform AND the team potential. But once the post season tournament starts, there should be no reason why potential has any merit in the poll. How young a team is should have not factored in as well....a loss is a loss..They can be ranked highly next year...just IMHO I vehemently disagree with your system. Very much so disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Dec 14, 2004 2:46:26 GMT -5
[quote author=IdahoBoy®® link=board=general&thread=1102913070&start=54#3 date=1103006888]
I vehemently disagree with your system.
Very much so disagree.[/quote]
Please share your thought...
|
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 14, 2004 4:54:07 GMT -5
Please share your thought... Just some examples of why I don't agree with this. First, the NCAA Selection Committee doesn't fairly split teams in the NCAA bracket so that AVCA ranked-teams meet up in a "fair order" for this type of determination. For example, Yale, a team that should not be even thinking about receiving votes advanced to the second-round this season, while #23 Florida A&M, #9 Colorado State, receiving votes Rice, UC Irvine, Pacific, Cal St. Northridge and previously ranked Illinois, Maryland also advanced to the second round with losses this season to Houston, Florida State, and Wake Forest. There is no rhyme or reason for many of these matchups except some vague proximity to some site that supposedly minimizes travel. The regular season seems to hold no importance. Why not just have a shorter season with all 311 or however many schools in one big-fat-greek-cluster-tournament. How many rounds would it be? 3 extra so 9? First team to 9-wins is the National Champion. Seed the teams alphabetically by Region. Match up UCLA and USC in the first round, match up Yale and Princeton. Match up Idaho and Washington State. Match up Pacific and Sac. State. Match up Hawaii and.... hmmm. well, just leave Hawaii out because they don't have a neighbor within 400 miles. Besides, there were an odd number of teams, right? To hell with the regular season. To hell with all the travel, hard work, and classes missed. Oh wait... that's what happened THIS YEAR! K, back to the subject at hand. Hopefully my sidetrack lets us realize that the NCAA's seedings do not help settle any rankings except for the National Champions. I can grant that the team who wins 6-straight against increasingly difficult opponents is worthy of the #1 place. But I can't give in that a team that was upset in the 1st round isn't worthy of a top ten ranking despite a stellar season against worthy opponents. Or a team, with a regular season victory over the defending National Champ, beaten by a quality opponent in the round of 32 isn't worthy of a top 20 rank. The regular season HAS to count for something. The way it stands now, it might as well not be played because it seems to be totally ignored at the convenience of an outdated rule and the budget of a poor fiscally responisble institution. If you take away the rankings of teams from the play of the regular season, then you take away everything they have left. Instead, the postseason should reflect the sweat and work and even the chance that happens in the regular season, it should not superpose itself at all expenses. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2004 8:06:44 GMT -5
This still goes back to what I've been saying about the AVCA poll--don't make it a system of rewards. Tell us who you think are the better teams!
If you just go by the tournament, why do we even need a poll? Sure you can tweak 3 and 4 and 5-8, 9-16--decide who was better, but big deal.
If you think a team that lost in the 2nd round is better than a team that lost in the 3rd round make that vote.
And IB is exactly right about the draws.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyballer2 on Dec 14, 2004 11:58:34 GMT -5
Competitive schedules do make a big difference as does team chemistry. AND
Hawaii was able to over achieve in the team chemistry category...
where as Florida was a big let down....
Is this the coach responsibility, the on court leadership, or just a bad year?
|
|
|
|
Post by 808 on Dec 14, 2004 12:16:22 GMT -5
This comment got me thinking - would Hawaii make money even if they played as many away matches as other teams? I'm sure that Nebraska does not make money on VB and that playing roughly 1/2 of their matches on the road is the primary reason for this. It would be interesting to know if NU would make money on VB if the travel budget was reduced in a couple of ways: 1. By changing a couple of nonconference matches each year from away matches to home matches. 2. By returning the conference match schedule to a Friday-Saturday setup. I would think that the present Wednesday-Saturday schedule has to add travel costs. With added revenue from more home matches and reduced travel costs I'm fairly sure that NU could make money on it's VB program. The Hawaii and Nebraska volleyball programs probably do not face the same budgetary pressures. I would think that most athletic departments with fairly successful football programs rely on football to bring in most of the AD's revenue. With NU's hugely successful football program and perpetual sold-out attendance, I wouldn't think that NU's VB program is expected to bring in a positive cash flow. Hawaii, on the other hand, has been facing budget deficits the past several years. Football hasn't brought in as much revenue as it could so it hasn't offset the losses incurred by non-revenue producing sports. Other successful sports at UH (Wahine and Men's VB, Men's BB) are therefore looked upon to continue their own financial success so as not to drain AD resources. So what I'm saying is that Nebraska probably has a little more latitude in scheduling away games, though it would obviously make more money by scheduling home games, given their tremendous fan support. That being said, however, I do agree with those (including (R)uffda!) who would like to see Hawaii get a little more road test during the season against good teams. Rather than taking away from the early season home tournaments, I would love to see Hawaii schedule something on the road on a Monday or Tuesday night against a good team on the West Coast during the conference season. For instance, I know that Stanford and Pacific have been scheduling each other the past two years during the conference portion of the season on a Monday or Tuesday night. Maybe before or after Hawaii flies to Boise and Idaho, they could squeeze something in against Washington one of these years. It all depends on the realignment of the WAC next year and who gets paired with UH as a travel partner, with the exit of UTEP, Rice, Tulsa and SMU and the addition of Idaho, Utah State and New Mexico State. If, for instance, it is San Jose State, then when Hawaii has to travel there, it could try to also schedule a match against Cal or Stanford or Santa Clara. |
|
