|
Post by huskervbfan on Dec 14, 2004 12:42:06 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. You are right that they don't make money on VB. They are pretty close though but they will never adopt these plans to break even. They typically only have one tournament at home each year and they value those away trips to help them see what life on the road is like. This helps them prepare for NCAA tournaments later in the season. Also, they used to play the Friday-Saturday matches but the Big 12 went away from that and I'm sure they won't go back.
|
|
|
Post by JustMyTwoCents on Dec 14, 2004 22:19:23 GMT -5
It seems like scheduling takes on different meanings for different programs in different conferences. The difficulty comes when trying to compare what the schedule and wins/losses mean.
-- For a young team or a team with a number of new starters: 1) If you play in a power conference (like the Big 12, Pac 10, Big 10...maybe the WCC or Big West) a staff will play a weaker preseason schedule. Players gain confidence, starters can be shifted, players can assume different roles as necessary. You find a starting lineup to head into the conference season, then the young team is ready for tough competition every weekend and the lineup shifts slightly as needed, players get tested in tough situations and mature. This probably describes Penn State this year...or a number of years past.
2) If you play in a decent conference (no offense, 100% sure there's a better word than 'decent') like the WAC, SEC, MWC...you schedule tough but probably not top 10 teams (maybe one...or two). That way, if losses come, you can make up for it with the weaker conference teams to guarantee an above .500 record to qualify for the Big Dance.
3) If you play in a midmajor or lower conference...well, it depends on the staff. Some schedule top 25 teams to chance a few big wins, most schedule #150-250 teams at the beginning, and then the #35-100 teams later in the preseason.
--For an experienced team with only a few new starters (most likely who are highly talented freshmen) or looked like a Top 15 team in the spring season...
1) If you play in a power conference, scheduling will look a lot like the conference season...Friday/Saturday matches will look a lot like a USC/UCLA, Penn State/Ohio State, Texas/TexasA&M weekend slate as well as Washington/Washington State, Minnesota/Iowa, Oklahoma/Nebraska weekend slate. Tough matches interspersed with #50-#150 teams (with the obligatory in-state #200 ranked team match), but not so tough where the team peaks too early...probably describes USC and Minnesota this year.
2) If you play in a "decent" conference (see above)...schedule as many top teams as you can get. Gotta beef up the RPI big time before, during and after the conference season. This way, though, it's hard to gain momentum and peak at tourney time considering most of the top 25 teams you play will be in August and September while the lower level conference schedule goes up to the NCAAs. Definitely describes Hawaii every year (even the Pre-MWC defection WAC)
The conference season makes a big difference, the preseason serves different needs for different teams. For top teams and #25-#50 teams in the power conferences, there's a decided advantage when the NCAA tourney comes around. These teams can build momentum, gain experience, tweak their starting lineups, test their bench strength and build maturity in pressure situations (like 19-19 in the 5th game of an NCAA tourney game). For a team like Hawaii and Florida (with amazing athletes and highly regarded players), most of the growing happens in August and September and then the starting lineups wait around for the tourney.
No offense to Hawaii or the Wahine's early season teams, but nobody challenged them or persevered long enough to force Coach Shoji to go with the adjusted lineup in Games 3-5 against Wisconsin any earlier. Fotu was a money player, and it's hard not to see Hittle as a great libero (even when Ashley Watanabe was having problems during the season). Pete Waite, on the other hand, knew when and how to use Amy Bladow and Marian Weidner...what situations to put them into, what their roles would be to bring the team back or make up for mistakes (much like Mick Haley knew with Candelas in 02), and how to make them successful for the team. On the flip side, he knew which players NOT to put into certain situations. Does this make Waite better than Shoji? No. Does it mean the teams' schedules and conferences made a difference in preparing their respective teams for ANY possible NCAA matchup? Yes.
Like the name says, just my two cents...which somehow always turns into a $20
|
|
|
Post by Jumper40 on Dec 14, 2004 22:52:44 GMT -5
Tougher schedules make toughter teams.
Jumper40 The Magnificent
|
|
|
Post by Jumper40 on Dec 14, 2004 23:00:49 GMT -5
So, I guess that IdahoBoy would have a team that won it all possibly rated as low as a 4 spot or even lower.I think the last poll of the season should reflect the way the teams placed. The final four are listed 1-4. The four teams that lost to the final four teams are listed 5-8. You get the idea. After all, isn't the tournament played to find out who is the true #1 team.
Jumper40 The Magnificent
|
|
|
Post by JT on Dec 14, 2004 23:27:54 GMT -5
So, I guess that Idaho Boy® would have a team that won it all possibly rated as low as a 4 spot or even lower.I think the last poll of the season should reflect the way the teams placed. The Final Four are listed 1-4. The four teams that lost to the Final Four teams are listed 5-8. You get the idea. After all, isn't the tournament played to find out who is the true #1 team. A single elimination tournament is extremely bad at ordering any team other than (perhaps) #1. The team that the #1 beats, in the very first round, could be the 2nd best team in the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by me on Dec 15, 2004 5:06:54 GMT -5
[quote author= BiK link=board=general&thread=1102913070&start=7#0 date=1102915953]Florida loss in 5 to Stanford, a Final Four team who is playing as well as anybody in the country. Hawaii's only loss of the season also came in 5 games, to a pretty good Wisconsin team on the road in the regionals. I disagree with the initial topic of the thread, it's clearly overstated. I don't think scheduling had anything to do with Hawaii's loss. What it came down to was Wisconsin made the 2 plays it had to to win the match, Hawai'i did not. The fact that the Wahine came back to tie the match at 2 games a piece after being down 2 games to nothing, on the road no less in front of a pro Badger crowd clearly puts a hole in the scheduling theory. Hawai'i served out up 13-11 in the fifth game. It was little mistakes like that ended up being factors in the match. The scheduling theory might hold some vailidity if both teams were swept or had losses in early rounds to less than good teams but neither was the case. [/quote] I think Hawaii could've won the match if they didn't make 6-7 service errors in the first game. The score was 29-31 right?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 15, 2004 11:37:18 GMT -5
I think Hawaii could've won the match if they didn't make 6-7 service errors in the first game. The score was 29-31 right? Oh I agree completely. Hawai'i gave away way too man free points (10) in game 1. You can't do that in the NCAA's.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 15, 2004 11:57:14 GMT -5
You are right that they don't make money on VB. They are pretty close though but they will never adopt these plans to break even. They typically only have one tournament at home each year and they value those away trips to help them see what life on the road is like. This helps them prepare for NCAA tournaments later in the season. Also, they used to play the Friday-Saturday matches but the Big 12 went away from that and I'm sure they won't go back. Isn't football still the financial engine that drives the NU athletic dept in terms of revenues and donations, even with the current decline? I know they can't afford to hemmorage money on all their non-revenue sports, but I'd think they'd have no problem with travel costs. BTW - Nebraska fans have got to be the most down to earth people I have ever met. I recall the Final Four in 2001, where the large majority of their fans stayed to watch the Championship match. I didn't notice a single Nebraska fan who was grumpy or angry. When Nebraska came to Cal in '98 for a football game, I didn't attend, but never heard a single bad word about any Nebraska fan.
|
|