|
|
Post by swatson91 on Nov 24, 2019 18:23:18 GMT -5
With limited options in Southern California, does San Diego have a shot at hosting? If not, would they send USD back east?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Nov 24, 2019 18:24:17 GMT -5
With limited options in Southern California, does San Diego have a shot at hosting? If not, would they send USD back east? No. USD won’t have the RPI for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on Nov 24, 2019 18:26:45 GMT -5
There is absolutely no chance for Washington to be a top 4 seed. No chance. Like 0.1% or less. l I don't see why they shouldn't be in on the conversation, at 24-5, Top 6 RPI, 3-0 against 2 teams ahead of them (including two road wins) They also won on the road at Creighton in the nonconference - who is likely to be seeded. I obviously don't like Washington's chances -- but there is real reason to believe they could be in on a T4 seed. That's a way better idea than Kentucky. Barring any collapse from Stanford and Wisconsin, I think the top 4 seeds will come from either those two teams I just mentioned plus Texas, Baylor or Pitt. Kentucky won’t be a top 4 seed either. |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,219 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 24, 2019 18:32:53 GMT -5
With limited options in Southern California, does San Diego have a shot at hosting? If not, would they send USD back east? There's a very outside chance that USC vs. UCLA could be a match for a seed. |
|
|
|
Post by brickred on Nov 24, 2019 18:33:29 GMT -5
Likelihood of South Dakota getting an at-large? With all of the midwest teams hosting I'm hoping that they are in.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,219
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 24, 2019 19:04:15 GMT -5
Horizon Futures at the moment: 44. Northern Kentucky 45. Green Bay 46. Wright State 54. Milwaukee Shouldn't matter - but this conference has some valuable drive-ins. Good luck trying to figure this one out... And with South Dakota at 41 and VCU 47. Is Cal and Washington State playing their way out? Pepperdine still outside the T50, but I think they get in. Is Illinois a sure thing - their wins are very light and an RPI that is clearly on the bubble. Washington State and Arizona State are now an interesting thing. ASU could be screwed if Wazzu doesn't finish T50? Washington State might be screwed if USC doesn't finish T25? I don't see how Pepperdine could be in and Illinois out. What happens with SMU and Coastal Carolina's RPI? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 24, 2019 19:11:01 GMT -5
Honest question: does the committee really view the difference between 25 and 26 to be that significant? As far as I can tell, yes. It's utterly ridiculous, but it's true. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 19:14:14 GMT -5
Horizon Futures at the moment: 44. Northern Kentucky 45. Green Bay 46. Wright State 54. Milwaukee Shouldn't matter - but this conference has some valuable drive-ins. Good luck trying to figure this one out... And with South Dakota at 41 and VCU 47. Is Cal and Washington State playing their way out? Pepperdine still outside the T50, but I think they get in. Is Illinois a sure thing - their wins are very light and an RPI that is clearly on the bubble.They do have 2 Top 25 wins. Of the 18 teams ahead of Illinois still outside of the Top 25 RPI, only 4 other teams boast as many as two Top 25 wins. 11 of those 18 have yet to win a match vs a Top 25. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 24, 2019 19:15:00 GMT -5
Since the initial reveal (below), what has Washington done (as far as Top 10 wins)? We know from past experience that "the reveal" means nothing. I believe there has never been a "Reveal" top-10 team that did not make the top-16 seeds, but that doesn't mean a lot. We have seen where a team that was in the top-4 in the Reveal and won the rest of their matches was not seeded in the top-4 of the final bracket. The NCAA themselves has said the Reveal is just a publicity stunt. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 24, 2019 19:22:56 GMT -5
Your running with a faulty premise. And that premise is that the starting point is the early reveal. That is demonstrably false advertising the committee has said point blank that the reveal is based on the team sheets at that time. The team sheets look different now. Texas has fewer significant wins. But Texas also has fewer losses. Washington and Wisconsin both have a loss that is nowhere close to any loss that Texas has. So does a not so great loss counter an extra good win? Texas lost to Rice, which otherwise beat who? NOBODY. I'd put anyone Washington lost to (Hawaii, WSU, USC, Utah) over Rice. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 24, 2019 19:26:17 GMT -5
So, with USC's loss to Oregon, the adjusted RPI with bonuses now has dropped USC from #21 to #26. Consequently, Texas dropped to #3, while Wisconsin is now #2. college.figstats.net/volleyball-rpi.cgi |
|
|
|
Post by skullars on Nov 24, 2019 19:41:42 GMT -5
Georgia Tech just doesn't have anything to sell me that they could be in. They don't have anything in their profile to justify putting them in above RPI teams above them. The conference finish is irrelevant. Especially in conferences with unbalanced schedules. Just seems wrong that a team playing as well as GT would be shut out of the tournament. They deserve to be in. Agree. I'd suspect that many of those that say they shouldn't get in haven't actually seen them play or have had minimal exposure. I've seen a few of their matches over the past 4 weeks and I believe I'm watching a tournament team. However, admittedly I haven't seen every other team they'd be competing with for that spot so I can't be sure how GT measures up to those teams. If they don't get in this year, I'd be looking out for them next year. |
|
|
|
Post by naujack85 on Nov 24, 2019 19:44:33 GMT -5
Since the initial reveal (below), what has Washington done (as far as Top 10 wins)? We know from past experience that "the reveal" means nothing. I believe there has never been a "Reveal" top-10 team that did not make the top-16 seeds, but that doesn't mean a lot. We have seen where a team that was in the top-4 in the Reveal and won the rest of their matches was not seeded in the top-4 of the final bracket. The NCAA themselves has said the Reveal is just a publicity stunt. I wouldn't say the reveal means nothing. But the committee has shown that SOMETIMES they're willing to change their mind on where a team should be slotted. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 24, 2019 19:46:27 GMT -5
We know from past experience that "the reveal" means nothing. I believe there has never been a "Reveal" top-10 team that did not make the top-16 seeds, but that doesn't mean a lot. We have seen where a team that was in the top-4 in the Reveal and won the rest of their matches was not seeded in the top-4 of the final bracket. The NCAA themselves has said the Reveal is just a publicity stunt. I wouldn't say the reveal means nothing. But the committee has shown that SOMETIMES they're willing to change their mind on where a team should be slotted. This is a case where I think we should take them on their word. They have said the Reveal means nothing for the final seeding. We should probably accept that this is so, particularly when we have seen evidence that supports it. |
|
|
|
Post by txnut on Nov 24, 2019 19:47:58 GMT -5
But Texas also has fewer losses. Washington and Wisconsin both have a loss that is nowhere close to any loss that Texas has. So does a not so great loss counter an extra good win? Texas lost to Rice, which otherwise beat who? NOBODY. I'd put anyone Washington lost to (Hawaii, WSU, USC, Utah) over Rice. You would but the committee will not. Rice will be Top 25 RPI. WSU may not even be Top 50. |
|
