|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 9, 2019 20:04:38 GMT -5
Haley: " I think Purdue's got a great draw here" how does that statement make ANY sense? How is drawing the #1 RPI, #1 seed with no injuries -- "great"? Did he watch Baylor play Saturday? Adding Van Der Mark to Pressley and Stafford makes a big difference to Baylor's offense.
What I think Haley is subconsciously thinking is -- Baylor? Really? I don't care about RPI or seeding, Baylor can't be that good. His head is still in the past.
I'm starting to wonder if Mick is losing some of his ability to reason.
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Dec 9, 2019 20:06:53 GMT -5
Haley calling out Hugh about "tightening up" in the tournament. Mick had several stretches in his post-season history where his sphincter closed tightly. These were just weird comments. "Minnesota has not been a good tournament team" and "Minnesota has had problems on the road this year". Say what? 2015: #2 Minnesota loses in the semifinals to #3 Texas 2016: #2 Minnesota loses in the semifinals to #6 and eventual champs Stanford 2017: #7 Minnesota loses in the 3rd round to #10 USC 2018: #2 Minnesota loses in the 3rd round to #15 Oregon Okay - all four years they did underperform their seed - but this also include a couple final fours and none of these are bad losses or necessarily make me think 'not a good tournament team' - especially given the very small sample size. And this year: Minnesota lost 2 road games - Texas and Wisconsin while winning on the road against Penn State, Purdue, Illinois and Michigan. They did have home losses to Nebraska and Wisconsin along with a neutral site loss to Florida State over 3 months ago. This isn't what I would call the profile of a team that 'has had problems on the road this year'. ......and a neutral site win over Stanford this year.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Dec 9, 2019 20:09:16 GMT -5
Mick brought the fire. Calls out coaches from Minnesota, Texas and Nebraska
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2019 20:33:15 GMT -5
Haley: "I think Purdue's got a great draw here" how does that statement make ANY sense? How is drawing the #1 RPI, #1 seed with no injuries -- "great"? Did he watch Baylor play Saturday? Adding Van Der Mark to Pressley and Stafford makes a big difference to Baylor's offense. Purdue had the best draw by pablo of any of the bottom four seeds.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 9, 2019 20:41:35 GMT -5
^ but that's not what Mick said. And Pablo, per numerous discussions, doesn't take into account recency or changes in personnel. If you watched Baylor's Sat. game, which I am guessing Mick did not b/c he could not have made that statement had he done so, Baylor is an improved team with the breakout of Van der Mark at OPP. Hit. over .700 two days in a row, the second time against a pretty good USC block.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Dec 9, 2019 20:45:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2019 21:10:14 GMT -5
Haley: " I think Purdue's got a great draw here" how does that statement make ANY sense? How is drawing the #1 RPI, #1 seed with no injuries -- "great"? Did he watch Baylor play Saturday? Adding Van Der Mark to Pressley and Stafford makes a big difference to Baylor's offense. What I think Haley is subconsciously thinking is -- Baylor? Really? I don't care about RPI or seeding, Baylor can't be that good. His head is still in the past. I'm starting to wonder if Mick is losing some of his ability to reason.
He also prefaced that statement by saying that the Purdue program had been trying/hoping to break through to a Final Four for a while. Baylor is a better draw than Stanford, Texas or Wisconsin for that.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 9, 2019 21:16:05 GMT -5
Haley: " I think Purdue's got a great draw here" how does that statement make ANY sense? How is drawing the #1 RPI, #1 seed with no injuries -- "great"? Did he watch Baylor play Saturday? Adding Van Der Mark to Pressley and Stafford makes a big difference to Baylor's offense. What I think Haley is subconsciously thinking is -- Baylor? Really? I don't care about RPI or seeding, Baylor can't be that good. His head is still in the past. I'm starting to wonder if Mick is losing some of his ability to reason.
He also prefaced that statement by saying that the Purdue program had been trying/hoping to break through to a Final Four for a while. Baylor is a better draw than Stanford, Texas or Wisconsin for that. for you to say that, you have to believe that RPI and Committee are just plain wrong. And I might have agreed with you before seeing what Van Der Mark adds to the team now. I wrote in another post that I now have Baylor, UT and Wisc. as equal behind Stanford, so in practical terms using the Draw, Baylor -or Wisc. are at about 33% for me now, behind Stanford's 66%.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 9, 2019 21:17:47 GMT -5
He also prefaced that statement by saying that the Purdue program had been trying/hoping to break through to a Final Four for a while. Baylor is a better draw than Stanford, Texas or Wisconsin for that. for you to say that, you have to believe that RPI and Committee are just plain wrong. And I might have agreed with you before seeing what Van Der Mark adds to the team now. I wrote in another post that I now have Baylor, UT and Wisc. as equal behind Stanford, so in practical terms using the Draw, Baylor and Wisc. are 50% for me now. I'd take Baylor any day of the week. It's their first chance at a Final Four and the pressure is new and immense.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 9, 2019 21:19:10 GMT -5
I think Baylor is playing with a chip on its shoulder. Purdue is going to get crushed in Waco. You heard it here first.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 9, 2019 21:19:13 GMT -5
He also prefaced that statement by saying that the Purdue program had been trying/hoping to break through to a Final Four for a while. Baylor is a better draw than Stanford, Texas or Wisconsin for that. for you to say that, you have to believe that RPI and Committee are just plain wrong. And I might have agreed with you before seeing what Van Der Mark adds to the team now. I wrote in another post that I now have Baylor, UT and Wisc. as equal behind Stanford, so in practical terms using the Draw, Baylor -or Wisc. are at about 33% for me now, behind Stanford's 66%. Just checking, but do you understand that "Mick does not agree with me" is not the same thing as "Mick has lost his ability to reason"?
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 9, 2019 21:21:09 GMT -5
^ right, that was a bit hyperbolic, but then again that's what makes internet forums fun.
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Dec 9, 2019 21:59:35 GMT -5
Mick's job is not to say what we think. I agree with some of his observations but not all of them. Mick's role is to be entertaining, not provide a betting sheet for Vegas. A team can legitimately be the number 1 seed and still not be what the coaching community believes is the top seed. No one knows (even the coaches) how things will unfold.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 9, 2019 22:22:23 GMT -5
He also prefaced that statement by saying that the Purdue program had been trying/hoping to break through to a Final Four for a while. Baylor is a better draw than Stanford, Texas or Wisconsin for that. for you to say that, you have to believe that RPI and Committee are just plain wrong. And I might have agreed with you before seeing what Van Der Mark adds to the team now. I wrote in another post that I now have Baylor, UT and Wisc. as equal behind Stanford, so in practical terms using the Draw, Baylor -or Wisc. are at about 33% for me now, behind Stanford's 66%. RPI is neither wrong or right - but in terms of predicting future success, I wouldn't put a bunch of stock in it. The committee could be right and justified in putting Baylor as the #1 seed and still think there are at least 3 other teams better than them. And that is where I stand - I am for Baylor, I want them to win. And if I was another team and had a choice - I would prefer to take my chances in Waco over any other region this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Dec 9, 2019 23:05:32 GMT -5
We can analyze Mick's comments and interpret them at our discretion.
But, for those reading the board prior to the release of the bracket, posters on this board wanted their teams in the Pittsburgh quarter of the bracket or the Baylor quarter of the bracket. I'm recalling that fans of Nebraska and Washington and Minnesota were hoping to avoid being placed in Stanford's or Texas' region.
There's always a first time, so Baylor very well could make the Final Four this year as the top national seed. Maybe they'll handle a lot of the "firsts" like Illinois did last year (even though the Illini have more program history). But, I said this earlier in the season, it's tough to expect a team who was Top 32 the prior season to make it to the Final Four the following season; it's just such a big jump.
I didn't watch Purdue's matches; don't know how well they played. Watched most of Baylor versus USC. Baylor was down 17-12 in the first set, yet came back to win; you can view that as them being vulnerable in getting down by 5 points, or being resilient in coming back for the first set victory. If Mick thinks Purdue has a great opportunity, it's probably based on what he watched this weekend.
|
|