Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Schedules
Apr 28, 2020 22:10:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 22:10:42 GMT -5
Winning matches is always the most important regardless who you play. Better to play and beat the best team you can schedule. Don't get sucked in believing losing to a solid team will help your RPI,...it doesn't. JUST WIN BABY!!! Uh huh....tell that to Cal last year. Cal: Record 20-10 Illinois: Record 16-13 Cal: RPI 48 Illinois: RPI 50 But...Illinois played, and lost, 4 more games against RPI top 25 teams. we all know who ended up with an NCAA tournament bid and who didn't. the cal omission was honestly unforgivable.
|
|
|
Schedules
Apr 28, 2020 22:15:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jackson5vb on Apr 28, 2020 22:15:15 GMT -5
Winning matches is always the most important regardless who you play. Better to play and beat the best team you can schedule. Don't get sucked in believing losing to a solid team will help your RPI,...it doesn't. JUST WIN BABY!!! Uh huh....tell that to Cal last year. Cal: Record 20-10 Illinois: Record 16-13 Cal: RPI 48 Illinois: RPI 50 But...Illinois played, and lost, 4 more games against RPI top 25 teams. we all know who ended up with an NCAA tournament bid and who didn't. The Pac 12 was extremely underrated/underranked/underseeded last year. But, would have Cal have even won a first round game? They probably would have gotten stuck against another good at large team, so does it make a difference in the big picture?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 22:18:44 GMT -5
Uh huh....tell that to Cal last year. Cal: Record 20-10 Illinois: Record 16-13 Cal: RPI 48 Illinois: RPI 50 But...Illinois played, and lost, 4 more games against RPI top 25 teams. we all know who ended up with an NCAA tournament bid and who didn't. The Pac 12 was extremely underrated/underranked/underseeded last year. But, would have Cal have even won a first round game? They probably would have gotten stuck against another good at large team, so does it make a difference in the big picture? it absolutely does. It took away something that the team worked for and the seniors deserved.
|
|
|
Schedules
Apr 28, 2020 22:19:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jackson5vb on Apr 28, 2020 22:19:23 GMT -5
And to be fair, I think Cal was something like 3-6 or 3-7 to end the season. Someone could fact check their end of season collapse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 22:20:56 GMT -5
And to be fair, I think Cal was something like 3-6 or 3-7 to end the season. Someone could fact check their end of season collapse. they lost their best player for those last games
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 28, 2020 23:21:36 GMT -5
Uh huh....tell that to Cal last year. Cal: Record 20-10 Illinois: Record 16-13 Cal: RPI 48 Illinois: RPI 50 But...Illinois played, and lost, 4 more games against RPI top 25 teams. we all know who ended up with an NCAA tournament bid and who didn't. The Pac 12 was extremely underrated/underranked/underseeded last year. But, would have Cal have even won a first round game? They probably would have gotten stuck against another good at large team, so does it make a difference in the big picture? Whether or not they would win a 1st round game is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 28, 2020 23:29:09 GMT -5
And to be fair, I think Cal was something like 3-6 or 3-7 to end the season. Someone could fact check their end of season collapse. they lost their best player for those last games Also, more importantly, regardless of who was injured, for Cal, 5 of their last 6 games came against NCAA tournament teams. Illinois, on the other hand, only played 1 team in their last 6 against a team that was even ELIGIBLE to be in the tournament. I recall the committee making some sort of comment about Illinois record in last few games being the deciding factor, but when Illinois last few opponents are Rutgers, Northwestern, Ohio State, and Maryland, meanwhile Cal is playing Stanford, Washington, and Utah (all on the road), the committee just looks like F*cking morons. Anyway, I don't mean for this to get into a debate about last years unforgivable Big 10 bias in the bracketing, but just to point out that WINNING, regardless of who you win against, isn't actually the most important thing, at least for the season anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 23:34:14 GMT -5
Also, I'm not sure UCF losing their libero is going to hurt that much. I'm sure @bigwestfan2 could come and agree with me here That's fair... 2.12 passing grade and 49.5% good pass percentage (3% lower than the team average). Defensively she had a 77.5% dig success rate which is in the 'good not great' category. Shouldn't be too difficult to replace.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 28, 2020 23:36:50 GMT -5
Uh huh....tell that to Cal last year. Cal: Record 20-10 Illinois: Record 16-13 Cal: RPI 48 Illinois: RPI 50 But...Illinois played, and lost, 4 more games against RPI top 25 teams. we all know who ended up with an NCAA tournament bid and who didn't. The Pac 12 was extremely underrated/underranked/underseeded last year. But, would have Cal have even won a first round game? They probably would have gotten stuck against another good at large team, so does it make a difference in the big picture? Also, Cal got Mima back for their last weekend. They pushed Washington to 5 in Seattle and took a set off of Stanford and got above 20 in another set. That sounds like a team capable of winning a 1st round match, especially considering that Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Penn State didn't manage to win any sets off Stanford and only Minnesota managed to get above 20 twice.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 28, 2020 23:52:03 GMT -5
Uh huh....tell that to Cal last year. Cal: Record 20-10 Illinois: Record 16-13 Cal: RPI 48 Illinois: RPI 50 But...Illinois played, and lost, 4 more games against RPI top 25 teams. we all know who ended up with an NCAA tournament bid and who didn't. The Pac 12 was extremely underrated/underranked/underseeded last year. But, would have Cal have even won a first round game? They probably would have gotten stuck against another good at large team, so does it make a difference in the big picture? well, I'm bored..... given the bracketing rules, there really was only 1 or 2 sub regional sites that Cal could have gone other than just shifting around the Pac-12 teams sans Utah who had to drive into BYU. If you left Illinois out and put Cal in, my guess is that UCSB would have been moved to the BYU sub regional and Cal placed in the Texas sub regional to face Texas State in the 1st round. That's surely a winnable match.
|
|
|
Schedules
Apr 29, 2020 0:15:30 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jackson5vb on Apr 29, 2020 0:15:30 GMT -5
they lost their best player for those last games Also, more importantly, regardless of who was injured, for Cal, 5 of their last 6 games came against NCAA tournament teams. Illinois, on the other hand, only played 1 team in their last 6 against a team that was even ELIGIBLE to be in the tournament. I recall the committee making some sort of comment about Illinois record in last few games being the deciding factor, but when Illinois last few opponents are Rutgers, Northwestern, Ohio State, and Maryland, meanwhile Cal is playing Stanford, Washington, and Utah (all on the road), the committee just looks like F*cking morons. Anyway, I don't mean for this to get into a debate about last years unforgivable Big 10 bias in the bracketing, but just to point out that WINNING, regardless of who you win against, isn't actually the most important thing, at least for the season anyway. I love the PAC12. I said they were underrated. STANFORD should have been #1 overall without a question. But from a neutral view, Cal finished 3-9 their last 12 games. I just looked that up so unless their website is wrong, they were trending the wrong way. I have no dog in the fight. I think they were probably a top 64 team in the country but not top 32. That's why I said I didn't think it made too much of a difference whether they took Illinois or Cal. Plus Illinois gave us a great 5 setter in the 1st round to watch. So speaking from a fan's perspective, no complaint here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Schedules
Apr 29, 2020 0:16:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2020 0:16:52 GMT -5
Also, more importantly, regardless of who was injured, for Cal, 5 of their last 6 games came against NCAA tournament teams. Illinois, on the other hand, only played 1 team in their last 6 against a team that was even ELIGIBLE to be in the tournament. I recall the committee making some sort of comment about Illinois record in last few games being the deciding factor, but when Illinois last few opponents are Rutgers, Northwestern, Ohio State, and Maryland, meanwhile Cal is playing Stanford, Washington, and Utah (all on the road), the committee just looks like F*cking morons. Anyway, I don't mean for this to get into a debate about last years unforgivable Big 10 bias in the bracketing, but just to point out that WINNING, regardless of who you win against, isn't actually the most important thing, at least for the season anyway. I love the PAC12. I said they were underrated. STANFORD should have been #1 overall without a question. But from a neutral view, Cal finished 3-9 their last 12 games. I just looked that up so unless their website is wrong, they were trending the wrong way. I have no dog in the fight. I think they were probably a top 64 team in the country but not top 32. That's why I said I didn't think it made too much of a difference whether they took Illinois or Cal. Plus Illinois gave us a great 5 setter in the 1st round to watch. So speaking from a fan's perspective, no complaint here. baylor was absolutely deserving of the one seed. One hundred percent and again cal had an injury towards the end and that’s why they sputtered out.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 29, 2020 0:33:21 GMT -5
Also, more importantly, regardless of who was injured, for Cal, 5 of their last 6 games came against NCAA tournament teams. Illinois, on the other hand, only played 1 team in their last 6 against a team that was even ELIGIBLE to be in the tournament. I recall the committee making some sort of comment about Illinois record in last few games being the deciding factor, but when Illinois last few opponents are Rutgers, Northwestern, Ohio State, and Maryland, meanwhile Cal is playing Stanford, Washington, and Utah (all on the road), the committee just looks like F*cking morons. Anyway, I don't mean for this to get into a debate about last years unforgivable Big 10 bias in the bracketing, but just to point out that WINNING, regardless of who you win against, isn't actually the most important thing, at least for the season anyway. I love the PAC12. I said they were underrated. STANFORD should have been #1 overall without a question. But from a neutral view, Cal finished 3-9 their last 12 games. I just looked that up so unless their website is wrong, they were trending the wrong way. I have no dog in the fight. I think they were probably a top 64 team in the country but not top 32. That's why I said I didn't think it made too much of a difference whether they took Illinois or Cal. Plus Illinois gave us a great 5 setter in the 1st round to watch. So speaking from a fan's perspective, no complaint here. I have no idea how you can reconcile saying Stanford should have been the #1 seed "without question" with saying that it made no difference whether they took Illinois or Cal because from a "neutral" view, Cal finished 3-9 so that means they were trending the wrong way, despite the fact that it was shown that most of the losses came without their best player and over half of the matches were against NCAA tournament teams. Just because Illinois backloaded it's schedule with a bunch of teams that weren't even tournament eligible doesn't make their comparison to Cal "neutral". Of Illinois last 12 opponents, only 4 were NCAA tournament teams, Illinois lost all of them.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (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: 28,242
|
Schedules
Apr 29, 2020 0:39:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by trojansc on Apr 29, 2020 0:39:01 GMT -5
I love the PAC12. I said they were underrated. STANFORD should have been #1 overall without a question. But from a neutral view, Cal finished 3-9 their last 12 games. I just looked that up so unless their website is wrong, they were trending the wrong way. I have no dog in the fight. I think they were probably a top 64 team in the country but not top 32. That's why I said I didn't think it made too much of a difference whether they took Illinois or Cal. Plus Illinois gave us a great 5 setter in the 1st round to watch. So speaking from a fan's perspective, no complaint here. baylor was absolutely deserving of the one seed. One hundred percent and again cal had an injury towards the end and that’s why they sputtered out. So what did Virginia Commonwealth do to earn a bid?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Schedules
Apr 29, 2020 0:41:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2020 0:41:00 GMT -5
baylor was absolutely deserving of the one seed. One hundred percent and again cal had an injury towards the end and that’s why they sputtered out. So what did Virginia Commonwealth do to earn a bid? not a clue. Looking over it illinois lost a lot of really close 5 setters with top ten teams. I was there when they lost to Nebraska and Wisconsin and it was tragic as an Illini fan. The Washington loss also sucked. Illinois probably deserved a bid but cal deserved one more so they shoulda been in.
|
|