|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 3, 2021 11:56:11 GMT -5
To be fair, you didn't have Utah as a seed in your final bracketology either, so it couldn't have been that shocking. I’m not saying it’s shocking. I specifically did that prediction that they would NOT give both Utah and BYU a seed. It’s a little ironic that they actually played a H2H matchup — making the decision easier for the committee to justify. Yeah, I read what you said, but you also acknowledged that Utah had some "sketchy" losses in 2019, which was objectively true. And there's also precedent for both Utah and BYU being seeded as double digit seeds just two years earlier (Utah 11 and BYU 13). I'm not saying that regional considerations don't matter. But I just think the idea that there is no way that the committee would seed both of them isn't really convincing to me.
Edit: Also, they nearly always play a head-to-head matchup (they did in 2017 as well), as they are in-state rivals.
|
|
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: 28,686
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 3, 2021 12:02:36 GMT -5
I’m not saying it’s shocking. I specifically did that prediction that they would NOT give both Utah and BYU a seed. It’s a little ironic that they actually played a H2H matchup — making the decision easier for the committee to justify. Yeah, I read what you said, but you also acknowledged that Utah had some "sketchy" losses in 2019, which was objectively true. And there's also precedent for both Utah and BYU being seeded as double digit seeds just two years earlier (Utah 11 and BYU 13). I'm not saying that regional considerations don't matter. But I just think the idea that there is no way that the committee would seed both of them isn't really convincing to me. Edit: Also, they nearly always play a head-to-head matchup (they did in 2017 as well), as they are in-state rivals.
I just can’t look at the team sheets, if I have no objective but getting the most quality team in — and saying WKU is a better choice than Utah.
|
|
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: 28,686
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 3, 2021 12:05:24 GMT -5
I also don’t know if you can come up with a credible claim to leave out the BYU/Utah seeds in 11/13 year. Not all seeding profiles are equal.
Sometimes the last 4 seeds are all bubble like, and sometimes the 12-13 teams are miles better than the #16.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 3, 2021 12:10:56 GMT -5
Unfortunate we can’t get better explanations from them then. I need answers as to why Utah wasn’t a seed last year. The seed bubble doesn’t always work to get more drive ins though. In 2018, #15 and #16 were Oregon and Washington St with zero drive-ins between them. The other option was Baylor and there were no extra drive ins available for them.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 3, 2021 12:19:45 GMT -5
I also don’t know if you can come up with a credible claim to leave out the BYU/Utah seeds in 11/13 year. Not all seeding profiles are equal. Sometimes the last 4 seeds are all bubble like, and sometimes the 12-13 teams are miles better than the #16. Eh, fair enough. But that's not really my argument. If Utah had lost either the fourth or fifth set against Illinois in the first round, which could have easily happened (they won the fourth set 25-23), then they get bounced right away, and I don't think anyone is complaining that they weren't seeded. But because they blew out BYU in the second round and pushed Stanford to five, it gets brought up. This seems like results-based thinking to me. At the time, it seems like there was at least a somewhat justifiable case to not seed Utah, and I don't recall a whole lot of outcry about this until later on. Believe me, I wish that both were seeded because then BYU could have played someone else in the second round. But it is what it is, and I don't think it was a miscarriage of justice. In basketball, where teams are seeded 1-64, 4s (i.e. 13-16 or BYU in this case) and 5s (i.e. 17-20 or Utah in this case) play in the second round every year.
|
|
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: 28,686
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 3, 2021 12:29:27 GMT -5
Eh, fair enough. But that's not really my argument. If Utah had lost either the fourth or fifth set against Illinois in the first round, which could have easily happened (they won the fourth set 25-23), then they get bounced right away, and I don't think anyone is complaining that they weren't seeded. But because they blew out BYU in the second round and pushed Stanford to five, it gets brought up. This seems like results-based thinking to me. At the time, it seems like there was at least a somewhat justifiable case to not seed Utah, and I don't recall a whole lot of outcry about this until later on. Believe me, I wish that both were seeded because then BYU could have played someone else in the second round. But it is what it is, and I don't think it was a miscarriage of justice. In basketball, where teams are seeded 1-64, 4s (i.e. 13-16 or BYU in this case) and 5s (i.e. 17-20 or Utah in this case) play in the second round every year. Well, I brought it up before it even happened, and have repeatedly/consistently argued that tournament results should NOT dictate seeding decisions, even posts in this thread. Blowing BYU out doesn't change the fact that BYU beat them in the H2H in the season, which matters. The tournament result does not. There was plenty of discussion on the board about BYU/Utah leading up to the seeding process. It was discussed a lot whether both of them would get a seed or not. Of course, I don't think when examining whether Utah should be a seed or not, that anyone was entertaining the possibility of Purdue jumping them.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 3, 2021 12:34:31 GMT -5
Eh, fair enough. But that's not really my argument. If Utah had lost either the fourth or fifth set against Illinois in the first round, which could have easily happened (they won the fourth set 25-23), then they get bounced right away, and I don't think anyone is complaining that they weren't seeded. But because they blew out BYU in the second round and pushed Stanford to five, it gets brought up. This seems like results-based thinking to me. At the time, it seems like there was at least a somewhat justifiable case to not seed Utah, and I don't recall a whole lot of outcry about this until later on. Believe me, I wish that both were seeded because then BYU could have played someone else in the second round. But it is what it is, and I don't think it was a miscarriage of justice. In basketball, where teams are seeded 1-64, 4s (i.e. 13-16 or BYU in this case) and 5s (i.e. 17-20 or Utah in this case) play in the second round every year. Well, I brought it up before it even happened, and have repeatedly/consistently argued that tournament results should NOT dictate seeding decisions, even posts in this thread. Blowing BYU out doesn't change the fact that BYU beat them in the H2H in the season, which matters. The tournament result does not. There was plenty of discussion on the board about BYU/Utah leading up to the seeding process. It was discussed a lot whether both of them would get a seed or not. Of course, I don't think when examining whether Utah should be a seed or not, that anyone was entertaining the possibility of Purdue jumping them. I really don't disagree with much of this. I think it was a close call either way. And I'm talking more about the board in general than you specifically. I went back and looked at the thread when the field was announced, and there wasn't much outcry about Utah compared to say, Cal being left out. That's not to say that there were no people complaining. There were. But it wasn't like Loyola getting an 8 seed and playing Illinois in the second round in basketball this year. The latter is kind of ironic because that's exactly the kind of matchup one would expect to see when regional considerations are given a lot more weight.
|
|
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: 28,686
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 3, 2021 12:42:46 GMT -5
I really don't disagree with much of this. I think it was a close call either way. And I'm talking more about the board in general than you specifically. I went back and looked at the thread when the field was announced, and there wasn't much outcry about Utah compared to say, Cal being left out. That's not to say that there were no people complaining. There were. But it wasn't like Loyola getting an 8 seed and playing Illinois in the second round in basketball this year. I think that's partially because we were expecting it to happen. When blue and I are both telling the board we don't see both BYU/Utah getting a seed, I don't think it's as shocking when it actually happens. Now, when you look at VCU's resume, it's just a head-scratcher on how that's good enough. That was the crazy part about Cal. But to make matters worse, the committee's statements didn't help. The body of work in the Big Ten comment for example. Is that what gave Purdue the edge over Utah? Is that what gave Illinois the edge over Cal? Those arguments don't make sense when you look at the resume. Not only were their RPI's better (and to me, both resume's are better) but their conference RPI was ranked better. It certainly made you question the intent there, and potentially the outrage.
|
|
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: 28,686
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 3, 2021 12:51:32 GMT -5
WKU up 1-0 and 19-16 in the 2nd set vs. Rice. I'm not sure who has the better resume at this point for an at-large. WKU has like no wins to claim, but has been very dominant against their weak schedule. I think Rice's at-large profile is probably better with a Texas win, despite 2x losses to SMU.
|
|
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: 28,686
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 3, 2021 13:05:25 GMT -5
Looks like Marquette will go up 2-1 on Creighton. I don't see how either deserves an at-large bid, really.
|
|
|
Post by redcard on Apr 3, 2021 13:07:41 GMT -5
WKU up 1-0 and 19-16 in the 2nd set vs. Rice. I'm not sure who has the better resume at this point for an at-large. WKU has like no wins to claim, but has been very dominant against their weak schedule. I think Rice's at-large profile is probably better with a Texas win, despite 2x losses to SMU. I think if Rice loses they get in. If WKU loses I’m not sure as they have no SOS wins to claim. Their good though so hopefully they win today and secure it.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 3, 2021 13:09:44 GMT -5
FSU deserves in over Georgia Tech and Notre Dame and based on level of play, it’s not close. Unless you give fall matches equal weight. Then it’s close. To be fair, my cable provider doesn’t have ACCN so I don’t actually get to watch any of the matches... Actually, if you consider the fall at all then it would not be close. Even if you ignore the fall completely (which makes zero sense, since that is when the three top teams actually played each other), it is a big stretch to say "it's not close". The "eye test" here on VT said that GT would beat ND, yet ND swept GT at GT with better scores than Pitt vs GT at Pitt and just a few points per game less than Louisville vs GT at Louisville. ND was criticized for going 4 with Duke yesterday, literally 2 weeks after Pitt beat Duke 22-20 in the 5th and was given a pass. There are other data points which also do not support the "it's not close" claim.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 3, 2021 13:11:45 GMT -5
I really don't disagree with much of this. I think it was a close call either way. And I'm talking more about the board in general than you specifically. I went back and looked at the thread when the field was announced, and there wasn't much outcry about Utah compared to say, Cal being left out. That's not to say that there were no people complaining. There were. But it wasn't like Loyola getting an 8 seed and playing Illinois in the second round in basketball this year. I think that's partially because we were expecting it to happen. When blue and I are both telling the board we don't see both BYU/Utah getting a seed, I don't think it's as shocking when it actually happens. Now, when you look at VCU's resume, it's just a head-scratcher on how that's good enough. That was the crazy part about Cal. But to make matters worse, the committee's statements didn't help. The body of work in the Big Ten comment for example. Is that what gave Purdue the edge over Utah? Is that what gave Illinois the edge over Cal? Those arguments don't make sense when you look at the resume. Not only were their RPI's better (and to me, both resume's are better) but their conference RPI was ranked better. It certainly made you question the intent there, and potentially the outrage. Fair enough. Even if I disagree slightly with some of your conclusions, I do appreciate the time and effort you take to clearly explain your thinking.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 3, 2021 13:15:05 GMT -5
I would argue that regionalization has in the past done harm to teams in the Midwest and West (PAC & B1G). I have not seen where the pre-championship manual directs the committee not to take region into account, and the regional makeup of the committee makes this harm a possibility this year whether intentional or not. And why do you argue that regionalization has hurt the Big 10? The B1G became a power BECAUSE of regionalization that for years limited the number of west coast teams who could go to the final four and guaranteed a team from the midwest would make it that far
|
|
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: 28,686
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 3, 2021 13:15:15 GMT -5
Looks like Marquette will go up 2-1 on Creighton. I don't see how either deserves an at-large bid, really. I spoke too soon. We're tied at 28 in set 3.
|
|