|
Post by dodger on Apr 4, 2021 23:01:16 GMT -5
Final Four locations from 2010+ Missouri Texas Kentucky Washington (state) Oklahoma Nebraska Ohio Missouri Minnesota Pennsylvania Nebraska Ohio Nebraska Florida Kentucky Missouri Only one time west of Nebraska. One time in Florida. One time in Texas. Three times in Missouri. Three times in Nebraska. Twice in Kentucky. Twice in Ohio. So whats your point? They (ncaa vb championship selection committee) have a whole criteria for selection: hotels, arena seating , attendance , etc. etc. etc. : so your school/community wishes to host; best site, who anties up the cash guarantee has a chance: you list last ten years: we could list a different ten years and the west coast dominates . Plus : only a guess: but TV likes a CTZ for television: increases viewing for whole country: east or west coast causes start and end time problems! Second: how is a site in central time zone an advantage for the midwest teams: presume you mean some sort of home team/fan advantage??
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Apr 4, 2021 23:12:55 GMT -5
You can't possibly account for one conference having half of the elite eight over two years and half of the final four for five consecutive years by saying their paths were easier. That's preposterous. Draws matter and do not always paint the entire picture of having X amount of teams in a certain round. For both conferences, you can get a draw that guarantees your team a spot in both elite eight and Final Four, or you can also have a team who may have made it to the elite 8 or final four get eliminated earlier because one of them has to lose. If the B1G was significantly better than the PAC, I don't think we'd see higher seeded Minnesota lose 2x years in a row. I don't think we'd see Stanford knock out Wisconsin on their home court. Again, there are reverse examples. Illinois knocking out Washington on their home court. How do we know Utah wouldn't have got to the FF via Minnesota's path? Or Utah could have also been eliminated, just like Minnesota almost was, as well in the first round. Both went 5! Again, we'll never know. I just disagree that it's as simple as saying because my conference had more teams in this round, they are clearly better. Especially when having the best team overall/NC doesn't matter either, which I agree with. Draws do matter, but it just isn't reasonable to look at all that success and say that it's because they had good paths. Over the last two years, the Big Ten had eight top 8 seeds and got 8 teams to the elite eight. If the conference was getting so completely over-seeded the way people always say it is, that almost certainly wouldn't happen. Hypotheticals don't change anything. The year Penn State got the 16-seed and everyone was so up in arms, I thought they were one of the four best teams in the country at the end of the year. Instead they had to play #1 Nebraska in the Sweet Sixteen and lost in five. The next round Nebraska played an 8th-seeded Washington team and won 75-47. There is no doubt in my mind that Penn State would have crushed that Washington team and easily could have made the Final Four if they didn't have to play Nebraska first. At that time, Nebraska wasn't a great match-up for Penn State. Things happen. We'll never know. What we do know is that the Big Ten has had 10 of the last 20 Final Four teams from five different schools. The Pac-12 has had four, and all four were Stanford. The Big 12 has had 4 of 20 as well and from 3 different schools. Stanford has been a great team, the best team of the last five years. The best conference this year is impossible to tell and quite frankly depends on anyone's definition of best in relation to conference, but it is simply not reasonable to argue that the Big Ten hasn't been the most successful conference in the tournament recently. I understand that people don't like that the Big Ten has gotten the benefit of the doubt with tournament seeding recently and especially this year with no out-of-conference, but those same people could at least acknowledge that the conference earned it.
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Apr 4, 2021 23:17:52 GMT -5
Draws matter and do not always paint the entire picture of having X amount of teams in a certain round. For both conferences, you can get a draw that guarantees your team a spot in both elite eight and Final Four, or you can also have a team who may have made it to the elite 8 or final four get eliminated earlier because one of them has to lose. If the B1G was significantly better than the PAC, I don't think we'd see higher seeded Minnesota lose 2x years in a row. I don't think we'd see Stanford knock out Wisconsin on their home court. Again, there are reverse examples. Illinois knocking out Washington on their home court. How do we know Utah wouldn't have got to the FF via Minnesota's path? Or Utah could have also been eliminated, just like Minnesota almost was, as well in the first round. Both went 5! Again, we'll never know. I just disagree that it's as simple as saying because my conference had more teams in this round, they are clearly better. Especially when having the best team overall/NC doesn't matter either, which I agree with. Draws do matter, but it just isn't reasonable to look at all that success and say that it's because they had good paths. Over the last two years, the Big Ten had eight top 8 seeds and got 8 teams to the elite eight. If the conference was getting so completely over-seeded the way people always say it is, that almost certainly wouldn't happen. Hypotheticals don't change anything. The year Penn State got the 16-seed and everyone was so up in arms, I thought they were one of the four best teams in the country at the end of the year. Instead they had to play #1 Nebraska in the Sweet Sixteen and lost in five. The next round Nebraska played an 8th-seeded Washington team and won 75-47. There is no doubt in my mind that Penn State would have crushed that Washington team and easily could have made the Final Four if they didn't have to play Nebraska first. At that time, Nebraska wasn't a great match-up for Penn State. Things happen. We'll never know. What we do know is that the Big Ten has had 10 of the last 20 Final Four teams from five different schools. The Pac-12 has had four, and all four were Stanford. The Big 12 has had 4 of 20 as well and from 3 different schools. Stanford has been a great team, the best team of the last five years. The best conference this year is impossible to tell and quite frankly depends on anyone's definition of best in relation to conference, but it is simply not reasonable to argue that the Big Ten hasn't been the most successful conference in the tournament recently. I understand that people don't like that the Big Ten has gotten the benefit of the doubt with tournament seeding recently and especially this year with no out-of-conference, but those same people could at least acknowledge that the conference earned it.
|
|
|
Post by Tex_VB_Fan on Apr 4, 2021 23:19:04 GMT -5
Slection Committee....
|
|
|
Post by gophervbfan on Apr 4, 2021 23:19:44 GMT -5
Just an aside on that Nebraska-Penn State match you mention. If I remember correctly, Penn State actually had several match points in that match and Nebraska had a couple of great points to save the set and move the match forward.
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Apr 4, 2021 23:30:56 GMT -5
Just an aside on that Nebraska-Penn State match you mention. If I remember correctly, Penn State actually had several match points in that match and Nebraska had a couple of great points to save the set and move the match forward. You remember correctly. Nebraska had to side-out via a kill by Kadie Rolfzen and then follow that up with a block by Amber Rolfzen just to avoid being swept.
|
|
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: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 4, 2021 23:38:33 GMT -5
The best conference this year is impossible to tell and quite frankly depends on anyone's definition of best in relation to conference, but it is simply not reasonable to argue that the Big Ten hasn't been the most successful conference in the tournament recently. I understand that people don't like that the Big Ten has gotten the benefit of the doubt with tournament seeding recently and especially this year with no out-of-conference, but those same people could at least acknowledge that the conference earned it. I'm trying to understand this part of the argument. In a normal year, are you saying that the Big Ten *should* get benefit of the doubt re: seedings and at-large selections for example, even if only based on # of teams in Elite 8 or recent tournament success, so they earned it? Specifically, we can use the example of Purdue/Utah and Cal/Illinois in 2019, is that justified? I just disagree, but that's probably the tournament resume/Bracketology part working in me. We can use your 2016 PSU for an example. Was that team good enough to be a seed? Yes, absolutely.. was their resume based on selection criteria? No. I take into account Pablo rankings -- there was a major anomaly for PSU that year in terms of RPI/Pablo, which happens often to many teams, so I get it. But, in terms of selection committee, it doesn't make sense to give someone an advantage there. This year is way different. The seeds/at-larges should be based on prior precedence of how many bids one team gets into the tournament and how many are seeded. The PAC/B1G are consistently equal over the past 11 years in that department even if +/-2 a year here and a year there. The only big major bias in bracketing in the years I've done this for the B1G was 2019. I thought this year was extreme too, but for example with Purdue/Oregon I see it as trivial. If Oregon is 7 and Purdue is 10, it's the same thing. I just disagree with Penn State over UCLA.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Apr 5, 2021 0:02:15 GMT -5
This is my favorite. You have to love this. Where's Mocha and his tournament selection celebration thread? I wasn't in a celebration mood this year, I barely followed this semblance of a season.
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Apr 5, 2021 0:23:36 GMT -5
The best conference this year is impossible to tell and quite frankly depends on anyone's definition of best in relation to conference, but it is simply not reasonable to argue that the Big Ten hasn't been the most successful conference in the tournament recently. I understand that people don't like that the Big Ten has gotten the benefit of the doubt with tournament seeding recently and especially this year with no out-of-conference, but those same people could at least acknowledge that the conference earned it. I'm trying to understand this part of the argument. In a normal year, are you saying that the Big Ten *should* get benefit of the doubt re: seedings and at-large selections for example, even if only based on # of teams in Elite 8 or recent tournament success, so they earned it? Specifically, we can use the example of Purdue/Utah and Cal/Illinois in 2019, is that justified? I just disagree, but that's probably the tournament resume/Bracketology part working in me. We can use your 2016 PSU for an example. Was that team good enough to be a seed? Yes, absolutely.. was their resume based on selection criteria? No. I take into account Pablo rankings -- there was a major anomaly for PSU that year in terms of RPI/Pablo, which happens often to many teams, so I get it. But, in terms of selection committee, it doesn't make sense to give someone an advantage there. This year is way different. The seeds/at-larges should be based on prior precedence of how many bids one team gets into the tournament and how many are seeded. The PAC/B1G are consistently equal over the past 11 years in that department even if +/-2 a year here and a year there. The only big major bias in bracketing in the years I've done this for the B1G was 2019. I thought this year was extreme too, but for example with Purdue/Oregon I see it as trivial. If Oregon is 7 and Purdue is 10, it's the same thing. I just disagree with Penn State over UCLA. No, I'm saying this year the committee has nothing to go on for strength between conferences. Especially between the Pac-12 and Big Ten since neither conference played any out-of-conference. So they have to look at the past and the recent past says good Big Ten teams probably deserve to be seeded because they've been seeded in the past and have more than lived up to the seeds that have been given as whole. Specifics just don't matter to me. This team beat that team or that team be this team, is irrelevant for me. The conference earned the benefit of the doubt for its qualifying teams by winning in conglomerate. The whole was successful even if this team or that team wasn't. The committee gave them the benefit of the doubt because of it. I don't necessarily agree with the specifics, but the whole makes sense. Is it right? I wouldn't have done it the same. Compared to the results, I had Nebraska and Penn State lower and Purdue and Ohio State higher. But given history, which is the only thing the committee could really lean on for seeding, it makes sense. What do the seeds predict will happen? That the Big Ten will have 4 Elite Eight teams and 2 Final Four teams. Where have I heard that before?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2021 0:30:48 GMT -5
If seeds hold, Utah/Washington back to back is going to be tough for Minnesota. Maybe they will lose to Utah, so it won't matter. A Utah-Washington elite 8 match would be a slugfest
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2021 0:32:47 GMT -5
Oh, also, can these idiots not find anyone else to guest interview but Big 10 people? Haggerty for Wisconsin, Sun for Nebraska, Mcutcheon for Minnesota, Shondell for Purdue all in a row....like....really? I'm soooooo over this crap. Not a single west coast interview. Just over it. the whole show was an absolute mess. Salima should host alone and it should be 30 minutes. interviews are nice but we’re watching for the bracket.
|
|
|
Post by gforcevb on Apr 5, 2021 0:38:18 GMT -5
I'm trying to understand this part of the argument. In a normal year, are you saying that the Big Ten *should* get benefit of the doubt re: seedings and at-large selections for example, even if only based on # of teams in Elite 8 or recent tournament success, so they earned it? Specifically, we can use the example of Purdue/Utah and Cal/Illinois in 2019, is that justified? I just disagree, but that's probably the tournament resume/Bracketology part working in me. We can use your 2016 PSU for an example. Was that team good enough to be a seed? Yes, absolutely.. was their resume based on selection criteria? No. I take into account Pablo rankings -- there was a major anomaly for PSU that year in terms of RPI/Pablo, which happens often to many teams, so I get it. But, in terms of selection committee, it doesn't make sense to give someone an advantage there. This year is way different. The seeds/at-larges should be based on prior precedence of how many bids one team gets into the tournament and how many are seeded. The PAC/B1G are consistently equal over the past 11 years in that department even if +/-2 a year here and a year there. The only big major bias in bracketing in the years I've done this for the B1G was 2019. I thought this year was extreme too, but for example with Purdue/Oregon I see it as trivial. If Oregon is 7 and Purdue is 10, it's the same thing. I just disagree with Penn State over UCLA. No, I'm saying this year the committee has nothing to go on for strength between conferences. Especially between the Pac-12 and Big Ten since neither conference played any out-of-conference. So they have to look at the past and the recent past says good Big Ten teams probably deserve to be seeded because they've been seeded in the past and have more than lived up to the seeds that have been given as whole. Specifics just don't matter to me. This team beat that team or that team be this team, is irrelevant for me. The conference earned the benefit of the doubt for its qualifying teams by winning in conglomerate. The whole was successful even if this team or that team wasn't. The committee gave them the benefit of the doubt because of it. I don't necessarily agree with the specifics, but the whole makes sense. Is it right? I wouldn't have done it the same. Compared to the results, I had Nebraska and Penn State lower and Purdue and Ohio State higher. But given history, which is the only thing the committee could really lean on for seeding, it makes sense. What do the seeds predict will happen? That the Big Ten will have 4 Elite Eight teams and 2 Final Four teams. Where have I heard that before? Do you agree the Pac-12 was by far the dominant conference from 2001-2007? And probably the first 25 years of NCAA women's volleyball championships?
|
|
|
Post by azsker on Apr 5, 2021 0:57:42 GMT -5
One could argue that any names in the top 5 would be championship caliber match. Lol idk why you think Wisconsin and Texas get the one nod for championship level match. Texas has, by far, the worse loss of any of those teams.. Texas also has four top 10 wins🤷🏽♂️ that one loss was in 5 sets so although it was a bad loss, it wasn't a blowout loss. The only teams who have a good chance to win the championship are the top 4 teams. Not saying everyone else is bad, I'm just saying that realistically Kentucky and Texas are the only two teams who can beat Wisconsin. We saw Minnesota pretty much get beat convincingly against Wisconsin but who knows, I guess We will see which teams show up ready. I guarantee Texas will be one of those teams that team was seeded 12th. You’re the only one that doesn’t even have a top 10 win against the teams in the tournament according to seed. Your “four top 10 wins” is to the same team. That equates to saying you beat one team. Texas is a great team with a shot to win it, but others are as well. The Minnesota game was 1-3 and they didn’t have their AA libero or their setter. That’s a horrible game to judge. They will both be completely different teams.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 5, 2021 1:01:00 GMT -5
Maybe they will lose to Utah, so it won't matter. A Utah-Washington elite 8 match would be a slugfest It would be the third match of the season between them.
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Apr 5, 2021 1:28:36 GMT -5
No, I'm saying this year the committee has nothing to go on for strength between conferences. Especially between the Pac-12 and Big Ten since neither conference played any out-of-conference. So they have to look at the past and the recent past says good Big Ten teams probably deserve to be seeded because they've been seeded in the past and have more than lived up to the seeds that have been given as whole. Specifics just don't matter to me. This team beat that team or that team be this team, is irrelevant for me. The conference earned the benefit of the doubt for its qualifying teams by winning in conglomerate. The whole was successful even if this team or that team wasn't. The committee gave them the benefit of the doubt because of it. I don't necessarily agree with the specifics, but the whole makes sense. Is it right? I wouldn't have done it the same. Compared to the results, I had Nebraska and Penn State lower and Purdue and Ohio State higher. But given history, which is the only thing the committee could really lean on for seeding, it makes sense. What do the seeds predict will happen? That the Big Ten will have 4 Elite Eight teams and 2 Final Four teams. Where have I heard that before? Do you agree the Pac-12 was by far the dominant conference from 2001-2007? And probably the first 25 years of NCAA women's volleyball championships? I'm not totally sure how this is relevant, but I'm assuming you're testing my homerism. 2001-2007: I don't remember the exact results for that specific time period, but based on what I do recall and a quick refresher on the championship matches, yes. Also it being that Nebraska didn't join the Big Ten until 2011, I would most likely expand this section to at least that point despite Penn State being the by far the dominant team of the period. Again, I would have to research this more fully first to give a definite yes or no. The first 25 years of NCAA WVB: I don't know how this could be argued otherwise.
|
|