|
Post by n00b on Apr 4, 2021 13:11:35 GMT -5
I also hope we learn the exact details re: replacement policies tomorrow, I don't know. I don't know if they are even going to be considered actually. I'm assuming/hoping AQ's can be replaced up to 2-3 days before the tournament starts by another team in conference, unless it is a multi-bid conference, in that case, the 1st team out on the at-large list would replace that team. That means being a part of the first four out could be crucial. This is also unique -- the Basketball tournaments did not have over a week gap before the first matches will be played. They were generally posted for fall championships www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-competition-oversight-committee-approves-replacement-policyTo summarize, they’ll only replace teams for 24 hours after the bracket is announced.
|
|
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: 28,164
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 4, 2021 13:21:37 GMT -5
I do not like that, but, better than nothing I guess.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 4, 2021 13:22:20 GMT -5
I'm surprised that there was no "You Pick The Last Team In" based on blind resumes. Is that normally from someone who has taken a break? I usually did those. But it's impossible to mask the teams really, this year. There is no X team beat #20 and #25 in RPI, but lost to #121. It's more like The SEC #3 team beat nobody and lost to the #5 SEC team twice. The #5 SEC team has more losses but also beat the #4 SEC team. But you can't really do that without making it "not blind". You kinda have to mention the conferences when they didn't play non-conference. Thanks for all the work you put into this, it is a lot fun as a point of reference to talk about. Even if your projections were nearly perfect, one or 2 differences could completely change the matchups until probably the final 8, so people don't have to worry too much about the projected individual matchups.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 4, 2021 13:23:54 GMT -5
Well, losing in 5 sets has never mattered for NCAA consideration. The most important that matter are RPI and Significant wins/losses in terms of RPI. Late-season performance in secondary criteria that takes place if situations are close or tied. I disagree with your insinuation about stats needing to be used to reinforce prior notions, but you seem ill-informed re: NCAA Criteria. Your place in the ACC Standings is irrelevant to NCAA Tournament selections, as far as 2019 as concerned. This year, it's more murky, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them not go according to conference standings for both seedings an at-larges. Now you're being a jerk. I never said 5 set losses were an NCAA consideration. I was using that as an example of GT playing well at the end of the season, last year. That five set loss at Pitt was GT's only one in their last 14 matches. But we were left out due to events that happened early in the season. Now, you seem to suggest that this year, early season events should not be given as much weight, which makes GT look comparatively worse. I looked it up. GT went 15-2 in NIVC games, on their way to winning the tourney. I thought they were quite worthy of getting in last year, and the fact that they did not was a snub. If you answer with "by the criteria...", and that's all that matters, then that should be all that you talk about in your bracketology. But it isn't, so it's clear you already understand that the committee games it with multiple criteria to get the result they want (to a degree).
|
|
|
Post by dawgonecrazy on Apr 4, 2021 13:26:51 GMT -5
There can be no justification for Washington at #4. Yes, everyone points at the horrendous ASU loss, but it was the 5 set win over Stanford a week ago that leaves Washington no better than a 7 or 8 seed. They beat a Stanford team in 5 sets that had only 8 players available, and not their 8 best players; a Stanford team that has woefully under-trained the past year to the point they not only practiced on grass, it is still not clear they have ever been able to practice 6 on 6. Everyone has a limited resume to put forth for consideration for this 48-team tournament and a close look at Washington’s makes them no better than a 7 seed, unless you think their losses are better than #6 Texas’ debacle with lowly Rice. I just don’t. Washington’s tournament will only last as long as they are able to avoid a B1G team. If Washington played the exact schedule that Illinois played-they would not have won more matches than the Illini did. Sorry...in the spring of 2021 the PAC12 champion is a paper tiger. Frankly, the top 4 seeds for sure should be B1G teams, and probably the top 5. 👍 Uh...yikes. Minnesota or perhaps even Nebraska above Washington is certainly possible. But you clearly have an incredibly heavy B1G bias to also be throwing Texas into the same mix. Yes, the Big Ten is most likely better than the Pac-12 this spring. By somewhat. Not by a gaping chasm, as you seem to think. Naturally you mention #6 Texas' debacle with lowly Rice (who most likely will make the tourney) but no mention of Purdue's debacle vs Illinois (which certainly won't)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 4, 2021 13:31:28 GMT -5
Well, losing in 5 sets has never mattered for NCAA consideration. The most important that matter are RPI and Significant wins/losses in terms of RPI. Late-season performance in secondary criteria that takes place if situations are close or tied. I disagree with your insinuation about stats needing to be used to reinforce prior notions, but you seem ill-informed re: NCAA Criteria. Your place in the ACC Standings is irrelevant to NCAA Tournament selections, as far as 2019 as concerned. This year, it's more murky, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them not go according to conference standings for both seedings an at-larges. Now you're being a jerk. I never said 5 set losses were an NCAA consideration. I was using that as an example of GT playing well at the end of the season, last year. That five set loss at Pitt was GT's only one in their last 14 matches. But we were left out due to events that happened early in the season. Now, you seem to suggest that this year, early season events should not be given as much weight, which makes GT look comparatively worse. I looked it up. GT went 15-2 in NIVC games, on their way to winning the tourney. I thought they were quite worthy of getting in last year, and the fact that they did not was a snub. If you answer with "by the criteria...", and that's all that matters, then that should be all that you talk about in your bracketology. But it isn't, so it's clear you already understand that the committee games it with multiple criteria to get the result they want (to a degree). GT only played one team in the NIVC that was even close to tourney caliber (South Dakota). GT won a lot of matches. Due to the softness of the mid and bottom of the ACC and an unbalanced schedule, they won a lot of games at the end of the season without bolstering their resume very much. GT was 2-3 against at-large caliber teams last year (both wins at home) with 5 losses to non-tourney teams (Auburn, Georgia, Oklahoma, Arizona St., BC). They also lost to Kennesaw St. They only played the two best ACC teams (pitt/Louisville) twice - that's a problem when they didn't play anybody in the OOC either. That's just not an at-large resume.
|
|
|
Post by dawgonecrazy on Apr 4, 2021 13:33:19 GMT -5
Well, losing in 5 sets has never mattered for NCAA consideration. The most important that matter are RPI and Significant wins/losses in terms of RPI. Late-season performance in secondary criteria that takes place if situations are close or tied. I disagree with your insinuation about stats needing to be used to reinforce prior notions, but you seem ill-informed re: NCAA Criteria. Your place in the ACC Standings is irrelevant to NCAA Tournament selections, as far as 2019 as concerned. This year, it's more murky, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them not go according to conference standings for both seedings an at-larges. Now you're being a jerk. I never said 5 set losses were an NCAA consideration. I was using that as an example of GT playing well at the end of the season, last year. That five set loss at Pitt was GT's only one in their last 14 matches. But we were left out due to events that happened early in the season. Now, you seem to suggest that this year, early season events should not be given as much weight, which makes GT look comparatively worse. I looked it up. GT went 15-2 in NIVC games, on their way to winning the tourney. I thought they were quite worthy of getting in last year, and the fact that they did not was a snub. If you answer with "by the criteria...", and that's all that matters, then that should be all that you talk about in your bracketology. But it isn't, so it's clear you already understand that the committee games it with multiple criteria to get the result they want (to a degree). I'm 100% with trojansc on that one. 2019 Georgia Tech certainly *could* have been chosen, but it was not a snub that were left out, and I would have made the same decision. The early season/late season weight thing is a much bigger issue this year because of some teams (such as ACC) having two seasons. GT's awful non-conference in 2019 was only like 2-3 months before the tourney; FSU's bad fall was like 6 months ago and only consisted of four matches, none of which were truly awful. But I do think 2020-21 Georgia Tech has a significantly better shot to make it than 2019 GT did, and I'm picking them (narrowly) over Florida State.
|
|
|
Post by dawgonecrazy on Apr 4, 2021 13:38:02 GMT -5
Now you're being a jerk. I never said 5 set losses were an NCAA consideration. I was using that as an example of GT playing well at the end of the season, last year. That five set loss at Pitt was GT's only one in their last 14 matches. But we were left out due to events that happened early in the season. Now, you seem to suggest that this year, early season events should not be given as much weight, which makes GT look comparatively worse. I looked it up. GT went 15-2 in NIVC games, on their way to winning the tourney. I thought they were quite worthy of getting in last year, and the fact that they did not was a snub. If you answer with "by the criteria...", and that's all that matters, then that should be all that you talk about in your bracketology. But it isn't, so it's clear you already understand that the committee games it with multiple criteria to get the result they want (to a degree). GT only played one team in the NIVC that was even close to tourney caliber (South Dakota). GT won a lot of matches. Due to the softness of the mid and bottom of the ACC and an unbalanced schedule, they won a lot of games at the end of the season without bolstering their resume very much. GT was 2-3 against at-large caliber teams last year (both wins at home) with 5 losses to non-tourney teams (Auburn, Georgia, Oklahoma, Arizona St., BC). They also lost to Kennesaw St. They only played the two best ACC teams (pitt/Louisville) twice - that's a problem when they didn't play anybody in the OOC either. That's just not an at-large resume. Uh, Georgia and Oklahoma both made the 2019 tourney. But the overall point still stands.
|
|
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: 28,164
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 4, 2021 13:39:57 GMT -5
That's just not an at-large resume. Correct. Who do you got from the ACC/Mizzou/San Diego/Marquette/KState(?) grouping this year? Or, better words, who do you think the committee has?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 4, 2021 13:40:34 GMT -5
GT only played one team in the NIVC that was even close to tourney caliber (South Dakota). GT won a lot of matches. Due to the softness of the mid and bottom of the ACC and an unbalanced schedule, they won a lot of games at the end of the season without bolstering their resume very much. GT was 2-3 against at-large caliber teams last year (both wins at home) with 5 losses to non-tourney teams (Auburn, Georgia, Oklahoma, Arizona St., BC). They also lost to Kennesaw St. They only played the two best ACC teams (pitt/Louisville) twice - that's a problem when they didn't play anybody in the OOC either. That's just not an at-large resume. Uh, Georgia and Oklahoma both made the 2019 tourney. But the overall point still stands. Ok, so they're 2-5 against the field, with 3 losses to non-tourney teams. Still more field losses than tourney-caliber wins. Look I liked GT last year, Bergmann saved my fantasy team... but I completely understand why they didn't make the field.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 4, 2021 13:41:37 GMT -5
That's just not an at-large resume. Correct. Who do you got from the ACC/Mizzou/San Diego/Marquette/KState(?) grouping this year? Or, better words, who do you think the committee has? I think they're gonna rely on historical conference bids. So Marquette, Mizzou at the top of the list.
|
|
|
Post by dawgonecrazy on Apr 4, 2021 14:06:16 GMT -5
Is there an NIVC this year? Financially I'd get why it wouldn't happen, but I haven't seen any firm indication one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 4, 2021 14:07:12 GMT -5
Is there an NIVC this year? Financially I'd get why it wouldn't happen, but I haven't seen any firm indication one way or another. They could barely get teams to play without COVID.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 4, 2021 14:08:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 4, 2021 14:10:32 GMT -5
Correct. Who do you got from the ACC/Mizzou/San Diego/Marquette/KState(?) grouping this year? Or, better words, who do you think the committee has? I think they're gonna rely on historical conference bids. So Marquette, Mizzou at the top of the list. Ugh if Marquette gets in. They have 1 win against a team that shouldn’t be an at large either (Creighton) and losses to Illinois State and Butler.... like, seriously, pass!
|
|