|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 15, 2021 13:03:58 GMT -5
For some reason, despite neither conference playing any OOC matches, the committee clearly decided that the Big Ten was higher ranked than the PAC-12, and gave them markedly higher seeds. What was the result of this? Well, let's see how it turned out. Big Ten round 2 opponents: Weber State Missouri Texas State North Carolina A&T Georgia Tech High Point PAC-12 round 2 opponents: BYU Pittsburgh Dayton Notre Dame Western Kentucky ========== I don't know about you, but it sure looks to me like the PAC-12 teams have gotten a significantly harder set of second-round opponents than the Big Ten. I really wish I understood what made the committee decide the Big Ten was so much stronger than the PAC-12, considering they had absolutely no hard data to work with. This is a weird way to advance this argument. Weber State, North Carolina AT&T and High Point should be considered upsets. Also, higher seeds should have easier second rounds -- so not sure why you need to pull up the second round opponents to make the argument that B1G was overseeded? Seems a bit circular. Upsets happen. This is a possibly controversial post, and I wanted to make it as clear and factual as possible. These are the opponents that are being played. That's factual. I believe the point is still clear and obvious -- for some reason, with apparently no data except the "eye test" by the Regional Advisory Councils, the NCAA clearly and obviously favored the Big Ten over the PAC-12 in the seeding, and this has resulted in the second-round opponents that we see now. In many ways, I prefer randomly seeded tournaments because of this. Sure, that has its own issues, but at least it isn't systemic bias. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 15, 2021 13:11:06 GMT -5
This is a weird way to advance this argument. Weber State, North Carolina AT&T and High Point should be considered upsets. Also, higher seeds should have easier second rounds -- so not sure why you need to pull up the second round opponents to make the argument that B1G was overseeded? Seems a bit circular. Upsets happen. This is a possibly controversial post, and I wanted to make it as clear and factual as possible. These are the opponents that are being played. That's factual. I believe the point is still clear and obvious -- for some reason, with apparently no data except the "eye test" by the Regional Advisory Councils, the NCAA clearly and obviously favored the Big Ten over the PAC-12 in the seeding, and this has resulted in the second-round opponents that we see now. In many ways, I prefer randomly seeded tournaments because of this. Sure, that has its own issues, but at least it isn't systemic bias. I'm not arguing that the B1G wasn't favored. But saying, "look at these easy second round match-ups, the B1G was favored" misses the part of the equation where seeds (theoretically) determine second round match-ups. Theoretically, if the B1G was extra favored, they would have better seeds, and better second round match-ups than their seeds warrant. It doesn't sound like you are arguing that. It's just a weird way to make your argument, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Apr 15, 2021 13:14:07 GMT -5
Big bragging rights for WCC on the line in these two close matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 15, 2021 13:25:00 GMT -5
Upsets happen. This is a possibly controversial post, and I wanted to make it as clear and factual as possible. These are the opponents that are being played. That's factual. I believe the point is still clear and obvious -- for some reason, with apparently no data except the "eye test" by the Regional Advisory Councils, the NCAA clearly and obviously favored the Big Ten over the PAC-12 in the seeding, and this has resulted in the second-round opponents that we see now. In many ways, I prefer randomly seeded tournaments because of this. Sure, that has its own issues, but at least it isn't systemic bias. I'm not arguing that the B1G wasn't favored. But saying, "look at these easy second round match-ups, the B1G was favored" misses the part of the equation where seeds (theoretically) determine second round match-ups. Theoretically, if the B1G was extra favored, they would have better seeds, and better second round match-ups than their seeds warrant. It doesn't sound like you are arguing that. It's just a weird way to make your argument, that's all. It's the actual data. I fail to see how this is "weird". Anyway, the only one that really counts for your objection is Rice dropping out due to COVID. I mean, Weber State might have been considered an upset over Bowling Green, but so what? High Point instead of UCF? Again, so what? By being seeded so highly, many B1G teams were pretty much guaranteed easier second round opponents regardless of who won. |
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Apr 15, 2021 13:27:33 GMT -5
A single BIG team has played a match (dominantly) and the whole conference manages to live rent free in Washington fans’ heads.
|
|
|
|
Post by pbmu on Apr 15, 2021 13:28:51 GMT -5
Seeds hold in first 4 matches
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 15, 2021 13:29:42 GMT -5
I'm not arguing that the B1G wasn't favored. But saying, "look at these easy second round match-ups, the B1G was favored" misses the part of the equation where seeds (theoretically) determine second round match-ups. Theoretically, if the B1G was extra favored, they would have better seeds, and better second round match-ups than their seeds warrant. It doesn't sound like you are arguing that. It's just a weird way to make your argument, that's all. It's the actual data. I fail to see how this is "weird". Anyway, the only one that really counts for your objection is Rice dropping out due to COVID. I mean, Weber State might have been considered an upset over Bowling Green, but so what? High Point instead of UCF? Again, so what? By being seeded so highly, many B1G teams were pretty much guaranteed easier second round opponents regardless of who won. It's not good data to make your point. Looking at the second round match ups doesn't prove the B1G was (unfairly) favored. It shows they had better seeds. If the B1G is better than the PAC, do those match-ups seem unfair to you? |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 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: 31,260 
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 15, 2021 13:31:10 GMT -5
Seeds hold in first 4 matches The next 8 matches are the real 'cinderellas'. Texas State, Dayton, Morehead State, High Point then Weber State, Georgia Tech, UNLV, Wright State The seeded teams are massive favorites. We need to see at least one of them pull it off! |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 15, 2021 13:34:07 GMT -5
It's the actual data. I fail to see how this is "weird". Anyway, the only one that really counts for your objection is Rice dropping out due to COVID. I mean, Weber State might have been considered an upset over Bowling Green, but so what? High Point instead of UCF? Again, so what? By being seeded so highly, many B1G teams were pretty much guaranteed easier second round opponents regardless of who won. It's not good data to make your point. Looking at the second round match ups doesn't prove the B1G was (unfairly) favored. It shows they had better seeds. If the B1G is better than the PAC, do those match-ups seem unfair to you? You're missing the point. The Big Ten teams' easier paths make it more likely they will progress further, and then that progress can be used as post-facto justification for them being "better" when it hasn't actually been confirmed. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 15, 2021 13:38:20 GMT -5
It's not good data to make your point. It is the data. I'm not going to make up data. Nor excuse it away. |
|
|
|
Post by Kingsley on Apr 15, 2021 13:38:59 GMT -5
Seeds hold in first 4 matches The next 8 matches are the real 'cinderellas'. Texas State, Dayton, Morehead State, High Point then Weber State, Georgia Tech, UNLV, Wright State The seeded teams are massive favorites. We need to see at least one of them pull it off! I'll take Georgia Tech. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 15, 2021 13:43:10 GMT -5
It's not good data to make your point. Looking at the second round match ups doesn't prove the B1G was (unfairly) favored. It shows they had better seeds. If the B1G is better than the PAC, do those match-ups seem unfair to you? You're missing the point. The Big Ten teams' easier paths make it more likely they will progress further, and then that progress can be used as post-facto justification for them being "better" when it hasn't actually been confirmed. I'm not missing the point (I understand the point about post-facto justification, and I agree). Neither of you seem to understand my point, which is rather elementary. Mike's original claim was that the B1G was favored, thus they got easier second round match-ups. There's an alternate causation here: the B1G was seeded higher, thus they got easier second round match-ups. Really, the way I see it is: The B1G was favored, thus they got seeded higher, thus they got easier second round match-ups. But saying "I don't know about you, but it sure looks to me like the PAC-12 teams have gotten a significantly harder set of second-round opponents than the Big Ten." as proof of favoritism isn't good logic. I mean, if we don't think higher seeds should get easier second round match-ups, that's another conversation, but pointing to the easier second round match-ups as additional evidence of favoritism, is redundant. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 15, 2021 13:44:03 GMT -5
If the B1G is better than the PAC, do those match-ups seem unfair to you? And if the PAC teams are better, do those matchups seem fair to you? Why should I assume the B1G teams are better? How did they do against common opponents? Oh, there were none. How did they do head to head? Oh, they didn't play. How did they do out of conference in general? Oh, they didn't play that either. And if, as seems probable, the PAC teams have a harder time advancing because they are playing tougher opponents, does that mean it was justified to give them tougher opponents? This whole tournament appears to be seeded with the goal of having four B1G teams meet in the Final Four (or possibly three plus Texas). |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 15, 2021 13:44:25 GMT -5
You're missing the point. The Big Ten teams' easier paths make it more likely they will progress further, and then that progress can be used as post-facto justification for them being "better" when it hasn't actually been confirmed. I'm not missing the point (I understand the point about post-facto justification, and I agree). Neither of you seem to understand my point, which is rather elementary. Mike's original claim was that the B1G was favored, thus they got easier second round match-ups. There's an alternate causation here: the B1G was seeded higher, thus they got easier second round match-ups. Really, the way I see it is: The B1G was favored, thus they got seeded higher, thus they got easier second round match-ups. But saying "I don't know about you, but it sure looks to me like the PAC-12 teams have gotten a significantly harder set of second-round opponents than the Big Ten." as proof of favoritism isn't good logic. I mean, if we don't think higher seeds should get easier second round match-ups, that's another conversation, but pointing to the easier second round match-ups as additional evidence of favoritism, is redundant. That wasn't the point of the post. The point of the post was to point out the implications of the favoritism. It's not redundant. And I'm really not sure why you're arguing this? |
|
|
|
Post by redcard🏐 on Apr 15, 2021 13:46:08 GMT -5
It feels so lopsided this year in rounds 1&2 I think without the additional 16 at large teams which would have added a much strong layer of competition to the higher seeds.
Round 3 should feel more normal....I hope.
|
|
