|
|
Post by donut on Apr 15, 2021 13:46:08 GMT -5
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? If the point of the post was to point out the effects of favoritism, I agree. I read it as providing additional evidence of favoritism. That's clearly why I'm arguing, and that was the point of my post. Why are you arguing with me? |
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 15, 2021 13:48:16 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. 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. What you just said answers the question from your first post.. It seems like you understand it perfectly, you just don't like it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 13:59:58 GMT -5
Awesome thread avid. It's my go to thread for the tourney. Thanks for updating. |
|
|
|
Post by ilikecorn on Apr 15, 2021 14:01:42 GMT -5
Please refrain from quoting the entirety of the OP.
|
|
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 14:04:46 GMT -5
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. What you just said answers the question from your first post.. It seems like you understand it perfectly, you just don't like it. For what it's worth, I don't know if he's right re: eye test. The committee and I saw pretty much eye-to-eye on most of the tournament seeds 1-48, if you do +/-2 , they're almost all within that range. There were about 4-5 relatively large differences that are easily explained by me putting more respect into looking into the resumes of Top 16 seeds (and the last at-larges) of who beat who in terms of significant wins/losses. The difference certainly could be eye test, but the math supports the idea that the regional advisory councils weren't influenced by the eye test, but the AVCA polls, which influence their own rankings. We both used 2019 RPI conference rankings as a major point -- except they thought the #2 conference was better, again, easily explained by AVCA polling. Could be eye test too, but I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 15, 2021 14:09:15 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). Not sure why you avoided my question, but I'll happily answer yours. No, if the PAC teams are better or as good as the B1G teams, then these match-ups don't seem fair to me. And they don't seem fair to me, because of my impression of the favoritism with regards to seeding. You seem to be under some impression I'm a B1G homer here. I'm not -- I agree with you about the B1G favoritism in the tournament. But pointing to second round match-ups is not good "data" to show that favoritism, especially when those match-ups are theoretically just a function of seeding. And the match-ups, IMO, seem to match the seeds pretty well. |
|
|
|
Post by ilikecorn on Apr 15, 2021 14:09:38 GMT -5
I figured it would be nice to have a central thread for the matches (especially those that won't have a specific game thread)  ... Awesome thread avid. It's my go to thread for the tourney. Thanks for updating. @avid yeah thanks bubbla! |
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballMag on Apr 15, 2021 14:11:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by potato518 on Apr 15, 2021 14:23:13 GMT -5
No class today plus an essay due at midnight makes these breaks between the games the perfect time to cram 🤪
|
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Apr 15, 2021 14:54:43 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). I think all of the PAC teams should have to play BIG teams in the first round to make it fair. |
|
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 15:43:06 GMT -5
The 330pm set of Cinderella's are 0-8 in sets so far. Though, a couple of them came close.
A 2-hour break until 7pm would be not fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 15, 2021 15:46:18 GMT -5
The 330pm set of Cinderella's are 0-8 in sets so far. Though, a couple of them came close. A 2-hour break until 7pm would be not fun. Gives me a chance to go for a run without missing anything. |
|
|
|
Post by chicagosports on Apr 15, 2021 15:47:37 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). Assuming PAC teams are as good as you claim (it's clear you believe they're the stronger conference) they'll advance and B1G teams would have to beat PAC teams to meet in the Final Four either way. Why the stress and worry? There's a lot of folks who love to believe their team/conference are the best, yet cry all over this forum over seeding, wish for certain teams to fail, etc. It's sounding insecure to me. Just enjoy the games y'all. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 15, 2021 15:47:42 GMT -5
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). I think all of the PAC teams should have to play BIG teams in the first round to make it fair. That would be interesting, wouldn't it? Just directly see which conference should be seeded higher. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 15, 2021 15:51:00 GMT -5
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). Assuming PAC teams are as good as you claim (it's clear you believe they're the stronger conference) they'll advance and B1G teams would have to beat PAC teams to meet in the Final Four either way. Why the stress and worry? There's a lot of folks who love to believe their team/conference are the best, yet cry all over this forum over seeding, wish for certain teams to fail, etc. It's sounding insecure to me. Just enjoy the games y'all. No, I want to correct something. I did not say I thought the PAC teams were stronger than the B1G teams. I thought there was no evidence to support the B1G teams being seeded over the PAC teams. But there is also no evidence for the PAC teams being seeded over the B1G teams. What *should* have happened is that the conferences were intermixed. But instead, a full FIVE B1G teams were seeded higher than the second PAC team. And frankly, that was outrageous. |
|
