|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 16, 2021 8:57:29 GMT -5
I was still expecting Texas/Penn State or either Baylor/Nebraska to make it on one of the ESPN2 matches at least. I agree, maybe they are going with the Flordia/OSU match to feature the two women head coches angle or something. That was before matches were televised. ESPN gets to pick which matches are played when. Again, if we want to be a real sport, these things are completely normal. Basketball game times are all about TV, not making sure higher seeds have slight advantages. |
|
|
|
Post by vergyltantor on Apr 16, 2021 9:04:26 GMT -5
I agree, maybe they are going with the Flordia/OSU match to feature the two women head coches angle or something. That was before matches were televised. ESPN gets to pick which matches are played when. Again, if we want to be a real sport, these things are completely normal. Basketball game times are all about TV, not making sure higher seeds have slight advantages. They might just be promoting the SEC network. |
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Apr 16, 2021 9:05:47 GMT -5
Looking like we have our reasons now. Yeah, I knew people were going to post stuff like this. Me: "With these opponents, it's very probable the PAC teams are going to lose some matches" They do lose some matches. You: "See? They suck." Actually, you said "For some reason the committee decided the B1G was better. Now we all can see some of those reasons on the court. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 16, 2021 9:21:54 GMT -5
Retroactively justifying seeds is stupid, especially in a single-elimination bracket. When 11-seed Stanford won in 2004, that does not mean they should have been seeded 1 going into the tournament.
I had the PAC ranked higher in my poll than the seeds. I think that yes, there was a general default bias towards the B1G this year, but we will never know how that would have affected the outcome of these second round matches. WSU-WKU was the best match of the tournament so far. Hands down. Based on those performances, those two teams deserved higher seeds (and in the case of WKU, a seed in general). Unfortunately, that's not how it works.
There have been big question marks around UCLA and Utah all season. I think we saw some of the question marks stick out like sore thumbs last night. Fortunately, Pitt and BYU play B1G teams next round, so maybe we will start to get a very rough picture of how the B1G and PAC truly stacked up this year. Same goes with how the SEC/Kentucky stacks up.
I get being upset as a PAC fan, but UCLA and Utah, based on their performances last night, did not deserve to advance. I was rooting for WSU, so my heart hurts for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 16, 2021 9:31:48 GMT -5
If any league was under-seeded, it appears to be the WCC. #16 swept #17 and a couple unseeded teams gave #11 and #12 all they could handle.
WKU-WSU was a great match, but I'm not sure a nail-biter between #15 and #18 indicates that one or both was better than their seed.
|
|
jiml
Sophomore
Go Badgers
Posts: 237
|
Post by jiml on Apr 16, 2021 9:34:34 GMT -5
Note that the NCAA committee totally moves seeds up and down to avoid intra-conference matchups as much as possible before the elite 8, so seeding numbers have never been a reliable guide to what they actually think of the teams. But it doesn't escape my notice that the state of Kentucky has more teams in the sweet sixteen than the PAC-12 conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 16, 2021 9:51:52 GMT -5
If any league was under-seeded, it appears to be the WCC. #16 swept #17 and a couple unseeded teams gave #11 and #12 all they could handle. WKU-WSU was a great match, but I'm not sure a nail-biter between #15 and #18 indicates that one or both was better than their seed. Seems like you didn't understand my post. My comment about WKU-WSU doesn't rely on the fact it was a nail-biter. It relies on the level of play. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 16, 2021 10:42:48 GMT -5
If any league was under-seeded, it appears to be the WCC. #16 swept #17 and a couple unseeded teams gave #11 and #12 all they could handle. WKU-WSU was a great match, but I'm not sure a nail-biter between #15 and #18 indicates that one or both was better than their seed. Seems like you didn't understand my post. My comment about WKU-WSU doesn't rely on the fact it was a nail-biter. It relies on the level of play. I understood. I think exciting, highly competitive matches can sometimes give an impression that both teams are a little better than they are. WKU's libero was passing so poorly they started hiding her in serve receive. Their O2 was basically non-existent and ultimately benched to leave in a DS/OH who had 4 kills on the season so she could pass to hide the libero. Oh, and Pukis set nobody at a critical point in the 5th set. Don't get me wrong, this was the best match of the tournament. Both of these teams are very good. I think Hudson made some GREAT adjustments that might've won the game for WKU. But I didn't come away from this match thinking 'wow, this matchup should be happening in a later round'. Granted, that is all subjective so maybe we can just agree to disagree. |
|
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: 31,255 
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 16, 2021 10:51:09 GMT -5
If any league was under-seeded, it appears to be the WCC. #16 swept #17 and a couple unseeded teams gave #11 and #12 all they could handle. WKU-WSU was a great match, but I'm not sure a nail-biter between #15 and #18 indicates that one or both was better than their seed. My biggest discrepancies weren't with the PAC teams, though I thought WKU, UCLA should have been seeded and PSU unseeded, and I had Purdue lower than Ohio State. The other PAC teams were pretty close to their seed. My complaint was more with PSU being over them rather than them being significantly under-seeded. The PSU difference was pretty significant. But, I pointed out in Bracketology there was little difference being #13-#20, as you mention earlier. There was one glaring huge difference besides PSU -- BYU. I had BYU as the #9 seed, and if I'm remembering correctly so did bluepenquin and the other guy who submitted a bracket that was mostly close to everything else the committee did (or they had them 8, somewhere around there). That one didn't make sense. Interestingly, I had Utah worse than their seed the committee gave them and I also had Baylor worse. WKU/UCLA/WSU/BYU were four seeded teams facing off against each other by my bracket. One went 5, and the first two of BYU-UCLA were 26-24, 31-29. I don't think Wisconsin/BYU should even be a Regional Semifinal match. It should be a Regional Final match. Oregon and Nebraska get 'easier' matches than my seeds would have warranted. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 16, 2021 11:08:11 GMT -5
Oregon and Nebraska get 'easier' matches than my seeds would have warranted. And Texas. But I still go back to the comparison to men's basketball. While they do seed 1-68, they only put teams in groups of 4, then treat all the '5 seeds' as equals. So when critiquing the bracket, I think these differences seem smaller. Penn State got a 4 seed instead of a 5. Purdue got a 2 instead of a 3. BYU maybe was a real snub, getting a 4 instead of a 2. UCLA got a 5 instead of a 4. |
|
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: 31,255
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 16, 2021 11:16:02 GMT -5
Oregon and Nebraska get 'easier' matches than my seeds would have warranted. And Texas. But I still go back to the comparison to men's basketball. While they do seed 1-68, they only put teams in groups of 4, then treat all the '5 seeds' as equals. So when critiquing the bracket, I think these differences seem smaller. Penn State got a 4 seed instead of a 5. Purdue got a 2 instead of a 3. BYU maybe was a real snub, getting a 4 instead of a 2. UCLA got a 5 instead of a 4. For this year, yes, but of course it's 1-48 AND there's no homecourt advantage. In volleyball, there's a huge advantage between being a 4 versus a 5 in any normal year. And PSU would've been a 6 in this example too. If this format stays, I don't care as much about the small disagreements unless any of the decisions are super egregious, and I doubt that would happen with RPI. Regionalization sucks. But I get it, $$$ and we might not get anything like this ever again. The old format makes the difference between #16 and #17 *potentially* humongous. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 16, 2021 11:59:28 GMT -5
If any league was under-seeded, it appears to be the WCC. #16 swept #17 and a couple unseeded teams gave #11 and #12 all they could handle. WKU-WSU was a great match, but I'm not sure a nail-biter between #15 and #18 indicates that one or both was better than their seed. My biggest discrepancies weren't with the PAC teams, though I thought WKU, UCLA should have been seeded and PSU unseeded, and I had Purdue lower than Ohio State. The other PAC teams were pretty close to their seed. My complaint was more with PSU being over them rather than them being significantly under-seeded. The PSU difference was pretty significant. But, I pointed out in Bracketology there was little difference being #13-#20, as you mention earlier. There was one glaring huge difference besides PSU -- BYU. I had BYU as the #9 seed, and if I'm remembering correctly so did bluepenquin and the other guy who submitted a bracket that was mostly close to everything else the committee did (or they had them 8, somewhere around there). That one didn't make sense. Interestingly, I had Utah worse than their seed the committee gave them and I also had Baylor worse. WKU/UCLA/WSU/BYU were four seeded teams facing off against each other by my bracket. One went 5, and the first two of BYU-UCLA were 26-24, 31-29. I don't think Wisconsin/BYU should even be a Regional Semifinal match. It should be a Regional Final match. Oregon and Nebraska get 'easier' matches than my seeds would have warranted. Yeah, I agree with all of this. Underseeding BYU was unfair to BYU, UCLA and Wisconsin. BYU/UCLA should have been a Sweet 16 match, and BYU/Wisconsin should be an Elite 8 match. The committee didn't really do their top seed any favors, though the Badgers should be good enough to overcome it. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,242
Member is Online
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 16, 2021 11:59:52 GMT -5
Oregon and Nebraska get 'easier' matches than my seeds would have warranted. And Texas. But I still go back to the comparison to men's basketball. While they do seed 1-68, they only put teams in groups of 4, then treat all the '5 seeds' as equals. So when critiquing the bracket, I think these differences seem smaller. Penn State got a 4 seed instead of a 5. Purdue got a 2 instead of a 3. BYU maybe was a real snub, getting a 4 instead of a 2. UCLA got a 5 instead of a 4. This is a pretty interesting way of looking at this - particularly when there are no home games and the 1st round matchups for the top teams were very easy. There really isn't much of a difference between #2 and #3 seed in Basketball - but when seeing #5 vs. #12 - it looks huge. That said - I don't see any objective reason for the Big Ten to have been seeded so much higher than the PAC 12. As for BYU - there is/was no objective way to accurately seed them this year - especially with a clear P5 slant by the selection committee (which took out Western Kentucky). Single elimination tournament results means almost nothing in terms of accuracy of seeding. 1) Seeding is usually based on merit, not who is considered the best team (and there can be a difference). Unfortunately, this year - there was no objective way to define merit. 2) The sample size of tournament games is too small to make strong conclusions about which teams were better. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 16, 2021 12:07:44 GMT -5
Seems like you didn't understand my post. My comment about WKU-WSU doesn't rely on the fact it was a nail-biter. It relies on the level of play. I understood. I think exciting, highly competitive matches can sometimes give an impression that both teams are a little better than they are. WKU's libero was passing so poorly they started hiding her in serve receive. Their O2 was basically non-existent and ultimately benched to leave in a DS/OH who had 4 kills on the season so she could pass to hide the libero. Oh, and Pukis set nobody at a critical point in the 5th set. Don't get me wrong, this was the best match of the tournament. Both of these teams are very good. I think Hudson made some GREAT adjustments that might've won the game for WKU. But I didn't come away from this match thinking 'wow, this matchup should be happening in a later round'. Granted, that is all subjective so maybe we can just agree to disagree. Well, if you understood, you probably wouldn't have responded to me in the first place about this specific point. Regardless, I do not think the 14 teams seeded above WSU looked better than WSU (or WKU). |
|
|
|
Post by agean09 on Apr 16, 2021 13:56:33 GMT -5
Did they move all the matches up a day?
|
|
