|
Post by slxpress on Jul 20, 2022 19:22:34 GMT -5
Idk where to put this but John Cook said on a podcast that the NCAA is looking to seed the top 32 teams for the tournament this year? That’s interesting. So the top 4 seeds host the regionals if they make it that far. The top 16 host the first two rounds. So I assume 17 would go to the 16 seed, 18 to 15, all the way to the 32 seed heading to #1? I know there are some fans, especially out west, who get very frustrated by often facing the same opponent at their home gym to advance. I guess this would help with it? Do you have any thoughts on it, jwvolley?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 20, 2022 19:40:52 GMT -5
Idk where to put this but John Cook said on a podcast that the NCAA is looking to seed the top 32 teams for the tournament this year? That’s interesting. So the top 4 seeds host the regionals if they make it that far. The top 16 host the first two rounds. So I assume 17 would go to the 16 seed, 18 to 15, all the way to the 32 seed heading to #1? I know there are some fans, especially out west, who get very frustrated by often facing the same opponent at their home gym to advance. I guess this would help with it? Do you have any thoughts on it, jwvolley? They'd probably still "jigger" the seedings to send Hawaii to Seattle or UW to Lincoln anyway.
|
|
|
Post by vergyltantor on Jul 20, 2022 19:47:55 GMT -5
Idk where to put this but John Cook said on a podcast that the NCAA is looking to seed the top 32 teams for the tournament this year? ...and that "they are going to use other tools besides the RPI" to seed the tournament.
|
|
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: 28,112
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 20, 2022 19:58:49 GMT -5
Idk where to put this but John Cook said on a podcast that the NCAA is looking to seed the top 32 teams for the tournament this year? I have been championing this for a few years now as I thought it was much more realistic than getting a completely seeded field. Now how they will seed those top 32 gets very interesting. It gets harder after the top 16 because resume's get weaker and it really depends on what you value more, how much bad losses hurt, non-conf, etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by vergyltantor on Jul 20, 2022 20:09:07 GMT -5
Cued up to Cooks seeding comments.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 20, 2022 22:16:43 GMT -5
Idk where to put this but John Cook said on a podcast that the NCAA is looking to seed the top 32 teams for the tournament this year? ...and that "they are going to use other tools besides the RPI" to seed the tournament. This might be an even bigger deal. The sooner all NCAA sports abandon the RPI, the better.
|
|
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)
Posts: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 21, 2022 7:26:28 GMT -5
My expectation/guess from those comments - they will not technically seed 17-32, but will specifically identify 17-32. Then they will place only 1 of those teams in each subregional based on travel restrictions.
Frankly - this is what they did last year (for the most part, if I can remember). They could take it a step further and their ranking of 17-32 would play a part in the bracket when facing multiple travel options.
Also - I would be careful as to the alternative of relying on other metrics used than RPI, particularly if it is the eye test. The context of Cook's comments before the 'lead story' about RPI - the Big Ten is the toughest conference and deserves more teams in the tournament and better seeding than what RPI is doing. Although RPI is flawed - I am concerned about seeding for the tournament with confirmation bias (Big Ten teams get the benefit of the doubt on being good).
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Jul 21, 2022 10:45:32 GMT -5
That’s interesting. So the top 4 seeds host the regionals if they make it that far. The top 16 host the first two rounds. So I assume 17 would go to the 16 seed, 18 to 15, all the way to the 32 seed heading to #1? I know there are some fans, especially out west, who get very frustrated by often facing the same opponent at their home gym to advance. I guess this would help with it? Do you have any thoughts on it, jwvolley? They'd probably still "jigger" the seedings to send Hawaii to Seattle or UW to Lincoln anyway. They would need to "jigger" them to avoid some first (and second?) round matchups with conference opponents anyways. Not sure we would see much overall difference, as Blue mentions. And unless if it is just 32 seeds, the bottom 32 will be juggled to minimize flights still.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 21, 2022 11:55:26 GMT -5
My expectation/guess from those comments - they will not technically seed 17-32, but will specifically identify 17-32. Then they will place only 1 of those teams in each subregional based on travel restrictions. Frankly - this is what they did last year (for the most part, if I can remember). They could take it a step further and their ranking of 17-32 would play a part in the bracket when facing multiple travel options. Also - I would be careful as to the alternative of relying on other metrics used than RPI, particularly if it is the eye test. The context of Cook's comments before the 'lead story' about RPI - the Big Ten is the toughest conference and deserves more teams in the tournament and better seeding than what RPI is doing. Although RPI is flawed - I am concerned about seeding for the tournament with confirmation bias (Big Ten teams get the benefit of the doubt on being good). I think it's pretty unlikely that the eye test is what they're talking about. Also, Cook started talking about moving volleyball to the spring again...let it go, man.
|
|
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)
Posts: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 21, 2022 12:52:05 GMT -5
My expectation/guess from those comments - they will not technically seed 17-32, but will specifically identify 17-32. Then they will place only 1 of those teams in each subregional based on travel restrictions. Frankly - this is what they did last year (for the most part, if I can remember). They could take it a step further and their ranking of 17-32 would play a part in the bracket when facing multiple travel options. Also - I would be careful as to the alternative of relying on other metrics used than RPI, particularly if it is the eye test. The context of Cook's comments before the 'lead story' about RPI - the Big Ten is the toughest conference and deserves more teams in the tournament and better seeding than what RPI is doing. Although RPI is flawed - I am concerned about seeding for the tournament with confirmation bias (Big Ten teams get the benefit of the doubt on being good). I think it's pretty unlikely that the eye test is what they're talking about. Also, Cook started talking about moving volleyball to the spring again...let it go, man. By eye test - I was referring to the regional expert evaluations that have been included in the process. And for confirmation bias - using different metrics each year to fit the preconceived narrative. Frankly - they are already doing this. I don't know how likely this would be worse - it really depends on the strength of the committee each year.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 21, 2022 12:54:15 GMT -5
I think it's pretty unlikely that the eye test is what they're talking about. Also, Cook started talking about moving volleyball to the spring again...let it go, man. By eye test - I was referring to the regional expert evaluations that have been included in the process. And for confirmation bias - using different metrics each year to fit the preconceived narrative. Frankly - they are already doing this. I don't know how likely this would be worse - it really depends on the strength of the committee each year. I agree that they're already using the regional evaluations, but I think that's because they're also still using RPI quite heavily, and it's a way to correct for some of the RPI's flaws. If they were to abandon RPI and used some of the better metrics instead, there would be less of a need to to rely on regional evaluations. The best solution would be to develop a tool like NET in basketball. But even just using Pablo, Massey, etc. would be better than using RPI.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 21, 2022 14:32:46 GMT -5
...and that "they are going to use other tools besides the RPI" to seed the tournament. This might be an even bigger deal. The sooner all NCAA sports abandon the RPI, the better. They've said in the past that "other tools" could be used, but never did. One factor is that they have limited time to get the job done, so a streamlined process is necessary, at 16 or 32 seeds.
|
|
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)
Posts: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 21, 2022 15:00:58 GMT -5
Heck - one of the bigger improvements to the bracket - include all of the matches the last week of the season. To claim there isn't enough time to include - then I will believe this to be false.
|
|
|
Post by permagrin on Jul 21, 2022 15:02:54 GMT -5
How long before everyone, including NCAA coaches, can complain loudly enough about not seeding all 64 teams in a women’s championship? Regionalization is a joke and saves 20K a year. Dear NCAA- you make +90 million on one tournament. Sell the rights to this one appropriately and you’d make more. When women's volleyball is roughly as popular as women's basketball (for TV viewers) and probably not before then. Big 10 network said last year wvb was 3rd after football and mens bball
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 21, 2022 15:04:50 GMT -5
When women's volleyball is roughly as popular as women's basketball (for TV viewers) and probably not before then. Big 10 network said last year wvb was 3rd after football and mens bball In the Big 10, sure. That's not the case nationally, though.
|
|