|
|
Post by jomama on Nov 27, 2022 22:06:13 GMT -5
The next highest seeded team hosts. So if all the tops were ousted but the 2s remained then this year it would be Minnesota, San Diego, Pittsburgh and Nebraska. And now that they're seeding the top 32 teams, it's incredibly implausible that any given region will have all eight (2 per sub-region) of their seeded teams flame out. But just think of the chaos which would ensue as the NCAA tried to figure out which cupcake should host a regional unexpectedly! Quite correct. The probability is virtually zero; however, my dumb question started with “what if” and I hold to my question of what if it happened. Is there a list of steps that are taken written down somewhere? Does Nicholas Cage star in another National Treasure movie searching for this lost book? Along the way he and his crew discover how seedlings are actually done by the selection committee (I am going with a BINGO style game where the winner gets to identify the cupcake for PSU and Nebraska). |
|
|
|
Post by JT on Nov 27, 2022 22:15:14 GMT -5
I am unaware of any (publicly available) document listing what would happen. It might be handled without a set of formal steps -- call the four remaining schools to see who could, and then choosing one based on the ability to get three other teams there cheaply and quickly. You don't necessarily have a documented procedure for every possible unexpected event before it happens for the first time. I doubt they had a documented procedure for dealing with a pandemic, for example.  |
|
|
|
Post by jomama on Nov 27, 2022 22:25:55 GMT -5
One of my favorite movies with Robert Redford and Brad Pitt has a great quote: “When did Noah build the Ark? Before the rain.”
I would hope they have something in place for the greatest upsets in athletics history; otherwise, time to set up the crowdsourcing account for the movie script.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 28, 2022 1:07:48 GMT -5
But just think of the chaos which would ensue as the NCAA tried to figure out which cupcake should host a regional unexpectedly! in that situation, the "seeded" teams were the actual cupcakes |
|
|
|
Post by crando on Nov 30, 2022 23:31:53 GMT -5
What's the dumbest volleyball question that you've ever been asked? Both overall, and at a volleyball match. It wasn't so much a question, and that was a big part of the 'dumbness'... 2019 regional final between Wisconsin and Nebraska, I find myself sitting next to some guy who's only there because the Wisconsin team is getting attention outside the normal circles, and he wants to be there for the 'hot event' in town. Dana Rettke goes back to serve, puts one into the net, and subs out for the libero. And he kind of chuckles and says "i guess even the big star of the team goes to the bench when she screws up". And I have to spend the next five minutes trying to explain rotation and substitution and 'libero' to him... while I'm trying to watch a freaking NCAA Regional Final. A friend of mine was coaching high school, and had a D-1 level middle blocker, but her dad wasn't too well-versed on the whole "how-volleyball-works" thing. So after a tough loss midway through the season, the dad finally comes up to my friend in a total huff, and basically tells him how stupid he must be as a coach, because whenever his daughter gets rolling with a block and a couple kills, the coach always takes her out for 3-4 minutes and puts in the other (bad...) middle blocker. And the dad just can't understand why -- right when his daughter starts taking over the match -- the coach keeps taking her out. So I feel your pain.
|
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Nov 30, 2022 23:46:24 GMT -5
Let’s suppose all seeded teams flame out in weekend 1 - who hosts second weekend? The next highest seeded team hosts. So if all the tops were ousted but the 2s remained then this year it would be Minnesota, San Diego, Pittsburgh and Nebraska. The most top 16 seeds to lose in the first two rounds in any year was 6 in 2007. The 1 and 3 seeds have made the Sweet 16 every season since 1998. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 30, 2022 23:52:42 GMT -5
It wasn't so much a question, and that was a big part of the 'dumbness'... 2019 regional final between Wisconsin and Nebraska, I find myself sitting next to some guy who's only there because the Wisconsin team is getting attention outside the normal circles, and he wants to be there for the 'hot event' in town. Dana Rettke goes back to serve, puts one into the net, and subs out for the libero. And he kind of chuckles and says "i guess even the big star of the team goes to the bench when she screws up". And I have to spend the next five minutes trying to explain rotation and substitution and 'libero' to him... while I'm trying to watch a freaking NCAA Regional Final. A friend of mine was coaching high school, and had a D-1 level middle blocker, but her dad wasn't too well-versed on the whole "how-volleyball-works" thing. So after a tough loss midway through the season, the dad finally comes up to my friend in a total huff, and basically tells him how stupid he must be as a coach, because whenever his daughter gets rolling with a block and a couple kills, the coach always takes her out for 3-4 minutes and puts in the other (bad...) middle blocker. And the dad just can't understand why -- right when his daughter starts taking over the match -- the coach keeps taking her out. So I feel your pain.
What gets me is how stupid the manager of the New York Yankees was this year. After Aaron Judge would bat, he kept letting eight other players bat before he thought to send Judge back up to bat again. All year long! |
|
|
|
Post by crando on Dec 1, 2022 0:06:12 GMT -5
A friend of mine was coaching high school, and had a D-1 level middle blocker, but her dad wasn't too well-versed on the whole "how-volleyball-works" thing. So after a tough loss midway through the season, the dad finally comes up to my friend in a total huff, and basically tells him how stupid he must be as a coach, because whenever his daughter gets rolling with a block and a couple kills, the coach always takes her out for 3-4 minutes and puts in the other (bad...) middle blocker. And the dad just can't understand why -- right when his daughter starts taking over the match -- the coach keeps taking her out. So I feel your pain.
What gets me is how stupid the manager of the New York Yankees was this year. After Aaron Judge would bat, he kept letting eight other players bat before he thought to send Judge back up to bat again. All year long! Bad coaching is everywhere! I will say that one day, my team was playing my friend's team, and his star middle stayed in the front row for like 5 rotations in a row (I was yelling at the down ref for much of that time about how they were out of rotation, to no avail). They snuck her out during a TO or something, then they sided out one more time and she was (legally now...) back in the front row again. And, actually that was a "preseason match" [sic] so I think it might have inadvertently fueled her dad's fire that she should just stay in the whole time. |
|
|
|
Post by crando on Dec 1, 2022 16:46:10 GMT -5
First of all, I really enjoyed that. Not sure how I never saw that before.
Secondly, all of this supposes that timeouts have a positive effect on siding out. There's no evidence this is the case! It's possible, just not provable.
If you attempt to study the effect of a timeout with objective rules, you can almost never see a difference. For example, if you compare next-serve SO% when a timeout is called when the other team is on an X-point run to next-serve SO% when a timeout is not called when the other team is on an X-point run, you will see they are the same.
I am a big fan of calling timeouts when you serve. I don't do this in the AU league, because it's unconventional and part of being a coach there is to not rock the boat. But I called lots of timeouts when serving when coaching at the club level and have done in other professional settings: ex the recent NORCECA Championships.
I think the assumption is that the server is more likely to miss after a timeout, but this is demonstrably untrue. (Complicating this: servers may believe they miss more after a timeout, so they may adjust more conservatively, making them less likely to miss... statistics are hard!)
I also believe that the serving team has more tactical options available than the receiving team, and that those options often take a few more seconds to set up. For example, it's generally trivial for the setter to toggle between offense options in various rotations. Running the middle on a 31 and overloading the rightside didn't work? Ok, run her on a tight quick and isolate the right side. Etc.
But defense can be a beat more complicated, especially if you're trying to extend a run. For example, in club volleyball, setters are very predictable and often don't repeat hitters after they get blocked or make an error. So after a 2 or 3-point run, a timeout can be really useful to prepare your defense because you can eliminate some options that you're pretty confident won't be coming.
I found that interesting too. But Jim, I have a question for you -- one piece of the story just doesn't add up for me, or I'm just not smart enough to totally get it just yet.
If I may summarize -- since I to find this line of thought pretty fascinating too: You guys looked at data from 571 matches (so maybe 1900? sets played to 25), and broke things down by score. So you looked at all the times that 18 was serving at 10, for example, or every time 23 was serving at 24. And you determined how important "winning the next point" was at each possible score.
So at 18-10, if the serving team scores the next point, let's say the data indicates they'd have a 99% chance of winning at 19-10. And if the serving team lost that point, maybe the data shows they still win 98% of the time from 18-11. So when the score is 18-10, winning the next point is about .01 critical (99% minus 98%).
If you're serving at 23-24, and you win the point, let's say the data shows you have a 48% of winning from "serving at 24-24." And if you lose the point, of course you have a 0% chance of winning the set. So 23-24 is about .48 critical. That all makes sense.
But I don't understand the point of then multiplying that "critical value" times how frequently that score actually happens, and then deciding those are "the most critical" scores in a set.
If I serve at 1-0, then going up 2-0 gives me a 51% chance to win, but falling to 1-1 gives me only a 50% chance to win. So a score of 1-0 is only .01 critical, but it occurs in 100% of sets (.01 times 100 is "1"). On the other hand, serving at 35-36 is about .48 critical, but occurs in maybe 0.1% of sets (.48 times 0.1 is ".048").
So your conclusion is that 1-0 is 20 times more critical than 35-36 -- because you are multiplying how critical scoring the next point is, times how often you might see that score.
I appreciate that you shouldn't save a timeout for 35-36, because it probably won't happen. But to say "highly critical, but extremely rare" isn't any more important than "not critical, but really common" because you're multiplying those two factors??
Just because we have two numbers that we could multiply, doesn't mean that multiplying them gives you a number with meaning. Saying that 4-3 is more critical than 20-19, because 4-3 happens a lot more often, isn't something that makes sense for me. In the games when you DO get to 20-19, that's a really important time.
My personal adage is to call my timeouts (and use my subs?) before the game is over. So if 10-18 means the game is basically over, personally, I feel like I better not have any timeouts left at 10-18, because they have become valueless at that point (assuming that they actually have any value to begin with...). So I agree with your general ideas in that respect -- do your coaching BEFORE the set mostly gets away from you. But I don't think multiplying those numbers has a lot of meaning, specifically.
|
|
|
|
Post by widdledumpling on Dec 2, 2022 1:44:17 GMT -5
For automatic bids where the conference champion gets the bid, is it the regular season champion or the winner of the conference tourney (if one is held)?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2022 1:50:27 GMT -5
For automatic bids where the conference champion gets the bid, is it the regular season champion or the winner of the conference tourney (if one is held)? I'm not sure what you are asking. AFAIK, all conferences that have a conference tournament assign the AQ to the winner of the conference tournament. All other conferences have to have some kind of rule for who gets the AQ. Typically if there is an untied conference season champion, that's who would get it. As an example, in the PAC-12 there are no tiebreakers for the conference championship. All teams that share the best record are co-champions. But only one of them can get the AQ, so the conference does have a tie-breaker rule for who gets the AQ. |
|
|
|
Post by widdledumpling on Dec 2, 2022 2:05:56 GMT -5
For automatic bids where the conference champion gets the bid, is it the regular season champion or the winner of the conference tourney (if one is held)? I'm not sure what you are asking. AFAIK, all conferences that have a conference tournament assign the AQ to the winner of the conference tournament. All other conferences have to have some kind of rule for who gets the AQ. Typically if there is an untied conference season champion, that's who would get it. As an example, in the PAC-12 there are no tiebreakers for the conference championship. All teams that share the best record are co-champions. But only one of them can get the AQ, so the conference does have a tie-breaker rule for who gets the AQ. For instance, several commentators referred to UNLV as the “conference champion” of the Mountain West even though they didn’t win the actual conference tourney, and I noticed they were in the NCAA tourney. But I’m not sure whether they got the mountain west automatic bid or just earned their way in with their record |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 2, 2022 2:07:43 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you are asking. AFAIK, all conferences that have a conference tournament assign the AQ to the winner of the conference tournament. All other conferences have to have some kind of rule for who gets the AQ. Typically if there is an untied conference season champion, that's who would get it. As an example, in the PAC-12 there are no tiebreakers for the conference championship. All teams that share the best record are co-champions. But only one of them can get the AQ, so the conference does have a tie-breaker rule for who gets the AQ. For instance, several commentators referred to UNLV as the “conference champion” of the Mountain West even though they didn’t win the actual conference tourney, and I noticed they were in the NCAA tourney. But I’m not sure whether they got the mountain west automatic bid or just earned their way in with their record Utah State was the AQ for the Mountain West. |
|
|
|
Post by texasfight on Dec 2, 2022 2:52:19 GMT -5
Who tf is Pablo and what is he ranking?
|
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Dec 2, 2022 20:09:13 GMT -5
if a player lands on an opposing player's foot that was across the center line but not caught/called by the officials, can that be challenged?
I can see not allowing non-contact center line violations to be reviewable, as there is an element of a judgement call as to whether it affected any opposing players or not. But if there was contact....
|
|
