|
|
Post by kurtinatlanta on Nov 28, 2022 17:13:14 GMT -5
Pick a fun destination and do it club-volleyball-style with waves, pools, and brackets. Stream the whole thing with whip-around coverage from floor-to-floor and maybe even some golf-style "plausibly live" replays of great points. Be done in 4 or 5 days over a long weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 28, 2022 18:38:20 GMT -5
I am realistic, however. It's not going to be double-elimination.... volleyball already has a "double (or triple) elimination" aspect already built in. You don't lose a match until you lose 3 sets. Having one (or even two) bad sets doesn't totally doom you, since the score resets to 0-0 for each set. Heck, you could lose two sets 0-25 & 0-25 and then come back and win 25-23 25-23 15-13 and win the match despite being outscored 65-109 There has been a suggestion that vb should be a single set to 75. I think I saw that in a paper at one point (Gil Fellingham at BYU has written about it, I think - interestingly, I have looked at it from a Pablo perspective and that approach would fit with the Pablo model) But this highlights the signficance of the best of 5 model, it's about getting more points. Yes, you can win matches by being outscored, but a) it's rare, and b) it's not sustainable. If you look at the outcomes for teams when they get outscored, you can see that they actually almost fail at a higher rate in the future than teams that lose those matches with the same scores (so teams that win having scored 45% of the points are more likely to lose in a future match than a team that scores 45% of the points and loses - although it's complicated by home/road and stuff like that). Even with the best of 5 matches, winning and losing can run a very fine edge, especially as you reach the top teams, where the better team will win maybe 70% of the time (70% is basically the transitivity line - if A beats B and B beats C, then A beats C about 70% of the time). More points means more discriminating so that the better teams are more likely to rise up, and that's always what I like to see. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 28, 2022 20:05:40 GMT -5
volleyball already has a "double (or triple) elimination" aspect already built in. You don't lose a match until you lose 3 sets. Having one (or even two) bad sets doesn't totally doom you, since the score resets to 0-0 for each set. Heck, you could lose two sets 0-25 & 0-25 and then come back and win 25-23 25-23 15-13 and win the match despite being outscored 65-109 There has been a suggestion that vb should be a single set to 75. I think I saw that in a paper at one point (Gil Fellingham at BYU has written about it, I think - interestingly, I have looked at it from a Pablo perspective and that approach would fit with the Pablo model) But this highlights the signficance of the best of 5 model, it's about getting more points. Yes, you can win matches by being outscored, but a) it's rare, and b) it's not sustainable. If you look at the outcomes for teams when they get outscored, you can see that they actually almost fail at a higher rate in the future than teams that lose those matches with the same scores (so teams that win having scored 45% of the points are more likely to lose in a future match than a team that scores 45% of the points and loses - although it's complicated by home/road and stuff like that). Even with the best of 5 matches, winning and losing can run a very fine edge, especially as you reach the top teams, where the better team will win maybe 70% of the time (70% is basically the transitivity line - if A beats B and B beats C, then A beats C about 70% of the time). More points means more discriminating so that the better teams are more likely to rise up, and that's always what I like to see. lol, a single set to 75, from a player/fan interest and making the competition compelling, that's a non-starter. it's a statistical abstract discussion topic. would also then want some 'mercy' rule, although no idea how big that would be. get to 60, and if the lead is 30 points, stop the massacre although it would set up the possibility of some massive comebacks, imagine being down 27 points and coming back. while points discussion is fine as an abstract and correlation discussion - it's the end of sets that heighten interest, and 3 or 4 or 5 versus one 1 is simply far more interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Nov 29, 2022 5:38:30 GMT -5
They should play the championship game in the same city as the Final Four, on the Friday in between the semi finals and finals.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Nov 29, 2022 12:11:04 GMT -5
Go Valpo!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdavid on Nov 29, 2022 13:23:31 GMT -5
Pick a fun destination and do it club-volleyball-style with waves, pools, and brackets. Stream the whole thing with whip-around coverage from floor-to-floor and maybe even some golf-style "plausibly live" replays of great points. Be done in 4 or 5 days over a long weekend. It's tomclen 's opportunity to go to Vegas! |
|
|
|
Post by americasgame on Nov 29, 2022 22:03:57 GMT -5
2021 NIVC worked out pretty well for this team in 2022
|
|
|
|
Post by americasgame on Nov 29, 2022 22:05:48 GMT -5
these kids (and their fans) look like they had a pretty good time at the NIVC in 2021
|
|
|
|
2022 NIVC
Dec 1, 2022 17:05:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jaypak on Dec 1, 2022 17:05:05 GMT -5
Alabama State takes the first set off of Southern Miss in a match at Troy.
#RollSWAC
|
|
|
|
Post by whisp3r on Dec 2, 2022 20:36:10 GMT -5
The South Dakota vs Louisiana game was good. It went to extra points in the 5th set.
I can watch some of this because UTRGV has their international feed on as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Dec 2, 2022 20:40:01 GMT -5
The South Dakota vs Louisiana game was good. It went to extra points in the 5th set. I can watch some of this because UTRGV has their international feed on as well. South Dakota STATE, that is. SDSU won the 5th set 16-14 to take the match |
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Dec 3, 2022 12:51:41 GMT -5
It looks like Santa Clara (probably the only NIVC team with an overall losing record, but who has been playing much better in the late part of the season) knocked off host Portland State 3-1 last night.
Fellow WCC rival, Pacific, also knocked off their first round opponent, Omaha, 3-1 last night. So Santa Clara meets Pacific tonight in the second round, for their third matchup of the season (they are 1-1).
|
|
|
|
Post by InfoBot on Dec 3, 2022 21:36:33 GMT -5
So Omaha lost in the first round. And looking at their bracket, the host was upset too. These seedings and palcing don't make a bunch of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Dec 3, 2022 21:59:09 GMT -5
So Omaha lost in the first round. And looking at their bracket, the host was upset too. These seedings and palcing don't make a bunch of sense. They don't really "seed" that tournament much. The brackets are based primarily on geography, trying to reduce travel cost as much as possible. And schools have to pay money to host, which not every team is willing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Dec 4, 2022 0:23:09 GMT -5
So Omaha lost in the first round. And looking at their bracket, the host was upset too. These seedings and palcing don't make a bunch of sense. They don't really "seed" that tournament much. The brackets are based primarily on geography, trying to reduce travel cost as much as possible. And schools have to pay money to host, which not every team is willing to do. They do attempt to sort the teams into three groups, like A, B and C tiers, with B being half the field. They try to have A vs C and B vs B, but that’s about as detailed as it gets. And I have no idea how closely they adhere to it, either. As you said, other factors are more important. They also attempt to prevent conference mates from playing each other in the first two rounds. |
|
