|
B1G 2023
Dec 2, 2023 14:14:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dbro1970 on Dec 2, 2023 14:14:35 GMT -5
8-0 actually (2x each for Wisconsin, Purdue, and Penn State, and 1x for Nebraska and Minnesota) But this, in itself, isn’t “impressive”. The Big 10 can be down this year relative to the field and still have a of number of good teams in it (which it does). Nebraska and Wisconsin were regional seeds and Purdue a 3 seed, these teams SHOULD be undefeated through the first two rounds. Penn State and Kansas were 5/4 and the match was decided by deuce in the 5th set, with Kansas outscoring Penn State for the match. The 4/5 matches are designed to pit two relatively even teams against each other and that is what we got, it was a statistical tie. Per the results, the only thing that is objectively “impressive”, so far, is by how much Minnesota beat Utah State. But subjectively, this is what should have happened, in the first round, for a team like Minnesota. Minnesota started the year ranked in the top 10, and has not one but two #1 ranked recruits on the pin (including the reigning Big 10 player of the year), and senior multi year all conference players at setter and libero. Minnesota playing well this year isn’t surprising, Minnesota doing poorly this year was the surprising part. The BIG Ten doing so well says they were seeded lower than they should have been.
|
|
|
Post by InTheKnow on Dec 2, 2023 14:22:31 GMT -5
The only team to knock out a Big 10 team may only be another Big 10 team. That would be B1G.
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Dec 2, 2023 14:24:28 GMT -5
The only team to knock out a Big 10 team may only be another Big 10 team. That would be B1G. That will happen on 12/7, Badgers over PSU
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 2, 2023 15:32:23 GMT -5
But this, in itself, isn’t “impressive”. The Big 10 can be down this year relative to the field and still have a of number of good teams in it (which it does). Nebraska and Wisconsin were regional seeds and Purdue a 3 seed, these teams SHOULD be undefeated through the first two rounds. Penn State and Kansas were 5/4 and the match was decided by deuce in the 5th set, with Kansas outscoring Penn State for the match. The 4/5 matches are designed to pit two relatively even teams against each other and that is what we got, it was a statistical tie. Per the results, the only thing that is objectively “impressive”, so far, is by how much Minnesota beat Utah State. But subjectively, this is what should have happened, in the first round, for a team like Minnesota. Minnesota started the year ranked in the top 10, and has not one but two #1 ranked recruits on the pin (including the reigning Big 10 player of the year), and senior multi year all conference players at setter and libero. Minnesota playing well this year isn’t surprising, Minnesota doing poorly this year was the surprising part. I’d argue that Penn State beating Kansas is pretty impressive. Kansas has only lost once at home this season: in week 2 against Purdue in a deuce 5th set. Kansas was not going to be an easy opponent, especially at home. Penn State was able to stay composed after getting decimated in the fourth set and being down in the 5th in a raucous environment. Purdue and Wisconsin hosted, which is definitely an easier path, but given Purdue 1) being very young and 2) being Purdue, a loss to Marquette was certainly possible. They showed a level of composure in their tight sets that not many young teams have. Wisconsin did what they had to do and responded well after being pushed in the first set by Miami. Minnesota is a team that seems to have caused a lot of controversy on this board, but their win showed why they deserved to be in the tournament. I’ll be watching their match today to see how they look in their rematch with Creighton. Nebraska won, but it wasn’t impressive, so I’ll give you that… And Kansas wasn’t an easy opponent, and neither was Penn State, which is why the match was so close, which is what you expect from a 4/5 matchup. Ridiculous people want to somehow suggest that after the fact match results should somehow justify or not justify seeding. While I don’t subscribe to that, if I did, I’d argue that the committee got it right here. They pitted two relatively even schools against each other for a spot in the sweet 16. On Kansas’ home record, who did they even play at home? Apart from that match you cited that they lost in 5 to Purdue, the strongest opponent they faced at home was Houston/Baylor, btw, both of which were rated much lower than Penn State by the committee (Houston is an 8 line seed, Baylor unseeded, Penn State was on the 5 seed line. I do think exceeding your seeding is a strong showing, but that in itself doesn’t make the Big 10 impressive nor negate that it was a down year for the Big 10, which was my point in the first place. Saying the conference is 8-0 so far in what people are saying is a down year is, IMO, misleading. I’d argue that, AT WORST, the conference SHOULD be 7-1 right now based on how the committee valued the conference, and the 8-0 came in deuce in the 5th set in the 4/5 seed matchup. I just think that, so far, the conference is largely meeting expectations. I do think the conference will have plenty of opportunity to show out and over-perform, I’m just not convinced what we’ve seen so far has warranted that praise.
|
|
|
B1G 2023
Dec 2, 2023 15:36:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by boilermaker5 on Dec 2, 2023 15:36:45 GMT -5
I’d argue that Penn State beating Kansas is pretty impressive. Kansas has only lost once at home this season: in week 2 against Purdue in a deuce 5th set. Kansas was not going to be an easy opponent, especially at home. Penn State was able to stay composed after getting decimated in the fourth set and being down in the 5th in a raucous environment. Purdue and Wisconsin hosted, which is definitely an easier path, but given Purdue 1) being very young and 2) being Purdue, a loss to Marquette was certainly possible. They showed a level of composure in their tight sets that not many young teams have. Wisconsin did what they had to do and responded well after being pushed in the first set by Miami. Minnesota is a team that seems to have caused a lot of controversy on this board, but their win showed why they deserved to be in the tournament. I’ll be watching their match today to see how they look in their rematch with Creighton. Nebraska won, but it wasn’t impressive, so I’ll give you that… And Kansas wasn’t an easy opponent, and neither was Penn State, which is why the match was so close, which is what you expect from a 4/5 matchup. Ridiculous people want to somehow suggest that after the fact match results should somehow justify or not justify seeding. While I don’t subscribe to that, if I did, I’d argue that the committee got it right here. They pitted two relatively even schools against each other for a spot in the sweet 16. On Kansas’ home record, who did they even play at home? Apart from that match you cited that they lost in 5 to Purdue, the strongest opponent they faced at home was Houston/Baylor, btw, both of which were rated much lower than Penn State by the committee (Houston is an 8 line seed, Baylor unseeded, Penn State was on the 5 seed line. I do think exceeding your seeding is a strong showing, but that in itself doesn’t make the Big 10 impressive nor negate that it was a down year for the Big 10, which was my point in the first place. Saying the conference is 8-0 so far in what people are saying is a down year is, IMO, misleading. I’d argue that, AT WORST, the conference SHOULD be 7-1 right now based on how the committee valued the conference, and the 8-0 came in deuce in the 5th set in the 4/5 seed matchup. I just think that, so far, the conference is largely meeting expectations. I do think the conference will have plenty of opportunity to show out and over-perform, I’m just not convinced what we’ve seen so far has warranted that praise. Yup, Purdue or Minnesota need to win 1 more. And Nebraska and wis/pur/psu needs to make the final 4 to call it an overperformance for the conference.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 2, 2023 15:47:51 GMT -5
And Kansas wasn’t an easy opponent, and neither was Penn State, which is why the match was so close, which is what you expect from a 4/5 matchup. Ridiculous people want to somehow suggest that after the fact match results should somehow justify or not justify seeding. While I don’t subscribe to that, if I did, I’d argue that the committee got it right here. They pitted two relatively even schools against each other for a spot in the sweet 16. On Kansas’ home record, who did they even play at home? Apart from that match you cited that they lost in 5 to Purdue, the strongest opponent they faced at home was Houston/Baylor, btw, both of which were rated much lower than Penn State by the committee (Houston is an 8 line seed, Baylor unseeded, Penn State was on the 5 seed line. I do think exceeding your seeding is a strong showing, but that in itself doesn’t make the Big 10 impressive nor negate that it was a down year for the Big 10, which was my point in the first place. Saying the conference is 8-0 so far in what people are saying is a down year is, IMO, misleading. I’d argue that, AT WORST, the conference SHOULD be 7-1 right now based on how the committee valued the conference, and the 8-0 came in deuce in the 5th set in the 4/5 seed matchup. I just think that, so far, the conference is largely meeting expectations. I do think the conference will have plenty of opportunity to show out and over-perform, I’m just not convinced what we’ve seen so far has warranted that praise. Yup, Purdue or Minnesota need to win 1 more. And Nebraska and wis/pur/psu needs to make the final 4 to call it an overperformance for the conference. Yes I would agree on that. Also, just so we are clear, the committee is/should be bound by the objective criteria set forth in the rules. IMO, they seeded the Big 10 appropriately this year - per the selection criteria Nebraska and Wisconsin earned a regional host seed, Purdue earned a seed in the 9-12 range, Penn State was no better than the last 4 seed (certainly in the 5 seed line range), and Minnesota was one of the last at-large teams in. That is what the criteria justified and that is what the committee gave us. Subjectively, coming into the tournament, all the teams that won were ranked higher than their opponents in the coaches poll. Also, Pablo rated Penn State 10 v Kansas 16, Purdue 19 v Marquette 31, and Minnesota 27 v Utah State 40. Given that Kansas hosted, the match was SUPPOSED to be close, with a slight edge to Penn State, Purdue and Minnesota were SUPPOSED to win, so, no, to me it’s not impressive that the teams that won, actually won.
|
|
|
Post by BigDigEnergy on Dec 12, 2023 15:58:26 GMT -5
Based on a recent article from KCook, next year conference schedule will be something like this "The 20-match conference schedule has every team play each other once with three home-and-away matchups."
|
|
|
B1G 2023
Dec 12, 2023 16:02:47 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by badgerbyproxy on Dec 12, 2023 16:02:47 GMT -5
Based on a recent article from KCook, next year conference schedule will be something like this "The 20-match conference schedule has every team play each other once with three home-and-away matchups." WTF that is so unbalanced 😭
|
|
trojansc
Legend
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
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: 29,146
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 12, 2023 16:12:41 GMT -5
Based on a recent article from KCook, next year conference schedule will be something like this "The 20-match conference schedule has every team play each other once with three home-and-away matchups." The Big Ten not learning from its RPI problems.
|
|
|
Post by sptimes2 on Dec 12, 2023 16:14:39 GMT -5
Based on a recent article from KCook, next year conference schedule will be something like this "The 20-match conference schedule has every team play each other once with three home-and-away matchups." Why not play everybody once and add a tourney or play more non-conference. This way, whoever gets Nebraska or Wisconsin home and away is at a disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by exit237a on Dec 12, 2023 16:16:46 GMT -5
Based on a recent article from KCook, next year conference schedule will be something like this "The 20-match conference schedule has every team play each other once with three home-and-away matchups." The Big Ten not learning from its RPI problems.
What would be an alternative approach that would be better for RPI? I don't think hard about RPI at all so it's not something I fully understand without studying the formula again.
|
|
|
B1G 2023
Dec 12, 2023 16:22:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by skolgophers on Dec 12, 2023 16:22:09 GMT -5
Based on a recent article from KCook, next year conference schedule will be something like this "The 20-match conference schedule has every team play each other once with three home-and-away matchups." WTF that is so unbalanced 😭 I’m assuming the thought behind it is an east coast weekend and a west coast weekend. But yeah, I don’t like it.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
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: 29,146
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 12, 2023 16:26:04 GMT -5
The Big Ten not learning from its RPI problems. What would be an alternative approach that would be better for RPI? I don't think hard about RPI at all so it's not something I fully understand without studying the formula again.
Schedule 16-18 matches instead of 20! *possibly* a conference tournament. If 20 matches are scheduled - they need to make sure the Rutgers, Iowa, Maryland teams are all playing each other twice while the top of the conference is not playing those teams more than once.
|
|
|
Post by exit237a on Dec 12, 2023 16:30:00 GMT -5
What would be an alternative approach that would be better for RPI? I don't think hard about RPI at all so it's not something I fully understand without studying the formula again.
Schedule 16-18 matches instead of 20! *possibly* a conference tournament. If 20 matches are scheduled - they need to make sure the Rutgers, Iowa, Maryland teams are all playing each other twice while the top of the conference is not playing those teams more than once.
Thanks- appreciate the insight! Hopefully they'll consider something like that after this first season with the new arrivals.
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Dec 12, 2023 16:34:19 GMT -5
And Kansas wasn’t an easy opponent, and neither was Penn State, which is why the match was so close, which is what you expect from a 4/5 matchup. Ridiculous people want to somehow suggest that after the fact match results should somehow justify or not justify seeding. While I don’t subscribe to that, if I did, I’d argue that the committee got it right here. They pitted two relatively even schools against each other for a spot in the sweet 16. On Kansas’ home record, who did they even play at home? Apart from that match you cited that they lost in 5 to Purdue, the strongest opponent they faced at home was Houston/Baylor, btw, both of which were rated much lower than Penn State by the committee (Houston is an 8 line seed, Baylor unseeded, Penn State was on the 5 seed line. I do think exceeding your seeding is a strong showing, but that in itself doesn’t make the Big 10 impressive nor negate that it was a down year for the Big 10, which was my point in the first place. Saying the conference is 8-0 so far in what people are saying is a down year is, IMO, misleading. I’d argue that, AT WORST, the conference SHOULD be 7-1 right now based on how the committee valued the conference, and the 8-0 came in deuce in the 5th set in the 4/5 seed matchup. I just think that, so far, the conference is largely meeting expectations. I do think the conference will have plenty of opportunity to show out and over-perform, I’m just not convinced what we’ve seen so far has warranted that praise. Yup, Purdue or Minnesota need to win 1 more. And Nebraska and wis/pur/psu needs to make the final 4 to call it an overperformance for the conference. Stopped by to check on the new activity and ran across this post. Looks like The BIG achieved the over-performance. An all BIG Natty can really seal the deal.
|
|