|
|
Post by hwnstunner on Nov 26, 2023 13:57:33 GMT -5
How are the recruiting classes looking for the BWC Teams?
I know Hawaii and LBSU are bringing in solid classes. Difference is LBSU will have a lot of seniors leading the way, Hawaii not as many upperclassmen.
Cal Poly apparently brought in a really good 6-rotation outside.
Others?
|
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Nov 27, 2023 12:18:03 GMT -5
...a thought for next year...
Big West should reconsider its tourney dates. UCSB among last selected is clearly due to the committee using RPI calculated before the Saturday matchup. UCSB didn't get credit for 2 additional Top 50 wins over Hawaii after the Wahine defeated the Beach and moved up to #49.
Do they remove two more conference matches from the schedule and move the tourney up a week? Less non-conference dates would be disastrous for the teams attempting to build an at-large profile. If the Big West wants to reap the benefits of the conference tourney, the championship match needs to be counted in the final RPI profile utilized by the committee.
....now back to our regular programming...
Go Bows!
Go Gauchos!
Go BigWest!
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 27, 2023 12:45:14 GMT -5
...a thought for next year... Big West should reconsider its tourney dates. UCSB among last selected is clearly due to the committee using RPI calculated before the Saturday matchup. UCSB didn't get credit for 2 additional Top 50 wins over Hawaii after the Wahine defeated the Beach and moved up to #49. Do they remove two more conference matches from the schedule and move the tourney up a week? Less non-conference dates would be disastrous for the teams attempting to build an at-large profile. If the Big West wants to reap the benefits of the conference tourney, the championship match needs to be counted in the final RPI profile utilized by the committee. ....now back to our regular programming... Go Bows! Go Gauchos! Go BigWest! UCSB RPI (adj.): Before UCSB Friday loss to Beach: 36. After loss to Beach: 38. After Beach loss to Hawai'i: 38. Bottom line: UCSB didn't net gain in RPI by losing to Beach, and then Hawai'i beating Beach. Would have to pick apart how all the rest of the teams they played finished out, but I'd guess primarily it was the math of Beach and Hawai'i being relatively close in RPI, and UCSB having a loss to Beach, and to an Irvine that Beach beat 3x, and then Hawai'i beating Beach and devaluing UCSB's two wins over Beach, probably countered the benefit of Hawai'i improving their RPI and squeaking into the RPI adj. top 50. Top 26-50 wins only give a one RPI rank position bonus. What probably put UCSB on the edge of the bubble cut-off wasn't RPI ranking, but a relatively weak SOS. Their SOS was only fifth best in the Big West. And the Big West Conf. RPI (final) was only 19 out of 32. Compared to all teams, UCSB SOS was well into the 100s. Their best win was Iowa St. at RPI 27/28, and a bad loss to UCI with RPI in the 200s. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 27, 2023 12:45:24 GMT -5
...a thought for next year... Big West should reconsider its tourney dates. UCSB among last selected is clearly due to the committee using RPI calculated before the Saturday matchup. UCSB didn't get credit for 2 additional Top 50 wins over Hawaii after the Wahine defeated the Beach and moved up to #49. Do they remove two more conference matches from the schedule and move the tourney up a week? Less non-conference dates would be disastrous for the teams attempting to build an at-large profile. If the Big West wants to reap the benefits of the conference tourney, the championship match needs to be counted in the final RPI profile utilized by the committee. ....now back to our regular programming... Go Bows! Go Gauchos! Go BigWest! I don't think there's a need to drop anyconference matches. Hawaii could simply add one more match on a road trip to ahve a 3 match (vs. 2 match) road trip. Other teams could add one more more mid-week match during one of the weeks of the season. the last week which is now thursday-Saturday, could change to having the last match on Mon/Tues/Wed, and be a one match week. The scheduling really wouldn't be all that difficult to achieve to basically reduce by 1/2 week. All the teams in Cali, and having some flexibility with an earlier road game with Hawaii isn't all that difficult for instance, even with a BWCT in Hawaii, Hawaii could host a team mid-week, and if that team is a contendor they could just stay over. With teh tournament in the Mainland, Hawaii could have their last road match early/mid-week, and then stay for the BWCT. really just not a big deal logistically. it wouldn't even add any more travel overall. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 27, 2023 12:57:42 GMT -5
...a thought for next year... Big West should reconsider its tourney dates. UCSB among last selected is clearly due to the committee using RPI calculated before the Saturday matchup. UCSB didn't get credit for 2 additional Top 50 wins over Hawaii after the Wahine defeated the Beach and moved up to #49. Do they remove two more conference matches from the schedule and move the tourney up a week? Less non-conference dates would be disastrous for the teams attempting to build an at-large profile. If the Big West wants to reap the benefits of the conference tourney, the championship match needs to be counted in the final RPI profile utilized by the committee. ....now back to our regular programming... Go Bows! Go Gauchos! Go BigWest! UCSB RPI (adj.): Before UCSB Friday loss to Beach: 36. After loss to Beach: 38. After Beach loss to Hawai'i: 38 Bottom line: UCSB didn't net gain in RPI by losing to Beach, and then Hawai'i beating Beach. Would have to pick apart how all the rest of the teams they played finished out, but I'd guess primarily it was the math of Beach and Hawai'i being relatively close in RPI, and UCSB having a loss to Beach, and to an Irvine that Beach beat 3x, and then Hawai'i beating Beach and devaluing UCSB's two wins over Beach, probably countered the benefit of Hawai'i improving their RPI and squeaking into the RPI adj. top 50. Top 26-50 wins only give a one RPI rank position bonus. UCSB RPI didn't change much, and they added two top 50 wins, the top 50 wins was the more significant boost. Beach & Hawaii both improved the RPI/KPI from the tournament. bottom line is that while the possibility of an at-large losing a game hurting a resume will ALWAYS exist, the overall boosts to resumes from playing the best/better W-L teams and improving their profile is a significant statistical benefit. the higher overall collective odds of improvement to resumes outweighs the much lower odds to hurt resumes. Beach and Hawaii's RPI/KPI got a boost, as did SB's KPI, and SB's category resume got a boost. SB added two top 50 wins, Beach added 1 top 50 wins. Overall statisically,, the OVERALL profiles of the 3 teams that were vying for an at-large got boosts that were SIGNIFICANT, and SB's was in fact a boost even if RPI went down 2 points. if the reason to not hold a BWCT is a 'worry' that the inevitable 'knocking out a team from the NCAA tournament' situation occurs, then the BWCT should not hold a BWCT, IF that was the primary and only reason - to avoid a team getting 'knocked out' from the field. That is going to happen one year, and it won't be enjoyable. another example is the Mountain West. Without the Mtn West tournament they were a one bid league, like the Big West they are a 2 bid league! even better two mid-majors holding conf tournaments may have given the SHAFT to UCLA and another P5!! yea!!!! screw those guys/pigs bottom line. this year, as statistically expected, the BWCT ADDED a bid! if people are so concerned that a UCI could make a statistically improbably run to get the AQ, and ruin a regular season champion season, then yeah, and worry about a 'worst-case' scenario, then yeah sh&t-can the BWCT and format. on the other hand, if people want an exciting and engaging BWCT, one that that statistically WILL increase bids over time, keeps 75-80% of the teams competing to the end for the post-season, improves the student-athlete experience (as Hildebrand has explained), and increase exposure for the conference with Big West fan bases, and nationally leading up to the NCAAs, then hold a BWCT. the BWCT did exactly the latter! and usually will, statistically. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 27, 2023 14:15:27 GMT -5
BWCT 2023, did it help or hurt?
UCSB: No help, definitely hurt. The BWCT gave five teams a chance to steal what in prior years would have been their AQ. Ended up on the selection bubble with a chance of non-selection. Ended up last-four in, a nail biter. Without the BWCT, UCSB gets the BWC AQ and no worries.
Hawai'i: Big help. Wins the AQ. Without, UCSB gets the Big West AQ and Hawai'i misses the NCAAT. Hawai'i improved both RPI and KPI significantly with the tournament, helping with earning a 1st round matchup where they could be competitive, and a 2nd-round with a fighting chance.
Beach: Big help. Got to host, play at home, got a tournament experience, and a chance to steal the AQ. Didn't hurt their RPI/KPI, got a small boost. Not nearly enough boost to put them within striking distance of the at-large RPI bubble cut-off, but close enough to entertain the thought and make a case.
Cal Poly: Helped. RPI/KPI didn't get boosted as a result of the tournament, they were too far out in RPI/KPI to begin with for the tournament to help with that. But they did get an opportunity to steal the AQ and a tournament experience.
UC Davis and UC Irvine: Helped. Too far out in RPI/KPI and most other NCAAT criteria for the tournament to help with odds of at-large selection. However, they got a shot at stealing the AQ and a tournament experience.
BWC: Helped. Two teams made the NCAAT vs. just one. Six teams got pre-NCAAT tournament experience, possibly without too much additional cost to the conference and participating programs. Although it turned out USCB was a last four selection into the NCAAT, bottom line they still made it in.
Lessons learned:
- BWCT RPI/KPI boosts aren't likely going to be enough to count on them dragging teams across the at-large selection cut-off. RPI/KPI boosts may marginally benefit some with a better bracket placement should they win the AQ.
- BWC teams must still schedule tough non-conference and win some of those to have a worthy resume for the NCAAT. The weakness of the conference requires a tough and successful non-conference.
- The BWCT devalues winning the regular conference season by giving the six top conference teams an end-of-season chance at the BW Championship and earning the AQ. Consolation prize for the devaluation of winning the regular conference season is #1 seed and a 1st round bye in the tournament.
- Attendance numbers for a SoCal BWCT are likely hurt by competing over four days and bracketing Thanksgiving.
- Media streaming numbers aren't yet known. Will they be large enough to mitigate expenses, maybe turn a profit...TBD.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 27, 2023 14:29:12 GMT -5
BWCT 2023, did it help or hurt? UCSB: No help, definitely hurt. The BWCT gave five teams a chance to steal what in prior years would have been their AQ. Ended up on the selection bubble with a chance of non-selection. Ended up last-four in, a nail biter. Without the BWCT, UCSB gets the BWC AQ and no worries. Hawai'i: Big help. Wins the AQ. Without, UCSB gets the Big West AQ and Hawai'i misses the NCAAT. Hawai'i improved both RPI and KPI significantly with the tournament, helping with earning a 1st round matchup where they could be competitive, and a 2nd-round with a fighting chance. Beach: Big help. Got to host, play at home, got a tournament experience, and a chance to steal the AQ. Didn't hurt their RPI/KPI, got a small boost. Not nearly enough boost to put them within striking distance of the at-large RPI bubble cut-off, but close enough to entertain the thought and make a case. Cal Poly: Helped. RPI/KPI didn't get boosted as a result of the tournament, they were too far out in RPI/KPI to begin with for the tournament to help with that. But they did get an opportunity to steal the AQ and a tournament experience. UC Davis and UC Irvine: Helped. Too far out in RPI/KPI and most other NCAAT criteria for the tournament to help with odds of at-large selection. However, they got a shot at stealing the AQ and a tournament experience. BWC: Helped. Two teams made the NCAAT vs. just one. Six teams got pre-NCAAT tournament experience, possibly without too much additional cost to the conference and participating programs. Although it turned out USCB was a last four selection into the NCAAT, bottom line they still made it in. Lessons learned: - BWCT RPI/KPI boosts aren't likely going to be enough to count on them dragging teams across the at-large selection cut-off. RPI/KPI boosts may marginally benefit some with a better bracket placement should they win the AQ. - BWC teams must still schedule tough non-conference and win some of those to have a worthy resume for the NCAAT. The weakness of the conference requires a tough and successful non-conference. - The BWCT devalues winning the regular conference season by giving the six top conference teams an end-of-season chance at the BW Championship and earning the AQ. Consolation prize for the devaluation of winning the regular conference season is #1 seed and a 1st round bye in the tournament. - Attendance numbers for a SoCal BWCT are likely hurt by competing over four days and bracketing Thanksgiving. - Media streaming numbers aren't yet known. Will they be large enough to mitigate expenses, maybe turn a profit...TBD. disagree with lessons learned. the profiles of the 3 at-large teams got a boost. UCSB did NOT get hurt. they got extra top 50 wins, 38 vs. 36 in RPI is insignificant compare to top 50 per your own assesment. the BWCT was positive for 5 teams, and not 1 team, although I disagree even for that one team. ONLY in the case where a conference champ was truly on the bubble, would it likely potentially hurt. UCSB went from not on the bubble to stil lget in ahead of 2-3 teams, even with conf upsets, and with some expected committee idiocy. attendance numbers were good. from the vantage point of Hawaii who is top 3 or so in the country, NOTHING, but then that's not a reasonable expectation to have. it really isn't. take a look at the other conf tournaments. the Big West by comparison was stellar, and even more, I bet the stremaing numbers were huge compared to any other mid-major sorry, this is not a shot at Hawaii fans, but I think the prism of what is 'good' gets so distorted because of a singular focus on what exists in Hawaii to me the lesson learned is that the timing and holding it in that period of Friday to Tuesday before thanksgiving could be reviewed. even then not sure that's best. people do tend to have vacation anyway from Wednesday to Sunday, so in that aspect I can see some benefit to attendance (not student attendance though) |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 27, 2023 14:59:06 GMT -5
I'd be a hypocrite to now say I like the Big West tournament. I still think it's unfair to the Big West regular season champion. UCSB earned the right to represent the Big West in the NCAA's. That said, I am happy Hawai'i got another shot at redemption. And I really enjoyed watching the tournament games. I think it's dumb that UCSB is a team that was in a group of "last ins" for at-large's. They definitely belong in the NCAA's. And the regionalization of the tourney sucks. Good job UCSB on an awesome season!, here's your reward... a trip to Palo Alto.
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 27, 2023 15:29:36 GMT -5
BWCT 2023, did it help or hurt? UCSB: No help, definitely hurt. The BWCT gave five teams a chance to steal what in prior years would have been their AQ. Ended up on the selection bubble with a chance of non-selection. Ended up last-four in, a nail biter. Without the BWCT, UCSB gets the BWC AQ and no worries. Hawai'i: Big help. Wins the AQ. Without, UCSB gets the Big West AQ and Hawai'i misses the NCAAT. Hawai'i improved both RPI and KPI significantly with the tournament, helping with earning a 1st round matchup where they could be competitive, and a 2nd-round with a fighting chance. Beach: Big help. Got to host, play at home, got a tournament experience, and a chance to steal the AQ. Didn't hurt their RPI/KPI, got a small boost. Not nearly enough boost to put them within striking distance of the at-large RPI bubble cut-off, but close enough to entertain the thought and make a case. Cal Poly: Helped. RPI/KPI didn't get boosted as a result of the tournament, they were too far out in RPI/KPI to begin with for the tournament to help with that. But they did get an opportunity to steal the AQ and a tournament experience. UC Davis and UC Irvine: Helped. Too far out in RPI/KPI and most other NCAAT criteria for the tournament to help with odds of at-large selection. However, they got a shot at stealing the AQ and a tournament experience. BWC: Helped. Two teams made the NCAAT vs. just one. Six teams got pre-NCAAT tournament experience, possibly without too much additional cost to the conference and participating programs. Although it turned out USCB was a last four selection into the NCAAT, bottom line they still made it in. Lessons learned: - BWCT RPI/KPI boosts aren't likely going to be enough to count on them dragging teams across the at-large selection cut-off. RPI/KPI boosts may marginally benefit some with a better bracket placement should they win the AQ. - BWC teams must still schedule tough non-conference and win some of those to have a worthy resume for the NCAAT. The weakness of the conference requires a tough and successful non-conference. - The BWCT devalues winning the regular conference season by giving the six top conference teams an end-of-season chance at the BW Championship and earning the AQ. Consolation prize for the devaluation of winning the regular conference season is #1 seed and a 1st round bye in the tournament. - Attendance numbers for a SoCal BWCT are likely hurt by competing over four days and bracketing Thanksgiving. - Media streaming numbers aren't yet known. Will they be large enough to mitigate expenses, maybe turn a profit...TBD. disagree with lessons learned. the profiles of the 3 at-large teams got a boost. UCSB did NOT get hurt. they got extra top 50 wins, 38 vs. 36 in RPI is insignificant compare to top 50 per your own assesment. the BWCT was positive for 5 teams, and not 1 team, although I disagree even for that one team. ONLY in the case where a conference champ was truly on the bubble, would it likely potentially hurt. UCSB went from not on the bubble to stil lget in ahead of 2-3 teams, even with conf upsets, and with some expected committee idiocy. attendance numbers were good. from the vantage point of Hawaii who is top 3 or so in the country, NOTHING, but then that's not a reasonable expectation to have. it really isn't. take a look at the other conf tournaments. the Big West by comparison was stellar, and even more, I bet the stremaing numbers were huge compared to any other mid-major sorry, this is not a shot at Hawaii fans, but I think the prism of what is 'good' gets so distorted because of a singular focus on what exists in Hawaii to me the lesson learned is that the timing and holding it in that period of Friday to Tuesday before thanksgiving could be reviewed. even then not sure that's best. people do tend to have vacation anyway from Wednesday to Sunday, so in that aspect I can see some benefit to attendance (not student attendance though) The regular season conference winner is always intrinsically hurt by the very existence of the BWCT. An AQ that would have been theirs unquestionably without a tournament, they now have to earn in the tournament. That's not 'Hawai'i focused'. It's just a general truth, applied to all of the BWC. And to all conferences that choose to have a tournament. It devalues the worth of winning the conference, and the consolation prize is better placement in the conference tournament. Whatever NCAAT criteria boost UCSB got from this tournament, was also negated in degree by an early round loss in the tournament. That they picked up two top 50 wins with Hawai'i, simply mitigated their overall minor drop in RPI. And their additional loss to Beach degraded benefit to their SOS by Beach and Hawaii getting tournament wins. And given the weakness of the UCSB SOS to begin with, the eyesore of an early round conference tournament loss didn't help their overall goodwill before the committee. While a 38 RPI and 27 KPI, and two additional top 50 wins shouldn't have put them anywhere close to selection danger of last-four in, their weak SOS and early round tournament loss didn't help their 'profile' before the committee. It probably confirmed some doubts about their resume. As for attendance, I don't know that the attendance numbers were good or bad. I avoided that characterization. Not sure what the host and BWC were expecting, bracketing the tournament over Thanksgiving. Lesson learned is that it didn't fill the house, nothing close to it for the first two days. And half capacity for the final. While the regular season matchup with Beach-Hawaii in the pyramid was north of 3,000, the BWCT final was a thousand less. Was that the planned for attendance? Did the host cover costs with streaming and sponsors? Did participating programs and BWC cover costs? It's TBD, and I have my doubts there will be public transparency of accounting. |
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Nov 27, 2023 15:57:14 GMT -5
I'd be a hypocrite to now say I like the Big West tournament. I still think it's unfair to the Big West regular season champion. UCSB earned the right to represent the Big West in the NCAA's. That said, I am happy Hawai'i got another shot at redemption. And I really enjoyed watching the tournament games. I think it's dumb that UCSB is a team that was in a group of "last ins" for at-large's. They definitely belong in the NCAA's. And the regionalization of the tourney sucks. Good job UCSB on an awesome season!, here's your reward... a trip to Palo Alto. Indirectly, according to the chairperson of the committee, it's not just w-l, but who you beat, also they like the teams to be on a winning streak finishing the season, in general. Hawai'i turned it around. They came out on a mission, to them it was one loss and done. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 27, 2023 16:07:19 GMT -5
BWCT 2023, did it help or hurt? UCSB: No help, definitely hurt. The BWCT gave five teams a chance to steal what in prior years would have been their AQ. Ended up on the selection bubble with a chance of non-selection. Ended up last-four in, a nail biter. Without the BWCT, UCSB gets the BWC AQ and no worries. Hawai'i: Big help. Wins the AQ. Without, UCSB gets the Big West AQ and Hawai'i misses the NCAAT. Hawai'i improved both RPI and KPI significantly with the tournament, helping with earning a 1st round matchup where they could be competitive, and a 2nd-round with a fighting chance. Beach: Big help. Got to host, play at home, got a tournament experience, and a chance to steal the AQ. Didn't hurt their RPI/KPI, got a small boost. Not nearly enough boost to put them within striking distance of the at-large RPI bubble cut-off, but close enough to entertain the thought and make a case. Cal Poly: Helped. RPI/KPI didn't get boosted as a result of the tournament, they were too far out in RPI/KPI to begin with for the tournament to help with that. But they did get an opportunity to steal the AQ and a tournament experience. UC Davis and UC Irvine: Helped. Too far out in RPI/KPI and most other NCAAT criteria for the tournament to help with odds of at-large selection. However, they got a shot at stealing the AQ and a tournament experience. BWC: Helped. Two teams made the NCAAT vs. just one. Six teams got pre-NCAAT tournament experience, possibly without too much additional cost to the conference and participating programs. Although it turned out USCB was a last four selection into the NCAAT, bottom line they still made it in. Lessons learned: - BWCT RPI/KPI boosts aren't likely going to be enough to count on them dragging teams across the at-large selection cut-off. RPI/KPI boosts may marginally benefit some with a better bracket placement should they win the AQ. - BWC teams must still schedule tough non-conference and win some of those to have a worthy resume for the NCAAT. The weakness of the conference requires a tough and successful non-conference. - The BWCT devalues winning the regular conference season by giving the six top conference teams an end-of-season chance at the BW Championship and earning the AQ. Consolation prize for the devaluation of winning the regular conference season is #1 seed and a 1st round bye in the tournament. - Attendance numbers for a SoCal BWCT are likely hurt by competing over four days and bracketing Thanksgiving. - Media streaming numbers aren't yet known. Will they be large enough to mitigate expenses, maybe turn a profit...TBD. Let's be honest--it doesn't help anyone but the tournament winner who wasn't the regular season champion--in this case, it was Hawai'i. These arguments are silly. It didn't help anyone's revenue. It doesn't do much for RPI (and certainly no where near the effect of what a non-conference match would have). There is some benefit in terms of the atmosphere and player experience. But, adding a tournament basically boils down to reshuffling the conference deck and providing an alternate path for a team to claim the auto bid. It's a mulligan for teams (and coaches!) to turn lemons into lemonade. There's nothing wrong with that, but all of the other justifications are basically irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 27, 2023 16:22:37 GMT -5
disagree with lessons learned. the profiles of the 3 at-large teams got a boost. UCSB did NOT get hurt. they got extra top 50 wins, 38 vs. 36 in RPI is insignificant compare to top 50 per your own assesment. the BWCT was positive for 5 teams, and not 1 team, although I disagree even for that one team. ONLY in the case where a conference champ was truly on the bubble, would it likely potentially hurt. UCSB went from not on the bubble to stil lget in ahead of 2-3 teams, even with conf upsets, and with some expected committee idiocy. attendance numbers were good. from the vantage point of Hawaii who is top 3 or so in the country, NOTHING, but then that's not a reasonable expectation to have. it really isn't. take a look at the other conf tournaments. the Big West by comparison was stellar, and even more, I bet the stremaing numbers were huge compared to any other mid-major sorry, this is not a shot at Hawaii fans, but I think the prism of what is 'good' gets so distorted because of a singular focus on what exists in Hawaii to me the lesson learned is that the timing and holding it in that period of Friday to Tuesday before thanksgiving could be reviewed. even then not sure that's best. people do tend to have vacation anyway from Wednesday to Sunday, so in that aspect I can see some benefit to attendance (not student attendance though) The regular season conference winner is always intrinsically hurt by the very existence of the BWCT. An AQ that would have been theirs unquestionably without a tournament, they now have to earn in the tournament. That's not 'Hawai'i focused'. It's just a general truth, applied to all of the BWC. And to all conferences that choose to have a tournament. It devalues the worth of winning the conference, and the consolation prize is better placement in the tournament. Whatever criteria boost UCSB got from this tournament, was also negated in degree by an early round loss in the tournament. That they picked up two top 50 wins with Hawai'i, simply mitigated their overall minor drop in RPI. And their additional loss to Beach mitigated any benefit to their SOS by Beach and Hawaii getting tournament wins. And given the weakness of the UCSB SOS to begin with, the eyesore of an early round conference tournament loss didn't help their overall goodwill before the committee. While a 38 RPI and 27 KPI, and two additional top 50 wins shouldn't have put them anywhere close to selection danger of last-four in, their weak SOS and early round tournament loss didn't help their 'profile' before the committee. It probably confirmed some doubts about their resume. As for attendance, I don't know that the attendance numbers were good or bad. I avoided that characterization. Not sure what the host and BWC were expecting, bracketing the tournament over Thanksgiving. Lesson learned is that it didn't fill the house, nothing close to it for the first two days. And half capacity for the final. While the regular season matchup with Beach-Hawaii in the pyramid was north of 3,000, the BWCT final was a thousand less. Was that the planned for attendance? Did the host cover costs with streaming and sponsors? Did participating programs and BWC cover costs? It's TBD, and I have my doubts there will be public transparency of accounting. the 3000 for Beach-Hawaii is to some extent that Beach draws good student crowds for marquee matches (Texas, UCLA, Hawaii) that get to be 500+ and free admission. students in general are not going to be as large a part of the BWCT, they weren't in the MBB @ the HOnda Center, they aren't in Vegas, and not big for the BWCT. I'm sure that's expected, given T-Giving break. I doubt the conference had 'plans' for attendance, it's the first year, they had no prior data, I'm sure they expected decent crowds, which I think 1000 and over is good for VB, aside from people that view it from the Hawaii prism of viewing attendance and nothing less that packed arenas is ok. I really don't think the Big West is really that sophisiticed enough to do much with data. The streaming numbers would be very interesting. Charactizing the attendance as 'half-empty' ? lol. again, the crowds, given the timing/holiday, were good IMO. I thought for a Wednesday night before Thanksgiving that can be a travel mess was good. the final for the WAC: 103 (not kidding) Big Sky: 528 MAC: 2148 hosted by the home school Big East: 701 SunBelt: 250 Big West: 2137 the BWCT should not be about making money, it shouldn'tz, nore should it be some huge drain. it may some day make a lot of money if Beach, SB, Irvine, Poly, SD keep getting better and grow fan bases and you get two or 3 top 25 teams in the semis, there will be close to full houses like MVB. if the goal is soley money, they shouldn't have it. I doubt it's a huge drain, likely operates at some loss, and even money probably at best. Hard to guess what Outrigger kicked in, or Hercules Tire does for basketball. At $15 avg ticket for 4500 fans, that would be $70,000 in ticket revenue or so. I know Long Beach parking was likely the big winner revenue wise lol. no extra cost, no manpower required, and probably netted them $15 or $20k or so! Parking always jacks the fans, lol. I do know the atmosphere was better than Vegas for Basketball. agree it would be interesting to have the numbers, the league has them. doubt they share them to the average audience, the ADs will know, as it's the ADs that will either continue or discontinue a BWCT. in the end, the BWCT will grow only to the extent that the top tier teams continue to improve to the point of going from 1 or 2 top 50 teams to 3-4 top 50 teams and 1-2 top 25 teams, which would drive more interest, more attendance, and more $$. Mabye that will happen, maybe this year represents what can be maxed out. we'll see. and that was the point of having a BWCT, drive intereset, which it did. Otherwise, the season would have been over essentially on November 11, when SB clinched. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Nov 27, 2023 16:31:31 GMT -5
The regular season conference winner is always intrinsically hurt by the very existence of the BWCT. An AQ that would have been theirs unquestionably without a tournament, they now have to earn in the tournament. That's not 'Hawai'i focused'. It's just a general truth, applied to all of the BWC. And to all conferences that choose to have a tournament. It devalues the worth of winning the conference, and the consolation prize is better placement in the tournament. Whatever criteria boost UCSB got from this tournament, was also negated in degree by an early round loss in the tournament. That they picked up two top 50 wins with Hawai'i, simply mitigated their overall minor drop in RPI. And their additional loss to Beach mitigated any benefit to their SOS by Beach and Hawaii getting tournament wins. And given the weakness of the UCSB SOS to begin with, the eyesore of an early round conference tournament loss didn't help their overall goodwill before the committee. While a 38 RPI and 27 KPI, and two additional top 50 wins shouldn't have put them anywhere close to selection danger of last-four in, their weak SOS and early round tournament loss didn't help their 'profile' before the committee. It probably confirmed some doubts about their resume. As for attendance, I don't know that the attendance numbers were good or bad. I avoided that characterization. Not sure what the host and BWC were expecting, bracketing the tournament over Thanksgiving. Lesson learned is that it didn't fill the house, nothing close to it for the first two days. And half capacity for the final. While the regular season matchup with Beach-Hawaii in the pyramid was north of 3,000, the BWCT final was a thousand less. Was that the planned for attendance? Did the host cover costs with streaming and sponsors? Did participating programs and BWC cover costs? It's TBD, and I have my doubts there will be public transparency of accounting. the 3000 for Beach-Hawaii is to some extent that Beach draws good student crowds for marquee matches (Texas, UCLA, Hawaii) that get to be 500+ and free admission. students in general are not going to be as large a part of the BWCT, they weren't in the MBB @ the HOnda Center, they aren't in Vegas, and not big for the BWCT. I'm sure that's expected, given T-Giving break. I doubt the conference had 'plans' for attendance, it's the first year, they had no prior data, I'm sure they expected decent crowds, which I think 1000 and over is good for VB, aside from people that view it from the Hawaii prism of viewing attendance and nothing less that packed arenas is ok. I really don't think the Big West is really that sophisiticed enough to do much with data. The streaming numbers would be very interesting. Charactizing the attendance as 'half-empty' ? lol. again, the crowds, given the timing/holiday, were good IMO. I thought for a Wednesday night before Thanksgiving that can be a travel mess was good. the final for the WAC: 103 (not kidding) Big Sky: 528 MAC: 2148 hosted by the home school Big East: 701 SunBelt: 250 Big West: 2137 the BWCT should not be about making money, it shouldn'tz, nore should it be some huge drain. it may some day make a lot of money if Beach, SB, Irvine, Poly, SD keep getting better and grow fan bases and you get two or 3 top 25 teams in the semis, there will be close to full houses like MVB. if the goal is soley money, they shouldn't have it. I doubt it's a huge drain, likely operates at some loss, and even money probably at best. Hard to guess what Outrigger kicked in, or Hercules Tire does for basketball. At $15 avg ticket for 4500 fans, that would be $70,000 in ticket revenue or so. I know Long Beach parking was likely the big winner revenue wise lol. no extra cost, no manpower required, and probably netted them $15 or $20k or so! Parking always jacks the fans, lol. I do know the atmosphere was better than Vegas for Basketball. agree it would be interesting to have the numbers, the league has them. doubt they share them to the average audience, the ADs will know, as it's the ADs that will either continue or discontinue a BWCT. in the end, the BWCT will grow only to the extent that the top tier teams continue to improve to the point of going from 1 or 2 top 50 teams to 3-4 top 50 teams and 1-2 top 25 teams, which would drive more interest, more attendance, and more $$. Mabye that will happen, maybe this year represents what can be maxed out. we'll see. and that was the point of having a BWCT, drive intereset, which it did. Otherwise, the season would have been over essentially on November 11, when SB clinched. Driving interest in an interesting way of saying "selling a lottery ticket to the top 6 teams". And the attendance figures clearly show it didn't "drive interest". |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 27, 2023 16:32:36 GMT -5
Scoreboard:
added a bid
added interest in the conference, and added marquee matches that would not have happenEd
had sizeable crowds, unless one views attendance solely from a 'Hawaii prism' of such things. yeah, a SB-Poly final would have had difficulty getting to 700.
statistically it in fact boosted profiles, more so Beach and Hawaii RPI/KPI, and insignificant negating going on. a 4-0 vs 2-0 for top 50 is more significant than a 36 to 38 in RPI
the timing/dates might be better if changed, maybe not
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 27, 2023 16:38:19 GMT -5
the 3000 for Beach-Hawaii is to some extent that Beach draws good student crowds for marquee matches (Texas, UCLA, Hawaii) that get to be 500+ and free admission. students in general are not going to be as large a part of the BWCT, they weren't in the MBB @ the HOnda Center, they aren't in Vegas, and not big for the BWCT. I'm sure that's expected, given T-Giving break. I doubt the conference had 'plans' for attendance, it's the first year, they had no prior data, I'm sure they expected decent crowds, which I think 1000 and over is good for VB, aside from people that view it from the Hawaii prism of viewing attendance and nothing less that packed arenas is ok. I really don't think the Big West is really that sophisiticed enough to do much with data. The streaming numbers would be very interesting. Charactizing the attendance as 'half-empty' ? lol. again, the crowds, given the timing/holiday, were good IMO. I thought for a Wednesday night before Thanksgiving that can be a travel mess was good. the final for the WAC: 103 (not kidding) Big Sky: 528 MAC: 2148 hosted by the home school Big East: 701 SunBelt: 250 Big West: 2137 the BWCT should not be about making money, it shouldn'tz, nore should it be some huge drain. it may some day make a lot of money if Beach, SB, Irvine, Poly, SD keep getting better and grow fan bases and you get two or 3 top 25 teams in the semis, there will be close to full houses like MVB. if the goal is soley money, they shouldn't have it. I doubt it's a huge drain, likely operates at some loss, and even money probably at best. Hard to guess what Outrigger kicked in, or Hercules Tire does for basketball. At $15 avg ticket for 4500 fans, that would be $70,000 in ticket revenue or so. I know Long Beach parking was likely the big winner revenue wise lol. no extra cost, no manpower required, and probably netted them $15 or $20k or so! Parking always jacks the fans, lol. I do know the atmosphere was better than Vegas for Basketball. agree it would be interesting to have the numbers, the league has them. doubt they share them to the average audience, the ADs will know, as it's the ADs that will either continue or discontinue a BWCT. in the end, the BWCT will grow only to the extent that the top tier teams continue to improve to the point of going from 1 or 2 top 50 teams to 3-4 top 50 teams and 1-2 top 25 teams, which would drive more interest, more attendance, and more $$. Mabye that will happen, maybe this year represents what can be maxed out. we'll see. and that was the point of having a BWCT, drive intereset, which it did. Otherwise, the season would have been over essentially on November 11, when SB clinched. Driving interest in an interesting way of saying "selling a lottery ticket to the top 6 teams". And the attendance figures clearly show it didn't "drive interest". there were 4500 disagreeing, along with ? others via streaming you are right, let's go back to no BWCT, bad idea. 1 bid would have been better especially to get 2000 pages of additional fire Robyn threads on a message board that 10% of fans even follow, that would have been much better than a successful tournament which the student-athletes and and most VB fans enjoyed. yeah, the bah humbug assessment is much better! |
|
