2023 NCAA Volleyball Selection Show

[donut]

Nov 27, 2023 13:44:21 GMT -5 VballObssessed said:

So are we just not going to address the lack of diversity in the selection committee and on the selection show? Lacking in ethnicity, gender (no men), even generation. It's given mean girls club for a number of years now.

Hurry, delete this, you still have time

[VballObssessed]

Nov 27, 2023 13:45:28 GMT -5 donut said:

Nov 27, 2023 13:44:21 GMT -5 VballObssessed said:

So are we just not going to address the lack of diversity in the selection committee and on the selection show? Lacking in ethnicity, gender (no men), even generation. It's given mean girls club for a number of years now.

Hurry, delete this, you still have time

I said what I said.

[n00b]

Nov 27, 2023 13:11:57 GMT -5 trojansc said:

K-State's Pablo was top 25, or borderline right? (idk if it updated)

n00b if you think that was a unique resume for Penn State that year, how do they not consider it now? Especially with K-State's high-profile wins. What was SFA in Pablo? Massey says SFA is #53 (#61 in power).

They definitely should've considered it. I hope they did. And it's why K State was a part of the conversation at all. A couple things here:

1) If I remember correctly, the committee about split the difference for Penn State that year. #5 Pablo, #26 RPI, #16 seed. The new Pablo isn't out yet but K State is 59 in RPI, 30ish in Pablo. The average lands them right on the cut line. I agree that they should be one of the last couple in or first couple out. (For what it's worth, SFA was #49 Pablo - better than UCSB, Texas State, James Madison, and South Alabama)

2) Underseeding a very talented team affects the other teams in the bracket as much as the team itself. It is unfair to Texas to be playing A&M in the opening round. If I were volleyball czar, selections would be made via resume (what a team has accomplished), then seeding would be based on how good they are (something like Pablo). However, I do fully recognize the BIG reward that getting a Top 16 and hosting is. If that weren't part of it, I think there's no question that seeding Penn State way above their RPI was correct. When part of being Top 16 is a reward unto itself, I'm less certain that I support it.

[hipsterfilth]

Nov 27, 2023 9:14:43 GMT -5 rainyvolleyball said:

Nov 27, 2023 9:10:22 GMT -5 hipsterfilth said:

Take a look at K-State's schedule.

Take a look at K-State's record.

Both elements need to be looked at, the win-loss record and the strength of schedule. I just mentioned the strength of schedule for SFA vs. The Citadel since their records were so similar.

I'm so confused. Do you not get that a weak SOS leads to a better win-loss record? 

[uofaGRAD]

would K-State trade their wins over Texas and BYU x2 to take away their significant losses (OU, Cinci, UCF/Lipscomb)? trojansc

[trojansc]

Nov 27, 2023 16:10:15 GMT -5 uofaGRAD said:

would K-State trade their wins over Texas and BYU x2 to take away their significant losses (OU, Cinci, UCF/Lipscomb)? trojansc

In terms of RPI, if you switched those three results, K-State's RPI would be worse (they lose bonus points in that manner). Losing to OU/Cincinnati/UCF/Lipscomb aren't *penalties* in terms of RPI ranking. But beating BYU(x2) and Texas give you a better RPI because of the bonus points.

When Arizona State beat Oregon but lost to Oregon State, that was actually a better result in terms of pure RPI value.

Some teams need the wins, some teams need RPI, etc. K-State just needed RPI value. They clearly had the wins.

It's unfortunate - cause K-State's KPI was #49 - which puts them very much 'in-range'. The RPI was #59. I'm not buying that it wasn't an over-reliance on RPI by the committee (it very clearly seems to have been).

[uofaGRAD]

Nov 27, 2023 16:16:20 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 27, 2023 16:10:15 GMT -5 uofaGRAD said:

would K-State trade their wins over Texas and BYU x2 to take away their significant losses (OU, Cinci, UCF/Lipscomb)? trojansc

In terms of RPI, if you switched those three results, K-State's RPI would be worse (they lose bonus points in that manner). Losing to OU/Cincinnati/UCF/Lipscomb aren't *penalties* in terms of RPI ranking. But beating BYU(x2) and Texas give you a better RPI because of the bonus points.

When Arizona State beat Oregon but lost to Oregon State, that was actually a better result in terms of pure RPI value.

Some teams need the wins, some teams need RPI, etc. K-State just needed RPI value. They clearly had the wins.

It's unfortunate - cause K-State's KPI was #49 - which puts them very much 'in-range'. The RPI was #59. I'm not buying that it wasn't an over-reliance on RPI by the committee (it very clearly seems to have been).

got it. I thought that’s how it would work out, but didn’t know if their RPI would stay around the same, and then the committee wouldn’t see any “bad” losses.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 27, 2023 16:19:10 GMT -5 uofaGRAD said:

Nov 27, 2023 16:16:20 GMT -5 trojansc said:

In terms of RPI, if you switched those three results, K-State's RPI would be worse (they lose bonus points in that manner). Losing to OU/Cincinnati/UCF/Lipscomb aren't *penalties* in terms of RPI ranking. But beating BYU(x2) and Texas give you a better RPI because of the bonus points.

When Arizona State beat Oregon but lost to Oregon State, that was actually a better result in terms of pure RPI value.

Some teams need the wins, some teams need RPI, etc. K-State just needed RPI value. They clearly had the wins.

It's unfortunate - cause K-State's KPI was #49 - which puts them very much 'in-range'. The RPI was #59. I'm not buying that it wasn't an over-reliance on RPI by the committee (it very clearly seems to have been).

got it. I thought that’s how it would work out, but didn’t know if their RPI would stay around the same, and then the committee wouldn’t see any “bad” losses.

In addition - I think the committee would be more favorable with a BYU - 2X, Texas wins and losses to Oklahoma, Cincy, Lipscomb - than switching this.  Great wins are more valuable than low end bad losses (I think).

[bluepenquin]

3 seeded teams are underdogs in their first match: James Madison, Auburn and Utah State. James Madison is a big underdog.

There are 5 first round matchups that are pretty close to being toss-ups.


Florida State vs. TCU
Auburn vs. Western Michigan
Dayton vs. Pepperdine
Northern Iowa vs. Miami
Iowa State vs. Hawaii

[avid 2.0]

[jwvolley]

Nov 27, 2023 18:08:21 GMT -5 avid 2.0 said:

Period.

[texashorns]

Nov 27, 2023 18:08:21 GMT -5 avid 2.0 said:

They deserve to be in the tournament but Ig there is always next year

[trojansc]

TALK YO SH*T!!!!!

Maybe I'll have to change my avatar to Aliyah Carter for the 2nd half of the tournament.

[uofaGRAD]

hold on! what did Texas do to get the “beloved”?😭😭 they literally went out of their way to give us a harder first round match up than the literal 3 seed in our own quadrant. it’s one of the things that’s been debated as a biggest mishap!

[illinifan21]

lots of athletes in the comments supporting K-State!! Dev Robinson reposting a story about how they were robbed!! NCAA… do better!