Another year - Another NCAA Injustice (Stephen F. Austin)
Nov 27, 2023 13:38:27 GMT -5
Barefoot In Kailua, tomclen, and 37 more like this
Post by trojansc on Nov 27, 2023 13:38:27 GMT -5
"There is no point in saying good morning because it most certainly is not one".
Yes, it's that time of year again. I come here because our sport, our fans deserve it. The athletes who compete deserve it. The coaches, athletes who win tough matches deserve it.
I usually preface this by saying that I am always willing to split the difference on teams who are borderline into the NCAA tournament. There are a few decisions that could go either way, and who is 'most qualified' is subjective. Unfortunately, the NCAA selection committee who is headed this year by @ Holly Strauss O'Brien, who told us before the bracket came out that it is "a common misconception that RPI is mostly used for the rankings". That doesn't check out this year - RPI (much more so than KPI) explains the brackets better than anything.
In case you live under a rock and haven't heard the news: Stephen F. Austin was awarded an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament. No, they did not win the WAC Automatic Qualification, they lost in their conference tournament to Grand Canyon. No, they did not have a Top 50 win. They did not beat anyone even in consideration for at-large selection into the NCAA Tournament. They played three top 50 teams (Arizona State, Baylor, and South Alabama) and they lost all three.
NC State (Had a better KPI than Stephen F. Austin, an RPI of #44 *and* beat #3 Louisville, who was overall ranked 5th in the NCAA Tournament)
St. John's (Won twice against #25 Marquette, once on the road in the conference tournament, had an RPI #46). They beat Marquette just this past week - in Milwaukee. If they wanted to pick a team who had done something recent, here ya go.
Loyola-Chicago (Won AT #12 Purdue, and beat bubble team #57 Duke)
UCLA (Won AT #13 Washington State, at #33 USC, (neutral) vs. #41 Pepperdine, and at #50 Hawaii). Again, they wins at Wazzu and at USC were recent, USC just a few days ago).
Duke (Won neutral vs. #9 Creighton, beat bubble-team #43 NC State)
Drake (Beat #38 UCSB on a neutral court)
Now, with all that said, all of those teams were not perfect. Some of them took bad losses. Some of them had struggles in RPI/KPI. But all of them did something SFA didn't: they ALL beat Top 50 teams, most of them beat multiple, many of which were top 25 wins. You should have to beat someone to earn your way into the tournament.
Thank you @ Emily Ehman for voicing your frustrations of how a team like NC State could be left out for a team like Stephen F. Austin. We need more voices in our sport to do so.
and most of all, we can't forget: Kansas State.
Yes, it's that time of year again. I come here because our sport, our fans deserve it. The athletes who compete deserve it. The coaches, athletes who win tough matches deserve it.
I usually preface this by saying that I am always willing to split the difference on teams who are borderline into the NCAA tournament. There are a few decisions that could go either way, and who is 'most qualified' is subjective. Unfortunately, the NCAA selection committee who is headed this year by @ Holly Strauss O'Brien, who told us before the bracket came out that it is "a common misconception that RPI is mostly used for the rankings". That doesn't check out this year - RPI (much more so than KPI) explains the brackets better than anything.
In case you live under a rock and haven't heard the news: Stephen F. Austin was awarded an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament. No, they did not win the WAC Automatic Qualification, they lost in their conference tournament to Grand Canyon. No, they did not have a Top 50 win. They did not beat anyone even in consideration for at-large selection into the NCAA Tournament. They played three top 50 teams (Arizona State, Baylor, and South Alabama) and they lost all three.
Here is the Stephen F. Austin résumé that is supposedly worthy of an NCAA Tournament at-large:
| Stephen F. Austin | ||
| RPI: | 36 | |
| KPI: | 39 | |
| Strength-of-Schedule: | #135 | |
| Non-Conference RPI: | #93 | |
| Record against 1-25 RPI: | 0-1 | |
| Record against 26-50 RPI: | 0-2 | |
| Record against 51-100 RPI: | 3-1 | |
| Significant Wins (1-50 RPI) | NONE | |
| Significant Losses (101 RPI+) | NONE | |
| Best overall win: | at #76 Grand Canyon | |
| Best non-conference win | (home) vs. #97 Cal Poly | |
| Best road win | at #76 Grand Canyon |
At this time, I would like to shout out some teams that actually beat quality competition.
St. John's (Won twice against #25 Marquette, once on the road in the conference tournament, had an RPI #46). They beat Marquette just this past week - in Milwaukee. If they wanted to pick a team who had done something recent, here ya go.
Loyola-Chicago (Won AT #12 Purdue, and beat bubble team #57 Duke)
UCLA (Won AT #13 Washington State, at #33 USC, (neutral) vs. #41 Pepperdine, and at #50 Hawaii). Again, they wins at Wazzu and at USC were recent, USC just a few days ago).
Duke (Won neutral vs. #9 Creighton, beat bubble-team #43 NC State)
Drake (Beat #38 UCSB on a neutral court)
Now, with all that said, all of those teams were not perfect. Some of them took bad losses. Some of them had struggles in RPI/KPI. But all of them did something SFA didn't: they ALL beat Top 50 teams, most of them beat multiple, many of which were top 25 wins. You should have to beat someone to earn your way into the tournament.
Thank you @ Emily Ehman for voicing your frustrations of how a team like NC State could be left out for a team like Stephen F. Austin. We need more voices in our sport to do so.
and most of all, we can't forget: Kansas State.
| Kansas State | ||
| RPI: | 59 | |
| KPI: | 49 | |
| Strength-of-Schedule: | #38 | |
| Non-Conference RPI: | #94 | |
| Record against 1-25 RPI: | 3-3 | |
| Record against 26-50 RPI: | 3-3 | |
| Record against 51-100 RPI: | 0-3 | |
| Significant Wins (1-50 RPI) | #6 Texas #15 BYU(x2) #27 Iowa State at #31 Baylor #43 TCU | |
| Significant Losses (101 RPI+) | #148 Oklahoma #156 Cincinnati | |
| Best overall win: | (home) #6 Texas | |
| Best non-conference win | (home) vs. #111 Omaha | |
| Best road win | at #31 Baylor |
I guess we just have to come to a reality - if you have an RPI of mid-to high 30's and beat Grand Canyon than it is to have a high 50's RPI, but play an actual tough schedule and lose a couple bad matches BUT beat #6 Texas, #15 BYU(x2), #27 Iowa State, at #31 Baylor, and #43 TCU. Volleyball deserves better.
To wrap up: If NC State, St. John's, and UCLA had made the tournament instead of Miami-FL, South Alabama, Texas State, and (who I picked) Kansas State, this thread wouldn't have been made. It wouldn't have been necessary. There are debatable decisions, and I think a room of qualified and capable individuals could reasonably understand that. I do not think it is reasonable to admit Stephen F. Austin. If you use KPI/RPI as an argument - NC State should hands down beat Stephen F. Austin. Period.
We MUST stop admitting teams into the NCAA Tournament who simply do not belong. This year, Stephen F. Austin does not belong.
It is now time for the yearly ritual.
This is usually dedicated to the team who I feel was most deserving (Kansas State), but we are also pouring one out today for St. John's, UCLA, NC State, Duke, and even Loyola-Chicago and Drake, who may not have made my cut, but were still better than Stephen F. Austin.
