|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 15, 2024 15:45:05 GMT -5
If the goal post is whether or not they make the NCAA tournament, ok, THAT, I will agree with. But I'm not sure that's a very high standard. I think the conference could get 12 teams in the tournament next year. I doubt the B1G gets any more than eight. They got six last fall and they add four newcomers from out west-so what I see is seven or eight. Last fall the committee signaled a willingness to give the previous one selection conferences additional qualifiers; I see that continuing. I think this is a very misguided view of what happened last year. If anything, historically, the committee has given DEFERENCE to the Big 10, both for seeding AND at-large selection. The problem for the Big 10 last year as it related to the NCAA tournament had NOTHING to do with the committee, it was 100% self-inflicted because of the specific teams and not winning in the non-conference. Indiana was the closest based on criteria, but they had three non-conference LOSSES to other at-large considerations (UCLA, LBSU, Washington), and the rest of their non-conference slate comprised of 8 matches against RPI 150+ opponents with a combined losing record. Ohio State wasn't tournament eligible because they scheduled FAR too tough in the non-conference and Illinois was losing matches to teams like Notre Dame and Oklahoma, in addition to having three losses against other at-largeish bubble teams (USC, Wichita State, UCF). It didn't matter that these teams belonged to the Big 10, No amount of Big 10 bias was going to change that these teams did themselves in, period. Next year presents a new opportunity for these teams to NOT make the same mistakes in the non-conference. So long as the Big 10, as a conference, schedules well (I posted about this in the actual Big 10 2024 thread) and WINS, the RPI math will shake out. I think all of the top 100 RPI Big 10 teams that missed the tournament last year, with the exception of UCLA and Northwestern (Washington, Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois) will be better next year than they were last year. If the Big 10 schedules appropriately, and wins, it's far more likely we see 10-12 Big 10 teams in the tournament than we do 6-8.
|
|
|
Post by backrolls on Apr 15, 2024 16:01:06 GMT -5
It’s this and “shoulders should match them hips but they don’t, so...” for me Back rolls? you called?
|
|
trojansc
Legend
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: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Apr 15, 2024 17:08:57 GMT -5
Next year presents a new opportunity for these teams to NOT make the same mistakes in the non-conference. So long as the Big 10, as a conference, schedules well and WINS, God, next year is going to be a headache. Have to remind myself, I'm rooting for Illinois to beat Colorado now, and Minnesota to beat Stanford, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 15, 2024 17:15:33 GMT -5
Next year presents a new opportunity for these teams to NOT make the same mistakes in the non-conference. So long as the Big 10, as a conference, schedules well and WINS, God, next year is going to be a headache. Have to remind myself, I'm rooting for Illinois to beat Colorado now, and Minnesota to beat Stanford, etc. omg right!?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 15, 2024 17:19:04 GMT -5
Next year presents a new opportunity for these teams to NOT make the same mistakes in the non-conference. So long as the Big 10, as a conference, schedules well and WINS, God, next year is going to be a headache. Have to remind myself, I'm rooting for Illinois to beat Colorado now, and Minnesota to beat Stanford, etc. Illinois finally stop scheduling their annual loss to Colorado.
|
|
|
Post by photos1 on Apr 15, 2024 21:30:14 GMT -5
I doubt the B1G gets any more than eight. They got six last fall and they add four newcomers from out west-so what I see is seven or eight. Last fall the committee signaled a willingness to give the previous one selection conferences additional qualifiers; I see that continuing. I think this is a very misguided view of what happened last year. If anything, historically, the committee has given DEFERENCE to the Big 10, both for seeding AND at-large selection. The problem for the Big 10 last year as it related to the NCAA tournament had NOTHING to do with the committee, it was 100% self-inflicted because of the specific teams and not winning in the non-conference. Indiana was the closest based on criteria, but they had three non-conference LOSSES to other at-large considerations (UCLA, LBSU, Washington), and the rest of their non-conference slate comprised of 8 matches against RPI 150+ opponents with a combined losing record. Ohio State wasn't tournament eligible because they scheduled FAR too tough in the non-conference and Illinois was losing matches to teams like Notre Dame and Oklahoma, in addition to having three losses against other at-largeish bubble teams (USC, Wichita State, UCF). It didn't matter that these teams belonged to the Big 10, No amount of Big 10 bias was going to change that these teams did themselves in, period. Next year presents a new opportunity for these teams to NOT make the same mistakes in the non-conference. So long as the Big 10, as a conference, schedules well (I posted about this in the actual Big 10 2024 thread) and WINS, the RPI math will shake out. I think all of the top 100 RPI Big 10 teams that missed the tournament last year, with the exception of UCLA and Northwestern (Washington, Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois) will be better next year than they were last year. If the Big 10 schedules appropriately, and wins, it's far more likely we see 10-12 Big 10 teams in the tournament than we do 6-8. I believe I just mostly disagree. During the off day in Tampa I had an extended discussion with a past member of the D1 selection committee and I frankly found the apparent ever changing criteria and metrics troubling. Sometimes h2h is controlling sometimes it isn’t… yep Illinois losing to Notre Dame and Oklahoma, was bad, but were those losses worse than losing Southeastern Louisiana, Louisiana and Cal like Texas State did? I thought Illinois was going to be in until the final weekend when they got swept twice, first by Minnesota and then by Northwestern. They went into that final weekend 11-7 in the B1G…that should have been enough, but it wasn’t. Certainly, Indiana had the roster to make the tournament and win matches, but there is just something really wrong there. I just see a turning of the axis in the selection criteria-the committee is using the elimination of the PAC12, NOT to transfer the previous PAC12 selections to the remaining P4 schools, but as additional selections for the smaller schools. And I’ll be honest, I’d rather see the second place Sun Belt team in the tournament than the 8th, 9th or 10th place team in the B1G or SEC. imo, 90% of the selection committee is bogus. Instead of these college administrators, ex-coaches like Tom Hilbert, Mick Haley and Bob Bertucci should be enlisted to select the bracket. But that’s for another day. 2024 is shaping up to be a great season. 🏐
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Apr 15, 2024 21:32:51 GMT -5
Would Bertucci show up on the selection show slapping someone in this scenario?
|
|
|
Post by lionsfan on Apr 15, 2024 21:42:53 GMT -5
A Purdue team who was not only extremely young a year ago and brings back all of their talented offensive pieces, but also soundly beat Penn State twice during 2023? Purdue won both of those matches rather decisively because they were better. I agree that Purdue should be placed ahead in the rankings, but "soundly"? "Decisively"? They won at home 15-12 in the fifth, and in their 3-1 win @psu, the sets they won were -23, -23, -22. So calm down.
|
|
|
Post by ilalum92 on Apr 15, 2024 22:06:23 GMT -5
And there goes the annual PAC 12 vs BIG 10 challenge
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 15, 2024 22:19:11 GMT -5
I think this is a very misguided view of what happened last year. If anything, historically, the committee has given DEFERENCE to the Big 10, both for seeding AND at-large selection. The problem for the Big 10 last year as it related to the NCAA tournament had NOTHING to do with the committee, it was 100% self-inflicted because of the specific teams and not winning in the non-conference. Indiana was the closest based on criteria, but they had three non-conference LOSSES to other at-large considerations (UCLA, LBSU, Washington), and the rest of their non-conference slate comprised of 8 matches against RPI 150+ opponents with a combined losing record. Ohio State wasn't tournament eligible because they scheduled FAR too tough in the non-conference and Illinois was losing matches to teams like Notre Dame and Oklahoma, in addition to having three losses against other at-largeish bubble teams (USC, Wichita State, UCF). It didn't matter that these teams belonged to the Big 10, No amount of Big 10 bias was going to change that these teams did themselves in, period. Next year presents a new opportunity for these teams to NOT make the same mistakes in the non-conference. So long as the Big 10, as a conference, schedules well (I posted about this in the actual Big 10 2024 thread) and WINS, the RPI math will shake out. I think all of the top 100 RPI Big 10 teams that missed the tournament last year, with the exception of UCLA and Northwestern (Washington, Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois) will be better next year than they were last year. If the Big 10 schedules appropriately, and wins, it's far more likely we see 10-12 Big 10 teams in the tournament than we do 6-8. I believe I just mostly disagree. During the off day in Tampa I had an extended discussion with a past member of the D1 selection committee and I frankly found the apparent ever changing criteria and metrics troubling. Sometimes h2h is controlling sometimes it isn’t… yep Illinois losing to Notre Dame and Oklahoma, was bad, but were those losses worse than losing Southeastern Louisiana, Louisiana and Cal like Texas State did? I thought Illinois was going to be in until the final weekend when they got swept twice, first by Minnesota and then by Northwestern. They went into that final weekend 11-7 in the B1G…that should have been enough, but it wasn’t. Certainly, Indiana had the roster to make the tournament and win matches, but there is just something really wrong there. I just see a turning of the axis in the selection criteria-the committee is using the elimination of the PAC12, NOT to transfer the previous PAC12 selections to the remaining P4 schools, but as additional selections for the smaller schools. And I’ll be honest, I’d rather see the second place Sun Belt team in the tournament than the 8th, 9th or 10th place team in the B1G or SEC. imo, 90% of the selection committee is bogus. Instead of these college administrators, ex-coaches like Tom Hilbert, Mick Haley and Bob Bertucci should be enlisted to select the bracket. But that’s for another day. 2024 is shaping up to be a great season. 🏐 Even without those two last week losses, Illinois getting in the tournament is quite the stretch. They were RPI high 70's, with one win against the tournament field, multiple losses to teams with losing records, and 0-3 against RPI top 75 teams in the non-conference. There is a difference between what I said, which is that the committee has given deference to the Big 10 in the past, and what you are seemingly suggesting, which is that the committee apparently just IGNORE pretty much all of the criteria just for a Big 10 team - which is what they would have had to do to put Illinois in. I don't consider that you 'disagreeing', as much as I do you just fundamentally being wrong about tournament selection. I will say that your discussion with a prior committee member is illuminating, and I agree that the arbitrariness of the criteria (and the weight given to certain metrics and not others) is fleeting, but as someone who has looked at the bracket in relation to the criteria, I am of the view that much of the arbitrary application of the criteria has benefited Big 10 teams in the past. Can we stop the comparison to last year and the Sun Belt? All worthy Big 10 teams, per the criteria, were selected. Illinois didn't get selected because they played in the Big 10, they didn't get selected because they lost to USC, and Wichita State, and UCF, and Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. The issues with the Sun Belt selections has no correlation with how the committee treated the Big 10 last year.
|
|
|
Post by PostPrime on Apr 16, 2024 6:42:56 GMT -5
Illinois will make it this year I believe. I count 11.
|
|