AVCA watch list 1st-2nd rounds and delete button
I have asked nicely to stop the name-calling without any results. Previous thread likely won’t make a lot of sense because of the number of ‘deleted’ comments. Guess I need to start charging for baby-sitting.
Anyway ere is the link to the AVCA watch list.
http://www.avca.org/includes/media/docs/2013-NCAA-Championship-Host-Watch-List-Release.pdfAgain,
these are the 33 schools who meet at least one of the following criteria. as it also states
These are POTENTIAL hosts.
Teams that are in the AVCA Coaches Top 25 poll as of October 28, 2013.
Or
Teams that are in the top 25 of the Pablo Rankings as of October 28, 2013.
Or
Teams that are in the top 25 of the RPI Rankings as of October 28, 2013.
COMMENTS
Comments are closed.
I find it refreshing that the NCAA and AVCA are finally starting to work together with this new change now if they can only get this cooperation extended to seeding.
The inclusion of Pablo in the hosting procedure is also another change that is very interesting.
I do as well. When communicating with Rich Kern and others who have been working with both organizations for a fairer system for a couple of years now, this does seem a step in the right direction. Next might be to get people on the selection committee who understand the sport and not using the position for their resume.
There are no changes announced with this release whatsoever despite what some people would incorrectly like to read into it.
It is just a watch list of potential host sites as of right now. Nothing more.
Good luck to the Wahine.
2) I agree. What about a couple of highly respected retired college coaches on the selection committee? I bet they would even do it it pro bono.
4. that has been suggested as well in regards to retired coaches. Herbert, Banachowski and Gregory might be a good start.
I have heard that the committee may be able to refer to the AVCA poll and Pablo but that was announced last year and there really wasn’t much evidence that they did consider those rankings when the field was announced.
Only having to finish in the Top 25 of either the AVCA Poll or the RPI or Pablo to host should take a lot of pressure off of the kids.
Only having to finish with an RPI rating in the top 16 should keep the pressure on the team if they want to host. Go Bows!
8. agree that RPI seems to have been more heavily considered in the past. and likely will be, although they appear to be looking at the ‘human factor’ with additional criteria when seeing that the computer-generated rankings have a number of teams with a number of losses among the top 16 or so.
This is a good sign that AVCA and the NCAA have working agreements that are designed to improve the sport.It’s a small step for now but a good one.
Agree that it would be a good sign if the AVCA and NCAA could ever have working agreements to improve the sport. Unfortunately it has not happened yet and is still just wishful thinking at this point.
Hope springs eternal!
Two factions can have agreements that do not require the need for bylaw changes. The idea behind this principal is to try new ideas and see if they work. If they prove to be successful permanent changes can then be made.
So far the NCAA has held up their agreement that the top 16 in the RPI would get the first shot at hosting and now that agreement has been expanded.
that AVCA press release is interesting. if the ncaa and avca are now collaborating on hosting issues, that will be good thing, for coaches to be able to lobby or get their input in there.
but expanding the list of potential hosts can cut both ways for hawaii. the rule about “seeded teams automatically hosting” guaranteed that hawaii will host if it’s rpi and results earned them a seed.
but now even if hawaii is seeded, the expanded list of “possible” hosts could mean that hawaii is seeded but still get send on the road, which is what was happening prior to 2011 anyway. in part, i think this expansion takes things back to the status quo from a couple years ago.
but the flip side i guess is that hawaii can’t be denied a seed (if they’ve earned it), even if they don’t end up hosting.
this is one of those “is the glass half full … or half empty?” kind of situations … imo.
Expanded how? Where’s the link? Or are you still referring to this watch list of potential host sites? Because it says no such thing as anyone can see by simply reading and understanding it.
I mean you can believe whatever you want to believe if it makes you feel better but for those rooted in reality, it’s clear that nothing has been agreed upon and the criteria is still the same.
Sure there are lots of ideas being floated around to improve an unfair system and that’s a good thing. However, nothing has been solidified and obviously the host field definitely has not been expanded to include any of the top 25 of AVCA, Pablo and RPI as you keep telling yourself.
Sorry but that’s just wishful thinking.
13. it’s not an expanded list per se, although allowing the AVCA poll and Pablo does expand the criteria. the 33 schools CURRENTLY meet 1 of 3 criteria as POTENTIAL host sites. They still only have 16 sites for the 1st & 2nd rounds.
POTENTIAL is used because some of these teams might not meet the criteria when it comes time to pick host. This list is as of OCT 28th and could change.
hightop — we get it … (i did use the word “if” in my post) … you don’t think this is “official.” it may very well not be.
but it’s a valuable discussion worth having, and it’d be interesting indeed … if the avca and ncaa are headed down this path.
Cubicle, as we know, there is a NCAA regulation in existence that the top 16 seeds get first rights to host. That has not changed in the slightest and won’t change without another proposal and then formal vote and enactment.
This release is simply showing all the potential hosts as of right now. Meaning any of them could be in the top 16 at the end of the season. It does not say these are the schools that the committee will choose from all of these schools in deciding who hosts or that the field has been expanded to 25 as LC tried to argue.
The regulation that the top 16 seeds get to host is the only thing keeping Hawaii in the hosting picture so it’s a good thing. Otherwise we would go back to the days of Hawaii not ever being considered to host because of the distance from other schools. We were fortunate the Pac12 introduced and backed that rule change and Hawaii would be screwed again if they did away with it. (And there is no indication that they are considering that.)
No, it has nothing to do with my thinking it is official. Obviously it’s an official document. It’s just not stating what some would like it to. Sorry.
And yes, any potential changes to make the selection process more fair is definitely a good thing.
maybe if you repeat it one more time ….. 😉
I never said it was expanded to 25. I said ” 25 is the new magical number” for hosting meaning that if you fell out of the top 25 in ALL of the three criteria announced by AVCA you won’t be hosting.
@20 No, let’s just continue with this valuable discussion of what could be if only….
hightop – i think it’s fine if you don’t think the discussion is not valuable … that would be your opinion. we’re all entitled.
no one here is disagreeing with you. no one is saying that there’s been an official change in the way the selection committee will do things. which you keep repeating over and over. but i guess you’d be entitled to that too. so carry on, i guess … 🙂
…”if you don’t think the discussion is valuable …?” … i think i had one too many negatives in my post… oops 🙂
Cubicle, of course you’re entitled but you are the one snapping at me because apparently I offended your delicate sensibilities.
By all means keep discussing your dreams for the future but don’t make snide remarks at my posts when I’m just adding to the discussion. Sorry if it irritates you.
I guess I would also add a passive-aggressive smiley in this spot like you but, gee, I don’t know how.
Carry on, folks.
Agreed with hightop, I’d wait on my opinion until something solid on the books, otherwise, I still wish world peace on my wish list and for the Wahine put a ban aid on the bleeding and win a championship as my second wish.
Carry on, it’s been an interesting few days for the Wahine fans.
Beauston and Hightop are the same person. 😉
Now that Hawai`i doesn’t have to worry about the top 16 we can relax.Just stay in the top 25 of AVCA poll,Pablo or RPI.
27. I’m in between flights right now out of IAD, wish I have the time, patience and energy Hightop had put in to this.
Cindy, what do you mean that you “will charge for baby-sitting?” Are we going to have to pay you to write a blog? Please clarify.
alright hightop — i didn’t realize i was “snapping” at you … or that you took it that way. i thought all this was a discussion back-and-forth … i wasn’t offended in the least bit. i don’t take what’s said anonymously on a blog or online forum too seriously… hence the 🙂 emoticons. that said, now who’s being “sensitive”? … oh well. it kinda looks like i’ve hit a nerve with you, so i’ll leave it be…
30. it was in reference to continually having to monitor the oftentimes childish behavior exhibited here. hence the baby-sitting charge.
I think this is a smoke screen to throw off the disgruntled who start building their cases against the NCAA committee in November. The key for me is the word POTENTIAL -very loaded in this use – nothing ACTUAL just possibly. Anyway they don’t need 25 sites do they (I know all 25 are not equipped to/or able to host) but seems they only need 16 right? Nice tidbit but I’m not inclined to bite. Would rather play into contention and not leave it up to ”impartiality’ of any committee. Go Wahine!
Please forgive me if I’m asking too basic of a question.
Someone please correct me if I’m not understanding the progression correctly.
The ultimate goal is to win a national championship this year.
In order to do that we have to make it through five rounds to get to the finals.
The first round is 64 teams and the second round is 32 teams.
The third (16 teams), fourth (8 teams) rounds are held at sites that are already determined.
Where is the semifinal round (4 teams) held? If it is at the site of the finals then it is already determined.
A bunch of schools wanting to host the first and second rounds will submit proposals to the NCAA and attempt to make a case as to why they should be granted that previlege.
The NCAA will make a decision on first and second round hosting based upon whatever criteria or combination of criteria they want to use (RPI, AVCA ranking, coaches poll, BCS affiliation, phase of the moon, etc). It sounds like there is not a lot of transparency in that first & second round hosting decision making and that seems unlikely to change for this tournament.
The pertinent question then is what can Na Wahine do to enhance their chances that the NCAA hosting committee will look favorably upon our bid to host those opening rounds? The answer is very simple. They have to return to playing very high quality, focused, guttsy, leave-it-all-on-the-court matches. There is much debate about how they can do that, but somehow the team and coaches will need to work that out. It doesn’t mean that Na Wahine must win out; remember that in every match there is always a highly motivated capable opponent who is doing their utmost to win the match. But, there is nothing else at this point that Na Wahine can do that will alter the NCAA hosting committee’s decision. There is nothing we as fans can do to alter the NCAA hosting committee’s decision except to show them that we can provide an exceptional experience for the teams that would be sent our way. And the only way we can do that is to pack the SSC, be loud and proud for our team, heartily applaud great play by whatever teams makes them, and embrace what hopefully will be a magical ride deep into the tournament. Go Wahine!
I truly believe we lost our way out of hosting after last week’s losses. At this point and time, we just better hope we win the Big West to ensure a ticket into the Big Dance. A lot of the Big West teams are leaking right now and playing like they have nothing to lose.
I truly believe we lost our way out of hosting after last week’s losses. At this point and time, we just better hope we win the Big West to ensure a ticket into the Big Dance. A lot of the Big West teams are peaking right now and are playing like they have nothing to lose.
prediction, hawaii will have to travel for the first couple of rounds and if we can see the hawaii of the first few weekends then they still have a huge chance of making it really far. I’m not going to let these 3 losses define how far they will go in the tournament.
We shall see the mastermind Coach Shoji find the solution. The original lineup will not take us there. There is a few girls that need to be given a chance to start. More experience and more passion.(motivation) is the component missing. There is no CHEMISTRY right now .I feel Hartong, Longo, and Kastl. Starts. Olevao or Taylor alternates. Vorster, Adolpho, Tuaniga alternates. Mendoza and the 2 local ds alternates. Our middles look slower and bigger than the first part of the season. What happened? I will live and die with Kastl because I love her court demeanor better than any other OH other than Emily. She can be inconsistent but so are the others. There is just such a better chance for our team to have more senior leadership. The babies have shown and now time to take a break and get view from the bench. If this doesnt motivate any girl nothing will. So, experiment, and get every player and coach out if their comfort boxes. There may be some surprising rewards if you let go!
So I side with Hightop in the above argument.
I have said over and over again that the RPI Top 10 schools are in. All RPI Top 10 schools will likely be seeded by the NCAA as one of its 16 seeds, and thus be automatically awarded a subregional hosting bid. That leaves 6 “bubble” openings.
I previously stated that those 6 “bubble” openings will be fought among those in the RPI 11 ~ 21, 22, or 23. The AVCA has expanded my cutoff number for these “bubble” openings to anyone in the AVCA Top 25, Pablo Top 25, or NCAA RPI Top 25. Makes sense, and I agree with their decision except …
What’s interesting and WHAT HAS NOT BEEN STATED THUS FAR by other posters is that the AVCA has thrown out (without saying so) the long-standing minimum “above .500” W-L record as a requirement not just to host but to receive an at-large bid!
Thus Illinois — with a current 9-11 record — is now in the field of 33 schools that can be considered the marquee candidates to host Rounds 1-2. In my previous postings, I wondered out loud if Illinois would even be in the NCAA Championship — even though it is one of the 4 predetermined regional sites — with its losing record. The AVCA has just answered my question — unintentionally.
If Hawaii doesn’t host the opening rounds, so be it. If by some chance they don’t make the postseason tournament, so be it. Life’s not fair. It just is what it is. The only thing to do is focus on returning to very high quality play and finishing the season in a manner Na Wahine can be proud of. All us fans can and must do, is show up, stand up and enthusiastically support the team to whatever destination the season takes them. Na Wahine deserve no less.
Na wahine are too easy to scout. i say go back to what was subtly done in sets 3/4 of the davis game and forget about the 5th set fiasco. tear that apart and start with that rotation. quality teams are now losing because of better stewardship/coaching on the other side of the net…
one example is USC.
35. the semifinal and final at same site. This year in Seattle
As for proposals for hosting 1st-2nd round … it doesn’t matter what UH proposes, if the past is any indication. UH has guaranteed money that exceeds the cost to the NCAA to send three teams here.
one ‘excuse’ given by the NCAA is that UH’s bid has only been for Thursday-Friday dates, which they deem too little time to get three teams out to UH in order to have the mandated practice the day prior to the first round at the host site. which we know is ridiculous, particularly if sending three teams from the west coast.
But this year UH doesn’t have the conflict with Saturday football so that Friday-Saturday slot is available.
The NCAA has shown it doesn’t care about making money on volleyball. The last time UH hosted a first round, the attendance was larger than that of the combined first rounds of the 15 other sites.
And I know of one school who, a few years ago, was a designated host when the school had not put in a proposal to host.
40. whether unspoken or not, not sure the ‘above .500’ has been thrown out.
what the release said was that these 33 teams meet at least one of the criteria
As of Oct. 28, Illiinois was No. 22 in the RPI (criteria is Top 25)
Illinois does not meet the other two criteria: No. 30 in Pablo and No. 33 in the AVCA poll.
you can see the comparisons at RichKern.com lists Rich Kern, Pablo, AVCA poll & VB Mag poll (Not official RPI)
http://www.richkern.com/vb/rankings/FreePageRankings.asp
33. Grammy, all you have to do is look at what happened to UH last year as to the bias (impartiality) of the committee. How could the Wahine have played their way into contention any more than they did last year when going 18-0 in the Big West. That the one loss to Cal the second week of the season basically dismissed what the Wahine did over the next three months speaks volumes.
Coming into the final week of the season last year, UH was No. 16 in the RPI, No. 8 in the coaches poll. Conveniently, UH was No. 17 when the RPI came out with the tournament brackets.
But as someone has pointed out, a team can be a top 16 seed and not host first-second round. Hawaii has been in that situation and was sent on the road to open the tournament.
#^. Good point with “What’s interesting and…”
#35. Great synoptic review for everyone.
#39. Aunty, +1,ooo,ooo with your assessment.
Cohesion is not there as you’ve alluded and dispite “progression(s)” in this new sport’s era, simple athleticism STILL can not trump personality clashes in the female game especially.
And what’s up with Hartong getting roofed to find herself on the gym floor, hanging her head and creating much negative vibes for those concerned.
*I do hope that someone from the WVB staff does check-in here on VS from time to time.
#42. Pls. How dare better s/coaching be suggested. EVERYONE makes mistakes occasionally, eh. The Mustangs might want to think about going Div.II; an eight team BW conf. could work.
#38. “Hah?”
*******
UH, I like it outta WA, will probably end up in San Diego (w/ UCLA and T-E-A-M vs. Wisconsin)..I’d take this sub with VERY high hopes/expectations.
44. So to that I throw my contentious two cents in… Yes it would seem based on facts, that Hawai’i’s seeding somehow managed to be right-corrected come post season by the NCAA seeding committee. Yes to them as a body, hawai’i had to meet more specific criteria such as not losing to Cal in a pre season tournament even though other similarly ranked schools could and did lose early in preseason and not get dinked probably because of the conference it is a member of. Yet year after year Dave comes out and heralds’ the new season in, with goals for preseason, season and post season only to find that there was something that Hawai’i did or didn’t do that prohibits a good seed and/or host the first two rounds. And now that this season is in full swing, losing in conference, to teams that, let’s face facts, get no respect at all (maybe CSNU), to me will give the committee more reason to right-correct Hawai’i’s seeding (if any), in a downward direction. So my simple question is, why not make it the ONLY goal for this team to win, win, win!!! i was told by a local former ILH high school coach for boys, that no matter what Hawai’i does in season means nothing to the committee. To them, the problem is the conference as it is currently. Not how it was in the hey day or what it could be, but how it is now. And until Hawai’i becomes part of a stronger conference, they will suffer come seeding time. That is why I am so adamant that Hawai’i finds other player combinations to get us to the post season. Like other top coaches have said in numerous after loss match interviews. We don’t play the game its up to the players to execute. if they cannot, then adjustments will be made. And they do and they don’t look back or worry about it. Why? Because to them winning teaches a lot more than losing and they are not paid to be losers. it’s not personal its Division 1 volleyball.
Please keep your rants short and sweet.Seriously when I see more than a few lines I pass right over them, don’t even read them.
47. got it, just don’t read it. 48. I’d rather they turn their frown upside down. Bwahahaha
@^.
@34., Vfa
@38., aunty/Grace
@41., Jake
@37., Erik
Surveys show that people who are obsessed readers/users of comment sections don’t bother with anything more that two or three sentences but the same surveys showed that when double spacing is use they are more inclined to read it,yes weird but true.
Some of the bigger news media outlets actually employ people to post in their comment sections to further their cause or support the writer of the article.
Recently we learned that Fox News,CNN,New York Times are just a few of many.Even bloggers post under fictitious names, right Cindy ?
52. I don’t post under any other name than my own and am insulted by your insinuation.
That we don’t require registration does mean that people can use more than one name.
I have never heard of anyone employing people to post on the comment section to further a cause.
That is just not ethical journalism.
I really hope that this team is done losing conference matches.
Ethical journalism is a thing of the past. Americas #1 enemy is the media.
52. I am my own writer. As evident by my misspelled words. I am however a long time fan/player of volleyball and the Wahines. The transformation and popularity of this sport keeps me excited. lol. Hence the word FAN(natic).
Despite her ‘celeberity’, which easily makes things that much more difficult, I believe Cindy has ethics and most importantly her journalism proves it. Mahalo, Cin!!
MSNBC goes way beyond employed bloggers. How much “group think” can any one person continue to escribe (in belief)/muster (for strife)???
Quite a few I’m guessing on this blog actually believe taht crap which the station airs…
extra ‘e’, oops!
Sometimes you wish for your team to be invincible as na Wahine have been in its conference. Processing changes can be hard to understand, so we look for solutions. In the end, we are not the coach of this team. It’s Dave decision.
Although I’m not accusing anyone at the SA of this practice what is stopping any reporter from commenting in their own blog ?
From a book called Murdoch’s World
Fox’s PR staffers would “post pro-Fox rants” in the comments sections of “negative and even neutral” blog posts written about the network.
According to Folkenflik, the staffers used various tactics to cover their tracks, including setting up wireless broadband connections that “could not be traced back” to the network.
A former staffer told Folkenflik that they had personally used “one hundred” fake accounts to plant Fox-friendly commentary:
55. thank you.
59. just responding to your, “Right, Cindy?”
True, there is nothing stopping anyone from that practice. other than moral and ethical obligation to their readers and their profession.
as for Fox and Murdoch and TV …. not the same as what we do at our newspaper.
not sure how the ‘comment section’ boosts a story. unless a national media were to pick up one of our stories and actually give us credit. Which I have seen less and less of, even the Associated Press has begun hesitating to credit our paper. I know several local radio stations which read our stories verbatim on the air without attribution as do some of TV stations. but that’s another issue.
54. I disagree. Ethical journalism and journalists are very much alive and well. However it is those who aren’t that give the rest of us a bad name.
I think the immediacy of the internet has created the problem. as well as the acceptance of anonymity for credible comments.
There is that one school of thought: Never let facts stand in the way of a good story (because they can always run a correction).
Sadly the days of “Rather be right than first’ are gone.
The goal should be Be First AND Be Right.
anyway, need to finish other story. be back later
Cindy — Last year, there may have been other reasons why hawaii was not seeded. hawaii had a 17 rpi last year at the close of the regular season, but also #14-north carolina and #15-texas a&m were also passed over for seeds by #18-iowa st and #19-kentucky.
more than the loss to california, the nitty gritty of hawaii’s schedule may have been what left hawaii without a seed last year. hawaii went 1-1 against top 25 rpi teams, and 3-2 against top 50 rpi teams. there was arguably not a lot for the committee to go on.
of the two lower rpi teams that got seeded, iowa st had a better nitty gritty (going 4-4 against top 25 rpi teams and 8-6 against top 50 rpi teams). the head-scratcher was kentucky, who many on the VT board questioned when the seeds were released. kentucky had gone 3-5 against top 25 rpi teams, and 5-8 against top 50 rpi teams.
based on that, i can see how iowa st would get seeded over hawaii … but not kentucky. iowa st also had a win over texas in the last 2 weeks of the regular season.
even if kentucky wasn’t seeded, it’s not entirely assured that hawaii would have beaten out 14-north carolina or 15-texas a&m for a seed. maybe hawaii would have beaten out texas a&m, who did not have a good nitty gritty part of their record (0-4 against top 25 rpi teams, and 3-5 against top 50).
but north carolina last year had a nitty gritty that on paper was kinda similar to hawaii (1-2 against top 25 rpi, and 4-4 against the top 50). and north carolina had the “benefit,” if you will, of the higher rpi at the end of the season.
i don’t know ultimately if this is how the committee decided things. i too wish that the process was more transparent. but we do know that the committee looks at the nitty gritty of the schedule for the teams who are on the bubble for a seed, which hawaii certainly was last year.
thank you for your comments.
however the bias towards BCS conferences that has filtered over to volleyball is unwarranted, especially toward the SEC teams, none of which have ever won a volleyball title.
The NCAA did its seeding and bracket in part to help its ‘geographic pods’ Ergo Kentucky.
I will admit my bias, but only in that I would like it to be fair all the way around and not have some brackets loaded and others not due to agenda and convenience.
49. You Gotta B Kiddin’ Me, if you are suggesting that I’m someone else who posts under other names, I can only say I am not. Everyone is free to believe anything they want. I am new to this blog because I had the opportunity after having attended UH 40+ years ago to attend my FIRST Wahine VB match at UC Davis. So having seen a match in person, I had something useful to contribute which I posted on the “rewind” topic.
Cindy — the two higher ranked RPI teams (texas a&m and north carolina) were from the SEC and ACC, respectively. both are BCS conferences. the two lower ranked RPI teams that got seeded last year (iowa st and kentucky) are from the Big-12 and SEC. so really the committee was just swapping two BCS teams for two other BCS teams, including one SEC team for another.
if kentucky was seeded in order to have enough “geographic pods” for sub-regionals (and on this point, i agree, that looks like what was done last year), then i would think that speaks — not to a BCS bias — but either a regional bias or a defect in the criteria given to the committee to select seeds and hosts.
if you’re talking about a bias in the RPI, then that too is more a regional bias than a BCS-related one. and i know you and i have had this back-and-forth before. there’s some interesting discussions on VT right now looking at the regional bias of the RPI, with some hard numbers to back it up.
Anybody know the dude Reardon?
*******
Vfa, thanks. You’re pretty insightful for someone 40+ years tardy..and truancy?? 😉
Shoji’s delima is that is that he’s missing Croson-like-skill type, period. Too many of the OHs are stagnant in their own talents and with sooo many of them, indistinguishable, it’s a crap shoot for Dave to place any of them in the lineup (& at ANY given moment).
I wonder what offensive system would allow for the most T-E-A-M members to be involved/contributing while providing for optimal “personal satisfactions”?
66. Thanks. Yes I am a very latecomer to sports as I was/am a pretty mediocre athelete. Fortunately my kids are much better athletes than I ever was and they played competitive team sports for both club and high school. I got involved from the parent booster club end and was peripherally involved with fund raising (uniforms, equipment, etc), transportation, but mostly just trying to be a supportive fan.
Among every coach’s dilema is always how to best utilize the skills available to him. I’ve not watch enough Wahine VB besides the UC Davis match I attended to be able to intelligently comment on the personel mix or tactical move so you won’t hear any of that from me.
So does this mean Hawaii still has a chance to host?
How come my other comment was not posted?
I have a quesiton. Say hawaii lost to texas but beat northridge. Would their rpi be the same? Since there is no bad loss or good win?
67. Again, thanks. This is SOLELY on me but my dilemma *honestly* is that this computer I type on is w/o Word–cutting/pasting.
I need OpenOffice asap on this PC.
😉
Btw, some one on VT gave a workable, present lineup for this 2013 Na Wahine. It could be found in the CSUN vs. Hawai’i (10-24-13) thread.
64. don’t think you were being accuse of anything.
I did, however, feel that I was being accused of posting under another name.
I do wish, though, that others would avail themselves of spellcheck or dictionary.com
It’s dilemma not delima. unless it’s intended to be a play on Frank DeLima.
sometimes we live here too long. It’s like going to IKEA and I have to think how to pronounce it. eye-KEE-uh or ee-KAY-uh.
My apologies to “You Gotta B Kiddin’ Me”. I wasn’t understanding what was meant by mentioning me in #49.
Cindy, I believe that both you and Ann are wonderfully descriptive, highly ethical and above reproach morally based on my many years of reading your articles. I really don’t feel comfortable with those who comment so basely and cast aspersions and throw mud on people who are doing the best they can at their jobs to give us insights and background on this team that we mostly follow, support and want to see win. But I guess when there’s no more vitriol left for the Warriors, some of it spills over and gets aimed at any team that wears the H. I don’t see it as good and if you have to demand full disclosure, I’m sure the haters would find ways to beat that, anyway. Notice they’re the first to comment when posts aren’t instantaneous or deleted. They seem more concerned about what they are saying then what anyone else says and respond immediately when they feel challenged. I say get a life and stop taking themselves so seriously. And as always for me it’s, Go Wahine!
Sorry to hear about trash talking. But then again, the topic here is on Women’s volleyball or men’s volleyball. There are a lot of blogs and forums out there with 15,000 post and all tailored towards PPMcquire and this one may have even a stranger twist.
68. yes, Hawaii still has a chance to host. they meet all 3 of the criteria,
which is Top 25 in the RPI, Pablo and AVCA poll.
69. don’t know what comment you mean Brandon. want to try to repost?
So some people were saying hawaii wouldn’t even make the tournament. Is that even a probability? I don’t think it is but some say so
77. It posted Cindy thanks! It was the question if they lost to Texas but best northeidge
The great thing about twitter is no one removes your post. Twitter is a great place to trash people you don’t like.
Have a safe and fun Halloween Cindy! and everyone. See you at the SSC Friday. Go Wahine!
Emily Hartong is a finalist for the Senior CLASS Award so go vote now!
http://www.seniorclassaward.com/news/view/volleyball_finalists_announced_for_the_2013_senior_class_award/
see new thread on Hartong
78. Sure it’s a possibility that UH won’t make the tournament if they keep losing.
We’ll I meant if they win out or lose one more. Would they still make the tournament
lose one more … don’t know. all depends on how the rest of the Big West does. they definitively need to be above .500 in the BWC, IMHO.
loki – if hawaii loses one more match, they will still make the tournament. their rpi would take another drop from the loss, but it will not drop so much that they won’t get an at-large bid to the tournament. it would take a lot more losses for hawaii to not make the tournament.
70,79. Regarding the first two components of the RPI, a loss to Texas combined with a win over Northridge will have the same value as a win over Texas combined with a loss over Northridge. Can’t say about the third component exactly without a computer model/spreadsheet, however any differences are likely to be very small.
88. Thanks! I was always assuming that if they beat good teams the RPI goes up. This is why i was shocked last year because hawaii beat stanford. Thanks for the clarification! I now see why hawaii sometimes isnt seeded. They only play top ranked teams pre season.But cant being in the pac 12 sometimes be bad because even ranked teams lose 5 times in the conference?
Because its not nessesarly how good the team is. Because lets say texas went 15-5 over the season but were ranked one. And lets say colorado who went perfect but was ranked 15. Even if a team did beat texas wouldnt it hurt their ranking more than if they beat colorado.
Fans of the Boston Red Sox know that almost all the players have beards, which they grew as a sign of the team’s camaraderie and bond.
Not that I am suggesting the Wahine grow beards (lol) but they need something to bring them together and have fun again. Any suggestions we can pass on to Team Shoji?
….
http://ohiomcginn.dyndns-at-home.com/ncaastats/volleyball-rpi.cgi#
…
Re: 43 Just read the response. In my original response, a subregional hosting bid for Illinois was not even in the cards.
Now along comes the AVCA, which as you write has determined “these 33 teams meet at least one of the criteria” for one of the 16 subregional hosting bids. If a team has met the subregional-host criteria, its at-large bid to the NCAA Championship tournament is not even in question.
Here is where we disagree. I am saying that Illinois has not even met the at-large criteria, and is therefore currently not even among those that can expect to receive an at-large bid should it fail to reach the minimum “above .500” W-L overall record. The AVCA begs to differ, saying that as one of the 33 potential hosts of a subregional, its at-large bid is a presumptive lock, thus leading me to believe that guidelines are being rewritten.
Just a lot of speculation, and not even worth considering until the regular season ends.
93. you can disagree if you like but Illinois is No. 22 in the RPI, which is one of the criteria.
they don’t meet any of the other.
Sorry for my double posting! It won’t show my comments at times! I apologize