UCSB will not likely receive an at-large bid, so it must win the WCC title and with it the AQ to take part in The Dance.

CSUN is now a “bubble” team. For CSUN to receive an at-large bid, the Volleyball [Selection] Committee will have to take away an invite to a BCS “bubble” team, such as UCLA/Pac-12 or Purdue/Big Ten or Arkansas/SEC. And when push comes to shove, the Volleyball Committee avoids currying the disfavor of BCS schools.

UH needs to win out and it will be seeded in the Top 16, and thus automatically be a subregional host. That Hawai’i will not win the BWC crown is not entirely irrelevant, as this will be the main argument used against seeding Hawai’i. (Thus it will be to Hawai’i’s advantage for LBSU to (wo)manhandle UCSB, and thus UH can claim to have a piece of the title before the tiebreaker.) But Hawai’i will be seeded as long as its RPI remains in the top 10.

BTW: TV announcers are spreading wrong info. If a team is in the NCAA RPI top 16, it does not necessarily mean it will be seeded as 1 of the top 16 teams in the nation.

The NCAA Championship Volleyball [Selection] Committee — not the computer-generated NCAA RPI — is the body that seeds the top 16, and the NCAA RPI is just one of the tools (albeit the most influential tool) used to seed teams 1 ~ 16 and used to determine at-large bids for the remainder of the 64-team field.

AQ (automatic qualifiers) receive automatic berths to the NCAA Championship, but even conference champions are under the control of the Volleyball Committee as the committee determines which teams are place in which bracket. And contrary to what the TV announcer said, not all conference champs are AQ to the NCAA Championship.

If UCSB wins out and UH wins out, UCSB wins the conference title outright as it will have two losses in conference vs. three for UH and CSUN.

If UH wins out, CSUN wins all remaining non-UH matches, and UCSB wins all but one of its remaining matches, then all three teams will have identical conference records. The conference tiebreaker formula says that teams will be ranked based on W-L records against the other tied teams. UCSB will be 3-1, UH will be 2-2 and CSUN will be 1-3. UCSB gets the AQ.

Assuming UH and UCSB tie (i.e., CSUN loses another match while UH wins out and UCSB loses once more), UCSB wins because first tiebreaker is record against each other (1-1), and next tiebreaker is record against common opponents beginning at the top of the conference standings, and the next team is CSUN. UH will be 1-1 and UCSB will be 2-0. UCSB gets the AQ.

For UH to win the AQ, it must win out and UCSB must lose two more matches in conference. UH and CSUN will be tied at the top of the conference and have identical conference records (assuming CSUN wins its remaining matches). They will each have a 1-1 record against each other. The next tiebreaker is record against common opponents beginning at the top of the conference standings. That would be third-place UCSB with four losses. UH will be 1-1 against UCSB and CSUN 0-2. UH gets the AQ.

You can read the detail in section 20.14 of the Big West bylaws, which can be found on the Big West site here: http://www.bigwest.org/code_book.asp. But in effect, the rules are generally based on match won-loss records. When three teams are tied, the tiebreakers are all based on match won-loss records. When two teams are tied, the first four tiebreakers are based on match won-loss records. The fifth and last involves point ratio across all conference matches.

The botttom line is that for UH to get the AQ, UH needs to win out and UCSB must lose two more matches.

That being said, the AQ is somewhat irrelevant as UH is going to get into the tournament regardless of whether it gets the AQ. My view is that UH should win out to maximize its RPI, get a higher seed, and host the first round matches.