Kolek planning to go pro
UCLA, USC will be just fine. All of those schools will still be playing the Big West and vice versa. The only difference is the standings and an extra bid. The talent will mostly still be on the west coast in high schools, most will stay out this way and others will go to play in the Midwest and East coast where there are opportunities. Stop with the Midwest and East coast nonsense and schools running scared. If anything, they know how powerful the MPSF is and this gives them a better chance of getting out from some of that, grabbing a bid. I don't blame them one bit. Won't change scheduling one bit, those same teams will still play the same teams.As for no one adding, that's not really true. Sure, it's not happening in droves because of Title IX and other reasons, but you have several schools moving from DIII up to DI, and a several NAIA schools moving to NCAA DII. You honestly think expanding the tournament from 6 to 8 is equivalent to everyone gets a trophy? Even going to 10 or 12 or 16, with byes...hardly. Six is too small, and it will be expanded. I guarantee it.Let's not go overboard here. No one is saying everyone gets a trophy.
It would be like having 100 teams in the NCAA basketball tournament. Why?
Pfieffer dropping from DI-II to DIII. That split of conferences really provided some momentum for men's college volleyball!But we should definitely be putting at least 8 teams into the NCAA Tournament! Just invite them all, you all tried really hard!
Problem is, with Title IV, nobody's adding men's volleyball at the DI-II level.
Horrible analogy. There are enough good players and good teams because of lack of opportunities to expand to 8 or more. Basketball has 350+ DI teams, the opportunities are abundant and rarely are excellent or very good teams left out. Because of the limitations in men's volleyball driven by Title IX and other considerations, that isn't the case in this sport.
Why the hyperbole? Going from 6 to 8 teams, adding two means trophies for everyone? Means INVITE them all? SMHThis is where you get into MU82 territory. Your statement is false..."nobody adding to DI or DII level? That is not true. Here's the list, now you can deny it like MU82 does with his posts, but I would hope you would just admit your hyperbole is simply wrong.Grand Canyon U transitioning to DI from DIIIUC San Diego going from DII to DIMoving from NAIA to NCAA DIIEmmanuelConcordia (just down the road from me)Holy NamesLincoln Memorial Univ. starts DII next year
Let me guess, you consider the 4 schools from Puerto Rico that are considered independent NCAA DI-DII men's volleyball programs to be part of NCAA men's volleyball as well
Hey, some of those Puerto Rican club teams were damn good. Especially at the 15s and 16s level.
You said nobody, I gave you some, including UCSD and Grand Canyon. Nobody was wrong.
Volleyball in Puerto Rico is essentially the national sport, along with basketball. Some great competition down there.
How is it a bad analogy? Go take a look at the percentage of teams in each sport and let's make it equal. So, let's throw 100 teams into the NCAA Tournament.When there are under 40 teams in DI-II men's college volleyball, if you can't finish in the top 3 of your conference, sorry that I don't feel bad that you didn't get your participation invite into the NCAA Tournament.
UCSD and GCU were both already part of DI-II NCAA men's volleyball. Come on. UCSD has been in the MPSF. GCU has been in the MIVA. Moving from "DII" to "DI" in men's volleyball is not moving at all.
When there are under 40 teams in DI-II men's college volleyball, if you can't finish in the top 3 of your conference, sorry that I don't feel bad that you didn't get your participation invite into the NCAA Tournament.
Just like Merrit's argument on Vander, you guys have trouble with denominators apparently. There are many fewer opportunities for men's volleyball because there are fewer teams....ARTIFICIALLY fewer because of budgets, TITLE IX, etc, etc. Taking 100 teams for the basketball tournament and comparing it to taking 8 teams in volleyball assumes that the talent drop off from teams 6 to 7 & 8 is the same as the talent drop off from 68 to 100. You know that is ridiculous, that's why your analogy is horrible.The talent is there to have 8 teams, or even more, but the number of teams in men's volleyball are artificially suppressed. The same cannot be said for men's basketball, where there is no suppression of opportunity, and thus the number of teams that play D1.
I also gave you four schools that went from NAIA to NCAA DII....you said nobody was adding to DI or DII. You were wrong. Come on, just own it...you can do it.
Actually, I would definitely argue that team 68 in the NCAA Tournament is WORSE than team 100. In fact, team number 68 in the NCAA Tournament this year had an RPI of 249. Team number 100 would be right around an LSU, Arizona State, UCLA, etc. If you think Holy Cross was significantly better than those 3 teams were, hey, to each their own I guess.
Then use team 100 compared to team 40, once you get out form the AQ's in hoops. This is about quality of play from team 6 to 8...not much drop off. A bigger drop off from team 40 to team 100. Here's my argument. UCSB was the 6th rated men's volleyball team this year in the RPI...5th in the college polls. They didn't go. They easily could have done some damage in the tournament if top 8 were taken. That's just one example. Stanford is another. Does anyone really believe Stanford or UCSB doesn't do as well or potentially better than Erksine and George Mason? Come on.
Stanford and UCSB's chances are hindered because of the conference they are in, which is the best conference in the NCAA in terms of the top teams. Of the top 6 teams, 5 were from the MPSF. 6 of the top 9. 7 of the top 11. Much more difficult road to get in because of the quality of the conference. The poll you love to use, MPSF 7 of the top 8 spots. WAY more difficult to get through and get a bid.The tournament would be better with a Stanford, UCSB, etc that are better teams than Mason and Erksine. I actually want Mason and Erkskine in there, which is why going from 6 to 8 is easily done and would actually IMPROVE the quality of the tournament.Your basketball argument....in the last 5 years, how many #2 or #3 seeds have we seen lose in the first round? #1 seeds lose in the second round? More than a handful, which shows that anything can happen and they deserved their shot. UCSB and Stanford were good enough to win the entire men's volleyball tournament. They have the talent to do so. The 90th ranked NCAA men's basketball team does not. You're a smart guy, how can you honestly say that Stanford and UCSB are lesser teams than two that got in? Polls don't show that. Power rankings don't show that. Eyeballs don't show that. Do you want the top teams in the tournament or not?
Wades...Are UCSB and Stanford better than Erkskine and George Mason?Simple question.
Erskine yes. George Mason maybe.Is Monmouth better than Holy Cross?Simple question.
Maybe....please. Not even close, in any rating system you want to use.What does your Monmouth or Holy Cross question have to do with anything? Those teams are typically seeded 14th or 15th in the NCAA men's tournament. I'm talking about expanding men's volleyball from 6 to 8 teams, maybe a few more....so gasp...the top 10 teams in the country can participate. Nothing compared to Monmouth or Holy Cross and their 100+ rankings. Not even close, but somehow you equate that to "everyone should get a trophy". Which is ironic, since I'm the last person in the world that believes in that crap. I do, however, find it ridiculous that schools like George Mason and Erskine are in the tournament and literally a top 5 team isn't, or a top 6 team isn't, because they play in such a brutal conference they can't get in. That's why, sooner rather than later, there will be expansion.I'm thrilled that the Big West did this, because it's going to open up expansion, and more legitimate teams will get in as a result.