Volleyball Thread

[wadesworld]

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?

[wadesworld]

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!

[ChicosBailBonds]

It would be like having 100 teams in the NCAA basketball tournament. Why?

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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!

Why the hyperbole?  Going from 6 to 8 teams, adding two means trophies for everyone?  Means INVITE them all?  SMH

Problem is, with Title IV, nobody's adding men's volleyball at the DI-II level.

This 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 DIII
UC San Diego going from DII to DI


Moving from NAIA to NCAA DII
Emmanuel
Concordia (just down the road from me)
Holy Names

Lincoln Memorial Univ.  starts DII next year

[wadesworld]

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.

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.

[wadesworld]

Why the hyperbole?  Going from 6 to 8 teams, adding two means trophies for everyone?  Means INVITE them all?  SMH


This 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 DIII
UC San Diego going from DII to DI


Moving from NAIA to NCAA DII
Emmanuel
Concordia (just down the road from me)
Holy Names

Lincoln 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 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hey, some of those Puerto Rican club teams were damn good. Especially at the 15s and 16s level.

Volleyball in Puerto Rico is essentially the national sport, along with basketball.  Some great competition down there.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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 

You said nobody, I gave you some, including UCSD and Grand Canyon.  "Nobody", your term, was wrong.  I also didn't list any Puerto Rico schools, oh by the way.

[wadesworld]

You said nobody, I gave you some, including UCSD and Grand Canyon.  Nobody was wrong.

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.

[wadesworld]

Hey, some of those Puerto Rican club teams were damn good. Especially at the 15s and 16s level.

Yeah they are, particularly because they don't have to supply a birth certificate until 17s year so they're like 18 year olds playing with 15 year olds (but seriously, some kids I coached my 2nd year who were playing 16s found some of the players from a Puerto Rican team at 16s Nationals on Facebook and they were all listing their birthdays as like 19 year old kids and listed as attending some university down there).  Shady stuff.

Volleyball in Puerto Rico is essentially the national sport, along with basketball.  Some great competition down there.

Right, but they don't compete with NCAA DI-II men's volleyball programs despite being considered "NCAA DI-II."

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

There are under 40 teams in NCAA beach volleyball, yet they have 8 teams in the NCAA tournament.

[wadesworld]

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.

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

Again, if you want to consider programs who will add men's volleyball as an independent and then fail, only to drop out of DI-II in a couple years, so be it.  We should definitely invite them to the NCAA Tournament!

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

Why look at the worst of the volleyball tournament and then look at the 40th worst out of 68 teams of the basketball tournament?  That doesn't make much sense...Looks like someone else may need work on his denominators?

Considering George Mason actually took a set off of Ohio State while the best of the MPSF couldn't (BYU) I think they probably did do "as well or potentially better" than Stanford or UCSB could/would have.

But once again, you could make the exact same argument for the NCAA basketball tournament.  Do you really think Holy Cross could or would have done more damage than Monmouth or St. Mary's or Valpo?  Come on.  Then again, you want to leave the AQs out of the argument for men's basketball, but include them for men's volleyball.  So of course that makes sense.

Here's the thing.  Stanford and UCSB had their chance to do as well or potentially better than those schools.  Stanford was sitting in 1st place in the MPSF, looking at hosting the MPSF Tournament heading into the last week of the season.  They couldn't win either of their last 2 matches, and then lost their first match of the MPSF Tournament at home.  Their fault for not closing out the season.  Only themselves to blame, not the lack of a participation invite into the NCAA Tournament.  Same thing with UCSB.  Don't go 1-7 against the top 4 MPSF teams and you don't have to complain that you didn't get an NCAA Tournament bid for trying really hard.  UCLA, LBSU, and BYU all had their chances to do damage in the NCAA Tournament out of the MPSF.  None did.  UCSB was 0-6 against those teams.  Sorry, but you weren't good enough.

Now, how else do you want to shift the goal posts?  Let's look at non-AQ participants in the men's basketball tournament, but then shift our goalposts to all participants for the men's volleyball tournament.  Fair enough, if it makes sense to you then it must be right.  Anywhere else you would like to place some goalposts?

Heck, let's just give out invites to all teams in all sports.  They all have very dedicated student athletes who put a lot of time and effort into their sports and studies.  It's only fair that everyone gets a shot at a championship after not performing well enough throughout an entire season.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[wadesworld]

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?

Sure, I want the top teams in the Tournament.  So let's get rid of all AQ bids to all sport tournaments I guess.  Makes sense.  Eliminate any chance of any non-power conference teams in any sport getting a shot to win a National Championship.  Let's let this Power 5 conference break from the NCAA happen after all!  No chance for Nova to win an NCAA Men's Basketball title, no chance for UCONN to win an NCAA Men's Basketball title, etc.  Good idea.

No, UCSB was not good enough to win the whole NCAA Title.  They were 0-6 against the 3 teams out of their conference that made the field (none of which even won the NCAA Championship).  Stanford had every chance in the world to make the Tournament, and couldn't do it.  I was really hoping Conrad got another shot at a title and for most of the year it looked like he was going to get that shot.  But they didn't finish out the season.  Sorry, but the season doesn't end in April.  If the Brewers season could've ended in mid-August in 2014 they would've been in the Playoffs!  Too bad it didn't.  If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.  But she doesn't so she's my aunt.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wades...

Are UCSB and Stanford better than Erkskine and George Mason?

Simple question.

[wadesworld]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

Volleyball isn't played on a rating system.  The RPI for men's (and even women's) volleyball is a joke.  If you know anything about college volleyball you know that.  Ohio State had a much more difficult time with George Mason in the NCAA Tournament than they did with BYU in the NCAA Tournament.  BYU went 3-1 against Stanford and UCSB, so no, I'm not sold that Stanford or UCSB would absolutely do better than George Mason.

I get it.  You want like half of the men's volleyball programs to make the NCAA Tournament.  These kids work really hard in the classroom and in the gym so give them their participation invite into the NCAA Tournament because they're a hard working group of people.  Personally I don't see any need to bring 10 (weird number, not sure what kind of schedule you want there) teams into the NCAA Tournament and be away from school during the entire Finals week for almost all schools.

Why should the top 10 teams in NCAA men's volleyball all get the chance to participate in the NCAA Tournament?   That's absurd.  Let's put 30% of all programs in the NCAA Tournament.  Awesome.  Like I said, let's go with 100 basketball teams in the NCAA Tournament.  Let's make a 50 team NCAA football tournament.  And while we're at all this let's remove all auto bids and just make it 100 and 50 at large bids going to the highest ranked teams based on some computer numbers that only care about who you play and where you play them and not on results.  That sounds like an awesome way to run college sports.  Invite everyone and rank based on some algorithms.  Great.

Monmouth was going to get a 14 or 15 seed as an at large?  That'd be new.  Holy Cross and Monmouth have to do with this because it's the worst team in the NCAA basketball field and the biggest snub, just like Erskine and Stanford are the worst team in the field and the biggest snub for men's volleyball.

There are 2 or 3 teams in any given year that can win the men's volleyball title.  Inviting everyone for trying hard isn't going to change the result.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And about the NCAA having 8 teams in beach volleyball yet less than 40 overall teams.....