[BobK]

No. 8 seed @StanfordWVB will host New Mexico St., Thursday, Dec. 3 at 7 pm in Maples. @CSUvolleyball vs @LMU_Volleyball to play at 4:30

[BobK]

No. 8 seed @StanfordWVB will host New Mexico St., Thursday, Dec. 3 at 7 pm in Maples. @CSUvolleyball vs @LMU_Volleyball to play at 4:30

[Spiny_Norman]

If Stanford advances, it will play in San Diego regional, potentially meeting overall #1 USC.

Big 10 does very well with #2, 4, 6, 7 and 12 seeds.

Pac 12 has 1, 5 and 8 seeds, all on the same side of the bracket.

[Spiny_Norman]

If Stanford advances, it will play in San Diego regional, potentially meeting overall #1 USC.

Big 10 does very well with #2, 4, 6, 7 and 12 seeds.

Pac 12 has 1, 5 and 8 seeds, all on the same side of the bracket.

[M T]

Pac 12 has 1, 5 and 8 seeds, all on the same side of the bracket.

Pac-12 also has the #14 seed (on the other side of the bracket), and two three other teams.

Seeding and AVCA rank Nov 30:
1. USC (2)
2. Minnesota (4)
3. Texas (3)
4. Nebraska (5)
5. Washington (1)
6. Wisconsin (10)
7. Penn St. ( 8 )
8. Stanford (6)
9. Kansas (9)
10. Texas A&M (15)
11. Florida (16)
12. Ohio St (14)
13. BYU (11)
14. UCLA (12)
15. Louisville (18)
16. Creighton  (> 25)

These two teams were ranked in the top-16 but not seeded in the top 16.
Hawaii (7)
Colorado State (13)

There were 23 at-large teams that were not seeded in the top-16.

Beyond the 4 seeded teams, these PAC-12 teams are also in the tournament, but unseeded:  Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon.

Using only the top-16 seeded teams, seeding of teams west of Central Time zone relative to the AVCA rankings of Nov 30:
    +1, -4, -2, -2, -2    (Hawaii  -10-,  Colorado State  -4-)
Central & Eastern Time zone times
    +2, 0, +1, +4, +1, 0, +5, +5, +2, +3, +10+
It sure looks like either the seeding or the rankings have a geographical component.

I notice that the two top seeds of the Big Ten got split into opposite sides of the bracket (if seeded as #4 and #5, they would be on the same side).  I notice that the two top seeds of the Big 12 got split into opposite sides of the bracket (same as their rank would give them).  SEC top 2 seeds are on the same side of the bracket, but their 3rd seed is on the opposite side.  PAC-12 top 3 seeds are on the same side of the bracket (by ranking, the top 2 teams would be on different sides), but their 4th seed is on the opposite side.

What do you think about putting the #1 ranked team as seed #5 so it has to play the #2 ranked team no later than the semi-finals?

Criminal?  Probably not.  Something that seems extremely unfair to the athletes?  Definitely. 

[M T]

Pac 12 has 1, 5 and 8 seeds, all on the same side of the bracket.

Pac-12 also has the #14 seed (on the other side of the bracket), and two three other teams.

Seeding and AVCA rank Nov 30:
1. USC (2)
2. Minnesota (4)
3. Texas (3)
4. Nebraska (5)
5. Washington (1)
6. Wisconsin (10)
7. Penn St. ( 8 )
8. Stanford (6)
9. Kansas (9)
10. Texas A&M (15)
11. Florida (16)
12. Ohio St (14)
13. BYU (11)
14. UCLA (12)
15. Louisville (18)
16. Creighton  (> 25)

These two teams were ranked in the top-16 but not seeded in the top 16.
Hawaii (7)
Colorado State (13)

There were 23 at-large teams that were not seeded in the top-16.

Beyond the 4 seeded teams, these PAC-12 teams are also in the tournament, but unseeded:  Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon.

Using only the top-16 seeded teams, seeding of teams west of Central Time zone relative to the AVCA rankings of Nov 30:
    +1, -4, -2, -2, -2    (Hawaii  -10-,  Colorado State  -4-)
Central & Eastern Time zone times
    +2, 0, +1, +4, +1, 0, +5, +5, +2, +3, +10+
It sure looks like either the seeding or the rankings have a geographical component.

I notice that the two top seeds of the Big Ten got split into opposite sides of the bracket (if seeded as #4 and #5, they would be on the same side).  I notice that the two top seeds of the Big 12 got split into opposite sides of the bracket (same as their rank would give them).  SEC top 2 seeds are on the same side of the bracket, but their 3rd seed is on the opposite side.  PAC-12 top 3 seeds are on the same side of the bracket (by ranking, the top 2 teams would be on different sides), but their 4th seed is on the opposite side.

What do you think about putting the #1 ranked team as seed #5 so it has to play the #2 ranked team no later than the semi-finals?

Criminal?  Probably not.  Something that seems extremely unfair to the athletes?  Definitely. 

[BostonCard]

I misread that as "we lost".  Would have been a bummer.

BC

[BostonCard]

I misread that as "we lost".  Would have been a bummer.

BC

[M T]

I plotted the increase in NCAA seed position versus AVCA rankings, and plotted it against longitude (see attached image).  Either AVCA rankings or NCAA seedings, or both, seem to have a geographic correlation.

The vertical axis is (Nov 29 NCAA seed -  Nov 30 AVCA rank).  Positive numbers mean the seed is higher than the rank.  The vertical axis shown separates the teams in the Eastern & Central time zones (and associated conferences) from those in other timezones (and conferences).

The schools plotted are those either in the top 16 seeds of the NCAA tournament (seeding only goes to #16) or the top 16 of the AVCA rankings.  (The unseeded teams that were ranked #17-#25 would have been problematic to include.  Seed them all #17 or  #17-25 or what?)


I'm looking for any good explanation......

[M T]

I plotted the increase in NCAA seed position versus AVCA rankings, and plotted it against longitude (see attached image).  Either AVCA rankings or NCAA seedings, or both, seem to have a geographic correlation.

The vertical axis is (Nov 29 NCAA seed -  Nov 30 AVCA rank).  Positive numbers mean the seed is higher than the rank.  The vertical axis shown separates the teams in the Eastern & Central time zones (and associated conferences) from those in other timezones (and conferences).

The schools plotted are those either in the top 16 seeds of the NCAA tournament (seeding only goes to #16) or the top 16 of the AVCA rankings.  (The unseeded teams that were ranked #17-#25 would have been problematic to include.  Seed them all #17 or  #17-25 or what?)


I'm looking for any good explanation......

[Spiny_Norman]

I plotted the increase in NCAA seed position versus AVCA rankings, and plotted it against longitude (see attached image).  Either AVCA rankings or NCAA seedings, or both, seem to have a geographic correlation.

The vertical axis is (Nov 29 NCAA seed -  Nov 30 AVCA rank).  Positive numbers mean the seed is higher than the rank.  The vertical axis shown separates the teams in the Eastern & Central time zones (and associated conferences) from those in other timezones (and conferences).

The schools plotted are those either in the top 16 seeds of the NCAA tournament (seeding only goes to #16) or the top 16 of the AVCA rankings.  (The unseeded teams that were ranked #17-#25 would have been problematic to include.  Seed them all #17 or  #17-25 or what?)


I'm looking for any good explanation......

MT, how does this assessment differ if you use RPIs instead of the coaches poll?

[Spiny_Norman]

I plotted the increase in NCAA seed position versus AVCA rankings, and plotted it against longitude (see attached image).  Either AVCA rankings or NCAA seedings, or both, seem to have a geographic correlation.

The vertical axis is (Nov 29 NCAA seed -  Nov 30 AVCA rank).  Positive numbers mean the seed is higher than the rank.  The vertical axis shown separates the teams in the Eastern & Central time zones (and associated conferences) from those in other timezones (and conferences).

The schools plotted are those either in the top 16 seeds of the NCAA tournament (seeding only goes to #16) or the top 16 of the AVCA rankings.  (The unseeded teams that were ranked #17-#25 would have been problematic to include.  Seed them all #17 or  #17-25 or what?)


I'm looking for any good explanation......

MT, how does this assessment differ if you use RPIs instead of the coaches poll?