2024 NCAA Volleyball Tournament

[flyingMoose]

NIVC - no Rice, no South Florida.

I assume they declined bids.

[WuDrWu]

I dare anyone to read the 4 page thread on the CSU v SJSU Mountain West Conference Final match at Volleytalk.

The mental gymnastics some people go through to validate something this stupid, just because they side against Trump, is stunning. And it's by far the majority of the posts in that thread.

Rational thought has said bye bye to too many people in this once great country.

[WuDrWu]

The NIVC has been announced...a field of 29 (3 of the four 1 seeds get a bye, I'm sure because of a lack of interest).

Rice and USF are not to be found. East Carolina is hosting. Omaha, Northern Colorado and Idaho State (Sean Carter) are teams of interest, to me at least.

Arizona and Virginia are the only 2 power 4 schools I saw, both are 1 seeds, both are hosting, and both are getting a bye. I'm sure they are not leaving home unless they both reach the finals.

The other 1 seeds are Wright State (the last bye #1) and I'm totally guessing on the last #1 who isn't getting a bye, but it's either SFA or Ga Southern as both are hosting.

[BAShocker]

I can’t wait to see what the transfer portal will be like for schools in that conference. No way I would want my daughter to play for any school in the Mountain West.

[ShockerFever]

Per Pablo, SMU 98%

What did Pablo say about WSU's chances of winning the AAC tourney?

[Critter's Pa]

Got my bracket done to the Final Four. Have not looked at the NIVC bracket yet, will probably do it tomorrow.

I really homered my bracket. I have the Shockers beating SMU and Missouri, losing to Minnesota in round of 16. I have Pitt beating Minnesota for a Final Four spot. Picked two other upsets in the quad- TCU over Oregon and Minnesota over Kentucky. These picks will make my bracket horrible or brilliant, probably leaning toward horrible.

I have Kansas beating Florida, Stanford, and Louisville to make it to the Final Four. The only other upset I picked in this quad is Washington beating LMU.

I have Creighton beating Florida State and Texas, losing to Penn State in the Elite Eight match. I didn't pick any upsets in this quad.

I picked Nebraska for the last Final Four spot. The only upsets I picked in this quad were Dayton over Baylor and Arizona State over Wisconsin.

[flyingMoose]

What did Pablo say about WSU's chances of winning the AAC tourney?

Interesting question. Let me think about this. Something less than 50% for sure.

EDIT: Pre-tournament, about 11%. 60% (over Tulsa) x 37% (over USF) x 50% (over Rice). USF and Rice are not 100% to win all their matches before they play the Shocks, so the percentage is higher, but (likely) in the teens. There is probably a way to factor in all the scenarios and use a spreadsheet to find that Pablo percentage - a way that is above my pay grade. By the time the Shockers reach the championship match, they are 64% against Florida Atlantic.

[flyingMoose]

The Bracketology Geek got all 16 of the National Seeds correct. Not having Arizona as an at-large was the biggest perceived snub. Note - the BG is trying to predict what the Committee will do based on their past history, not tell us what the bracket should be based on his personal opinion.

Later, someone compared the RPI+KPI number for all the at-large teams. The cut line was 89. Every team at 89 and higher was awarded an at-large. Every team 90 (looking at you, Rice) and lower was not in the tournament. Coincidence or by design? Who knows.


You will have to Gogle KPI if interested. It is another number the Committee has been looking at the past few years.

[Critter's Pa]

Later, someone compared the RPI+KPI number for all the at-large teams. The cut line was 89. Every team at 89 and higher was awarded an at-large. Every team 90 (looking at you, Rice) and lower was not in the tournament. Coincidence or by design? Who knows.

Could be a coincidence. There probably is a cut-off number, but it has to be different from year to year because of the rankings of the automatic qualifiers each year. Would be nice to know if there was a hard number that the committee looked at so teams could aim for it.

Illinois, who made the NCAA, was 0.007 KPI higher than Rice (0.257 vs 0.250). I think that if Charlotte, KPI ranked 303 (-0.258) was as good as UTSA, ranked 219 (-0.064), they might have gotten an at-large bid. Rice's KPI for a 3-0 win over Charlotte at home was 0.037, an away 3-0 win over UTSA was 0.228. Heck, beating Charlotte at Charlotte, instead of at home, might have been enough to swap them and Illinois.

Why is Charlotte's KPI (and RPI) so low? A non-con schedule where they played only one team was above 100- Towson (58). Five of the thirteen non-con teams they played have sub 300 KPIs, and they lost to two of them. Their 1-3 loss on a neutral court to Gardner-Webb(330) was -0.941. Charlotte's KPI+RPI number is 605. Crazy.

For perspective, the Shockers' three 0-3 losses to Kansas, Arizona State, and Nebraska was a combined -0.002* KPI (-0.005, -0.002, and -0.000 respectively). UTSA's 3-0 neutral court win over Marist (332) was worth 0.011 KPI. As far a the KPI is concerned, UTSA's one win is barely better than WSU's three losses. If wins against bottom teams are only slightly better that losses to top teams, why schedule a bunch of teams that everyone knows will finish at the back of the pack? Sure, a winning record looks good on paper, but even going 12-0 against sub 300 non-con teams isn't getting you sniff of the post season.

It's all about the scheduling.

Poor scheduling hurts the entire conference. Sure, one could say that Rice should have won another game, but if the conference as a whole scheduled better, they wouldn't have to and we might have gotten more teams in the NCAA tourney.

* -0.002 is -0.005+-0.002+-0.000 divided by 3 games- rounded down from 0.00233...