2008 NCAA Tournament

[1972Shocker]

This won't make Shocker fans happy, but #16 seed and sub-regional host Tulane loses in 5 sets to Western Michigan.

Western Michigan a Sweet 16 team.

More evidence that the NCAA needs to seriously review their Volleyball selection and regional assignment process. Perhaps they should outsource it to the AVCA or an organization that actually knows something about Volleyball and actually cares about fairness.

[1972Shocker]

Middle Tennessee State took #10 seed Purdue to 5 sets before losing.

[1972Shocker]

Nebraska dominated UAB (14, 15, 12) after UAB knocked off fellow MVC member Missouri State.

I am a little irritated with MSU's showing in the dance after knocking off the Shocks and UNI and looking pretty good doing it in the MVC Tourney.

[1972Shocker]

Iowa State upsets #6 Minnesota in 4 sets to move into the Sweet 16.

Seems WSU sin is that it just happens to located more or less halfway between Lincoln and Austin where two of the most powerfull VB programs in the country reside.

[flyingMoose]

Seems WSU sin is that it just happens to located more or less halfway between Lincoln and Austin where two of the most powerfull VB programs in the country reside.

Yep. As Coach Lamb indicated, at least we are being eliminated by Nebraska and Texas, not Nevada or Western Kentucky or Rice ... or Iowa State.

But wait ... we should become volleyball-only members of the Big XII, and then we would not have to go to Lincoln or Austin for the first two rounds! :)

[martymoose]

I'm pretty sure the NCAA didn't care much about seeding after assigning the tops seeds. Everything after that had nothing to do with rankings, rpi or wins/losses... The Shocks, one way or another are going to need to beat the nation's top teams if they want to be the best and advance, just sounds like posters on here would rather we play good teams later rather than now... Unfortuanatly that's just the way Volleyball is set up, maybe someday when it's a bigger money maker for the NCAA, they might care more about it.

[ShockerFever]

The Shocks, one way or another are going to need to beat the nation's top teams if they want to be the best and advance, just sounds like posters on here would rather we play good teams later rather than now...

But isn't that the freaking point? Why should a matchup between the third-ranked and 13th-ranked teams be going on in the second round? Anyone who's older than 10 can understand the basic concept of a tournament bracket. The top plays the weakest, the second top plays the second weakest with the two tops eventually squaring off in the finals, if the favorites hold true.

It's really not rocket science. If the NCAA made even just a half-assed effort at trying to balance out the bracket, it would all be a non-issue. Why should teams be penalized because of their geographical region?

But like you said marty, maybe if it actually generates $$$, it would change. You'd figure though they could help their own cause with that by giving deserving teams with big attendance numbers.. a la WSU.. hosting capabilities. Even more so than the hosting though, at least make the damn bracket fair.

[1972Shocker]

I was one of the pea-brained posters who was dumb enough to think our attendance figures might have a positive influence on our chances to host a regional. After looking at the attendance figures for the first 2 rounds of the Tournament it apparently is not much of a factor at all.

Here are the Sweet 16 teams with the 1st Round and 2nd Round attendance figures:

#1 Penn State (Host) 1824/1515
Western Michigan (Dayton Host/#16 Tulane) 1674/609
#9 Illinois (Host) 1312/1133
#8 California (Host) 2,202/815
#5 Washington (Host) 1635/1870
#12 Utah (Clemson Host) 415/680
Michigan (Kentucky Host/#13 St. Louis) 1346/511
#4 Nebraska (Host) 4,237/4086
#3 Texas (Host) 1394/1175
#14 UCLA (Host) 1,066/460
#11 Oregon (American Host) 115/238
Iowa State (#6 Minnesota Host) 2,583/2/101
#7 Hawaii (So. Cal. Host) 1,329/1,019
#10 Purdue (Host) 1,277/1,002
#15 Florida (Host) 1,550/1,000
#2 Stanford (Host) 1,814/1,992

I give Nebraska fans an A. The other 15 regionals basically sucked in terms on drawing any fan interest.

[1972Shocker]

The antithesis to WSU is Western Michigan.

Not that they don't have a solid program, they apparently do. But this is the 5th time they have advanced to the Sweet 16 (first time since 1987)

They obviously know how to properly locate a campus for Volleyball purposes.

[shock10]

Those attendance numbers are a joke WSU would have bettered some of those on the first day.

[1972Shocker]

That must have been some exciting atmosphere at American University in the nations capital.

[ShockerFever]

I was one of the pea-brained posters who was dumb enough to think our attendance figures might have a positive influence on our chances to host a regional. After looking at the attendance figures for the first 2 rounds of the Tournament it apparently is not much of a factor at all.

Here are the Sweet 16 teams with the 1st Round and 2nd Round attendance figures:

#1 Penn State (Host) 1824/1515
Western Michigan (Dayton Host/#16 Tulane) 1674/609
#9 Illinois (Host) 1312/1133
#8 California (Host) 2,202/Pending
#5 Washington (Host) 1635/1870
#12 Utah (Clemson Host) 415/680
Michigan (Kentucky Host/#13 St. Louis) 1346/511
#4 Nebraska (Host) 4,237/4086
#3 Texas (Host) 1394/1175
#14 UCLA (Host) 1,066/460
#11 Oregon (American Host) 115/238
Iowa State (#6 Minnesota Host) 2,583/2/101
#7 Hawaii (So. Cal. Host) 1,329/Pending
#10 Purdue (Host) 1,277/1,002
#15 Florida (Host) 1,550/1,000
#2 Stanford (Host) 1,814/Pending

I give Nebraska fans an A. The other 15 regionals basically sucked in terms on drawing any fan interest.

What an embarrassment. Not only for those host schools, but for the NCAA..

As been pointed out numerous times, it's obvious the NCAA simply just doesn't care as much as its fans do in regarding this sport. And it doesn't even make sense. It's not like they're awarding low worth schools with high attendance numbers to help their pockets out.. but they're giving schools with no worth at all a chance to host, but aren't even breaking the 4-digit mark on their attendances.. There's no logic behind it all, except the travel issue, but come on, I could point out a dozen schools that had to travel a great distance to their regional site.

I guess the NCAA just wants to keep volleyball as a third-rate sport. Sucks for them.

High school volleyball attendance would generate better numbers than at Clemson and American.

What a joke..

[SpanglerFan316]

Look at Hawaii. Imagine the attendance they would generate!! With Hawaii and WSU as hosts, the subregional attendance in volleyball would, at a minimum, double!!

[1972Shocker]

Look at Hawaii. Imagine the attendance they would generate!! With Hawaii and WSU as hosts, the subregional attendance in volleyball would, at a minimum, double!!

I assume Hawaii never gets to host because of the travel costs of sending three teams to Hawaii, even though many teams travel to Hawaii during the year for matches (including the Shockers last year IIRC).

Perhaps they think that giving a regional to Hawaii where they would have drawn 14,000 - 15,000 fans (or more) over two days would give the Rainbows an unfair advantage so they send the Rainbows to a location where the support would be much more tepid and not as intimidating for the other teams. So from that standpoint the NCAA is trying to be "fair".

If that's the case, then American University and Clemson are a lock to host again next year. How much more fair can you be then to provide an empty gym to play in.

Of course, sending Oregon coast-to-coast to play in an empty gym kind of flies in the face of being concerned about costs.

:whistle:

[1972Shocker]

My guess is attendance will pick up markedly for the regionals and final four or at least I hope it would.

It will be interesting to see how Omaha supports the Final Four if Nebraska does not happen to make it in.