Women’s VB getting beat by Cuse..reading their
- Thread starter pittizit
- Start date
"Contests conducted in the fall term for all fall sport championships that will be conducted in the spring will count toward selection into that respective championship. Sport committees are encouraged to consider all data available to them at the time of selections."
Oh interesting, thanks. Definitely starting in a hole, but hopefully with a spring season there will be time to make up for this start.
Is this a typo? Or are you really suggesting that Pitt will play the same number of games as Stanford or Nebraska? Pitt will almost certainly play more games than teams only playing in the spring.
"Regular-season play will span from Jan. 22-April 3, with selections April 4."
That's a 10 week season. The 2019 season was 13 weeks. Volleyball scheduling is weird but Pitt played on 27 regular season dates last year. Even if the total allowable dates are reduced, I think most schools will find it difficult to play the maximum number of matches in that short period. Remember that even last year Pitt played 30 regular season contests while Texas only played 24.
I'm saying that Pitt will be ALLOWED to play the same number of games as everyone else. Including the games they are playing now. My guess is that very few teams will play the fully allowable number of games this year. And the only ones that might are the ones that are playing part of their schedule now.
If the NCAA ends up saying that teams are only allowed to play 20 games, then we might play all 20. But that will include the 8 that we are playing now. So we will only be allowed to play 12 games in the spring when everyone who isn't playing now will be allowed to play 20. If they do that, will anyone actually play 20 in the spring? I don't know. But I do know that the reason the ACC is only playing 8 now is to "save" games for the spring, if it all ends up going forward then.
I think it is a moot point because the limit will likely be sufficiently high that the ACC is able to play about as frequently as anyone else and still meet the limit. I don't really agree with your premise because the Big 12 is not playing a minimal schedule like the ACC. Texas is playing 16 matches. You really think the NCAA is going to limit them to 4 matches over 10 weeks?
I think Texas is going to be limited to whatever number they decide to make the maximum allowable minus 16. If that number stays at 28 then Texas will be allowed to play 12. If that number is lowered to something else then Texas will be allowed to play that number minus 16. If they limit teams to 24 Texas will be allowed to play 8. If they go with 20 (10 weeks, 2 matches per week for all the schools that aren't playing now) then Texas will be allowed 4.
It's not like the Big 12 didn't know this when they made up their fall schedule. They aren't going to get some sort of exemption (and neither is the ACC) if a season does come off in the spring.
"Didn't know" what exactly? Didn't know that an unannounced change may or may not happen? The rule is the rule until it isn't.
I don't think there's any argument that what the ACC did is any more intelligent than what the Big 12 is doing. The fact that they are playing the games makes it that much less likely for the NCAA to impose some artificially low limit that would only impact the teams in the Big 12. What reason does the NCAA have at this point to tell teams they can only play 20 matches? Who is realistically going to play even 20 matches in 10 weeks? Set the limit at 50. What difference does it make?
In the end, I don't know that it even matters. The selection committee made it clear last year that they're going to favor the top programs regardless of what happens in the regular season. Pitt could finish 6-2 or 26-2 in ACC play and it isn't going to matter.
Didn't know that the more games they scheduled in the fall the fewer games they would potentially be allowed to schedule in the spring.
As to who is going to potentially play 20 matches in 10 weeks, well, I think the schools that were holding out to play in the spring were hoping that things might be more back to normal by then. And then the answer to the question of who was going to play 20 matches in 10 weeks would be, essentially, everyone. In the first 10 weeks of the season last year for instance, Pitt played 21 matches.
And I think that while we don't like it, the reason that the committee doesn't give schools like Pitt the benefit of the doubt is that, quite frankly, we haven't earned it. Two years in a row hosting the first two rounds, zero trips to the Sweet 16. It's hard to argue that you should have gotten a top four seed when you can't even beat Cincinnati on your home court in the second round.
No disagreement there. That's why I'm saying any number of ACC wins is meaningless, even if it shouldn't be.
Pitt could finish this 20-21 season 30-2 and Stanford could be 8-0 and they'll still get a top-4 seed and Pitt likely won't get seeded at all.
Similar threads
