B12 will likely have 4 teams in the top 16 and Iowa St is tied for 1st in that conference, which plays a full round robin. That's high performance over an extended period of time. And 1 (or 2?) of their 3 conf losses were without Joens.
Just one (at home in an 18 point loss to Texas). Other 2 losses were by 25 and 26 points at Baylor and Texas. And, lost at LSU. 2 wins against Oklahoma, and a win against South Dakota is what they have to hang their hat on.
He's not the committee! This is not his personal ranking.
What I found interesting, is that although you cannot apples to apples conference competition and overall records, projecting 9 SEC teams and only 2 BE teams is a stretch for me. That means that the bottom 3 SEC are at even or losing conf record, and overall, 15-18 wins, where the next 4 BE after UConn have 20+ wins and a winning conference record.
2/10 reveal | Wins since 2/10 | Losses since 2/10 |
| 1. South Carolina | at Kentucky, at Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, at TAMU, at Ole Miss | -- |
| 2. Stanford | Utah, Colorado, at Oregon St, at Oregon, Washington St, Washington | -- |
| 3. NC State | at Boston C., at Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, at Virginia Tech | -- |
| 4. Louisville | Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, at Pitt, at Notre Dame | at North Carolina |
| 5. Michigan | Maryland, Michigan St | at Michigan St, at Northwestern, at Iowa |
| 6. Arizona | Arizona St, at Washington, USC | at Arizona St, at Washington St, UCLA |
| 7. Iowa State | at TCU, Oklahoma, at Kansas, Texas Tech | at Texas |
| 8. Indiana | Michigan St, Northwestern | at Nebraska, Iowa, at Iowa, at Maryland |
| 9. Oklahoma | at TCU, Kansas St | at Texas, Texas Tech, at Iowa St |
| 10. Baylor | W. Virginia, TCU, at TCU, at Oklahoma St, Kansas | -- |
| 11. UConn | DePaul, at Marquette, at Xavier, Georgetown, Marquette, St. John's | -- |
| 12. Tennessee | Missouri, Vanderbilt, Mississippi St | at Alabama, at S. Carolina, LSU |
| 13. LSU | Georgia, at TAMU, at Mississippi St, Florida, Alabama, at Tennessee | -- |
| 14. Notre Dame | Miami, at Georgia Tech, Clemson | at Louisville, Louisville |
| 15. Texas | Oklahoma, Iowa St, at W. Virginia, at Kansas St, TCU | -- |
| 16. Oregon | at Oregon St, UCLA, Cal, Utah | Oregon St, Stanford, at Colorado |
And, adding onto this, although some might think it blasphemous, I would love both the M&W tourney minimum reqs be at least a winning conference record, and at least 18 wins, the former similar to CFB where you have to be at .500 or above to qualify for a bowl game, not counting this past year where teams had covid issues. Having a higher winning record would make way for more conference involvement, instead of awarding mediocre teams just because they are in a perceived "tough" conference.
Both the bowl games and March madness require a winning overall record to be eligible for an at-large pick.
Understood. My point above is that if you select Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri over Nova, Creighton, DePaul and Marquette, then it doesn't matter how good of a record of a team in a perceived weaker conf, they will never get selected.
The .500 rule still exists, however this past bowl season, there were so many teams that withdrew due to covid issues, they had to reach down to find teams that would participate, even if below .500, and some bowls may not have even been played. It's all a racket anyway ...
That is assuming the pool of quality teams remains a constant in WCBB. It doesn't. After about the first 30 teams or so the quality drops off precipitously. Just to fill the brackets the committee is often reaching. Pray the committee doesn't expand the tournament my friend.
Losing teams making bowl games has been going on regularly for the last decade. Just googling it, you had UCLA in 2011, Georgia Tech in 2012, Fresno St in 2014, Nebraka/Minnesota/San Jose St in 2015, Hawaii/Miss St/North Texas in 2016, etc. Basically every year there are teams making bowl games with losing records because there are simply too many games and not enough good teams to fill them.
While Arkansas did beat LSU, if you look at team season stats for that game, LSU had a horrible night compared to season average and Arkansas shot the lights out. That's just one game though. What else are they gonna hang their hat on? They have lost to every other ranked team they have played, including non-ranked USF and Creighton. Not to mention only beating cellar dweller Auburn by 2 on a last second layup. As to Missouri, yes they did catch SC sleeping (horrible shooting night for the Gamecocks) but it was in overtime, at home. Since that night they have gone 6-9 and lost five of their last 7. Not seeing that one either especially with that 28 point loss to MVC Missouri State in there. If your the all powerful SEC and you cant dust off them off, sorry, no tourney for you. As for Kentucky (15-11), they have won 6 in a row, against 6 of the bottom 7 in the conference. Your telling me your bottom 7 are better than Villanova 21-7 (beat UConn, and won 13 of their last 14), Creighton 20-8 (who beat Villanova and DePaul), and DePaul at 22-9 (who beat Kentucky at Kentucky as well as Villanova and a ranked team (at that time) from your own SEC). Then there is Marquette, 20-9, 13-7. A good solid team that deserves in before Arkansas or Missouri IMHO. Me thinks the football SEC bias may be spreading.
SC UConn in an Elite 8 matchup? I really don't see that happening. UConn would have to be an 8 or 9 overall.
I would be satisfied with a .500 record for getting in. My two reasons for such a requirement are:
That would make sense if the committee were using a true S-curve for seedings.
You didn't account for avoiding teams from the same conference in the same region. Or, I guess the rankings could still hold true, but then the committee will move teams/up down to avoid those intra-conference matchups.
You're right. Then throw in the fact DePaul beat Kentucky and it makes it even worse. If you're gonna expand the number of teams in the tournament, don't use it to add more Power 5 teams.
Oooh - this last part, I like it. Reminds me of CT youth soccer state/open cup tourneys, blind draw, single elimination, where the premier teams hated that #1-2 from prior year could meet up in 1st round and not get a chance to goto the regionals. CT finally separated #1-2, but I wondered if that was "fair', as regardless of whether or not teams change from year to year, there are no guarantees that you would win year to year.
It's okay to like it. Since the B1G is the current power in women's volleyball, you can imagine that fans of that conference hate that the committee doesn't try to avoid conference matchup in the round of 16 and onward.