Thanks to Dan’s brother for doing the analysis and sharing his arguments.

I’m not making an argument for BYU or Long Beach, but I am arguing for a more rational and objective approach to the at-large bid. I poked around the NCAA website, but I couldn’t find anything that described the criteria to be considered for the at-large bid. Anyone know? From what I can remember of past at-large bids, they try to pick the most “deserving” team based on some mixture of regular season records and post-season performance.

Before I go on, The Disclaimer: I’m a BYU fan, but if you read on, I don’t think this affects my arguments.

I think that the whole argument can be distilled into one question:

Should the at-large bid team be based on post-season play or regular season play?

Put another way, should the hottest remaining team go or best season-long team go? If the selection criteria is “hottest remaining team”, then BYU should have gone – finished second in the MPSF playoff. If the selection criteria is “best season-long team”, the Long Beach should go – MPSF regular season champion. (I realize that I’m ignoring Ball State and George
Mason – mostly under a strength of conference argument, although I feel like this year there has been more parity between the conferences than past years, at least at the top). Considering that tournament champions from each of the three leagues get the automatic bids, it seems to me that they want the “current hottest teams”, otherwise they would select the regular season champions. Should the the at-large bid be any different?

This is not to dismiss the significance of the regular season. Dan’s brother’s argument about the relevance of and reason for the regular season – getting playoff home court advantage – and in the MPSF, a first-round bye – is on the money, in my opinion.

The fact that other criteria besides post-season record can be taken into consideration opens the whole process to politics and controversy. The whole dialog regarding at-large bids always center around the word “deserving” – hardly an objective term. Just set the criteria so everyone understands it, and if a team fails to meet it, they knew what they needed to do and failed. Sports should be about objective criteria (did your team score more points than the other team or have a better record), not about some vague concept of “deservedness” or “better”. This would save Dan’s brother the effort of doing the analysis to support his argument. Having some committee make a pick based on some set of quasi-objective standards just does not make sense.

It seems to me that only way to decrease the controversy is to explicitly specify, the criteria for the at-large bids – EITHER post-season play (2nd place in conference tournaments) OR regular season play (regular season conference champs), AND not some vague combination of the two. There will be enough potential for controversy picking between the conferences based on this more explicit criteria (which is still necessary since every team in the nation can’t play everyone else).

As much as I’d like to see the tournament increased to 8-team, with only 83 DI-DIII men’s teams in the whole country (with more than half being DIII), I don’t see that happening. This may be the real solution, but the real problem is that the men’s game isn’t growing. I have fears about a men’s final four even being around in 10 years.

— Tomoo Taguchi · Apr 30, 12:51 PM · #

Tomoo,

I agree that the criteria need to be better defined, more objective, though I don’t think it needs to be either regular-season or post-season only. I’m fine with a combination of the two, especially since 3 of 4 teams are determined by post-season tournaments.

I could also see a final four made of the top four ranked teams.

I hope you’re wrong about the men’s championship disappearing. I imagine that the problem in fielding an 8-team championship would be financial? Paying for 8 teams to travel and so forth? But I don’t know. I still hold out hope that that’s an option.

— Paterico · Apr 30, 08:30 PM · #

I want to start by saying that I am not a fan of either team. I do feel that the NCAA made the right choice by having LBSU as the at large bid. So this is my Defense of Long Beach State in the Final Four

Win Loss:

Yes BYU had more wins than LBSU, they also played 1 more game. But, the at large bit is a reward for the whole season and not just the post season play or what happened in MPSF tournament play. So taking the post season play out of the discussion, here are their records. BYU was 23-4 (.852) entering the MPSF tournament and LBSU was 23-5 (.821) entering the MPSF tournament. Both had the same number of wins, and I will talk about that one loss in the strenght of schedule portion. I consider that a tie and move on to strength of schedule which is where the difference is.

Strength of Schedule:

The MPSF schedule is the same for both teams and both teams played IPFW so I will call those equal, and compare the other matches on their respective schedules. BYU and LBSU were both 19-4 during the MPSF season and the match against IPFW. In the rest of BYU’s non conference matches they were 4-0 beating Lewis, Loyola Chicago, and Cal Baptist twice. In the last AVCA pool those teams were ranked 12 (Lewis), NR (Loyola Chicago), and not a D1 team (Cal Baptist twice). LBSU went 4-1 beating, USC, UCI, Ohio State twice, and losing to Penn State. The teams LBSU played in their non conference were ranked 12 (USC), 8 (UCI), 7 (Ohio State, twice), their one loss was to the number 1 team in the country Penn State. Long Beach state chose to play five matches against ranked opponents in their non conference schedule while BYU played 1. BYU played 3 matches, and got 3 wins, against teams that were not ranked in the last AVCA poll (1 unranked and 2 NAIA matches. Long Beach State had a tougher schedule and had more wins against opponents that were ranked at the end of the season. 23 for LBSU to 22 (including the MPSF tournament 20 with out the MPSF tournament) for BYU.

Conclusion:

LBSU won both its matches against BYU, they deserve to be chosen over BYU just for that reason. BYU knew that the LBSU matches were going to mean who hosted the MPSF tournament and who had the inside track at the at large bid for the final four. Then BYU lost both of the matches, with LBSU winning six of the seven games played. LBSU also played a tougher schedule during the regular season than BYU did, and they both lost to the same team (Pepperdine) in the MPSF tournament. The NCAA did a nice job and picked the right team to go to the final four.

— Doug · May 1, 07:59 AM · #

I’m hoping not to drag this out any more than is necessary, so here is what I hope are my final thoughts on this.

First, I’m not arguing that Long Beach should not have gone to the Final Four – I am arguing that the selection process is set up to be subjective and controversial and should be changed to be more objective.

The fact that we’re spending many paragraphs debating strength of schedule and records againts common opponents shows how complex and subjective this selection is. This is the fundimental problem with college football that everyone gripes about – there’s no true play off system and the process of determining a national champion delves in the endless arguments of involving the above issues.

I feel that it should be made clearer what counts for what and when.

I respectfully disagree with Doug and Paterico that the at-large bid should take into account regular season performance. I do agree with Pat that the regular season should ONLY be used for playoff home court advantage and a first-round bye – both of which are significant advantages worth fighting for in the regular season. The three automatic bids go to the conference playoff champions, and the at-large bid is selected from the three conference playoff runner-ups.

This simplifies the selection process and reduces the controversy. I admit that there’s still room for controversy since there’s still a selection made of the conference tournament runner-ups, but it would be reduced greatly if you take the regular season out of the equation.

Some may argue that taking out the regular season would be unfair, that a team that had a great season should be rewarded. My only argument against this is: The New England Patriots. Some may argue that they had the better team, but they didn’t win when they had to.

Also, some may argue that a team can tank during the regular season and get hot in the post-season. Not that I accuse Pepperdine of purposely tanking during the season, but they had had a less than stellar regular season. But they got hot when it counted. Rudy Guiliani’s Florida strategy essentially ignored the early primaries (the regular season), and concentrated on Florida and Super Tuesday (the playoffs). That strategy failed miserably. I don’t think any team would be wise to ignore the regular season and thus would provide quality games for us to enjoy.

I think getting into the championships should be about winning when it counts, not hoping that some committee will see your merits and let you in. The decision should be based on performance against a SIMPLE and OBJECTIVE criteria (did they win when they had to?), not some complex analysis of many factors which opens the door the controversy. Bottom line, make it perfectly clear the significance of any game and if you don’t win, you have nothing to gripe about.

Football’s problem is that it doesn’t have a true playoff system and is mired in polls and controversy. Polls, voting, and democracy are great for determining the will of the people but not for trying to objectively determine something. Men’s volleyball has a true playoff system – the conference championships, and the Final Four. Why continue to have the problems of football in volleyball by using an at-large selection system that’s open to subjectivity, polls, politics, and controversy?

Finally, I admit that if my proposals were in place this season, BYU would have gone to the Final Four, but if Long Beach’s and BYU’s places had been reversed, I would still endose my proposal. If you don’t win when you have to, you go home.

— Tomoo Taguchi · May 1, 10:20 AM · #

Doug,

Thanks for your analysis. You’re right about many things, but not all of them. Mostly, I take issue with this comment:

“Long Beach state chose to play five matches against ranked opponents in their non conference schedule while BYU played 1.”

Whoa. “Chose”? “Ranked teams?” Are they prophetic? Yes, BYU played 3 unranked teams. But, one can never know, really, how a team will finish out the season. Sure, you can fault BYU for scheduling California Baptist, but there’s a tradition there, and the rest of the teams might well have been ranked if they had had better luck this year. Also, LBSU played USC and UCI one extra time because they were invited to the UCSB Elephant Bar Invitational. Is it BYU’s fault that they were not invited to this event? If not, then perhaps there’s a conspiracy among California teams to exclude their newest (and peskiest) conference team. BYU instead made an excursion to the Midwest to play then-ranked-14 Loyola-Chicago, Lewis, and IPFW. Lewis and IPFW have both made it to the final four in the past. When schedules are made, years in advance, one cannot know whether these teams will be good or not. And when the season’s between 25 and 30 matches long, is it so wrong for a team to schedule some traditionally lesser competition? These schools thrill to play a team of high caliber, outside their region. Maybe LBSU ought to take on a more ambassadorial role, to promote the sport of volleyball, so it doesn’t wither and die, as Tomoo worries above.

I don’t think you can dither between 22 and 23 wins against ranked opponents. Are you willing to also consider losses against ranked opponents? BYU has 5; LBSU has 6.

In any case, how can you argue to completely ignore postseason play? LBSU had a bye and home-court advantage and blew it, 3-0. BYU played one extra match, took Pepperdine to match point, and then blew it. But they were the tournament runner-ups. Either the tournament matters (and it certainly did to Pepperdine this year) or they shouldn’t bother playing it.

— Paterico · May 1, 03:19 PM · #

Not that we need mid-match commentary here, but LBSU had some energy in game 1, but now, a little past midway in game 2, they’re done. This will go down 3-0, for a 9-0 straight win streak Pepperdine over Long Beach. Or should we say Pepperdine owning Long Beach.

BYU, we will remember, played Pepperdine to 3-2 in the MPSF championships. It could have gone BYU’s way. We could be watching a real match right now instead of this repeat of a joke.

— Paterico · May 1, 09:40 PM · #

Well, one positive I can rescue from this: Since the MPSF semifinals were not televised, at least I got to see that same match tonight.

Bleh. Thanks, NCAA selection committee. Blasted drones.

— Paterico · May 1, 10:23 PM · #

The horse is now dead. Let’s beat it:

Who is the number 2 team in the country now? No doubt it’ll be Pepperdine, at 17-11. I’m not too miffed at this, since they played very well at the end of the season, when it counted.

But Long Beach tanked, absolutely crawled into a hole and died in the post-season. Do they deserve to be ranked #3? They went 0-9 games with Peppedine since Paul Carroll came back, 0-6 games in the postseason. Granted, they didn’t get any chance to show their stuff against anyone else, but come on.

I’m really happy for Penn State. They played a great final four after an excellent season. When faced with the best in the West, they proved that even if you have an “easy” schedule, you can be a legitimate team (note to Doug above).

BYU really deserves a #2 ranking, but since that’s impossible, at least #3. If LBSU ends up ahead of BYU, I’m firing off a volley of tame expletives in the general direction of the NCAA selection committee and the AVCA ranking coaches, wherever they may be.

— Paterico · May 3, 10:46 PM · #

Answer to your #1 question: Yes, I realize that I’m commenting to myself. But, for the sake of posterity, I feel it necessary to put the final nail in the coffin: the final season rankings begin:

#1: Penn State (30-1) #2: Pepperdine (17-11) #3: Long Beach (23-7) #4: BYU (25-5) #7: Ohio State (20-8)

In fact, the entire order is the exact same as the previous week, which tells me that the coaches who voted just “dialed it in.” I’m wondering: is there any way of knowing individual coaches votes? I’ve seen this for the college football coaches’ poll.

Of course, I’m appropriately disillusioned over the whole thing. Who has LBSU been bribing?

— Paterico · May 6, 06:10 AM · #