Hawaii 38 in RPI, 14 in poll, Mitchem POW
Hawaii up a spot to 14 in AVCA Top 25
Nebraska remains unanimous 1
Top 7 un changed.
Biggest moves: UNC from 12 to 8, Stanford from 13 to 9.
Arizona moves from NR to 25.
https://www.avca.org/polls/di-women/11-7-2016.html
UH’s nominations for weekly honors
POW: Mitchem
FOW: Iosia
DPOW: Kahakai
COMMENTS
Comments are closed.
UH got 7 more votes than last week. Seems like 14-16 is where UH will settle if they win out. IMO, winning out maintains UH’s position given the quality of its upcoming competition. Many of the other top 25 teams will face top 25 opponents, so wins in those matches will carry more weight with voters.
Unofficially, UH rose to 37 from 40 in the RPI rankings. Two wins and LBSU’s good win-loss record are two big reasons why.
With an unadjusted RPI of 29, Zona has a shot to make the top 25 unadjusted RPI by the end of the regular season, which would give UH one top 25 RPI win this year. Could help UH marginally when the bracket is fully populated. Not for hosting, but where UH is sent and who they play in the first round. Better than being winless against the RPI top 25…
Annie gets the nod for BWC POW!
Congrats Annie!
Go Wahine!
http://www.bigwest.org//story.asp?story_id=19410
2. thanks was just getting to that.
WEIRDNESS about the Beach-UC Irinve contested match from Sept.
In its release last week, LBS said t was announced by the Big West Conference on Thursday that the match will officially be recorded as a no-contest. Instead of replaying the match from the point in question during set two, the decision has been made to go with a no-contest ruling, which results in neither a win nor a loss for both teams.
Was in contact with the Big West today and they said no decision had been made about replaying it.
UH to 38 in RPI
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-volleyball-rpi
Congrats Annie! What a great story especially after Ryan’s video story about her early struggles and how she stayed the course through Irvine Valley College and finally to UH. I think few will doubt that Annie would not have been a shoo-in AA at D1 if not for the injuries and all the position changes. Her arrival at Manoa was so highly anticipated and she has now delivered in spades! Look forward to her continue succeed including the ultimate one – graduating with a degree.
4. Can’t understand why the Big West and both teams wouldn’t want to finish the match. BW to avoid the unfairness you mentioned a couple of days ago with unbalanced standings. LBSU to put pressure on UH to continue winning and avoid a tiebreaker scenario. UCI to add a win to its record, which they have a good shot of doing. Perhaps they have scheduling issues. Maybe they’ll replay if an LBSU win garners them the AQ, and skip if the match result makes no difference to the AQ.
Big Congrats to Annie… well deserved
and to the team!
liking how they are geling at the right time!
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Big West waits to make a final decision on replaying the LBSU-UCI match until it becomes clear whether the outcome would have any bearing on the AQ.
congrats to mitchem! tremendous weekend for her and the wahine!
cindy – thanks for the update on the lbsu/uc irvine replay controversy… definitely one of the more bizarre storylines of the 2016 big west season …
7-9 they want to play it. but agree that they might not if the AQ is already decided before Thanksgiving.
all the big west said was they were working on rescheduling. Match is to be played at UCI. could be an issue with facilities but maybe not
UCI MBKB hosts Pacific Nov. 19 UCI WBKB on the road during the last two weeks of VB season.
49ers hosting their thanksgiving tourney Nov. 25-26
UCI on the road at Davis Nov. 19, at UCSB Nov. 23.
Got a question?…Assuming LBS goes undefeated to finish BW play and if (Big IF) Hawaii was to lose 1 out of remaining 4 matches…Both teams would end up with 2 losses but by virtue of a “no contest” between UCI vs LBS 1st match that wold put Hawaii up by a 1/2 game lead…What will the BW League Commission do then?
Congratulations Annie!!! Long overdue and very well deserved…Thank you for choosing to play for Hawaii….We love you!!! KEEP UP THAT INTENSE LEVEL OF PLAY, ANNIE!!!
Congrats to Annie and the rest of the team for their high level of play. I thought Tayler looked really sharp when she was playing and we would lose very little if she needs to be called upon. The “B” team members, especially Tayler, have really been important this year, not only in the practice gym but also through their support and contributions in the games. I don’t remember Dave subbing so much but it has really paid off in terms finding hidden gems and talents already on the team. I guess since we pointed enough, Dave saw what we saw. (I know that the coaching staff are really the ones that made the changes but if they read the blog the changes would have happened sooner)
Been looking at various AQ scenarios. Here is what I have come up with:
1. UH wins out, UH is the Big West AQ
2a. LBSU wins its last 3, and UH wins 3 out of its last 4, so both have two losses.
This one has two scenarios (assume current standings): If UH loses to any of Poly, UCSB, or Davis, then LBSU would have the tiebreaker #2 by virtue of sweeping those teams. So the “no contest” UCI-LBSU match would have to be completed, and if LBSU wins that match, it gets the AQ. If LBSU loses, UH gets the AQ.
2b. If UH loses to UCI, then the LBSU-UCI match would have to be completed. If LBSU loses to UCI, UH gets the AQ. If LBSU wins, then UH and LBSU are tied in tiebreaker #2, and we go to tiebreaker #3, which is best sets w-l record.
UH is 35-5, LBSU is 32-13 (including the first set loss in the no contest UCI match). Should UH lose 8 more sets than LBSU over its next four matches, and by chance both teams have the same sets w-l record, then we go to tiebreaker #4. If LBSU can’t make up the set record differential, UH will win the AQ. IMO, the tiebreaker ends here–UH would have to seriously tank in order to get to the next tiebreaker.
So the simple message is in (1) above…UH, just win out.
Skip if you don’t want to read more on tiebreaker #4, it is a little complicated.
Here is one scenario in which UH loses 8 more sets than LBSU (let’s assume LBSU sweeps its remaining 3 matches) and both teams end up with identical set records. Assume UH wins 3-1, 3-2, 3-2 against Poly/UCSB/Davis (any combo) and loses 0-3 to Irvine. Then LBSU would have to win 3-1 vs. UCI (i.e., sweep sets 2, 3, 4) in the replayed match so both UH and LBSU have identical 44-13 records. If this scenario happens, then LBSU gets the AQ, because of tiebreaker #4.
In tiebreaker #4, we compare set records of UH and LBSU, respectively, against next best team, and if still tied, then vs. next best team, etc. That would be Poly, UCSB, Davis, Irvine, CSUN, Riverside, and Fullerton in that order (current standings, subject to change). LBSU is 6-1 vs. Poly, 6-2 vs. UCSB, 6-0 vs. Davis. UH is 3-1, 3-0, 3-0, against those teams. If LBSU makes up the set differential per above, UH loses the AQ by virtue of having a worse record against Poly (at best, UH would be 6-2 versus LBSU’s 6-1).
Unlikely scenario, but some inquiring minds may want to know…
#Mav…
If it remains an unbalanced schedule, where the UCI-LBS contest is not played, and if LBS wins its final three, and HI wins three out of four, then HI will have a Conf. match record win%=14 match_wins/16 matches=0.875%, and LBS will have a Conf. match win% record=13 match_wins/15 matches=0.867%. It never gets to a tie-breaker, because Hawaii wins outright with the better Conference Match Wins record. So if I understand what you wrote correctly, I didn’t see where you accounted for that.
This is also why it I haven’t understood why LBS wouldn’t want to play out the contested match with UCI. At least at that point they would have the opportunity to win out their next FOUR matches which would the require Hawaii to win out its next four matches to win the AQ outright and not wind up in a tie breaker situation.
So, I’ll go back later and take a look at how things can play out if the UCI-LBS match gets played. But just off the top of my head, I think the Cal Poly match might take on added importance for Hawaii. The other tie-breakers break Hawaii’s way at the moment, if memory serves.
It might be the case that LBS prior to its loss to Hawaii didn’t want the replay. Because if they had won the Hawaii match, they’d be in an even better position than Hawaii with the unbalanced schedule. But with the loss to Hawaii, now they need to replay that UCI match to improve their chances. So, it looks bad for Big West PR that there is an appearance now that their decisions and messaging on the subject could be construed as being tooled to help LBS. Don’t know if that is the case. In situations such as these, it is usually incompetent message management, and not intentional ‘heads you lose, tails you lose’ behavior.
18. I made the critical assumption that the BW/LBSU wouldn’t be boneheads but instead would decide to finish the “no contest” if it could impact the AQ. One UH loss combined with LBSU winning its last three would provide that opportunity. If they are going to be boneheads, then your scenario is the correct one and LBSU would have been dealt a grave injustice.
#Mav… Maybe we are in violent agreement but misunderstanding each others assumptions. I’ll take another stab at it. You state a situation assuming a UH loss and finishing its last four matches at three wins out of four, then that LBS must win its ‘last three’ to impact the AQ situation. However, if they play out the LBS-UCI match, then one more UH loss still requires LBS win out its FOUR last matches to force tie-breakers to come into play. Their next three matches are with CSUN, Fullerton, and Riverside, and I assume somewhere over that time frame they replay the UCI-LBS match. If LBS wins out, they finish 14 out 16. If UH loses one going forward, they’d finish 14 out of 16, and that forces tie-breakers to be considered.
Also, you state ‘if they are going to be boneheads, then your scenario is the correct one and LBSU would have been dealt a grave injustice.’ I don’t see it quite that way. LBSU seemed content with the BW messaging prior to the UH match that there would be an unbalanced schedule. Why? Well, if they’d have won, then UH would have been highly disadvantaged. From their perspective, no reason to complain until they knew the result of the match. Why UH wasn’t complaining prior to the match, I could guess a couple of reasons. One, they bet big they’d win and that the unbalanced schedule would then strongly factor in their favor. So basically they played possum on the unbalanced schedule topic and let LBS have its way with the scheduling going into the match. The other possibility is they figured they had no control over the decision and that it would be improper to lobby one way or the other. Either way, both proved correct positions on their part. However the NCAA/BW now have the appearance of saying one thing before the match, and another thing after the match, giving the appearance that they have tooled their decisions and messaging in an attempt to help LBS. I prefer to assume it is poor messaging and not something more nefarious. If it was meant to be nefarious it was as incompetently executed as the messaging.
20. We are in violent agreement. My point was that the LBSU-UCI match should be replayed if LBSU wins 3 and UH wins 3 out of 4. The reason is that an LBSU win vs. UCI can change the AQ from UH to LBSU, so you need to play that match to be fair to LBSU. The actual change in AQ per tiebreakers is resolved depending on who wins the LBSU-UCI match.
I can’t speak to the messaging and don’t know what to believe given the potential inaccurate LBSU media release. However, at this point, not replaying the match when an AQ is at stake is ridiculous. More matches have to be played before we get a sense as to whether the AQ could go back to LBSU.
Don’t buy the LBSU being content with an unbalanced schedule. They had a win taken away from them.
#Mav… I do disagree on a couple of things. The AQ was always at stake regardless of the decision, whether it was an unbalanced schedule going forward, or balanced. All that changed was how it was at stake. With the unbalanced schedule, the winner of the final UH-LBS match was going to be advantaged. LBS with a win would have been highly advantaged given its schedule, more so than HI is given its schedule. Based on the messaging prior to the match, my recollection was that it was BW confirming in its messaging (or so we thought) that there would be no UCI-LBS replay. I don’t recall that NCAA had a press release clarifying things, so the BW left us assuming they were forging in stone the unbalanced schedule going into the LBS-HI match. My recollection was both LBS and HI coaches and administrations went into the LBS-HI contest basically without comment on the impact of the unbalanced schedule, and their acceptance of it. Silence however implied acceptance. As far as I know the public and players weren’t on notice that there would be a piss and moaning period granted to the loser of the match to change the BW’s unbalanced schedule decision/message. We were led to believe that both teams were prepared to accept the outcome of the match. Now, however, we see-saw back to playing out of the UCI-LBS match. The appearance is that BW has incompetent messaging at the least, or is seeking to change back the AQ circumstances after the match, since LBS lost. How is it fair before the match to declare unbalanced schedules going forward, but after the match to apparently reverse that message?
I don’t see it as a case of ‘ultimately, doing the right thing’. More a case of, ‘ultimately, BW can avoid maximum pain to itself by playing out the match, since LBS is in their backyard, and UH isn’t’. Also, can’t neglect now that the UCI-LBS replay might gather high ratings if carried on ESPN3/U, so there may be some dollars involved as well, now that the replay could actually have some importance to standings.
Finally, LBS did not have a win taken away from it. The game was played under protest. It was likely that UCI would have gone up 2 sets to none if the correct ruling had been made in the match. UCI was playing well, at home, and they have proven to have the capability to beat LBS on the LBS home court. I think it fair to assume UCI would have won that match if LBS hadn’t baited and berated the refs and if the refs had made the right call. BG and the refs, it could be argued, stole one from UCI. So the NCAA attempted to right the ship with re-match call. Why the BW/NCAA then allowed the match not to be played, with a no contest no play over result, it could be argued was a fair decision as well, since so much time had past since the original match and their respective line-ups had changed, and they’d even already played a second match at LBS. If the BW/NCAA decisions have no finality to them, and if they can constantly change based on unknown and publicized circumstances, how is that fair to the teams and fans?
#22 change to ‘unknown and un-published circumstances…’ in the last sentence. Sorry, I do a terrible job at correcting my typing errors in this blog. Apologize for that.
22. I think you are over-arguing this. And you misinterpreted my comment on the AQ. Btw, LBSU did have a win taken away. Doesn’t matter if it was played under protest. If protest was denied, LBSU would have one more win right now. Time to move on. Bottom line is that UH needs to win out, which it should do, and render all of this moot.
Congratulations Annie and the team! We knew you could do it; esp. Tom Pestolesi!
So…just to play devil’s advocate…Let’s say the wahine were all fine at the beginning of the season, no injuries. Mitchem would have been in the middle, Greeley at LH with Granato backing her up, Nikki at OH with possibly Sibley/Castillo backing her up. Setter would have still gone to Iosia, she just has a lot of talent. But Tayler has led us to the elite 8 so I’m not complaining about her, I wish Dave would let her contribute more. I just think things happened the way they did to come up with the line up we have. Without the injuries, we wouldn’t have seen how deep this team really is. And I doubt we would have come up with this current line-up back then. I could see Dave…”What, start Burns at MH, you kidding?” Well, with their hard work, I believe the team and the staff came up with a killer line-up that just blew me away this past weekend. NO ONE was expecting their results, not even LBSU or CSUN! GO BOWS!
Oh, by the way, Cindy, Mahalo nui loa for all your hard work and expertise!
To be clear for those who care, once a match is under protest, the results of the match are pending NCAA review. The NCAA decides if the protest has merit. If it does have merit it decides the remedy. The NCAA decided that LBS hadn’t earned a win against UCI, that the match was to be replayed from the point of the referee error in order avoid an unacceptable injustice to UCI and general fair play. LBS didn’t have a win taken away, since the match was under protest the final result was pending until NCAA review. Let’s not allow the situation to be characterized so poorly to the point of turning LBS into some kind of victim. LBS does not deserve any special treatment post the NCAA decision. So, yes, agree time to move on.
26. Most of this is your interpretation of section 17.2 of the NCAA rules manual, not what it actually says. The NCAA didn’t say LBSU didn’t earn the win, you did. The NCAA made no mention of injustice or fair play, you did. No one is asking for any special treatment for LBSU, but for some reason you need to mention it. Seems like a lot of effort for such a trivial point.
Noblesol and Maverick. You guys are bogging down the blog. Please exchange e-mails and battle it out.
I’m hoping Nerene gets the FOY award this year. The Big West has a lot of freshman that their teams depend on for big performances. I mean, it’s not the end of the world if she doesn’t get it, but I have a weird feeling that it’s going to someone else. I don’t know who, there are so many freshman starters in the Big West this year. I would do a search by team, but I’m lazy. I just know that every time I watch a Big West match, it’s a freshman leading the way, for the most part.
Here is hoping Nerene still gets the nod!
#Rabbit Ears… yes, my hare. It’s ok between Mav and me. We’re both big fans of the Wahine and the sport. I always look forward to his posts, even if we sometimes have different view points. I apologize to the blog for upsetting anyone.
#Rabbit Ears… yes, my hare. It’s ok between Mav and me. We’re both big fans of the Wahine and the sport. I always look forward to his posts, even if we sometimes have different view points. I apologize to the blog for upsetting anyone.
look at picture of Annie in today’s paper. see how high the ball is when is hits it. compare that to Granato’s height and you can see why size matters on the outside. Definitely a difference maker.
I’m glad they finally have seem to find a lineup that works. Mitchem has proved to be just as effective on the outside as she is in the middle (even more effective in a way since she gets way more touches on the outside). Post season is coming up soon and they seem like they’re gaining momentum to make a deep run again this year.
I am for Norene but – IMO, Lindsey Ruddins at UCSB looks like at shoo-in for FOY. Red-shirteded last year but having a great season at OH. 6’2″ Ruddins was Volleyball Magazine’s Fab 50, Second Team HS All-America, and No. 15 spot on the Senior Aces Top 100. She will be the one of the most dominant OHs in the league for the next 3 years once Nikki graduates.
It is likely Taylor Nelson at Cal Poly will cast a shadow over Norene as the best setter in the league for at least another year.
for those interested, in the RPI Futures thread on VT, here are the difference scenarios for hawaii’s projected RPI at the end of the season (as noted above, they are 38 in this week’s official RPI) …
27, if they win out (with a 15-1 BW record)
35, if they lose one more (14-2 BW record)
43, if they lose twice (13-3 BW record)
the 35 RPI gets hawaii in, imo… the 43 RPI gets dicey, because that’s right around the cut line for at-large bids.
I apologize too, noblesol and I were just bantering. Nothing personal. I like his interest in the AQ scenarios. A true Wahine VB fan.
one last word on the replay.
The Big West was not the one that said it would be a no-contest and not finished form the point of protest … and that match was under protest by UCI in Set 2.
It was Long Beach State that said the Big West had ruled that.
The Big West told me on Monday that wasn’t true and that they are trying to get the match in.
Heard from UCI coach as well today. She said they wanted to replay the match from the contested point. But that Long Beach doesn’t. She says the replay is the right thing to do.
http://hawaiiwarriorworld.com/?p=40096
new thread up