Wahine back down to No. 10

September 9th, 2013
By

A 3-0 week that included a sweep of No. 10 UCLA and coach Dave Shoji becoming the all-time career leader in Division I women's volleyball victories, had Hawaii moving down a spot in today's AVCA Top 25 coaches poll.

The Rainbow Wahine (5-1)  fell to No. 10, their preseason ranking. Hawaii's week included Shoji surpassing retired UCLA coach Andy Banachowski for in all-time wins and a sweep of then-No. 10 UCLA in front of a sold-out crowd of 10,300. Shoji now has 1,108, two more than Banachowski and 13 more than Penn State's Russ Rose, No. 2 on the active coaching list.

USC (6-0), receiving 37 of the 60 first-place votes, jump two spots to No. 1. Preseason No. 1 Texas (4-1), with two big wins over Penn State and Florida over the weekend, received 16 votes in moving to No. 2; the Longhorns' only loss came at Hawaii in the season-opener for both teams on Aug. 30.

Last week's No. 1 Penn State (4-1) received six votes in falling two spots to No. 3 while Minnesota (7-0) remained at No. 4.

Rounding out the Top 10 were Minneota (7-0), Florida (5-1), Washington (5-0), Stanford (2-2), San Diego (4-1) and Hawaii. San Diego, which handed the Wahine their lone loss on Sept. 1, received the remaining first-place vote.

49 Responses to “Wahine back down to No. 10”

  1. Cindy Luis:

    As mentioned, USD's one first-place vote was from USC coach Mick Haley.
    USD with 1042 points, UH 1023. Big gap between No. 10 Hawaii and No. 11 UCLA (841 points)
    Guess we shouldn't be surprised that Stanford lost twice, moved from No. 2 to only to No. 8. Both losses 3-1 and were at the Texas tournament vs. the Longhorns and Florida.
    What it tells me is that Texas' loss to Hawaii kind of dismissed as a fluke and voters are overlooking the 3-2 win over USD that the Toreros had a chance of winning.
    And that the voters are loyal to the 'big' names.


  2. Warriorfan:

    Well not happy with them moving them after dominating UCLA but rpi is all that matters.

    Really happy to hear that Mckenna Granato committed to UH for 2015. She can really hit.


  3. Warriorfan:

    I meant not happy with them moving down the poll^ whoops


  4. Maverick:

    2. Do you know how she compares to Ginger Long. Both about the same height and both have a hammer for an arm.


  5. wampam:

    Cindy,

    I attended the Sand Volleyball program's Portuguese Horseshoe Tournament this past Sunday. Didn't know what to expect, but Scott Danny and Michelle put together a very nice fundraising event. A lot of fun and unique, too! Attendance was very good and Scott said that the event will be able to fund more matches held in Hawaii. REAL important if you want to watch our Wahine Sand program compete.

    Congrats to the Sand program for a great event!


  6. Cindy Luis:

    Glad the event turned out well. Wong was very pleased with that had nearly sold out the entries. The goal was at least $25,000 with an anonymous donor pledging to match up to $25,000 raised. so $50,000 would be a great start in bringing more teams here. glad you had fun


  7. Warriorfan:

    Thanks for the info Wampam I am glad it went real well. Did any of the indoor girls show up? Might give us an idea who will play sand. I am pretty sure Aly and Ginger will.


  8. Purple&Gold:

    How naive can some 'islanders' get?
    Am I the only one who can foresee this playing out as 'UH, 2013 postseason travel'?!

    The NCAA needed a "scientific" tool as a means to justify their bracketology at the WVB season's end each year and hence they went looking for that mid-west dude who could provide the rpi formula they use annually (outta Purdue I think?).

    This season they (da NCAA) will lean more heavily upon the AVCA Poll to contend with Hawaii's incessant monku (Japanese word for complaint) about tournament seeding.

    UH is isolated, period. Isolation in NEVER a good thing as it ALWAYS results in headaches (for appropriating committees).


  9. Purple&Gold:

    Despite all its advances, VB is still a fringe sport!

    WBB reigns supreme.


  10. Cindy Luis:

    9. IMHO only because TV has pushed it to being. If you look at the youth/club level more young women play volleyball than basketball.


  11. wampam:

    WF,

    No indoor players were present. There are lot of Sand only players now... they were present. They have 5 full scholarships this year and will have six next year.

    Also, heard mentioned that UH will have two sand courts ready (cross your fingers) by the end of January.


  12. Cindy Luis:

    7. WF, I think you'll see fewer of the indoor playing as Wong moves toward full-funding and sand-only team. I would guess, tho, that Longo would only because she is done with her indoor eligibility after this fall. maybe a couple of other of the indoor seniors. Probably not Tuaniga. Maybe not Hartong, who like will train with A2 indoor.


  13. LC:

    According to a BW tweets this morning no Wahine was nominated and Natalie Allen from CSUN is the POW.


  14. setaone:

    Hopefully the money raised from the fundraiser will be put into a good investment account so that the money can grow and not just sit in a checking or savings account.


  15. Jeff:

    #8 Come on P&G Didn't you predict UCLA would win against Hawaii.

    History has shown us that RPI is all that matters, if they didn't rely on the poll for seeding last year why would they this year.


  16. roofer68:

    Of the 7 seniors, I would think that Ashley Kastl would be the only indoor playing sand.

    Great to see McKenna Granato commit, have been watching her the last two years and thought that she would be a good D1 player. She plays all six at Punahou and club, hits a heavy ball and has all the shots.


  17. roofer68:

    Mita's play over the weekend was worthy of a nomination.


  18. Warriorfan:

    re. 13, Hartong had an even better week than last week and she wasn't nominated??

    15. Definitely think Aly Longo will play beach as well, she was fantastic last season

    Agreed on Granato, I think if she works on her vertical a bit she will be a standout player for the wahine. She's also 6 feet so not that undersized.


  19. Cindy Luis:

    13. & 18. so much for twitter. Hartong was nominated. see new thread
    or you could go directly to biggest.org.


  20. Cindy Luis:

    14. doubt if money will sit around for long. Wong trying to have more home matches so it will be used to bring teams here, perhaps create a big tournament.


  21. V-Ballin:

    Granato is a great get for the Wahine! She has a hammer of an arm with a range of shots. She and Kahakai are the outside hitters for AhMows Imi'Ike 17s team. That team finished 13th, I believe at JOs last year! Of course Kahakai is coming in as a libero though. Both of these recruits will definitely contribute when they get to Manoa!


  22. Msrpantoja1@netzero.com:

    #15

    You mean that UH is not done falling in the AVCA poll this season??


  23. Purple&Green:

    Correct.
    ---
    On a neutral court UH vs. UCLA would likely have been a more even match.

    UCLA didn't fall but UH did, hah? ;-)


  24. Cindy Luis:

    UCLA fell to No. 11 from No. 10 in this week's poll


  25. Maverick:

    23. Yes, because of San Diego's rise to #9


  26. nana kokolele:

    Here's the deal about the polls. The NCAA committee does look at the polls, just not as heavily as other factors such as the RPI. And while it's too early to tell, UH dropping just makes it harder for them to be bumped up again because of its remaining schedule. It also takes into consideration how the committee will seed the top 16 teams. The fact that some of the voters decided to place UCLA ahead of Hawai'i even when they handily lost to UH shows, the bias they have towards UH. Or that they do not take the voting seriously. If its meant to capture a point in time on a weekly basis then they dropped the ball. i'll dig up an article from the chair of the NCAA seeding committee on my next entry...


  27. nana kokolele:

    Q&A with Diane Turnham

    Check out some insight from the tournament selection committee
    NCAA.com
    Last Updated - November 30, 2011 11:55 GMT
    Contact | Archive | RSS
    MTSU
    Turnham
    Following the announcement of the NCAA Women’s Volleyball Championship field of 64 on Sunday, Diane Turnham, the tournament selection committee chairperson, took a few minutes to answer questions generated through the NCAA’s Facebook page. For additional information regarding criteria about the RPI, the Appendix H of the Pre Championships Manual can be referenced and the latest RPI rankings can be found here.

    Q: How is the No. 1 seed determined and then the top 16?

    A: The committee uses the selection criteria to determine all 16 teams that are seeded in the tournament. The committee evaluates all the teams throughout selection weekend, and takes into account the results of competition that is still occurring. The selection criteria includes head to head competition, win/loss record, results against common opponents, results of the RPI, and input from regional advisory committees.

    Q: What is the role RPI plays in seeding teams? How is it different than the coaches’ poll?

    A: The RPI is one factor in the selection criteria. The coaches’ poll is based off of the votes of the DI volleyball coaches. The coaches do not necessarily have to use the NCAA selection criteria when placing their votes.

    Q: How did so many highly ranked teams land in the same Region? What is considered for Regional placement of teams?

    A: The “ranking” that is being referred to is that of the coaches’ poll. The coaches’ poll is not a piece of the selection criteria that the committee uses when selecting the teams to the tournament. The committee places the seeded teams in the bracket according to the bracketing policies approved by the Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet. The top 16 seeds are guaranteed to host if they have submitted a bid that meets the requirements. Once the sites have been established, the committee places teams in the bracket based on geographic proximity, while also avoiding first- and second-round conference matchups. The regional site locations are determined by where that host team is in the bracket, if they are selected to the tournament. This year all four of the regional hosts were selected to the tournament.

    Q: How much consideration was given to limit travel? (i.e., Why was Yale sent to Hawaii?)

    A: One of the factors of bracketing is to have the minimum number of flights possible. However, with that being said, the committee also allows the top 16 seeds to host if they have met bid specifications. This means that some teams will have to fly across the country due to the location of our seeds.

    Q: Why are no Pac-12 Teams seeded in the top five, despite their higher AVCA Coaches Poll rankings throughout the year?

    A: The committee looks at the whole body of work when evaluating the teams selected to the tournament. The ranking of a team in the coaches’ poll is not a factor in the committees selection criteria.

    Q: Why doesn’t the selection committee use the latest coaches’ poll and seed every team? For example, the top four get a No. 1 seed for each regional, next four get a No. 2 seed and so on to split up the brackets. Should limit the “stacking” of one regional.

    A: The committee follows the selection, seeding and bracketing policies that are established. Per those policies a non-revenue generating championship (i.e. Division I Women’s Volleyball) is allowed to seed 25 percent of the bracket. Hence the reason that 16 teams are seeded in the Division I volleyball bracket.


  28. nana kokolele:

    Nov 7, 2012 at 5:10pm
    Quote Post Options
    Post by Odin on Nov 7, 2012 at 5:10pm
    Frequently Asked Questions About NCAA Volleyball Bracketology

    An agent of Volley Talk was able to gain an audience with the foremost authority on the NCAA Volleyball Bracketology, henceforth known as the Volleyball Brackets Guru (The Guru for short). The negotiations had been ongoing for a long time and The Guru had finally agreed to let us behind the curtain to see some of the behind the scenes of the volleyball brackets. This is by no means a comprehensive and detailed view of the process, but it will answer most of the questions that many have concerning the team selection, the selection committee and the bracket creating process.

    VT: So how many teams are considered when the committee sits down to discuss the 64 slots in the tournament?
    The Guru: Well, there are a number of automatic qualifiers, teams that won their conference tournaments. The rest are teams that are considered to be deserving of being selected as at-large selections.

    VT: What makes those teams deserving of an at-large bid, there are a lot of teams that can be selected. What is the cut off criteria?
    The Guru: Well, there is no cut-off criterion per se. The committee looks at the body of work, approaching the eligible teams from a body of work point of view. The basis of comparing the bodies of work changes slightly from year to year. For this season the following pieces of information are included: above 0.500 record, RPI, Schedule strength, Regional rankings, National rankings (AVCA poll), Pablo, Significant wins (wins against teams with 1-70 RPI), Significant losses (losses against teams ranked 150-250 RPI), Common Opponent results, Head to Head result, and their records for the last 10 matches.

    VT: So which is more important? Many have pointed at the RPI as the key criteria for getting in and for seeding.
    The Guru: This is where the VTers start verging towards fantasyland. In actuality, and this is a part of the rules for the selection committee, not one metric is more important than another, each team is evaluated by the body of work as defined by the data as I had previously stated. Even automatic qualifiers are still subject to these data except for the winning record. A conference champion, especially a tournament champion, may have a record below 0.500

    VT: We had heard that Pablo and the AVCA poll were not a part of the process. Why the change?
    The Guru: The rules makers were concerned enough about the Pablo being a method which is more about predicting outcomes than about ranking teams. But I think they are finally comfortable with Pablo being more beneficial towards getting the tournament consideration decision and the seeding decisions right that they decided to use it this year.
    As for the AVCA poll. The committee was very concerned about the effect of the college coaching trying to game the polls by voting for their own best interest that the polls do not reflect a “true” ranking or being careless in their selections. But once the AVCA started publishing the poll voter’s votes, so that people are being held accountable for their votes, it cleared up that obstacle, it forced the poll voters to be more accountable..

    VT: So does the process place an inordinate amount of emphasis on the RPI as many have speculated?
    The Guru: Like I said before, the RPI is but one dimension for consideration. Again think in terms of the whole evaluation process as looking at the body of work by that team for that season.
    Let me describe how it all works and you will get an idea. All the teams that meet the criteria, including the automatic qualifiers all get thrown into a pot. They are then ranked by their RPI, AVCA poll, and Pablo. They pick the first eight teams since there are eight branches in the bracket feeding into the final four. They then start discussing each of these teams looking at their results in terms of regional rankings, records against common opponents, each other, good wins/bad losses etc. and most importantly, their record in the last ten matches of the season. This last point is incredibly important because many teams have dropped in stock because they were just limping into the end of the season and living off of the records that they had built early in the season.

    VT: It sounds like the rankings and ratings are a starting point.
    The Guru: You can see it that way. Keep in mind what these rating and ranking numbers are all about; they take a team’s achievement through out the season, wins, losses, good wins, bad losses and they collapse all those variables into one number: the ranking. The way that number is arrived at involves a lot of estimation and averaging of subjective grades. The other numbers mentioned that aren’t averaged are used to reconstitute the body of work and recover the dimensionality of the season because those numbers remind the selection committee how each of the teams got to their ranking, these numbers gives granularity to the rankings.

    VT: OK, I can see how that works; I didn’t realize that those regional ranking numbers were used.
    The Guru: Regional rankings are taken very seriously. The process work hard at finely differentiating one team from another and take the process seriously. There are regional advisory committees starting the second week of season to rank teams in the region and give their version of the top 20. These are mostly coaches representing their conferences. The selection committee members will meet with these regional advisory committees off and on, but most importantly right before the selection process begins and ask their opinions. They would ask them about each team, about whether their wins are deserved or whether the teams can beat any of the other eligible teams in the region if they have not played; each selection committee member is responsible for a region, so their job is to know everything about those teams in their region and where they stack up against each other.
    So anyways, the first eight teams are stacked up and ranked. They then move on to the second eight and so on. The ranking criteria is based on those statistics I talked about earlier. Pretty lively discussions go on about where to put each team within the block of eight; this is where the record in the last ten matches really puts distance between otherwise identical teams, as well as discussions on the good wins and bad losses.

    VT: Talk about how the other numbers used to give the process more granularity?
    The Guru: Things like quality wins and bad losses, head to head competition between teams, and record against common opponents are totaled up for each team as well. These kind of data helps give granularity and precision to the ranking type of numbers. The committee is able to separate out the teams that by all other general measures look identical by revealing more about the quality of each team’s schedules, wins and losses.
    One example of the one bad loss affecting seeding is the case of USC in 2011. They were very highly ranked in the AVCA poll heading into selection weekend but because they had one of the worst bad losses to a much lower ranked team (UCF), they got dropped to seventh overall. No one else had anything that was close to that bad of a loss,

    VT: One can argue that the loss came very early in the season and that it really doesn’t reflect the team that USC was at the end of the season.
    The Guru: The fact is, they still lost a bad loss.

    VT: So what happens if there aren’t eight teams in a block?
    The Guru: We drop to the next eight and figure out which one of those deserves to be up by using the same process with the preceding block and then move them up to fill out the eight.

    VT: It sounds like all the teams do actually get ranked.
    The Guru: Ranked but not seeded. The committee does seed the first two groups of eight and that is how the first sixteen teams get to be seeded. This is important because these are the teams that get the opportunity to host the first two rounds of the tournament. Before 2011-2012, this determined whose’ trips get paid for by the NCAA.

    VT: Wait. Not all the travel expenses get paid for all the teams?
    The Guru: The committee has at their disposal a number of trips for the teams. But since 2011, having the seeded teams host made it a whole lot easier. Oh, and those teams who drive gets their driving expenses reimbursed, but that is it.

    VT: OK, that brings up another interesting question: why doesn’t volleyball seed all 64 teams, including the automatic qualifiers?
    The Guru: Well, there is a major ramification with seeding every team, even though the work is done to rank each team within each block of eight teams that are the most similar in terms of body of work. But the committee is well aware that travel and other rules of the NCAA will dictate where those non-seeded teams will go in terms of playing site. Many people know that in a bracket of 64, the four regional first seeds will play the regional sixteenth seed in the first round. So the seeds for each matchup in the first round must total 17, and the final round matchup must add up to 5. This kind of bracket making gives the top seeds the easiest route to the regional finals. This also means that an low seed automatic qualifier may need to travel cross country to play one match and come home, a prospect that many of the lower seeds won’t do or can’t do economically given their budget constraints, and it really isn’t a very good way to spend your scarce resources.

    VT: Well, you said that the committee had travel money at their discretion?
    The Guru: Not that much money, but if you seeded all 64 teams, then the committee will be sending the teams all over the country, or else some teams may just forfeit their first round matches.

    VT: So what you are saying is that if we wanted the entire bracket to be seeded, the NCAA volleyball would have to find a way to pay for all 64 teams to travel.
    The Guru: That’s the long and short of it. I don’t know of any school that is willing to pay for the volleyball team to travel to a single digit seed’s home court, play one match, get smacked and pay for the flight home, especially cross country or even going from someplace in the northeast to California, or Hawaii.

    VT: Does the committee use any kind of an online mileage computation aid to figure out what the mileages are for the location of the first round site?
    The Guru: To be totally honest, there isn’t really the need. The flights are a function of the airlines and their policies and restrictions, so it really isn’t worth the effort to figure that stuff to the minutest level because the flight situation changes all the time and if the committee worked it out to the last mile, the travel plans will most likely change anyways. And there is no longer a need, with each of the sixteen seeds hosting, they will cluster those teams that are lower in the overall list to someplace close to home.

    VT: Well, this brings up the situation where Kentucky, Dayton, and Lipscomb had to all travel to College Station to play, while all three of them are within close proximity of each other and Texas A & M was the lone team that was in Texas, why couldn’t TAMU have traveled to meet up with those three teams?
    The Guru: Well, did any one of those three other teams get seeded? No, I guess not. Get seeded and things will get a whole lot easier.

    VT: OK, so what’s next?
    The Guru: Well, we then move the automatic qualifiers around to that they can play against the seeded teams that are mileage-wise the closest venue for them to travel to.

    VT: We have had a bunch of VTers complain about Penn State getting an easy first couple of rounds. Is this the reason why?
    The Guru: Yes. As it turns out, the closest first round venue to some of these northeastern automatic qualifiers is in State College, so that is where they are sent.

    VT: You mean this has nothing to do with a bias towards Russ Rose and Penn State?
    The Guru: Nope. Another VTer delusion. Trust me, as soon someone in the Northeast wins enough to be seeded above Penn State and wants to host, the committee will move it to their campus.

    VT: So is that the end? Do they have the bracket done then?
    The Guru: Not so fast my friend. The NCAA also have a number of mandates concerning teams from the same conference playing against each other in the first two rounds, as well as other constraints concerning competition between conference opponents.

    VT: Well, you say that there are rules about teams from the same conference playing each other, but a few years ago, there was a bloodbath for the Big Ten when three teams ended up on the same branch of the bracket. How did that happen?
    The Guru: I think that was a case of the seeding dictating where those teams landed. The committee does not haphazardously move teams from different regionals if it wreaks havoc with the seeding.

    VT: Huh, so the committee is duty bound to meet every one of the NCAA rules?
    The Guru: Yep. Once you have seen the rules, the travel restrictions, and how the automatic qualifiers fall into the overall bracket, it becomes very obvious that the bracket really creates itself, warts and all, the committee’s bias, if it exists, has no effect on the outcome of the bracket.

    VT: OK, it may have nothing to do with the bracket but it might have something to do with who gets in.
    The Guru: It may seem that way, but the committee really gets down to splitting hairs while they get down to the last five teams that are allowed into the tournament and the first five that are left out. They really rely on the key numbers: record in the last ten matches played, good win/bad losses, and their record against the other teams that are already in, common opponents and head to head. Those numbers really tell the story about how they have done throughout the season. This is why there ise no mulligan if you are on the verge.
    I read the discussion about being a 0.500 with great interest. The discussion serves to illustrate my point. There are lots of teams that finish just above 0.500. Not all of them get in. Only the ones that are deserving, by virtue of their record against the best competition, get in. Unlike football, being 0.500 does not automatically get you into a bowl game; it just gets you into consideration. If you played a really tough schedule and you have won more of those matches than lost, then you get in, but if you play a tough schedule and lose, well, there are others that did better so you are on the outside looking in. The scale for who gets in or not is dependent on who else is in the mix that season, and it will slide depending on everyone’s body of work.

    VT: Wow, I can see that now. So why are you opening up the curtains this little bit?
    The Guru: Well, every year the committee gets slammed for this bonehead move with someone’s favorite team or gives someone else’s least favorite team as easy pass. I read some of these comments and realize that most of the people commenting have no clue as to what the process is and how all of this comes together. I just wanted the process to be more transparent and try to assure some people out there that Elvis is not alive and there isn’t a conspiracy against Hawaii and for Penn State.

    VT: Great. Thanks for your time.
    The Guru: My pleasure.

    Read more: http://volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/46782#ixzz2eRQAz7gR


  29. nana kokolele:

    As you can read...they did not use the poll in 2011 but starting in 2012, they have been taking the poll into consideration for seeding. So, yes it does matter in some way, where you are in the poll. The point I want to make is this. How do you vote for a team ahead of a team they just lost to? if that week's vote is supposed to be a "snapshot" of what happened that week and not a vote for the potential of teams throughout the season?

    And regarding the first article above, answer one, "input from regional advisory committees." Who are they (what are their qualifications), How are they consulted?, where are they consulted? What are the questioned asked of them? why are they consulted? Does the NCAA committee members have enough knowledge to seed on its own?


  30. Cindy Luis:

    25. Maverick, pretty much true. But if the NIU coach had put Hawaii in his poll, likely his points would have kept UH ahead of USD.
    Couldn't get in to see his votes so I don't know whee he had USD this week or Hawaii last week.


  31. LC:

    Ray had Hawai`i at #12 last week this was probably just a brain fart on his part.


  32. Cindy Luis:

    Thanks LC


  33. Cubicle1126:

    nana -- the Q&A you posted says that the AVCA poll is not considered by the committee in its selection: "The coaches’ poll is not a piece of the selection criteria that the committee uses when selecting the teams to the tournament. "


  34. nana kokolele:

    thats for 2011... However since 2012, the committee has used the poll as part of the criteria. See the article after it. For curious readers, you can see who voted and how they voted at the avca website. Link is here. http://www.avca.org/includes/media/docs/9-9-13-DIPollVoters.xlsx


  35. manu:

    Arrrrgh...darn politics.


  36. LC:

    Last year 2012 ,sent an e-mail to one of the committee members,can't remember which one but I think they were from Utah State, asked this very question and was told no we did not consider the AVCA poll.

    #2 Odin is Ben Studer and the Guru might even be Wolfgang for all we know.How could anyone give that crap any credibility ?


  37. wop ur jaws:

    its credible... just ask the ncaa committee. If you don't believe that's up to you. It was already announce last year that the AVCA poll and the Pablo algorithm chart will be considered. One poll voter Coach Ray Gooden didnt even have Hawai'i on his list of top 25. Many of the voters had UCLA ahead of UH. This is why a non revenue sport will never be legit. If this was a football poll, there would already be a 20 minute show on espn about the craziness of the poll results.


  38. LC:

    Can you read ? I said I e-mailed a member of the committee and she told me no it wasn't used. Paul Wenthold the creator of Pablo also said Pablo wasn't used, Dave Shoji and some other coaches said that they asked them to consider both but it didn't happen.


  39. Cubicle1126:

    nana -- i haven't seen anything definitive or credible that shows the selection committee is now permitted to use the AVCA poll, Pablo, or other resources. what you posted from Volleytalk has never been verified (notice that the person being interviewed is simply dubbed "volleyball guru." it doesn't actually say he/she is a member of the committee).

    if the NCAA really did make the change to allow the selection committee to use those additional resources, it would be published in the NCAA Championships manual. up until last year, that document was publicly available. but as i recall, starting last year, that document was only available behind a login wall, on the NCAA web site.


  40. innocent observer:

    on the surface it appears that the wahine was cheated in their ranking, however, even though they had 3 wins this past weekend, the only ranked team they beat was the former #10. so realistically, how can the wahine move up. the main reason the wahine moved down one is because there were other teams who beat higher ranked teams on the road and in some case twice. no need to get upset, it is the final poll that counts.


  41. Maverick:

    40. Actually, I don't think the AVCA poll matters at all, at least not in UH's case. The poll is good for fan debate, but unless the RPI is top 12 or so (to make it difficult for the committee to deny UH a seed), this is all moot. Even then, I doubt the committee would use the poll if UH was top 12. But that is my bias. I am cynical when it comes to the VB seeding committee.


  42. Cindy Luis:

    40. They could have moved up mathematically based on getting some points instead of not getting any from the guy who left UH off the ballot.
    There was a 19 point difference between USD (1042) and UH (1023).
    based on the guy's voting from the previous week, from what i've been told, he had UH at 12, which is worth 49 points (a vote for first place = 60 points, vote for No. 2 = 59, etc.
    If he voted them No. 12 again 49 points would have given UH 1072. putting them ahead of USD but not over No. 8 Stanford (1097)

    As for your statement that 'other teams beat higher teams on the road, not seeing it ... then No. 6 Texas was home when beating both No. 2 Stanford and No. 1 Penn State. Penn State sweeps Florida (neutral) No. 8 Florida beats No. 2 Stanford (neutral) in four.

    So let's take a look at Stanford, who lost twice on the road to lower ranked teams: Cardinal No. 2 going into the week. they lose 3-1 at Texas, then ranked No. 6, and they lose 3-1 to Florida, at the time ranked No. 8, neutral site.
    Washington plays the Canadian national team last week. they move down from 5 to 6 only because Florida, who beat Stanford, jumps over them from 8 to 5.

    however, even a first place vote would not have moved UH above Stanford. but would have kept UH at 9

    41. as you should be.


  43. Cindy Luis:

    40. As for the New No. 1 USC .. even Haley said they didn't deserve to be there because he had played no one.
    True they are 6-0, all on the road but really? Purdue, Western Kentucky, Alabama A&M gives USC a No. 3 ranking after the first week, Last week, they beat TCU, Marquette, Northern Illinois (the latter a big hmmmmm since he's the voter who didn't have UH in the poll this week).


  44. Cindy Luis:

    40. continuing on about Washington
    They are 4-0. was incorrect in writing above that they only played the Canadian national team (twice, won both in four) last week
    Huskies also played a home match with Seattle, won it 14, 10, 15
    Huskies opened the season 3-0. playing all the way down in Portland.
    they sweep Boise State 18 16 16
    they sweep Portand State 22, 17, 10
    then have to hold off power Gonzaga, 25-18, 25-21, 26-28, 30-32, 15-9.
    At that point, Washington stays at No. 5, its preseason ranking


  45. VB Fever:

    I am not sure why my comments were deleted. I did not post anything inflammatory, most of it was praise and admiration to the Wahine Volleyball Program and Dave Shoji. I guess I am not part of your small volleyball "circle". Too bad...


  46. Purple&Green:

    42-4.
    &yet, "UCLA fell to No. 11 from No. 10 in this week's poll"
    ;-)


  47. Cindy Luis:

    45. VBF, don't know what comments were deleted. Can you repost if you have time? I just found the post that is No. 45 in spam.


  48. Cindy Luis:

    45. VBF, tried to email you back personally but it wasn't a valid email. could be the issue? I don't know.


  49. Cindy Luis:

    46. isn't that I wrote above in the response to your comment that UCLA didn't fall Ha.