buylotrogold

I talked to Dante Dettamanti (Stanford coach) today at our water polo class and asked him why UCLA got the bid over Stanford. The decision was made by the NCAA rules committee (a bunch of coaches, mostly). There are 6 criteria (he didn't say what they were, but I presume it's overall record, record against top teams, record against tourney teams, conference finish, etc.), and he said UCLA came out ahead in 2 of the criteria, 2 were ties, and 2 favored Stanford. The tiebreaker is head to head record. UCLA beat Stanford twice this year, and Stanford beat UCLA once, so UCLA got the bid. JDO

the NCAA rules committee (a bunch of coaches, mostly). The NCAA Men's Water Polo Rules Committee: Kaia Hedlund, Chair, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI Edward Newland, Secretary/Rules Editor, University of California, Irvine, CA Steven Heaston, University of California, Berkeley, CA John Loughran, Queens College, Flushing, NY Russel Yarworth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Taken from the 1996 NCAA Water Polo Men's Rules Rule Book.

Yeah, I understand that the criterion is set by the coaches committee, it needs to be revised so that is simple. The first criterion should be place in conference tourney SIXTH place ought to be an automatic disqualifier. Only the #2 or #3 team ought to be considered. Let's say Well, I can't say I agree with the above. I think the choice of the at-large team has to be made looking at the entire season, not at a conference tournament. There is no question UCLA outplayed Stanford for the first two-thirds of the season, and that Stanford outplayed UCLA in the last third. If you were only to look at the conference tournament: What if UCLA had their hole man injured for that weekend, or their goalie out with the flu, and placed poorly because of it? You can't just look at one weekend to give the bid. I think the important point to be made here is that there is a procedure to decide the at-large team, it seems to be reasonably fair as it's _base_d on head-to-head record, overall record, and so on, and it was followed in deciding the at-large team. If I was voting on whom I thought deserved to go, it would have been Stanford, but I can't quarrel with the process that was followed as it seems to be fair to me. JDO