Not that it matters, but the Volleytalk crowd largely thinks KSU being left out and SFA getting into the field is one of the worst committee decisions in a long time. SFA had zero top 50 wins and KSU had six (three in the top 15). But, it seems like this committee largely went chalk with the RPI (SFA was 37 and we were 57).
Definitely some learnings from a scheduling standpoint for next year..
The committee for all sports outside of men's basketball does that, and frankly, without the ability to see all of these teams on a consistent basis, they should. The people who say that SFA shouldn't be in have no real way of knowing that they aren't as good as the other bubble schools they were paired against. Power conference schools shouldn't be selected simply because they are in a power conference. The volleyball committee has a long history of issuing a multiple bids to traditional one bid conferences.
Agree to disagree a bit on this one - I'd argue it's actually been trending in the opposite direction and what was stated as the most important factors earlier this year (not just the RPI/KPI, but also your recent matches, etc.) actually leaves the door open to more big schools.
I mean, TCU made the tourney at 16-14 and 8-10 in Big 12 play and had zero wins against top 25 RPI teams during the year - did they really deserve to be in the tourney over teams like SFA? That's a glaring example to me of when you take the small school teams with 30-4 records over a power five school that didn't do anything of substance during the year.
I agree that the committee should largely base these decisions off RPI/KPI, but you can't just look at that when it gets down to the last 8-10 teams in the field. If you put TCU and K-State side by side, the resume clearly favors K-State in every way other than the 13 spot difference in RPI. And, at that point, that's a pretty insignificant difference when factoring in the quality of K-State's wins vs. TCU's.
