Is it too early to discuss at large bids? Maybe, but a lot of teams only have conference play remaining - here’s where I think they stand:
How to read: Stanford is 1-0 vs USC with 1 game remaining (possibly more in conference finals (*)
Some thoughts:
-
Hawaii is 1-0 vs UCLA and still has another game scheduled; I wonder if Hawaii regrets scheduling it. 1-0 is better than 1-1 and I don’t think 2-0 is any better than 1-0 (for at-large discussions).
-
I think Stanford, USC, and Hawaii are the top 3 teams for an at-large right now. If Hawaii doesn’t win the Big West, they will will have a loss to UCI or LB and that coupled with a loss to UCLA I think would put UCLA ahead of them in the at-large pecking order
-
for the 3rd At-Large bid:
-
If Hawaii doesn’t win the BW and Cal doesn’t beat any of the Big-3 teams, then I think Hawaii gets the last at-large spot over Cal
-
If UCI beats Cal, and Cal doesn’t win against the Big-3, I think UCI could get the 3rd at-large bid over Cal despite UCI’s other losses.
-
FS or anyone else doesn’t have a path to an at-large bid.
-
Here’s where I think it’s interesting - if any Big-3 team wins MPSF, Cal beats UCI, and Hawaii wins BW, then the 3rd at-large will be between the loser of Harvard/Princeton and Cal. Since there’s no head-to-head and they all lost to the top teams - What could be a deciding factor is Princeton has a loss to UCSD, who Cal is 2-0 against - so Cal over Princeton … Or if Princeton wins CWPA, then the deciding factor for Cal v. Harvard may come down to the Indiana v Cal game on 3/29 (since IU beat Harvard).
Of course this all goes out the window if someone like ASU wins the MPSF or if the wheels fall off at Hawaii. Personally, I’m rooting for a CWPA or Big-West team to get the 3rd at-large bid.
2 Likes
Nice breakdown. I know that there still a lot of water polo to be payed, but outside of the “Big Four,” I think that Hawaii is the only team that could win an “At Large” bid if they do not win the Big West tournament. They will probably need to beat UCLA in their second matchup since recency is very important for the selection committee.
Otherwise, it is the typical teams.
With losses to UCSD, Indiana, and Harvard, there is no way Princeton could get that at-large bid over Cal, it is not even close 
Harvard has only one win over a team ranked in the top ten at that moment (UCSD was ranked # 9 when Harvard beat it 13-11; it is currently ranked #11). And do not forget that Harvard lost to Indiana 10-14 (Indiana was ranked #12 at that time and is currently ranked even lower as #17).
P.S. I think Fresno State, for example, is a better team than either of the Ivys.
Teams 6-19 could all beat each other on any given day based on the results.
2 Likes
retiredguy,
Sure, there is a lot of parity in the 6-19. Still, this does not mean that those teams cannot be ranked. And it does not improve much the chances of the loser of Princeton/Harvard to get an at-large bid.
Agreed, with IU topping both Princeton and Harvard, neither has a chance at an at-large bid. Not that IU is bad, but with a lack of head-to-head, that was an open window that’s now been closed.
If UCI can top Cal, then it will get really interesting as both Hawaii and UCI would be 1-0 over Cal.
I understand Hawaii and their legitimate path to a at large bid given their record so far. But I don’t understand the belief that UCI has even a slight chance at an at large bid. With loses to UCSD, LMU and Long Beach St. on their record already, the only path UCI has to advance is to win the big west championship. Any other paths are just not realistic.
If:
- Hawaii beats UCI in the BW finals
- UCI beats Cal
- Cal doesn’t beat anyone ahead of them
The at-large would come down to UCI vs Cal, of which UCI won the head-to-head - why not give it to UCI?
I don’t think you can ignore head-to-head, especially late in the season when neither UCI nor Cal knocked off the top 4 teams (Stan, SC, Haw, UCLA) - if so, you’re just rewarding Cal for being Cal.
Cal has wins vs Long Beach, LMU and UCSD. UCI has loses against all three. You can’t ignore common opponents. UCI can’t win the at-Large bid. Not even with a win over Cal.
1 Like
UCI also has wins this year against LB, LMU, and UCSD - they’re currently 1-1 against all 3 teams. I think head-to-head is #1, common opponents carries weight if you lack a head-to-head comparison.
UCI also lost to LMU. Too many losses, definitely not the beast season for Irvine. They will not get the at-large bid.
yeah I don’t see the #15 RPI team getting a sniff of the at large.
You understand that the conference RPI really skews this statistic - Indiana is #6 solely because they’re in the MPSF.
Indiana ahead of Mich, Wag. and ASU - despite 0-1 records against all 3?
UCLA ahead of Hawaii?
Fresno is ranked behind USCD, Mich, and LB … FS is a combined 4-0 vs those schools
I can’t agree that if UCI finishes 3-1 vs LB, 1-0 vs Cal, and 2-1 vs UCSD that Cal should be picked over them.
1 Like
yes clearly did not work our for UOP on the mens side but seems like a long way down to make it.
1 Like
UCI has the same conference RPI as UCSD and LB and UCI is ranked lower than both having a 1-1 record with each in this ranking. I don’t understand the fixation with UCI. They really have not had great season and that’s what the statistics show. They are a top 10 team but not a top 5. Getting one win vs Cal can’t just change that fact. Win the Big west championship, that’s the only route to NCAA.
UOP didn’t play Stanford thou
It really feels like there is an attitude that it’s the Big-4’s to lose and everyone else is graded on a curve
I’m saying in a case where the season ends:
UCI: 1-0 v Cal … 0-3 v Hawaii … 2-1 v UCSD … 3-1 v LB
Cal: 0-1 v UCI … 0-1 v Hawaii … 2-0 v UCSD … 2-0 v LB
And your answer is “Despite a winning record against UCSD and LB, and beating Cal in the head-to-head, the bid should still go to Cal” - I disagree.
Of course if Cal beats UCI, this is all moot.
There is a flawed assumption in your analysis that after this big game that would hypothetically result in a win vs Cal, that UCI will then beat UCSD and LB in the big west championship. That is a huge leap. As we have seen this season teams 6-19 can beat each other on any given day, especially in the Big West. I don’t believe UCI will beat Cal. I also don’t believe they will have winning record vs UCSD or LB by the end of the season. The reality is that UCI is in no better position to receive an at large bid than LB or UCSD at this moment. That has nothing to do with an attitude that is “the big 4s to lose.”
I think we’re in agreement - its a hard feat but not unheard of, for UCI to finish 2nd in conference and Cal to finish 4th.
UCI has to win out, only losing to Hawaii (twice) - I assume the BW conference will be seeded 1) Haw … 2) UCI … 3) LB … 4) UCSD - that’s how I came up with those records above
Cal as to beat IU, SJSU, and ASU, losing to everyone else
That’s my premise - IF this 10-leg parlay bet happens - then what.
Whelp - the parlay didn’t pan out. Pretty boring at-large year as I imagine the only decider is:
- If Hawaii doesn’t win the BW - Hawaii gets the last at-large bid (instead of Cal)
- If Hawaii wins the BW - Cal gets the last at-large
Rational - I don’t disagree with you, but I do not think that Hawaii will want to put their fate in the hands of the Selection Committee.
If Hawaii plays poorly and does not win the Big West Tournament, they might leave the door open for Cal if they beat UCLA in the MPSF Semis and play a respectable game in the Finals.
The Kalbus Tournament was a long time ago and it seems as though the Selection Committee puts a lot of emphasis on the teams’ most recent games.
