|
|
Post by shaqtastic on May 14, 2009 17:01:26 GMT -5
In reading the Fab 50 list in Volleyball Mag, I got to thinking about how the Fab 50 designation relates to career success. I put together a chart of the 2005 Fab 50 (this year's graduates) by school to see how things worked out. One thing that stands out. Stay away from UCLA if you're a Fab 50!
Todd Chamberlain Ball State L Great Career at BSU for 1st team All-MIVA
Andy Pompei BYU L Transfer to CSUN; Not on 2009 roster
Ryan Oates BYU MB Quit BYU, playing club for NIU
Evan Stevens BYU OH Not on BYU 2009 Roster
Juri Veldre Carthage OH Career tailed off at D3 school
Ryan Kwiatkowski George Mason S Good setter on a bad team
Ross Hedlund George Mason OH Not on 2009 Roster
Kyle Gramit George Mason OH Strong Career at Mason
Steven Grgas Hawaii MB Decent career on a train wreck
Matt Rawson Hawaii MB Same as above
Dean Bitner LBSU MB Fabulous career at LBSU
Derek Hutton LBSU OH No longer playing
Steve Klipsch LBSU OH No longer playing
Mike Iandolo LBSU S Transfer to Lewis; 1st team All-MIVA as RS Junior
Dan Fabry LBSU MB Wasted career at LBSU
Dan Alexander LBSU MB Terrific when not injured at LBSU
Gavin Christensen LBSU OH No longer playing
David Kelnhofer Lewis MB Solid career at Lewis
Jordan Vidovic Lewis S Ended career as back-up
Dave Swigart Loyola S Not much PT for RS Junior
Dean Torgerson Loyola S Not on Loyola 2009 roster
Nick Lamoureux Loyola MH Strong career for 2nd team All-MIVA MH
Chad Proudman Mercyhurst OH Went down with program
David Hatten Mercyhurst S Went down with program
Tyler Stevens Ohio State OH Transfer to USC; No PT due to injuries
Mike Westendorf Ohio State MB Not on OSU 2009 roster
Max Holt Penn State MB Future Olympian
Matt Anderson Penn State MB Professional Player
Matt McKee Pepperdine OP Waiting behind Paul Carrol for 3 years
Mark Hulse Rutgers S Transfer to Pepperdine; Switch to MB
Brian Fritzsche Stanford OP Not on Stanford 2009 roster
Cameron Christoffers Stanford MB Not much PT
Brandon Williams Stanford MB Solid career at MB
Jarod Keller Stanford L Not much PT behind young Turks
John Ekins Stanford S Not on Stanford 2009 roster
Ian Jackson UCLA OH Not on UCLA 2009 roster
Christian Kraft UCLA OH Not on UCLA 2009 roster
Sean O'Malley UCLA OH Never lived up to hype
Brett Perrine UCLA OH Solid career for RS junior
Ryan Ratelle UCLA OH Only one season of decent PT (2008)
Matt Wade UCLA S Very sad waste of a career
Shaun Nichols UCLA MB No real PT
Max Klineman UCSB S No longer playing
Sam Moisenco UCSB MB Solid career on bad team
Jake Rosener UCSB OP Played well as a starter in 2009
Quint Carroll UCSB MB No longer playing
Chris Icaza Undecided OH NA
Luke Morris USC L Starting Libero on USC NCAA finalist
Hunter Haley USC S Not on USC 2009 roster
CJ Schellenberg USC OP Started great; flamed out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2009 17:05:48 GMT -5
50 is just way too much , they need to trim it down to fab 25.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouci on May 14, 2009 18:23:30 GMT -5
Stay away from UCLA if you're a Fab 50! Dean Bitner LBSU MB Fabulous career at LBSUDerek Hutton LBSU OH No longer playingSteve Klipsch LBSU OH No longer playingMike Iandolo LBSU S Transfer to Lewis; 1st team All-MIVA as RS JuniorDan Fabry LBSU MB Wasted career at LBSUDan Alexander LBSU MB Terrific when not injured at LBSUGavin Christensen LBSU OH No longer playingIan Jackson UCLA OH Not on UCLA 2009 rosterChristian Kraft UCLA OH Not on UCLA 2009 rosterSean O'Malley UCLA OH Never lived up to hypeBrett Perrine UCLA OH Solid career for RS juniorRyan Ratelle UCLA OH Only one season of decent PT (2008)Matt Wade UCLA S Very sad waste of a careerShaun Nichols UCLA MB No real PTLooks like on this list the same can be said about staying away from Long Beach St. Although those UCLA players did win a title in 2006. Wow UCI has no Fab 50 players from 2005 but have 6 seniors that have won 2 titles since then. |
|
|
|
Post by kolohekeiki on May 14, 2009 19:43:36 GMT -5
Stay away from UCLA if you're a Fab 50! Dean Bitner LBSU MB Fabulous career at LBSUDerek Hutton LBSU OH No longer playingSteve Klipsch LBSU OH No longer playingMike Iandolo LBSU S Transfer to Lewis; 1st team All-MIVA as RS JuniorDan Fabry LBSU MB Wasted career at LBSUDan Alexander LBSU MB Terrific when not injured at LBSUGavin Christensen LBSU OH No longer playingIan Jackson UCLA OH Not on UCLA 2009 rosterChristian Kraft UCLA OH Not on UCLA 2009 rosterSean O'Malley UCLA OH Never lived up to hypeBrett Perrine UCLA OH Solid career for RS juniorRyan Ratelle UCLA OH Only one season of decent PT (2008)Matt Wade UCLA S Very sad waste of a careerShaun Nichols UCLA MB No real PTLooks like on this list the same can be said about staying away from Long Beach St. Although those UCLA players did win a title in 2006. Wow UCI has no Fab 50 players from 2005 but have 6 seniors that have won 2 titles since then. I wouldn't jus say UCLA and LBSU...the majority of the Fab50 never panned out the way they were suppose to, the majority of them tanked. |
|
|
|
Post by callinup22 on May 14, 2009 21:25:03 GMT -5
50 is just way too much , they need to trim it down to fab 25. I have to ask, who is that in your avatar? |
|
|
|
Post by lionsarm on May 14, 2009 21:30:58 GMT -5
it's arik metzger
|
|
|
|
Post by setaone on May 14, 2009 21:42:49 GMT -5
Looks like on this list the same can be said about staying away from Long Beach St. Although those UCLA players did win a title in 2006. Wow UCI has no Fab 50 players from 2005 but have 6 seniors that have won 2 titles since then. I wouldn't jus say UCLA and LBSU...the majority of the Fab50 never panned out the way they were suppose to, the majority of them tanked. It's worth pointing out that some of them tanked because of academic reasons. Not all athletes can handle the rigors of maintaining a 2.0 GPA, the intensity of a competitive cauldron and balancing the college lifestyle. In those cases, tanking is not necessarily a reflection of their volleyball aptitude and ability. |
|
|
|
Post by shaqtastic on May 14, 2009 22:10:58 GMT -5
I wouldn't jus say UCLA and LBSU...the majority of the Fab50 never panned out the way they were suppose to, the majority of them tanked. It's worth pointing out that some of them tanked because of academic reasons. Not all athletes can handle the rigors of maintaining a 2.0 GPA, the intensity of a competitive cauldron and balancing the college lifestyle. In those cases, tanking is not necessarily a reflection of their volleyball aptitude and ability. I agree. Some also quit the sport because they were students first and felt they needed to concentrate on the academic side of things so that they could go professional in something other than sports. The worrisome thing is how some schools seem to stockpile talent and then let it wither and die. Some of those kids might have been better off at lesser programs where they would have at least played and enjoyed the student athlete experience. The west coast seems to have a hold on some talented mid-west and east coast kids who might have been better served staying and playing locally. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
Post by setaone on May 14, 2009 22:18:07 GMT -5
Stay away from UCLA if you're a Fab 50! Dean Bitner LBSU MB Fabulous career at LBSUDerek Hutton LBSU OH No longer playingSteve Klipsch LBSU OH No longer playingMike Iandolo LBSU S Transfer to Lewis; 1st team All-MIVA as RS JuniorDan Fabry LBSU MB Wasted career at LBSUDan Alexander LBSU MB Terrific when not injured at LBSUGavin Christensen LBSU OH No longer playingIan Jackson UCLA OH Not on UCLA 2009 rosterChristian Kraft UCLA OH Not on UCLA 2009 rosterSean O'Malley UCLA OH Never lived up to hypeBrett Perrine UCLA OH Solid career for RS juniorRyan Ratelle UCLA OH Only one season of decent PT (2008)Matt Wade UCLA S Very sad waste of a careerShaun Nichols UCLA MB No real PTLooks like on this list the same can be said about staying away from Long Beach St. Although those UCLA players did win a title in 2006. Wow UCI has no Fab 50 players from 2005 but have 6 seniors that have won 2 titles since then. It's wrong to think that one needs to "stay away" from LBSU and UCLA because of their ratio of Fab 50 recruits to D-1 success. The reason those players made the Fab 50 to begin with is that they committed to those schools. Then it becomes a sheer numbers game. As you know, with the numbers that are recruited by those schools, not every player will see playtime. But had they not been recruited by those schools, not all of them would've made the Fab 50. |
|
|
|
Post by setaone on May 14, 2009 22:21:02 GMT -5
It's worth pointing out that some of them tanked because of academic reasons. Not all athletes can handle the rigors of maintaining a 2.0 GPA, the intensity of a competitive cauldron and balancing the college lifestyle. In those cases, tanking is not necessarily a reflection of their volleyball aptitude and ability. I agree. Some also quit the sport because they were students first and felt they needed to concentrate on the academic side of things so that they could go professional in something other than sports. The worrisome thing is how some schools seem to stockpile talent and then let it wither and die. Some of those kids might have been better off at lesser programs where they would have at least played and enjoyed the student athlete experience. The west coast seems to have a hold on some talented mid-west and east coast kids who might have been better served staying and playing locally. Just my two cents. Very good points. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Mac on May 14, 2009 22:39:44 GMT -5
The worrisome thing is how some schools seem to stockpile talent and then let it wither and die. Some of those kids might have been better off at lesser programs where they would have at least played and enjoyed the student athlete experience. The west coast seems to have a hold on some talented mid-west and east coast kids who might have been better served staying and playing locally. Just my two cents. There is no gun to anyone's heads. Some kids are made to thrive in an ultra competitive environment. There's plenty of capability to do their due diligence before signing. |
|
|
|
Post by roy on May 14, 2009 22:50:20 GMT -5
I think it's important to note that among the 50 players, there are only 17 schools being represented. As said in previous posts, it is a numbers game. It becomes very hard to judge the success of a program when the talent ends up cannibalizing one another class after class. For UCLA, their 2006 class had 8 players, 2007 class had 7, and the 2008 class had 7. Ultimately, they are able to create a brand new team each year from Fab 50s. Level of UCLA's success aside, mathmatically, many of those Fab 50s were doomed to begin with. When you enter a program that has that many good players, you're going to see a high drop out rate.
But I think that goes to blaase's point. 50 players may be too much for a credible prep list when the pool of colleges is so small. Unlike the women, when you have a Fab 50 player on your team, you're really looking to make some noise nationally. For the men, you need several of them just to keep up with the rest of the programs in nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by setaone on May 15, 2009 2:12:23 GMT -5
I think it's important to note that among the 50 players, there are only 17 schools being represented. As said in previous posts, it is a numbers game. It becomes very hard to judge the success of a program when the talent ends up cannibalizing one another class after class. For UCLA, their 2006 class had 8 players, 2007 class had 7, and the 2008 class had 7. Ultimately, they are able to create a brand new team each year from Fab 50s. Level of UCLA's success aside, mathmatically, many of those Fab 50s were doomed to begin with. When you enter a program that has that many good players, you're going to see a high drop out rate. But I think that goes to blaase's point. 50 players may be too much for a credible prep list when the pool of colleges is so small. Unlike the women, when you have a Fab 50 player on your team, you're really looking to make some noise nationally. For the men, you need several of them just to keep up with the rest of the programs in nation. Good observations, Roy. Here's my take: 1. The Fab 50 is NOT a ranking list -- it is a MERIT LIST, much like an honor roll. Therefore, it is a credible list of 50 prep kids that were recruited by top volleyball programs in the U.S. Period. No more, no less. I don't know Volleyball magazine's methodology for the list, but it seems that the heaviest weighted criteria is commitment to a top volleyball program. That said, making the middlehitter.com commitment list is a good reference point for who makes the Fab 50. 2. Just because many of the Fab 50 players fall short of succeeding at the D-1 level, should not affect the credibility of the list unless it is stated that the Fab 50 is a ranking of "sure fire" talent. It is not. Again, it is just a merit list or achievement list of commitments within the volleyball fraternity. 3. If you're looking to the Fab 50 as a national ranking list, Volleyball magazine would need to list the players in a numerical ranking order and not in alphabetical order, as they do now. However, again, it is not a ranking list. Therein rests some confusion. 4. It is difficult to narrow the list down to 25. If you did, you'll run the opposite risk of the credibility problem you allude to with the current list. That is, the Fab 25 will EXCLUDE too many high impact players. As it is now, Hawaii players are excluded because their commitments are announced late in the prep season. Tuaniga & Hunt were confirmed late as was Umlauft & Metzger this year. IMO, they are all Fab 50 players -- it's just that they didn't make the list deadline. 5. The only reason UCLA had 8, 7 & 7 players on the list is that they recruit that many and announce it early. This year, 4 of 7 UCLA recruits made the Fab 50 while 4 of 4 USC recruits made the list. Only 4 of 8 LBSU players made the 2009 Fab 50 while 5 of 6 UCSB players made it. Check this list: middlehitter.com/middlehitter/Commitments/2009_College_Commitments.aspAnd compare it to this list: www.volleyballmag.com/archive/2009/Fab50.phpYou'll see a pattern and parallels between the two lists. Again, neither are a ranking. |
|
|
|
Post by roy on May 15, 2009 4:31:20 GMT -5
Good observations, Roy. Here's my take: 1. The Fab 50 is NOT a ranking list -- it is a MERIT LIST, much like an honor roll. Therefore, it is a credible list of 50 prep kids that were recruited by top volleyball programs in the U.S. Period. No more, no less. I don't know Volleyball magazine's methodology for the list, but it seems that the heaviest weighted criteria is commitment to a top volleyball program. That said, making the middlehitter.com commitment list is a good reference point for who makes the Fab 50. 2. Just because many of the Fab 50 players fall short of succeeding at the D-1 level, should not affect the credibility of the list unless it is stated that the Fab 50 is a ranking of "sure fire" talent. It is not. Again, it is just a merit list or achievement list of commitments within the volleyball fraternity. 3. If you're looking to the Fab 50 as a national ranking list, Volleyball magazine would need to list the players in a numerical ranking order and not in alphabetical order, as they do now. However, again, it is not a ranking list. Therein rests some confusion. 4. It is difficult to narrow the list down to 25. If you did, you'll run the opposite risk of the credibility problem you allude to with the current list. That is, the Fab 25 will EXCLUDE too many high impact players. As it is now, Hawaii players are excluded because their commitments are announced late in the prep season. Tuaniga & Hunt were confirmed late as was Umlauft & Metzger this year. IMO, they are all Fab 50 players -- it's just that they didn't make the list deadline. 5. The only reason UCLA had 8, 7 & 7 players on the list is that they recruit that many and announce it early. This year, 4 of 7 UCLA recruits made the Fab 50 while 4 of 4 USC recruits made the list. Only 4 of 8 LBSU players made the 2009 Fab 50 while 5 of 6 UCSB players made it. Check this list: middlehitter.com/middlehitter/Commitments/2009_College_Commitments.aspAnd compare it to this list: www.volleyballmag.com/archive/2009/Fab50.phpYou'll see a pattern and parallels between the two lists. Again, neither are a ranking. Great points setaone. You are correct, the Fab 50 is not a ranking. It is simply a list of players. However, I have to ask myself what is the point of the list. I believe that part of the obstacle is that the Fab 50 list has a counterpart for the girls that does not seem to be based on their commitment to programs. When compared to the other lists or rankings such as the Senior Aces, they seem to be decent reflections of one another. Obviously there will be some on one list and not the other but from quick glance, it seems that they are pretty consistent with identifying the top players, given the number of prep girls players in the country. The methodology between the boys and girls list could very well be different. But I think that creates part of the obstacle. Given the level of partiy and the number of programs on the women's side, there is an expectation that a Fab 50 player on the women's side would be better than a player not on the list. Or at least there is an expectation that they will contribute more than the average freshman. However, that expectation gets a bit muddy once it translates over to the boys side where a team like UCLA could potentially have 29 Fab 50 players on their roster (2005-2008). Given that expectation, that is why I think the list should be cut down to 25. Or it should at least be named differently. While the methodology may be different and this may just be an "honor roll" for players making their commitments to college, I think that having that comparison to the women's side hurts the credibility of the list more than cutting the list down. |
|
|
|
Post by shaqtastic on May 15, 2009 9:44:30 GMT -5
I have to agree that the Fab 50 is misconstrued. It's interesting that the same magazine also has a list called "25 Underclassmen to Watch" or something similar. That's almost a better list because it is suggesting that these particular kids have talent and may blossom but let's watch and see. I'll have to do a comparison of that list with this class as well. Maybe the Fab 50 should be more of a "here's a list of 50 seniors we think might blossom in college. Let's watch and see!" It's still a shame to see so many talented players languish on the bench of overstocked teams out west when so many non-west coast teams have no depth. Obviously southern California is just a little more attractive than the midwest in January which influences a lot of decisions. It also seems that most of the non-West Coast vball schools are small, not as well known institutions. And there's always that desire to try to play where the best competition exists. But if men's volleyball is ever gonna get beyond a California-centric sport the distribution of talent will need to be more national. Don't think it will ever happen.  |
|
