|
Post by IdahoBoy on Nov 12, 2006 1:30:52 GMT -5
UW beats Hawaii. Don't know about Florida -- and I don't think either team fits the definition of great. (And Florida was better than Hawaii.) Ah, Ruffda, you're just saying that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2006 1:32:19 GMT -5
I am. And I shouldn't.
But, heck. I still think the Gophers should have beaten Stanford, so I can empathize.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 12, 2006 1:34:19 GMT -5
UW beats Hawaii. Don't know about Florida -- and I don't think either team fits the definition of great. (And Florida was better than Hawaii.) Grandmasevic, Lee, and the other Huskies couldn't beat Hawai'i, last years version wouldn't fare any better. Too much Willoughby and Kahumoku.
|
|
|
Post by fritzer5849 on Nov 12, 2006 1:35:18 GMT -5
UW 05 would've lost to USC, Stanford, Florida and Hawaii of 2002/2003. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 02 USC was better 02/03 Stanford was better 02/03 Florida....I'd give the edge to Washington because of Thompson, but a very slight edge. I think 02-03 Florida was better than 00 NU and maybe 04 Stanford(if they could've slowed down Ogonna). 02-03 Hawaii...definite edge to Washington. Washington was a darn good team last season, one loss in a 5 game 18-16 loss. They beat Nebraska which had 2 legit POY candidates, not to mention a 2x 1st team AA middle blocker, the Big 12 FOY and several other great players. Morrison was an absolute beast(should've been 1st or 2nd teamer last year), Tomasevic probably finished 2nd or 3rd in POY voting, Thompson was the player who won the honda award for VB, and then add in Deesing and other quality players, and you have an incredible team. They weren't as good as the 90s Stanford, PSU and Long Beach teams, but they were better than anybody this season, in 05, in 00 and in 04(debatable, but I think they were).
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 12, 2006 1:37:52 GMT -5
02-03 Hawaii...definite edge to Washington. U dub's only edge would be at opposite.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Nov 12, 2006 1:40:33 GMT -5
Nebraska lost to Colorado. Penn State lost to Ohio State. Stanford lost to USC. Which of those winners is the best team? USC. Which of those losers should drop the least for losing? Well... Stanford lost at home and the other two lost on the road. Stanford and Penn State both got swept... but Colorado is unranked. I can see why people are saying what the heck, make Washington #1... but I don't think that's going to happen either. I do know that Stanford beat back a tough UCLA team without Foluke Akinradewo and after a ghastly first game. That should count for something.
All I can say is that Nebraska should go down and Washington should go up.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Nov 12, 2006 1:40:49 GMT -5
These are the kinda debates I find entertaining. We'll never know who would've won, but the different opinions are interesting. I just think women's college volleyball, at the upper levels, has dipped in quality since USC won in 2003. I think the top teams then, are much better than the top teams of the last few years. More talent is spread around these days. Parity is good for the sport and makes for more upsets and thrilling matches. I don't see any team dominating the way USC did during their amazing run. Not in the new landscape of college volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Nov 12, 2006 1:43:46 GMT -5
I think Florida wins 6 out of 10 (or more). I saw that match. No way. Florida didn't have the mustard at that point. UCLA would've won 10/10. Maybe in the third game but 31-29, 30-28. Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by bucky415 on Nov 12, 2006 1:49:42 GMT -5
I don't think that Hawaii was better in 2003 than Washington last year. Kim and Lily would have given them an advantage at the outside, but Kanoe was a freshman and they didn't set the other players that much. Hawaii didn't blow out Georgia Tech in the regional finals that year, and Washington was a similar team to GT that year (five hitters, good setter, solid defensively), except with more firepower at the net. Kim and Lily would have had to go off for Hawaii to win that matchup, which they were capable of doing, but I think the Huskies would have won the majority of matchups.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Nov 12, 2006 1:50:37 GMT -5
Utah is pretty overrated in my eyes. Don't expect a sweet 16 out of them unless they are gifted it in the bracket. With voters putting them in the Top 10 and the computers putting them in the top 16, you don't think they'll get a hosting seed and be favored in their subRegional? Have you seen them this year? Great young setter and OH along with the usual trees.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Nov 12, 2006 1:55:04 GMT -5
The Big12? Hard to judge. I think there's a big dropoff after the top 3 -- as there is in the Big10. But those teams from 4 on down don't get the respect of California, ASU and Oregon. It's a down year for the Big12. I think the BIG 12 will only get 4 teams into the tourney this year....they really only deserve 3 bids. Based on what? Nebr, OU, Texas are already in. Colorado secured their spot tonight. Mizzou is nearly a lock. ISU is very close. Based on what would you limit the Big12 to 3 teams? Or just another ... nevermind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2006 2:01:29 GMT -5
BiK's endorsing Beachman's line of thought. Beachman thinks there aren't 20 teams worthy of the top 20 and BiK doesn't think there are 64 teams worthy of the tournament.
They have high standards, those two.
|
|
|
Post by Psychopotamus on Nov 12, 2006 2:28:31 GMT -5
I don't think that Hawaii was better in 2003 than Washington last year. Kim and Lily would have given them an advantage at the outside, but Kanoe was a freshman and they didn't set the other players that much. Hawaii didn't blow out Georgia Tech in the regional finals that year, and Washington was a similar team to GT that year (five hitters, good setter, solid defensively), except with more firepower at the net. Kim and Lily would have had to go off for Hawaii to win that matchup, which they were capable of doing, but I think the Huskies would have won the majority of matchups. Didn't Hawaii play Washington that year? I seem to remember them playing Washington with Gretchen Mauer and Tomjasevic... no Morrison and Thompson, though.
|
|
|
Post by Psychopotamus on Nov 12, 2006 2:31:21 GMT -5
UW 05 would've lost to USC, Stanford, Florida and Hawaii of 2002/2003. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Still, you're talking about four of the best teams in respective schools' history. Washington 05 was probably the same, but we are talking about teams that (if you look how the players ended up) could have gone 4+ All Americans on the court at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Nov 12, 2006 3:12:34 GMT -5
Big Pac 10 fan, but agree that other schools should be pushing up in rankings as Pac 10 teams knock each other off. Big 10 conference probably better this year, and Wisconsin/Minnesota rankings should reflect that, but don't. But, wasn't clear why Nebraska was rated #1 this year, particularly after Houghtelling went out; that means they lost three All Americans, whereas UCLA and Stanford returned almost entire teams, as did Texas (injuries hurting?). Will say Washington RKPI wwas 14 while ranking was #4, while Wisconsin RKPI was 4 when ranking #14. This will be interesting when Washington Regional is seeded. Here's a vote for St. John's for #1, provided they still only have 1 loss; they're the longest running one loss team now, and it matches the spirit of Rutgers in football.
|
|