|
Post by doc on Mar 1, 2007 19:07:04 GMT -5
Somebody asked about a Stanford walk on; I believe that would be Ailes from the Nebraska Bellevue high school, who will contend for a libero/defensive specialist spot. I believe a key to next year will be that Nebraska will undoubtedly be ranked #1 and should keep that ranking all year. That should convert to a relatively easy regional assignment, meaning avoiding playing a top 4 type team in that teams own building. Don't think they will give Nebraska a regional in between hosting final 4's. Stanford and other top teams will have the more difficult road to the finals. Stanford should be able to compete, as described above they were beaten in the finals, but not crushed, and return a very representative team. But that team was taken to five by Missouri, was severely challenged by Texas, was taken to 30-28 scores or higher by Cal in at least two of three games, etc; and, rounding out an any team can lose on a given day cliche, of course we all remember Minnesota-Nebraska. Don't think that everybody else is "just playing for second" but Nebraska should have an edge in getting to the finals, if they do I suspect Stanford will be waiting with a significant home court crowd, then we'll see who gets the big points. I would bet the farm, no pun at Stanford that Nebraska will absolutely host a regional this year. The NCAA cannot afford to not have them host a regional. When they have the Final Four that is when they don't host a regional.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Mar 1, 2007 21:48:42 GMT -5
I would bet the farm, no pun at Stanford that Nebraska will absolutely host a regional this year. The NCAA cannot afford to not have them host a regional. When they have the Final Four that is when they don't host a regional. I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Mar 1, 2007 22:26:23 GMT -5
I would bet the farm, no pun at Stanford that Nebraska will absolutely host a regional this year. The NCAA cannot afford to not have them host a regional. When they have the Final Four that is when they don't host a regional. I disagree. Thats what makes this board great is we can disagree. Get back to me when bids are announced. You don't think Nebraska won't put in a very strong bid financially to the NCAA, not to mention the NCAA needs sights that will draw more than 1,500 fans if the host isn't in it.
|
|
|
Post by beachman on Mar 2, 2007 1:17:22 GMT -5
And if Nebraska isn't in it, will they draw more than 1,500???
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Mar 2, 2007 11:26:24 GMT -5
And if Nebraska isn't in it, will they draw more than 1,500??? Yes or at least very probable. In 2004 the Regional Championship match between USC/UCLA drew 2500+. As far as the main topic is concerned, we all know that NU's challenge will not be talent, but drive and chemistry. Will Pavan and Houghteling's personalities clash? Will the players themselves be very happy with a 6-2 given that there were several comments praising Holloway's command of the offense and her superior pure setting skills. In addition to the intangible asset of being a highly competitive player who learns very quickly. With all due respect to Stalls who has obviously improved herself, we were able to see Holloway set the middle with less than perfect passes. The 3 previous years you knew when the middle was getting the ball, because the ball was dead on; that was the only way they were going to get it. In my opinion look for Stalls to hold this little play together. She has the maturity and the wisdom from what I can tell, to mediate possible distractions between the 3 OH's. Also I'd like to see a lot of vocal support and enthusiasm from the 5/6 freshman who will be riding the bench (or actually standing in the corner) all year. I know everyone likes to beat up on Penn St. for the lack of advancement over the years, but they still went 32-2 with a number of underclassman. Texas is in the same boat and we all know about Stanford. The NC imho will be one of these four.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Mar 2, 2007 21:57:58 GMT -5
Is nebraska really going back to a 6-2? Why toy with a winning formula. I suppose that the freshman Licht is good, but Houghtelling coming back should fill out the 5-1 again with Players of the Year past present and future all over the floor.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Mar 2, 2007 22:05:34 GMT -5
And if Nebraska isn't in it, will they draw more than 1,500??? Beachman, I'm dissapointed in you. You seem to know a lot about volleyball and then you ask that question.
|
|
|
Post by lilred on Mar 2, 2007 23:00:05 GMT -5
Is nebraska really going back to a 6-2? Why toy with a winning formula. I suppose that the freshman Licht is good, but Houghtelling coming back should fill out the 5-1 again with Players of the Year past present and future all over the floor. Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that they were going to go with the 6-2, I meant IF. Also remember that Cook stated that he was leaning heavily toward it before Houghteling went down. Secondly, getting to the 2005 NC game and losing to a VERY GOOD Washington team with the 6-2 and losing, as opposed to winning the 2006 NC with the traditional 5-1 DOES NOT mean that the 6-2 was the losing formula and the 5-1 was the winning formula. It means that each system best utilized what personnal we had at the time. I am confident the same thought process will be made by the coaching staff for the upcoming year, after spring ball and fall practice evalulations. (I think its called coaching) Remember we also lost a match in 2006 running the 5-1...the same number of matches we lost in 2005. (regular season) I am partial to the 5-1 because I love Holloway, and as the year progressed she became less of a liability as a blocker. But I'm not the coach...fortunately for the Huskers.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Mar 5, 2007 10:43:42 GMT -5
Corn is as corn does, and corn husks go bragh blah blah in 2007. People keep talking about all the returning players from the Nebraska champions 2006 and the return of the 2005 POY and calling it a done deal, but you are all idiots.
The only reason Nebraska won it this year was Busboom. Losing her both as a leader and as a defender who knows all of her hitters well and therefore responds instinctively to the tempo and focus of the team offense will be much, much larger than anyone has yet recognized.
|
|
|
Post by adrimich on Mar 5, 2007 16:54:55 GMT -5
I think it is very hard to predict what can happen in an NCAA Tournament. Remember in the 2005 Championship, Nebraska was an extreme favorite and Washington comes in with a 3-0 sweep. That being said, I think Texas is ready to really burst out onto the scene, D. Hooker, anybody?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2007 16:57:38 GMT -5
Nebraska was not an extreme favorite in 2005. I'm not even sure they were the favorite.
How did history get rewritten?
|
|
|
Post by adrimich on Mar 6, 2007 2:36:33 GMT -5
Were they not ranked number 1 the entire season until the last AVCA poll, where they dropped to second, because they got beat? As far as I am concerned being ranked number one for an entire season is being considered a favorite for the championship. And they were also ranked number one in the tournament bracket and had 5 straight 3-0 victories through the tournament. If teams like that aren't considered favorites now, then yes history was rewritten.
|
|
|
Post by pedro el leon on Mar 6, 2007 4:05:12 GMT -5
so? homerism aside, washington was more dominant (better hitting %, better serving, better setting, better passing, better defense, faster offense, deeper, more experienced, than nebraska that year, the only thing nebraska did better was blocking, and not by much...maybe 1 more point a game) during the season and during the tournament... uw too, sweep every team in the tourney including nebraska.
in fact, I really don't understand how nebraska got the preseason #1 when UW had everybody returning from an '04 team that should have won the NC if not for 2 unfortunate injuries(tomasevic and morrison)... not to mention they made it further than nebraska did in the '04 tourney. so tell me why nebraska was #1 to start the season?
when all is said and done, I think both teams considered themselves favorites in '05.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Mar 6, 2007 7:14:31 GMT -5
In its pre-conference schedule in '05, Washington played a very easy schedule, and Nebraska played a fairly difficult one, so for the coaches voting in the AVCA poll, the Huskers were probably an easier pick early on. However, during the conference schedule, playing in the Pac-10 with mostly back to back matches on consecutive nights was much tougher than the Big 12 teams/schedule which also has Wednesday/Saturday matches. And Washington dominated the Pac-10 as much at Nebraska dominated the Big 12. My recollection is that Pablo's rankings had Washington gaining all season until they passed Nebraska as the #1 team before the end of the regular season. In the AVCA coach's poll, we seldom see teams drop if they win, and Nebraska's only regular season lose occurred the same weekend as Washington's lone loss. So, who was the favorite going into the NCAA tournament is more a matter of which poll/ranking you were looking at. But in either case, going into the tournament, there was no "extreme" favorite.
|
|
pantherfan
High School
Leave it better than you found it!
Posts: 5
|
Post by pantherfan on Mar 6, 2007 11:21:42 GMT -5
This is what I love about the Husker Nation (I'm a Stanford fan). They have always been (in my experience) humble and easy to talk with. When I was at the Final Four they bought drinks for us Stanford fans before the game and were the kindest fans. Now seeing a see of red and a patch of cardinal was a bit scary!
I think this next year it could be a great final again if a more mature Stanford team is in the Finals again with Nebraska.
|
|