|
Post by Jayme Lee fan on Oct 1, 2007 17:36:11 GMT -5
I wonder how far Nebraska would drop if they lost to Hawai'i?
|
|
|
Post by ersatzhusker on Oct 1, 2007 17:36:24 GMT -5
Although USC-UCLA back-to-back in LA has to be comparable to playing Texas, if not tougher. I also disagree about Nebraska having more talent. No program has more talent than Stanford. That's a copout. Stanford wins this year or they have not reached their potential. Simple as that. Talent MAYBE. Accomplishment with more or less the same group of players in the last few, it's Nebraska. This year, NU has more experience although Stanford certainly has a shot. Next year will be different. With Pavan, Houghtelling, Stalls and Griffin graduated, if Stanford does not win the NCAA Championship then, they will not have reached their potential.
|
|
|
Post by ersatzhusker on Oct 1, 2007 17:39:07 GMT -5
I wonder how far Nebraska would drop if they lost to Hawai'i? I wonder how far Stanford would drop if they lost to Oregon this weekend or Washington next weekend? Both or neither for NU/Stanford are just about as (un)likely.
|
|
|
Post by volleysean27 on Oct 1, 2007 17:47:42 GMT -5
Although USC-UCLA back-to-back in LA has to be comparable to playing Texas, if not tougher. I also disagree about Nebraska having more talent. No program has more talent than Stanford. That's a copout. Stanford wins this year or they have not reached their potential. Simple as that. Talent MAYBE. Accomplishment with more or less the same group of players in the last few, it's Nebraska. This year, NU has more experience although Stanford certainly has a shot. Next year will be different. With Pavan, Houghtelling, Stalls and Griffin graduated, if Stanford does not win the NCAA Championship then, they will not have reached their potential.
|
|
|
Post by sideoutnow on Oct 1, 2007 18:01:37 GMT -5
USC lost its number one ranking in football because of a sloppy win of just three points against Washington over the weekend. If Nebraska wins against Hawaii in a close call this month, I doubt that the AVCA would punish Nebraska and move Stanford ahead. The AVCA isn't as strict and just considers wins/loses.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Oct 1, 2007 18:15:36 GMT -5
IMO i think until the #1 team does something like lose or so a huge glaring weakness then how do the lose votes?? The poll (in principle) is based on this year's performances, not last year's championship. It's 60 coaches' opinions; I see no reason why some or all can't change their minds about who is number 1. Until this year's teams play against each other, it's really a matter of conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 1, 2007 18:40:23 GMT -5
USC and UCLA are still too high. Washington deserves better, for now at least. USC and UCLA are still too high.......but so is Washington. Who deserves to be in front if them?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 1, 2007 18:48:42 GMT -5
yeah, sure Bigfan, put it on cruise control against Texas in Austin. Pac 10 is certainly better, having said that, Stanford does not have a team in their conference that is nearly as good as them either. I think Texas at Texas will be as tough as any road match Stanford will face this season. Stanford certainly has more matches against good opponents, but no stiffer test. Nebraska playing Texas @ Texas is no better than Stanford @usc, UCLA, and Washington...perhaps even Cal when they are on their game.. THE DIFFERENCE is tht Stanford has 3/4 tough road games against top 10 teams, whereas Nebraska as 1 And I'd like to argue that the disparity between Nebraska and Texas is larger than Stanford and the rest of the upper echelon of the Pac-10 (Except UCLA). Nebraska is stacked at all positions of the game while Texas isn't the beast they are made out to be. Even if a couple Nebraska players have an off day they still are in a position to beat out every conference foe, including Texas. Stanford on the other hand does not have that luxury. If a couple of their players don't play to their standard, you add a big L to their record if they are playing on the road against the top teams in the Pac. It's that simple. Stanford has much more to lose in the Pac-10, while Nebraska doesn't. Nebraska as well as Penn State, Florida, and Texas to some extent are in cruise control until the regional finals, no doubt...the Pac-10 schools...not so much, which is why we are the best ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) GO HUSKIES!
|
|
|
Post by farmwatcher on Oct 1, 2007 18:50:35 GMT -5
Having seen most of these top teams now either in person or on the tube, I would have to say that there are three teams that should be a lock for the final 8: NU, Stanford, and PU. The other spots are, IMHO, wide open. I think several of the next group in the current poll are going to get beaten a lot during the rest of the season and could go out earlier than seeded in the playoffs if this list were unchanged come late November. I think Texas will end up in the top group, and I also think Cal is going to learn to finish matches and can beat anyone in the PAC 10 on a given night.
|
|
|
Post by dishdaball on Oct 1, 2007 18:52:11 GMT -5
yeah, sure Bigfan, put it on cruise control against Texas in Austin. Pac 10 is certainly better, having said that, Stanford does not have a team in their conference that is nearly as good as them either. I think Texas at Texas will be as tough as any road match Stanford will face this season. Stanford certainly has more matches against good opponents, but no stiffer test. Nebraska playing Texas @ Texas is no better than Stanford @usc, UCLA, and Washington...perhaps even Cal when they are on their game.. THE DIFFERENCE is tht Stanford has 3/4 tough road games against top 10 teams, whereas Nebraska as 1 And I'd like to argue that the disparity between Nebraska and Texas is larger than Stanford and the rest of the upper echelon of the Pac-10 (Except UCLA). Nebraska is stacked at all positions of the game while Texas isn't the beast they are made out to be. Even if a couple Nebraska players have an off day they still are in a position to beat out every conference foe, including Texas. Stanford on the other hand does not have that luxury. If a couple of their players don't play to their standard, you add a big L to their record if they are playing on the road against the top teams in the Pac. It's that simple. Stanford has much more to lose in the Pac-10, while Nebraska doesn't. Nebraska as well as Penn State, Florida, and Texas to some extent are in cruise control until the regional finals, no doubt...the Pac-10 schools...not so much, which is why we are the best ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) GO HUSKIES! no way.... my team is the best... nana nana boo boo cause my mommy said so. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 1, 2007 18:57:53 GMT -5
Nebraska playing Texas @ Texas is no better than Stanford @usc, UCLA, and Washington...perhaps even Cal when they are on their game.. THE DIFFERENCE is tht Stanford has 3/4 tough road games against top 10 teams, whereas Nebraska as 1 And I'd like to argue that the disparity between Nebraska and Texas is larger than Stanford and the rest of the upper echelon of the Pac-10 (Except UCLA). Nebraska is stacked at all positions of the game while Texas isn't the beast they are made out to be. Even if a couple Nebraska players have an off day they still are in a position to beat out every conference foe, including Texas. Stanford on the other hand does not have that luxury. If a couple of their players don't play to their standard, you add a big L to their record if they are playing on the road against the top teams in the Pac. It's that simple. Stanford has much more to lose in the Pac-10, while Nebraska doesn't. Nebraska as well as Penn State, Florida, and Texas to some extent are in cruise control until the regional finals, no doubt...the Pac-10 schools...not so much, which is why we are the best ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) GO HUSKIES! no way.... my team is the best... nana nana boo boo cause my mommy said so. ;D Haha well if you're team is Nebraska then there is no arguement from me that they are the best. But in terms of being tested, Stanford, and all the other Pac-10 teams take the cake
|
|
|
Post by roy on Oct 1, 2007 19:55:03 GMT -5
USC lost its number one ranking in football because of a sloppy win of just three points against Washington over the weekend. If Nebraska wins against Hawaii in a close call this month, I doubt that the AVCA would punish Nebraska and move Stanford ahead. The AVCA isn't as strict and just considers wins/loses. Volleyball polls usually doesn’t work that way because of the way the game is played. A team that gets off to a slow start or gets sloppy during part of the game, can still recover fairly easily. Unlike football or basketball where the score stays constant, volleyball scores “reset” and you start all over. Thus, you may see a bad game by a team but the favored team tends to win. In football, a team needs to make up the points they gave up. In volleyball, you start all over and the opposing team still needs to win 2 more games. I would like to see how accurate Pablo gets once all the data gets in. I would assume that there are fewer upsets in the spectrum of volleyball that than compared to football.
|
|
|
Post by Tex_VB_Fan on Oct 1, 2007 20:26:15 GMT -5
yeah, sure Bigfan, put it on cruise control against Texas in Austin. Pac 10 is certainly better, having said that, Stanford does not have a team in their conference that is nearly as good as them either. I think Texas at Texas will be as tough as any road match Stanford will face this season. Stanford certainly has more matches against good opponents, but no stiffer test. I'm not making any predictions but Texas will not be the same team the Huskers faced in September. I think the UW match in Seattle will be the toughest test for Stanford. They get huge boisterous crowds unlike USC and UCLA. Hasn't UW won the last two in Seattle? That gives the Huskies an edge.
|
|
|
Post by Tex_VB_Fan on Oct 1, 2007 20:31:00 GMT -5
Although USC-UCLA back-to-back in LA has to be comparable to playing Texas, if not tougher. I also disagree about Nebraska having more talent. No program has more talent than Stanford. That's a copout. Stanford wins this year or they have not reached their potential. Simple as that. Talent MAYBE. Accomplishment with more or less the same group of players in the last few, it's Nebraska. This year, NU has more experience although Stanford certainly has a shot. Next year will be different. With Pavan, Houghtelling, Stalls and Griffin graduated, if Stanford does not win the NCAA Championship then, they will not have reached their potential. Stanford will be without Kehoe in 08, HUGE loss. I wouldn't put my $ on Stanford in 08 with their current setter roster. We all know there's a big time setter that has yet to commit but at this point I'd hold on to my chips.
|
|
|
Post by pedro el leon on Oct 1, 2007 20:47:19 GMT -5
Hasn't UW won the last two in Seattle? That gives the Huskies an edge. Last two against Stanford? UW hasn't lost to Stanford in Seattle since 2002... and Washington should have beat them that match, I remember it. History is on our side, but history doesn't win matches. However, Stanford hasn't even won a SINGLE GAME in Seattle since '03 I think. Good bragging rights, but I doubt any of the players on either team will be thinking about that. This year is a bit different though, we have a freshman setter and 3 total freshman starters (most of the time.)
|
|