|
|
Post by mauricciobal on Oct 21, 2007 2:22:21 GMT -5
Here's an outlook at the halfway point of Big 12 Volleyball season.
Pre-season Poll:
1. Nebraska
2. Texas
3. Missouri
4. Texas A&M
5. Colorado
6. Iowa State
7. Kansas State
8. Baylor
9. Oklahoma
10. Kansas
11. Texas Tech
Actual Standings:
1.Nebraska
2.Texas
3.Oklahoma
4.Kansas State
5.Iowa State
6.Missouri
7.Texas A&M
8.Baylor
9.Kansas
10.Texas Tech
11.Colorado
Conference Leaders:
Hitting %
Traci Stalls (NU)
Kills:
Sarah Pavan (NU)
Assits:
Rachel Holloway (NU)
Service Aces:
Jordan Larson (NU)
Blocks:
Anna Breyfogle (BU)
Digs:
Tatum Ailes (MU)
Points:
Detinee Hooker (UT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK OF THE BIG 12 SO FAR?
|
|
|
|
Post by mauricciobal on Oct 21, 2007 2:26:26 GMT -5
No surprise at the top. NU is just dominated conference this year.
Biggest surprise thus far; Oklahoma, (good coaching job in Norman)
Biggest Disappointment: Colorado (even though everyone knew this is a young team)
finally, the conference is wide open in the middle like most people thought it would be this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gelatinous Mass on Oct 21, 2007 10:41:16 GMT -5
The biggest surprise this season is how bad most of the teams in the Big-12 are. Baylor, Kansas, Colorado and Texas Tech are really weak teams. A&M and Missouri are slightly better but not by much. NU, Texas, K-State and Oklahoma are clearly the best but overall the conference is way down.
|
|
|
|
Post by redincolorado on Oct 21, 2007 10:45:14 GMT -5
WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK OF THE BIG 12 SO FAR?
The BIG-12 needs better competitive balance.
The PAC-10 dominates the tournamant because of how tough the competition is in conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucky415 on Oct 21, 2007 10:48:56 GMT -5
I am not surprised the middle of the Big 12 isn't as strong. A lot of the teams there lost some really good players. I am sure they will improve, though, especially with the coaches that they have. It can't but help the league that OU and ISU are still dramatically better than they were.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 21, 2007 11:46:13 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed about the Big 12 is it sometimes seems like the lower schools don't have any networking or personal attraction for top recruits. In the Pac10 and Big10, you have coaches who network well or have good name recognition, and there are solid club ties to the schools. Even the mediocre or bad teams will show up on the short list for some highly regarded recruits and occasionally land one or two just because of the history of the school and its traditions. Heck, even the stronger teams in the Mountain West and the Big West have some "pull" with top 20 recruits, but the schools at the bottom half of the Big12 seem to be almost invisible when it comes to name recognition and superstar freshmen. Utah, BYU, LBSU, Colorado State, Pacific, Cal Poly, all routinely show up in recruiting news and get some big-time commitments. But Kansas, Baylor, Texas Tech?
|
|
|
|
Post by mauricciobal on Oct 21, 2007 12:01:22 GMT -5
"The PAC-10 dominates the tournament because of how tough the competition is in conference"
This was a comment made last year as well, however, the Big 12 actually performed significantly better than the Pac 10 in the tournament, and I'm not necessarily talking about Nebraska win it the championship. I guess all I'm saying is that a lot of teams play completely different when is crunch time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Oct 21, 2007 12:32:53 GMT -5
In defense of the Buffaloes, Amber Sutherland did have to red shirt this season, so that affects the Buff's attack significantly. I think a lot of people pretty much wrote them off when that happened.
Unpleasant surprises have been TAMU and Baylor, I had pegged them to be a lot better than what they have shown so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Oct 21, 2007 12:39:38 GMT -5
After reviewing the preseason results just before conference play began I felt that the Big 12 had a record close to, if not equal to, the Pac 10, with a small advantage in face to face meetings. Real argument to be made that, based on pre-season results, Big 12 is the best conference this year. Therefor I think it safe to say parity in the Big 12 is due to lots of very good teams, not lots of mediocre teams. Nebraska is great, making other teams look worse than they are. Expect K State, Iowa State, Oklahoma to go far in the tournament with fortunate seeding. Can't say the Big 12 did better in the tournament, though; three Pac 10 teams at the final four; Stanford over Missou and Texas, UCLA over Oklahoma, I believe Washington over Colorado, and Cal and Washington, (and almost USC) eliminated by other Pac 10 teams; Nebraska the best team, not in the best conferrence.
|
|
|
|
Post by redincolorado on Oct 21, 2007 12:39:45 GMT -5
"The PAC-10 dominates the tournament because of how tough the competition is in conference" This was a comment made last year as well, however, the Big 12 actually performed significantly better than the Pac 10 in the tournament, and I'm not necessarily talking about Nebraska win it the championship. I guess all I'm saying is that a lot of teams play completely different when is crunch time. Excuse me?  Three out four teams in the final four are from the PAC-10 and you're seriously trying to convince me the BIG-12 actually performed significantly better than the Pac 10 in the tournament??? |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 21, 2007 12:57:58 GMT -5
Before this thread degenerates into the usual crowd of rowdies, everyone who wants to compare tournament performances should include a delineation of the criteria they believe constitute "better performance".
|
|
|
|
Post by Gelatinous Mass on Oct 21, 2007 14:16:04 GMT -5
I have seen Kansas, Missouri , A&M and Baylor play this year live and they just played awful, uninspired volleyball...bad nights for all of them? Maybe.....
|
|
|
|
Post by clonesvb on Oct 21, 2007 15:45:18 GMT -5
The biggest surprise this season is how bad most of the teams in the Big-12 are. Baylor, Kansas, Colorado and Texas Tech are really weak teams. A&M and Missouri are slightly better but not by much. NU, Texas, K-State and Oklahoma are clearly the best but overall the conference is way down. Keep in mind that 0-11 Colorado swept Cal earlier this year. Must not be that terrible...they just can't finish. |
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Oct 21, 2007 18:01:33 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed about the Big 12 is it sometimes seems like the lower schools don't have any networking or personal attraction for top recruits. In the Pac10 and Big10, you have coaches who network well or have good name recognition, and there are solid club ties to the schools. Even the mediocre or bad teams will show up on the short list for some highly regarded recruits and occasionally land one or two just because of the history of the school and its traditions. Heck, even the stronger teams in the Mountain West and the Big West have some "pull" with top 20 recruits, but the schools at the bottom half of the Big12 seem to be almost invisible when it comes to name recognition and superstar freshmen. Utah, BYU, LBSU, Colorado State, Pacific, Cal Poly, all routinely show up in recruiting news and get some big-time commitments. But Kansas, Baylor, Texas Tech? Maybe you aren't paying attention enough but the last 2 classes at Baylor were ranked #16 and #34 in the nation. It appears they have great ties with all the major clubs in Texas. TAV, Texas Tornado's, Austin Jr's.... BU has several players from these top clubs. Also, The new assistant has over 12 years of head coaching i think and is widely known in the volleyball circles as well as in Texas. The coaches do a great job. So, I don't think Baylor fits in your description. This young team is up and down but they are talented and improving each time out. This is a team that will do nothing but keep moving up and challenging in the Top 25. |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 21, 2007 18:45:06 GMT -5
Maybe YOU aren't paying attention enough. Let me help you improve your reading comprehension with the use of pretty colors: One thing I've noticed about the Big 12 is it sometimes seems like the lower schools don't have any networking or personal attraction for top recruits. In the Pac10 and Big10, you have coaches who network well or have good name recognition, and there are solid club ties to the schools. Even the mediocre or bad teams will show up on the short list for some highly regarded recruits and occasionally land one or two just because of the history of the school and its traditions. Heck, even the stronger teams in the Mountain West and the Big West have some "pull" with top 20 recruits, but the schools at the bottom half of the Big12 seem to be almost invisible when it comes to name recognition and superstar freshmen. Utah, BYU, LBSU, Colorado State, Pacific, Cal Poly, all routinely show up in recruiting news and get some big-time commitments. But Kansas, Baylor, Texas Tech? I'm not saying a class of several 20-50 recruits isn't as good, long-term, as a class with just one #2 recruit, but I'm clearly talking about players who come in and right away make an impact that is felt nationally. Please list all the recruits who were in their class top 10 that have attended Baylor. Then list the recruits in the top 20 who have had Baylor on their final short list of schools. Then, just to be fair to anyone who flew under the recruiting radar or pre-dated the recruit rankings, please list the names of Baylor players who are on the same level as Barboza, Spicer, Pavan, Hodge, Engle, and Akinradewo. |
|
Three out four teams in the final four are from the PAC-10 and you're seriously trying to convince me the BIG-12 actually performed significantly better than the Pac 10 in the tournament???