|
|
Post by cruncher on May 29, 2008 13:01:54 GMT -5
Since we are on avatars, I am in fact a puppy. Believe it or not. You should start a blog. It worked for (R)uffda's dog. Well sort of. |
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on May 29, 2008 13:06:31 GMT -5
My question is will the Big Ten have a better year than last year? They took a beating on this board as they beat up on each other all year (except PSU, of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 29, 2008 13:46:41 GMT -5
Are you predicting what the top 25 teams SHOULD be or what the voting members WILL do? those are two separate lists. I'll tell you what the committee won't do. When it comes to the preseason factors will be, in order, Prior record (no more than three years), Returning talent, incoming talent Florida at #4 isn't gonna happen. Florida didn't get a top win all year last year and they lost their setter and biggest hitter. Yes they have talented FRESHMEN coming in, there are other teams that made it deeper in the tournament last year that return all of their key players USC won't be above UCLA. USC lost Kazcor, Copenhagen, and their best middle (can't remember name). UCLA on the other hand only losses Johnson. USC made it one more round than UCLA last year and BOTH lost to the same team. The voters aren't gonna put USC ahead just because of Jupiter. 90% of UCLA's elite 8 are returning..... 50% (if that) of USC's final four team is returning...you do the math. Nebraska won't be #7. Lets face it, the Nebraska team of the past 3 years consisted of Pavan, Houghtelling, Stalls, Larson, Holloway, and Cooper. In that time they reached they won the title, reached the final, and reached the elite 8.... Nebraska losses the best 2/3rds of that group of players. They will have a new setter.... I mean come on, once Holloway left it was almost a given that the big 12 would look like this Texas Everyone else including Nebraska.... Realistically some of your predictions just will not happen (At least in the preseason poll) this is what I think the committee will do for the preseason top 10 Penn State Stanford Texas UCLA USC Florida Washington Cal Oregon Kansas State Say what you want about the Pac-10 but the top 6 teams all have impressive previous year results, lots of returning talent, and top notch incoming talent. Sorry everyone but the highest spots in volleyball will remain in the Pac-10 conference USC and UCLA are almost even. The loss of Kaczor is huge, but the improved play of Roleder and Williams will make SC more balanced, then you add Jupiter, who could have the same impact as Stacey Gordon did when she was a frosh to this already loaded team and USC is a top 5 team, UCLA will also be very much improved losing only Johnson, they will get a tremendous middle in Gil and has Camp as a backup. I'm not saying that USC and UCLA won't be even, but in the eyes of the preseason poll I think that UCLA gets the nod over them. UCLA lost 1 player from their elite 8 team while USC lost half (the most important half) of their final four team. the recruits get thrown out the window at this point because both squads are bringing in some good talent. When you look at how far the team got and how many people are staying, UCLA will be in the top 4, along with PSU, Stanford, and Texas. USC will be right below those four, though if Jupiter isn't what she's cracked up to be USC won't have the guns to be a contender in the Pac-10, period. Kaczor and Copenhagen were the reason USC had a late season run.... their regular season record wasn't anything to put in the record books (And they'd have a couple more losses if Kazcor wasn't playing out her mind at home against Stanford and UW). if Jupiter doesn't come in an make an immediate impact, USC will chalk up some losses, fast. Their schedule was like Cal's last year. They play all of the top teams at home in the first half of the season which doesn't bode well if the team hasn't fully gelled, because then that sets up the potential for STILL losing in the second half of the season because they are playing away. To me, USC is the biggest question mark of the top teams in the Pac-10. they have the talent to be really good, but the question is will they? IMO I don't think a freshmen, and a sophomore that will play like a freshmen because of time away from the court (Kimmee) will be able to play the big points against the top teams consistently and Carico is only as good as her hitters. To me, both USC and Cal are on the same page; replacing their dominant superstar with freshmen. Luckily neither team has to replace their setter. A lot of teams have question marks above them. USC and Cal already mentioned. Oregon brings back most of their team but do they have the talent to ascend farther? UCLA's destiny will depend on the play of Sather and Daley. If both of those players have decent stats I like their chances against anyone not named PSU. Washington losses Morrison, Mussie and Deesing out of their lineup...Deesing took a dive since 05, Carlson was playing better than her all season. UW also has experienced hitters (one being an All American) to replace Morrison and Mussie so UW really isn't in the same boat as USC and Cal. Stanford replaces a setter....even if the setter is "good" Stanford wins the Pac-10 again. |
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 29, 2008 14:07:06 GMT -5
My question is will the Big Ten have a better year than last year? They took a beating on this board as they beat up on each other all year (except PSU, of course). The Big 10 got trashed last year as a whole because the league took a step down in quality. The gophers goofed up, the buckeyes imploded, purdue was lackluster, illinois burped, northwestern didn't have a clue. The michigan teams offered some sparkle, but not enough to overcome the malaise of the rest of the teams. And....the loss of key OHs from both michigan teams will likely make them a non - factor in the league this year. My 8 ball says 2008 ain't so great. |
|
|
|
Post by tomasvzqz on May 29, 2008 15:27:20 GMT -5
The point is that yall know what schools im talking about......its sad that yall become so nit-picky..... And yes I am well aware that UT plays at New Mexico STATE for that second weekend. It's not nit-picky. Penn and Penn St. are different D1 universities. New Mexico & New Mexico St. are arch rivals. Michigan and Michigan St., Florida & Florida St., Ohio & Ohio St... That little "St." is how you differentiate lots of universities! You probably realize that Texas and Texas St. both made the NCAA tournament last year - they played each other. You would never make the mistake of telling your friends "Texas lost" that match!  Very well put Fubar |
|
|
|
Post by crawfish on May 29, 2008 17:03:29 GMT -5
[/quote]To me, USC is the biggest question mark of the top teams in the Pac-10. they have the talent to be really good, but the question is will they? IMO I don't think a freshmen, and a sophomore that will play like a freshmen because of time away from the court (Kimmee) will be able to play the big points against the top teams consistently and Carico is only as good as her hitters. [/quote]
Good analysis. I agree 'SC is the biggest question mark. But for some reason I think their upside is very big this year. People forget that Garrett was SC's most consistent middle last year until she got hurt and wasn't available for their NCAA run. And I just don't think Jupiter is an ordinary freshman -- she is scary athletic and is just a more mature, polished volleyball player than most freshman. So with Garrett and Williams in the middle, Roleder, Gysin and Jupiter on the outside, Carico setting and Hilligren and Urango playing back row--that has the makings of a very solid team. It is a particularly good passing and defensive team as both Roleder and Jupiter are excellent passers/defenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by cruncher on May 29, 2008 18:33:01 GMT -5
I think Jupiter will be a difference maker for SC. She could have the same impact as Klineman or Faucette did last year. She's that good. I had Murrey at the top of my list for '08 impact players, but having seen Jupiter many times over the course of this year, she has moved up to #1. UCLA just doesn't seem to have the same kind of firepower as USC, even with all those returners.
|
|
|
|
Post by farmwatcher on May 29, 2008 19:09:08 GMT -5
I agree that USC is the potential enigma. Garrett and Roleder and Williams should be able to step up their impact; they are good players. But the bottom line is that when USC beat good teams last year it was due to Kaczor. She is the only one that the good teams could not stop. Look at the stats when from last year and it was pretty much a one girl offense in those matches. So the other players have to step up and/or Jupiter take over where Asia left off. Should they be able to? Yes. Will they be good enough to make the top 4? We will see.
And all of this is predicated on everyone staying healthy. Every one of the top 6 teams could easily finish out of the top 8-10 if they lost just one starter; the balance at the top is that good, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 30, 2008 1:49:18 GMT -5
I think Jupiter will be a difference maker for SC. She could have the same impact as Klineman or Faucette did last year. She's that good. I had Murrey at the top of my list for '08 impact players, but having seen Jupiter many times over the course of this year, she has moved up to #1. UCLA just doesn't seem to have the same kind of firepower as USC, even with all those returners. I agree that UCLA, in comparison to other teams, comes up a bit short on pure firepower, but they are an incredibly balanced team. And Jupiter needs to be BETTER than Klineman and Faucette in the impact category. If Jupiter is to USC what Klineman was to Stanford, USC is in for a bumpy ride. Neither Stanford nor Texas road the backs of Klineman or Faucette, in any match. Jupiter will be called upon to put up GREAT numbers like Kazcor, not good numbers like Klineman and Faucette. USC does have all the right tools to be an excellent team. This only happens if Kimmee improves her game (She didn't have a full freshmen season because of injury and even when she wasn't standout impressive), Gysin becomes more consistent, and Jupiter is at least 80% of what Kazcor was. The reason why I say this is because the Pac-10 is going to be tough, yet again, next year. No Pac-10 team has the outright power like PSU (no team in the country does) but all the top teams in the Pac-10 are returning excellent defense, great transition game, and at least one dominant hitter. |
|
|
|
Post by 3talltrees on May 30, 2008 10:58:04 GMT -5
If I were going to compare Jupiter to anyone, it would be Barboza, size- and talent-wise
|
|
|
|
Post by cruncher on May 30, 2008 12:04:19 GMT -5
Jupiter may be more physical, but that's a pretty decent comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleysean27 on May 30, 2008 12:24:19 GMT -5
Jupiter is just no ordinary Frosh. She could fill in for the loss of Kaczor imediately, I think her defense and court savy is unmatched. I have seen her a couple times and this girl does not buckle under pressure. She plays like a veteran and rarely makes mistakes. The thing that impresses me most about her is her shot selection. She is the one player I have seen in junior club(besides) Fonoimoana that can take over a match by herself. USC will not have to rely on her as much this year. The middles are better this year, and Roleder is a year older.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsamom on May 30, 2008 18:50:44 GMT -5
I am not sure Oregon is top ten. Great libero in Swaboda, good setter, Maricic is awesome. That's it. RS is very undersized, Newcomb had a very tough Soph year and was in a bad car accident over the holidays. I do not think ay of their recruits get it done like others you are discussing.
I think Cal is poised to be amazing. A lot returning and I saw Tarah Murrey last weekend and she looks so fit, down a few pounds, and strong...AWESOME. Better than ever. Cal should be a force!!
Just not sure who will set Stanford. What happened in spring?
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 30, 2008 19:27:08 GMT -5
Jupiter is just no ordinary Frosh. She could fill in for the loss of Kaczor imediately... Do we know if she is eligible yet? What about the Corinne Cascioppo from 951? I've heard that both had reason to be concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by cruncher on May 30, 2008 19:29:34 GMT -5
Do we know if she is eligible yet? What about the Corinne Cascioppo from 951? I've heard that both had reason to be concerned. Excellent point. All bets are off is she has a case of the clearinghouse hiccups. |
|
