|
Post by ucsdfan on May 13, 2009 13:51:45 GMT -5
Try being a little more objective for once? I've officially hit cyber rock bottom when of all people 30kills tells me to be more objective. You telling anyone to be more objective is like Paris Hilton telling young kids to be careful and not to party too much. Carson Clark was more highly touted out of HS than any USC player with the exception of Troy and plus UCI is a lot more experienced. Once again go look for some facts. Facts huh? What would you know about such a thing? Who taught you that word? The facts are this position by position: I'd safely say that at every single starting position, USC had a more touted player (coming out of high school) than UCI (which could be the nature of recruiting and hype more than actual ability). But the fact remains that USC had a more talented team on Fab 50 paper. Thank goodness they decided to play the game rather than base it on potential talent.
|
|
|
Post by lionsarm on May 13, 2009 14:15:50 GMT -5
average joes vs. global gym
|
|
|
Post by memorybankrupt on May 13, 2009 15:45:54 GMT -5
Try being a little more objective for once? I've officially hit cyber rock bottom when of all people 30kills tells me to be more objective. You telling anyone to be more objective is like Paris Hilton telling young kids to be careful and not to party too much. Carson Clark was more highly touted out of HS than any USC player with the exception of Troy and plus UCI is a lot more experienced. Once again go look for some facts. Facts huh? What would you know about such a thing? Who taught you that word? The facts are this position by position: I'd safely say that at every single starting position, USC had a more touted player (coming out of high school) than UCI (which could be the nature of recruiting and hype more than actual ability). But the fact remains that USC had a more talented team on Fab 50 paper. Thank goodness they decided to play the game rather than base it on potential talent. Are you saying that USC should have been favored to win over the veteran UCI team? If you add in that the core of the USC team are sophmores, that takes a bit away from your argument. Experience counts for a lot.
|
|
|
Post by planetasia01 on May 13, 2009 15:55:40 GMT -5
Don't forget that UCI went to Argentina this past fall and played against a bunch of pro teams, some of which included silver medalists from the Brazilian NT. How much did this contribute to the team's development?
p.s. Anybody have video of these matches? I would love to see UCI vs Cimed (which is basically the new Brazil NT).
|
|
|
Post by shankapotamus on May 13, 2009 16:01:22 GMT -5
Irvine's Starting Lineup:
OPP - Clark, RS-Fr - basically this was his first year. He had the opportunity to practice with the team last year. S - Ammerman, Sr - very limited play behind Thornton his 1st 2 years, split time with Anthony Spittle last year. OH1 - Wilson, Sr - Redshirted, 1st season on the roster in 2006 did not see any playing time behind Stephen Rangel and Paul Spittle (OH2s), in 2007 shared time with Reinholm at OH2 opposite Jablonsky, 2008 was a full time starter., 2008 full-time starter. OH2 - DuFault, So - 2007 redshirted, 2008 played behind Cory Yoder & Kevin Carroll, 2009 - full-time starter MH1 - Wynne, 2007 redshirted, 2008 started full-time MH2 - D'Amore 2009, true freshmen. Became full-time starter when Simmons was injured 1/2 way into season. L - Asuka, the most experienced - started the last four years with Irvine, sharing some time with Nick Spittle.
Irvine was the favorite during conference play, but post-MPSF Quarter final, USC became the favorite. By nature of Wilson & Asuka, Irvine was the more "experienced" team, but add in the "hype" factor USC sure looks good-- on paper.
|
|
|
Post by ucsdfan on May 14, 2009 1:01:07 GMT -5
Irvine's Starting Lineup: OPP - Clark, RS-Fr - basically this was his first year. He had the opportunity to practice with the team last year. S - Ammerman, Sr - very limited play behind Thornton his 1st 2 years, split time with Anthony Spittle last year. OH1 - Wilson, Sr - Redshirted, 1st season on the roster in 2006 did not see any playing time behind Stephen Rangel and Paul Spittle (OH2s), in 2007 shared time with Reinholm at OH2 opposite Jablonsky, 2008 was a full time starter., 2008 full-time starter. OH2 - DuFault, So - 2007 redshirted, 2008 played behind Cory Yoder & Kevin Carroll, 2009 - full-time starter MH1 - Wynne, 2007 redshirted, 2008 started full-time MH2 - D'Amore 2009, true freshmen. Became full-time starter when Simmons was injured 1/2 way into season. L - Asuka, the most experienced - started the last four years with Irvine, sharing some time with Nick Spittle. Irvine was the favorite during conference play, but post-MPSF Quarter final, USC became the favorite. By nature of Wilson & Asuka, Irvine was the more "experienced" team, but add in the "hype" factor USC sure looks good-- on paper. Excellent summary! Position by position, you have Current and Zahn in their 3rd and 2nd full seasons against Wynne and D'Amore in their 2nd and 1st season (experience advantage USC). Troy is in his second full season while Clark is in his first (experience advantage USC). Ammerman had half a season last year versus McKibben in his first year of full time play (slight experience advantage UCI). At OH Wilson had about a season and a half of regular play prior to this season and as you mentioned DuFault had about half a season compared to Bourne who also came in with about a half season under his belt. Ciarelli being a true freshman tips the experience excuse to USC slightly. When you consider the recruitment hype of the USC players and the relatively equal experience of both starting lineups, technically USC should have been the favorite in that match. Speraw made it a point to bring up his team going into the match as an underdog. Coaches such as Patchell came out before the match predicting a USC win. But that's the Speraw factor and the Argentina tour (as planetasia01 so correctly brought up) helping make the rather inexperienced UCI team look polished and highly experienced. They just played with such precision and court discipline that they looked more experienced than they really were. People forget that Speraw essentially had to build a whole new starting lineup over the past two years. While he may not get a MPSF coach of the year award tossed his way for this season, he really deserved it more than Ring (blasphemous as it is for me to say such a thing).
|
|
|
Post by 30killspergame on May 14, 2009 10:05:37 GMT -5
UCSDFan your argument is flawed but you already know that. If we are going by how high someone was "touted" out of high school than UCI wouldn't even be in top 5.. Stanford, UCLA, USC,BYU PSU all have more touted players.. Some other schools have touted players too
For whatever reason you want to single USC out on this "hype" argument. Of course when it comes to USC you have never been objective. That's not a surpise.
You don't seem to understand that how highly touted you are out of high school has nothing to do with good good you really are.. Right now UCLA can field a team of more touted players than UCI Irvine but they haven't played a single point for UCLA. According to you they would be the favorites against the champs even though they have never played..
USC opened 6th in the MPSF preseason coaches poll. According to the Coaches USC overachieved. Of course UCSDfan knows better than Scates and company.
|
|
|
Post by notsocal2 on May 14, 2009 13:58:35 GMT -5
30 kills - I overall think you have a good arguement and generally agree.
But to say that "... how highly touted you are out of high school has NOTHING to do with good good you really are ..." makes no sense at all.
I would certainly agree it is not the tell all - but I'd say it does have a lot to do how good you are. Not a math whiz, but I'd say some correlation to playing club or high school at a high level = a better chance to be playing in college.
And that said - its completely NO guarantee, as well. A lot of the guys mentioned were Fab 50 - I'd call that a correlation.
|
|
luvb9
Sophomore
Posts: 115
|
Post by luvb9 on May 15, 2009 5:20:49 GMT -5
The argument that USC's players were more highly touted and as such should be favored to beat a less touted team does not take in to account several factors.
1) Who is doing the touting? To my knowledge very little analysis goes into who are actually the best 50 players in the land every year. The list of 50 players is as another one stated a merit list of the top programs in the country. Hardly usable to judge whether or not a player in one class who was named fab 50 was better than a player in another class that was not.
2) Being on the USA ynt and jnt also does not define whether or not a player in one USA age cycle is better than a player in a different USA age cycle. It just means that the player was judged to be better than his peers by those that picked the team. If he is not a peer then there is nothing concrete or tangible about that comparison.
3) Comparing players in different classes based on their credentials and awards is meaningless in determining the outcome or projected outcome of the match. Patchell made the statement of USC in 4 based on what he was seeing out of USC and UCI at that time, nothing more nothing less. If we are to look back now and claim that because USC had more highly touted recruits it should have obviously led us to this same conclusion we are lying to ourselves.
4) Experience always has a say in the outcome of any match. UCI had 2 starters back from the 2007 squad, they both played exceptional. Ammerman who does not have the most match experience is still a senior who has played for 4 years with or against the top teams in the MPSF. There is something to be said for that. Experience of any kind in these types of matches is an enormous advantage. You have a senior leader and all-american subbing into the match ready to make a difference with his serve. UCI's experience I felt would be a key difference in the match, and it was. All of these players were ready to do their jobs, and had that little something extra in terms of motivation and confidence.
5) Coaching. Is Fergie a terrible coach, I don't think so. He has his strengths and he has his weaknesses. Is Speraw infinitely better? Absolutely. No knock on Fergie, but Speraw is the best coach in all the land. He is that perfect mix of success, talent, personality, and experience. I love his system, and his philosophies. He has that whole team drinking the Kool-Aid, buying in and he has the right type of players to make his system work. They aren't the most talented players but they are the right players. If you have the right players and the right system, and you believe in it, and you work your ass off in the gym to execute it, you are positioning yourself for success.
Bottom line, it is all subjective, even my belief that Speraw is the best coach in the country. This whole board is 99% subjective posturing and supposition. It is a forum!
I am a USC fan. I would be dishonest if I didn't say that the better coached and more system disciplined team won in the finals. Does USC have great players who were coming together at the right time and realizing their potential, absolutely. Was UCI better trained, and executed their system more effectively. Clearly. Great players can often beat well coached/trained teams, it happens all the time. This was not one of those times. Maybe next year.
|
|
|
Post by shockjock on May 15, 2009 8:41:42 GMT -5
The argument that USC's players were more highly touted and as such should be favored to beat a less touted team does not take in to account several factors. 1) Who is doing the touting? To my knowledge very little analysis goes into who are actually the best 50 players in the land every year. The list of 50 players is as another one stated a merit list of the top programs in the country. Hardly usable to judge whether or not a player in one class who was named fab 50 was better than a player in another class that was not. 2) Being on the USA ynt and jnt also does not define whether or not a player in one USA age cycle is better than a player in a different USA age cycle. It just means that the player was judged to be better than his peers by those that picked the team. If he is not a peer then there is nothing concrete or tangible about that comparison. 3) Comparing players in different classes based on their credentials and awards is meaningless in determining the outcome or projected outcome of the match. Patchell made the statement of USC in 4 based on what he was seeing out of USC and UCI at that time, nothing more nothing less. If we are to look back now and claim that because USC had more highly touted recruits it should have obviously led us to this same conclusion we are lying to ourselves. 4) Experience always has a say in the outcome of any match. UCI had 2 starters back from the 2007 squad, they both played exceptional. Ammerman who does not have the most match experience is still a senior who has played for 4 years with or against the top teams in the MPSF. There is something to be said for that. Experience of any kind in these types of matches is an enormous advantage. You have a senior leader and all-american subbing into the match ready to make a difference with his serve. UCI's experience I felt would be a key difference in the match, and it was. All of these players were ready to do their jobs, and had that little something extra in terms of motivation and confidence. 5) Coaching. Is Fergie a terrible coach, I don't think so. He has his strengths and he has his weaknesses. Is Speraw infinitely better? Absolutely. No knock on Fergie, but Speraw is the best coach in all the land. He is that perfect mix of success, talent, personality, and experience. I love his system, and his philosophies. He has that whole team drinking the Kool-Aid, buying in and he has the right type of players to make his system work. They aren't the most talented players but they are the right players. If you have the right players and the right system, and you believe in it, and you work your ass off in the gym to execute it, you are positioning yourself for success. Bottom line, it is all subjective, even my belief that Speraw is the best coach in the country. This whole board is 99% subjective posturing and supposition. It is a forum! I am a USC fan. I would be dishonest if I didn't say that the better coached and more system disciplined team won in the finals. Does USC have great players who were coming together at the right time and realizing their potential, absolutely. Was UCI better trained, and executed their system more effectively. Clearly. Great players can often beat well coached/trained teams, it happens all the time. This was not one of those times. Maybe next year. 2009 Season match-up win record percentage: UCI-3 -75% USC-1-25% Bottom line, great players to players, and looking at the record, the great players are on the UCI side, hands down! GO EATERS!!!!!
|
|
luvb9
Sophomore
Posts: 115
|
Post by luvb9 on May 15, 2009 16:59:52 GMT -5
2009 Season match-up win record percentage: UCI-3 -75% USC-1-25% Bottom line, great players to players, and looking at the record, the great players are on the UCI side, hands down! GO EATERS!!!!! UCI definitely has great players. I meant to emphasize that the athletic ability and talent of USC's players is fairly obvious and in comparing the teams, USC's players have an advantage there. That said many times talent can overcome a team no matter how well coached they are. Your math is undeniable, which I believe speaks to UCI's coaching, system and experience being the difference. However, UCI and USC played 17 games this season, and USC won 8 of them, or 47%. They lost two of the 4 matches in 5 games, and beat the bejeezus out of them in their one win. I think this speaks to my other point that 'Talent & Ability' can overcome coaching.
|
|
|
Post by shockjock on May 15, 2009 18:06:31 GMT -5
2009 Season match-up win record percentage: UCI-3 -75% USC-1-25% Bottom line, great players to players, and looking at the record, the great players are on the UCI side, hands down! GO EATERS!!!!! UCI definitely has great players. I meant to emphasize that the athletic ability and talent of USC's players is fairly obvious and in comparing the teams, USC's players have an advantage there. That said many times talent can overcome a team no matter how well coached they are. Your math is undeniable, which I believe speaks to UCI's coaching, system and experience being the difference. However, UCI and USC played 17 games this season, and USC won 8 of them, or 47%. They lost two of the 4 matches in 5 games, and beat the bejeezus out of them in their one win. I think this speaks to my other point that 'Talent & Ability' can overcome coaching. Ok, so USC- has 2 All-Americans and UCI- has 6 All-Americans UCI pretty much matches-up and or was better man for man in all the spots.( so deep )It's not just all about who hits the ball the hardest, it is alot about who's got game, UCI proved they have the best balance of both! Don't get me wrong, USC has a great team, but if you get a chance to check out the 4th set in the finals ! When USC really got the bejeezus knocked out of them 17-30! (and SC's attack was at minus - .034) Can u say WIPE-OUT! GO EATERS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on May 16, 2009 11:49:58 GMT -5
From somebody who really doesn't care, USC came in fifth in the conference and was down 0-2 to Stanford in the first round of the playoffs. if Stanford closes the deal, is anyone talking about USC today? Nobody is talking about Pepperdine, who came within a few points of taking USC out and getting that match against Penn State. To me the key to the match was Simmons; a substitution made at a time of usual depseration that turned out great. I guess he started until he was injured, which makes more sense.
|
|
|
Post by vbvet1 on May 16, 2009 12:51:20 GMT -5
Regardless of all the comparisons, Simmons was the difference.
In Provo, the pre-match favorite was USC. As the match developed, it looked and felt like USC would win. The UCI fans were very concerned. Yet, the Simmons sub made the difference. Speraw likes quick explosive players to fit into the offensive system he has adopted which is why Simmons remained on the sideline after returning from his injury.
Yet, Speraw recognized the need for some size to counter the likes of Troy, Zahn, and Current. Simmons answered the call. Without that move USC wins.
Face it, Ferguson stuck with the mid-season move of Troy to OPP and Bourne to OH. The got hot at the right time and were playing very well. If UCI plays as they did in Provo the previous Thursday, USC is not even in the tournament. If Carroll scores on his swing for match, USC is not in Provo.
Such is vb in the MPSF. Execution of small things means alot at the end of the season. Luck helps as well.
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on May 16, 2009 14:09:55 GMT -5
Well, gee golly gosh. All you freakin' cyber volleyball expert prognosticator analysts in this thread are just so incredibly smart about all these things, both teams shoulda just taken the night off and we coulda just went with all of your expert analyses and then just crowned the 2009 national champion virtually. Frick, why even play the matches anymore? You guys seem to friggin' know everything.
|
|