|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Jun 4, 2012 9:37:34 GMT -5
Come on. You don't win a tough conference in your first year and then flame out at home in the 2nd round. Conference play is supposed to toughen you up for the NCAA play. Nebraska had to adjust to new opponents, new road venues, and playing on back-to-back nights. They handled it superbly. Them losing in the 2nd round at home just doesn't add up. This post has nothing to do with Texas; but since you brought them up, get back to me when Texas loses in the NCAA's on their home court. I have to agree with Southie a little bit but K-State was playing lights out volleyball. On the other hand.....Texas continues to struggle when it comes down to the wire. Loads of talent and still no trophy. Nobody suggest Texas has internal problems and they have had more talent than anyone but PSU and they lose matches. Southie has never suggested internal problems regarding Texas. Why is that? Im certainly not suggesting Tx has had internal problems, just asking why when they fall short that isnt the suggested reason. Seem's like a fair question? Havent seen internal problems suggested by Southie when Stanford has tripped up either. Why not? |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Jun 4, 2012 9:44:18 GMT -5
Come on. You don't win a tough conference in your first year and then flame out at home in the 2nd round. Conference play is supposed to toughen you up for the NCAA play. Nebraska had to adjust to new opponents, new road venues, and playing on back-to-back nights. They handled it superbly. Them losing in the 2nd round at home just doesn't add up. This post has nothing to do with Texas; but since you brought them up, get back to me when Texas loses in the NCAA's on their home court. I have to agree with Southie a little bit but K-State was playing lights out volleyball. On the other hand.....Texas continues to struggle when it comes down to the wire. Loads of talent and still no trophy. You make it sound like Texas is the only program "with loads of talent", and that they were favored every year to win it all.  |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Jun 4, 2012 9:45:09 GMT -5
I have to agree with Southie a little bit but K-State was playing lights out volleyball. On the other hand.....Texas continues to struggle when it comes down to the wire. Loads of talent and still no trophy. Nobody suggest Texas has internal problems and they have had more talent than anyone but PSU and they lose matches. Southie has never suggested internal problems regarding Texas. Why is that? Which recent loss(es) would suggest Texas has internal problems? |
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on Jun 4, 2012 10:06:15 GMT -5
I have to agree with Southie a little bit but K-State was playing lights out volleyball. On the other hand.....Texas continues to struggle when it comes down to the wire. Loads of talent and still no trophy. You make it sound like Texas is the only program "with loads of talent", and that they were favored every year to win it all. Texas has been in PV's top 5 of recruiting classes for 7 years running, I believe....unmatched by any other school.... |
|
|
|
Post by sirtrojan on Jun 4, 2012 10:09:41 GMT -5
I feel it is a totally unfair rap to say Elliot has disappointed as a coach. There have been injuries and there is always an element of randomness to any single elimination tournament. Also I don't agree he has had overwhelmingly more talent than other top teams overall. He has had more talent in the front row, maybe too much emphasis placed on front row athleticism. There is more to a team than its front row. What about setting and back row. I was always taught "it starts with a pass."
I feel it is within bounds to question Nebraska about internal problems because I recall some Husker fans complaining about "chemistry" issues with their team after the NCAAs. If Husker fans bring it up......
|
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Jun 4, 2012 10:11:41 GMT -5
I have to agree with Southie a little bit but K-State was playing lights out volleyball. On the other hand.....Texas continues to struggle when it comes down to the wire. Loads of talent and still no trophy. You make it sound like Texas is the only program "with loads of talent", and that they were favored every year to win it all. No, in fact I said with the exception of PSU theyve had better talent than anyone, and they have. Im quite confident you wouldnt get any argument from nearly everyone including Texas fans. What im not giving is a reason why they would lose, and im sure as hell not offering up "internal problems" as I would have 1. zero basis to say that (as you do regarding NU) and 2. there are tons of reasons why a team would fall short. Dont spin this as me saying Texas is or isnt anything. I could give many, many potential reasons why Texas would have lost, or underperformed, im just asking how you jumped immediately, and only on internal problems as to Nebraska's fumble? This has nothing to do with Texas, as I gave Stanford, Washington, PSU 6-7 years ago as examples. You latched on to Texas, which suggest this is about Texas and quite possibly the lack of love for Nebraska accordingly given the rivalry. Let me offer why I think Nebraska got their ticket punched. 1. Morgan and the middles offensive production was near invisible late in the year. Their lefts where prone to hot and cold streaks. The combination of the two is lethal. KSU had zero to lose, and their matches vs Nebraska mean everything to them. KSU had nothing to lose played amazing, Nebraska had everything to lose and played tight. Does this seem like a possible factor in an upset, or where they an internal Chernobyl? |
|
|
|
Post by smiley on Jun 4, 2012 10:39:20 GMT -5
I think if you go back and look at the history of VT you'll see the reasons why posters give for the favored team losing. Fans of the team will blame the back row and/or injuries while opposing fans will question chemistry/coaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Jun 4, 2012 10:43:15 GMT -5
I think if you go back and look at the history of VT you'll see the reasons why posters give for the favored team losing. Fans of the team will blame the back row and/or injuries while opposing fans will question chemistry/coaching. agreed but some programs chemistry is always what is questioned. While it may be sometimes, all of the time is absurd. The assertion there is internal problems coming from anyone outside the circle is just ridiculous. I dont know if there was or not. Saying there is when you have no knowledge of the inner workings is as I said ridiculous as well as unfair. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Jun 4, 2012 10:45:13 GMT -5
You make it sound like Texas is the only program "with loads of talent", and that they were favored every year to win it all. No, in fact I said with the exception of PSU theyve had better talent than anyone, and they have. Im quite confident you wouldnt get any argument from nearly everyone including Texas fans. What im not giving is a reason why they would lose, and im sure as hell not offering up "internal problems" as I would have 1. zero basis to say that (as you do regarding NU) and 2. there are tons of reasons why a team would fall short. Dont spin this as me saying Texas is or isnt anything. I could give many, many potential reasons why Texas would have lost, or underperformed, im just asking how you jumped immediately, and only on internal problems as to Nebraska's fumble? This has nothing to do with Texas, as I gave Stanford, Washington, PSU 6-7 years ago as examples. You latched on to Texas, which suggest this is about Texas and quite possibly the lack of love for Nebraska accordingly given the rivalry. Let me offer why I think Nebraska got their ticket punched. 1. Morgan and the middles offensive production was near invisible late in the year. Their lefts where prone to hot and cold streaks. The combination of the two is lethal. KSU had zero to lose, and their matches vs Nebraska mean everything to them. KSU had nothing to lose played amazing, Nebraska had everything to lose and played tight. Does this seem like a possible factor in an upset, or where they an internal Chernobyl? My response was directed at starsky. |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Jun 4, 2012 10:48:04 GMT -5
I think if you go back and look at the history of VT you'll see the reasons why posters give for the favored team losing. Fans of the team will blame the back row and/or injuries while opposing fans will question chemistry/coaching. agreed but some programs chemistry is always what is questioned. While it may be sometimes, all of the time is absurd. The assertion there is internal problems coming from anyone outside the circle is just ridiculous. I dont know if there was or not. Saying there is when you have no knowledge of the inner workings is as I said ridiculous as well as unfair. I didn't "say" there were internal issues, I "asked" if there could be. Nebraska ended the 2011 season in a shocking fashion to most volleyball fans. We all recall Lauren's off-the-court issues. My point in bringing up the loss to KSU was merely to discuss any potential carryover to 2012 (as we are discussing 2012 Big 10 conference predictions). |
|
|
|
Post by lawnmowerfan on Jun 4, 2012 10:51:50 GMT -5
I'll try and help us get back on track about Big 10 Predictions...
1. Nebraska
2. Penn State
3. Purdue
4. Minnesota
5. Ohio State
6. Illinois
7. Wisconsin
8. Michigan State
9. Michigan
10. Northwestern
11. Iowa (Dingman = hotseat)
12. Indiana (Dunbar = hotseat)
I'd say that one or two matches is all the separates 1-6. Wisconsin, MSU and Michigan will fight for the "middle of the pack," Northwestern is Northwestern, and the sad story continues for Iowa and Indiana. This is Dingman's 6th year and Dunbar's fifth or sixth. Their office seats will get a little toasty if things don't improve soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by smiley on Jun 4, 2012 12:16:30 GMT -5
I'll try and help us get back on track about Big 10 Predictions... 1. Nebraska 2. Penn State 3. Purdue 4. Minnesota 5. Ohio State 6. Illinois 7. Wisconsin 8. Michigan State 9. Michigan 10. Northwestern 11. Iowa (Dingman = hotseat) 12. Indiana (Dunbar = hotseat) I'd say that one or two matches is all the separates 1-6. Wisconsin, MSU and Michigan will fight for the "middle of the pack," Northwestern is Northwestern, and the sad story continues for Iowa and Indiana. This is Dingman's 6th year and Dunbar's fifth or sixth. Their office seats will get a little toasty if things don't improve soon. Just curious . Why MN and OSU ahead of IL? |
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Jun 4, 2012 12:20:13 GMT -5
I'll try and help us get back on track about Big 10 Predictions... 1. Nebraska 2. Penn State 3. Purdue 4. Minnesota 5. Ohio State 6. Illinois 7. Wisconsin 8. Michigan State 9. Michigan 10. Northwestern 11. Iowa (Dingman = hotseat) 12. Indiana (Dunbar = hotseat) I'd say that one or two matches is all the separates 1-6. Wisconsin, MSU and Michigan will fight for the "middle of the pack," Northwestern is Northwestern, and the sad story continues for Iowa and Indiana. This is Dingman's 6th year and Dunbar's fifth or sixth. Their office seats will get a little toasty if things don't improve soon. Oh, theres a lot more than 1 or 2 matches separating 1-6. Big gap between who wins and finishes 6th. last years winner was 17-3 and 6th was 10-10 |
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Jun 4, 2012 12:29:38 GMT -5
Turner's arm is amazing but I think it's early to talk about canonizing it. I don't think BoilerUp was canonizing Turner, just stating that she was B1G POY last year. And that Dave needs to make sure that she is not overused like this past year. She needs to get to tourney time with more arm in reserve. The team will see Annie Drews taking over the OPP position and becoming a huge factor on both offense and defense. The question in my mind is OH2. Nichols was not terribly effective last year and not sure that there is a player to own the position yet. Expect Purdue to finish 3rd or 4th then to the Sweet Sixteen. It was just a little joke. She referred to her "canon" of an arm when she meant her "cannon." |
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on Jun 4, 2012 12:34:29 GMT -5
I'll try and help us get back on track about Big 10 Predictions... 1. Nebraska 2. Penn State 3. Purdue 4. Minnesota 5. Ohio State 6. Illinois 7. Wisconsin 8. Michigan State 9. Michigan 10. Northwestern 11. Iowa (Dingman = hotseat) 12. Indiana (Dunbar = hotseat) I'd say that one or two matches is all the separates 1-6. Wisconsin, MSU and Michigan will fight for the "middle of the pack," Northwestern is Northwestern, and the sad story continues for Iowa and Indiana. This is Dingman's 6th year and Dunbar's fifth or sixth. Their office seats will get a little toasty if things don't improve soon. Didn't Indiana make the Sweet 16 in 2010? and go 23-12? I know they were 9-22 last year, but, I think Dunbar has been close to .500 the rest of the time. (just looked it up--49.1% winning % at Indiana) Iowa, on the other hand....... 35.7% winning % at Iowa, no 15 win seasons, no seasons above 500..... |
|
