|
Post by midnightblue on Jun 5, 2013 12:12:51 GMT -5
I make a concerted effort to not hang around volleytalk during the off season that often, and the Penn State faithful have gone even further off the deep end.... Oh please....And what, exactly, is your basis for saying such an outlandish comment? Stanford brought in, by far the consensus #1 recruiting class this year and WON the Pac-12 title largely starting 4 of those freshmen! Regardless of the post season failure, winning THAT many matches against quality opponents is a marvel achievement. There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING other than your stupid Russ Rose colored PSU glasses to suggest that none of the Stanford recruits "even come close to the potential" of X,Y,Z future PSU recruits. Perhaps if these PSU players were, right now, challenging for spots on the national traveling team then I'd say you have a point, but, as we all know, they aren't, and you don't have a point. No one in Stanford's 2012 class is athletic as any of the kids in Penn State's 2014 class. Much higher ceiling for Lee, Frantti, Weiskircher, Reed, Washington. Disagree all you want. The athletic potential there is the reason they'll be the number one class. You guys, AA is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Weiskircher is more athletic than Inky Ajanaku. Fool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 12:16:50 GMT -5
No one in Stanford's 2012 class is athletic as any of the kids in Penn State's 2014 class. Much higher ceiling for Lee, Frantti, Weiskircher, Reed, Washington. Disagree all you want. The athletic potential there is the reason they'll be the number one class. You guys, AA is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Weiskircher is more athletic than Inky Ajanaku. Fool. Alright, fine. Inky. She's very athletic too. And look how good she was as a freshman. Penn State is getting 4-5 kids with that kind of athleticism. Sorry. Both are very good classes, but I'm sorry, Penn State's has more potential in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Longhorn20 on Jun 5, 2013 12:38:44 GMT -5
I think I remember jtawa saying he thought that the penn state 2014 class was going to be the best ever since they started the analysis. It's very hard to compare though as penn state's recruits still have one more year before they even play in college.
|
|
|
Post by John Tawa-VolleyballMag.com on Jun 5, 2013 13:02:30 GMT -5
My first Senior Aces draft has six from PSU in the Top 25 nationally.
That's MY draft, however. From here on out, the college coaches take over.
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Jun 5, 2013 13:55:13 GMT -5
AY wrote: "It used to be that landing a some top 10 recruits put a team in firm position to take home hardware. Not anymore...nowadays a random top 10 player is not excessively superior to a player in the 20's or 30's, and this increase in talent level will only expand." (Sorry, I'm having problems with the quote function).
There is no clear way of quantifying differences in ability among highly ranked players and in any case I don't know what "excessively superior" denotes. But if you think of AA first and second team awards as a reasonable indicator of who are the best players, with the most impact, on the success of the best teams, I don't think one can say that the success achieved by recruits in the top 10 is only marginly more than that achieved by recruits ranked in the 20s and 30s. Review the prepvolleyball rankings of the awardees over the last 6 or 7 years: you'll find a much larger percentage--I'm guessing at least 4 to 5 times in numbers--of top 10 players getting these awards than even top 20's, and an even bigger disparity when you get to the 30's level players, who virtually never reach first team status. There will always be exceptions, players whose considerable success belies their relatively modest ranking out of HS, but as a general rule the teams at the very top--you know, the usual suspects--get there on the backs of their top 10, ok stretch that to top 15, recruits. You can see that coaches with their pick of the top 15 or so players (Elliot, Rose, Dunning), coaches who presumably can spot as well as recruit talent, almost never bother to recruit in the 30's. Indeed, I think the significance of the prepv class rankings varies depending on whether you're talking about teams that hope to be, or remain, very good, and those with top 8 aspirations. This is because the class rankings depend in part on the number of ranked players in the class. If you get 6 players ranked between 30 and 40, you'll get a very high class ranking; and that team is likely to be pretty good. Yet, that same class might not have even a single recruit of interest to Stanford, PSU, Texas, USC, or Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by chisovnik on Jun 5, 2013 14:44:19 GMT -5
You guys, AA is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Weiskircher is more athletic than Inky Ajanaku. Fool. Alright, fine. Inky. She's very athletic too. And look how good she was as a freshman. Penn State is getting 4-5 kids with that kind of athleticism. Sorry. Both are very good classes, but I'm sorry, Penn State's has more potential in my opinion. The only 2 that might be as athletic as Inky are Washington and Reed. But Frantti and Lee are nowhere near as good or athletic as Burgess when she was their age. And on a similar note, everyone in the Midwest keeps talking about Frantti, Lee, and Haggerty as the top 2014 outsides but if I were a college coach, I'd take Annika Albrecht before all 3 of them. Just throwing that out there.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Jun 5, 2013 14:51:03 GMT -5
Stanford's 2012 class has already demonstrated their skills on the highest collegiate stage. Penn State's 2014 class hasn't even signed yet. Plus, no guarantee the PSU kids will see as much court time as Stanford's did last season based on returning depth chart.
|
|
|
Post by vbobserver on Jun 5, 2013 22:42:26 GMT -5
All I know is that the talent turnstile continues to revolve on a few old school name programs. I also know that it doesn't guarantee championships. Thank goodness. As someone mentioned earlier, their is considerably better talent overall nationally over the last few years, which is a good thing. We can all clap a little that it's not just going to be the same old predictable ending, which will put more butts in the seats over time. So carry on all you want Mr or Mrs Old School Name Program...with the games greatest senior athletes coming to your town soon. It's more likely than ever that your team will be shocked by teams with names like Wolverines or Ducks. For the game, this is good...and its happening now.
|
|
|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Jun 5, 2013 22:49:10 GMT -5
All I know is that the talent turnstile continues to revolve on a few old school name programs. I also know that it doesn't guarantee championships. Thank goodness. As someone mentioned earlier, their is considerably better talent overall nationally over the last few years, which is a good thing. We can all clap a little that it's not just going to be the same old predictable ending, which will put more butts in the seats over time. So carry on all you want Mr or Mrs Old School Name Program...with the games greatest senior athletes coming to your town soon. It's more likely than ever that your team will be shocked by teams with names like Wolverines or Ducks. For the game, this is good...and its happening now. This was almost poetic... Hook'em
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jun 5, 2013 23:17:31 GMT -5
All I know is that the talent turnstile continues to revolve on a few old school name programs. I also know that it doesn't guarantee championships. Thank goodness. As someone mentioned earlier, their is considerably better talent overall nationally over the last few years, which is a good thing. We can all clap a little that it's not just going to be the same old predictable ending, which will put more butts in the seats over time. So carry on all you want Mr or Mrs Old School Name Program...with the games greatest senior athletes coming to your town soon. It's more likely than ever that your team will be shocked by teams with names like Wolverines or Ducks. For the game, this is good...and its happening now. I'll be convinced when a wolverine or duck actually wins the championship.
|
|
|
Post by network155 on Jun 6, 2013 4:52:46 GMT -5
All I know is that the talent turnstile continues to revolve on a few old school name programs. I also know that it doesn't guarantee championships. Thank goodness. As someone mentioned earlier, their is considerably better talent overall nationally over the last few years, which is a good thing. We can all clap a little that it's not just going to be the same old predictable ending, which will put more butts in the seats over time. So carry on all you want Mr or Mrs Old School Name Program...with the games greatest senior athletes coming to your town soon. It's more likely than ever that your team will be shocked by teams with names like Wolverines or Ducks. For the game, this is good...and its happening now. How many national championships have the Wolverines and Ducks won? I rest my case!
|
|
|
Post by internationalball on Jun 6, 2013 4:59:58 GMT -5
All I know is that the talent turnstile continues to revolve on a few old school name programs. I also know that it doesn't guarantee championships. Thank goodness. As someone mentioned earlier, their is considerably better talent overall nationally over the last few years, which is a good thing. We can all clap a little that it's not just going to be the same old predictable ending, which will put more butts in the seats over time. So carry on all you want Mr or Mrs Old School Name Program...with the games greatest senior athletes coming to your town soon. It's more likely than ever that your team will be shocked by teams with names like Wolverines or Ducks. For the game, this is good...and its happening now. Wait did the Ducks or Wolverines won the title last year? No, so let's not jump ahead of ourselves now ok! The last time I look, it's always been the Mr. & Mrs. Old School programs that have won the national championships.
|
|
|
Post by g8rvball on Jun 6, 2013 7:09:21 GMT -5
Alright, fine. Inky. She's very athletic too. And look how good she was as a freshman. Penn State is getting 4-5 kids with that kind of athleticism. Sorry. Both are very good classes, but I'm sorry, Penn State's has more potential in my opinion. The only 2 that might be as athletic as Inky are Washington and Reed. But Frantti and Lee are nowhere near as good or athletic as Burgess when she was their age. And on a similar note, everyone in the Midwest keeps talking about Frantti, Lee, and Haggerty as the top 2014 outsides but if I were a college coach, I'd take Annika Albrecht before all 3 of them. Just throwing that out there. I'd take Carli Snyder as the top OH of 14'. excited to see her in orange and blue!
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jun 6, 2013 9:12:43 GMT -5
AY wrote: "It used to be that landing a some top 10 recruits put a team in firm position to take home hardware. Not anymore...nowadays a random top 10 player is not excessively superior to a player in the 20's or 30's, and this increase in talent level will only expand." (Sorry, I'm having problems with the quote function). There is no clear way of quantifying differences in ability among highly ranked players and in any case I don't know what "excessively superior" denotes. But if you think of AA first and second team awards as a reasonable indicator of who are the best players, with the most impact, on the success of the best teams, I don't think one can say that the success achieved by recruits in the top 10 is only marginly more than that achieved by recruits ranked in the 20s and 30s. Review the prepvolleyball rankings of the awardees over the last 6 or 7 years: you'll find a much larger percentage--I'm guessing at least 4 to 5 times in numbers--of top 10 players getting these awards than even top 20's, and an even bigger disparity when you get to the 30's level players, who virtually never reach first team status. There will always be exceptions, players whose considerable success belies their relatively modest ranking out of HS, but as a general rule the teams at the very top--you know, the usual suspects--get there on the backs of their top 10, ok stretch that to top 15, recruits. You can see that coaches with their pick of the top 15 or so players (Elliot, Rose, Dunning), coaches who presumably can spot as well as recruit talent, almost never bother to recruit in the 30's. Indeed, I think the significance of the prepv class rankings varies depending on whether you're talking about teams that hope to be, or remain, very good, and those with top 8 aspirations. This is because the class rankings depend in part on the number of ranked players in the class. If you get 6 players ranked between 30 and 40, you'll get a very high class ranking; and that team is likely to be pretty good. Yet, that same class might not have even a single recruit of interest to Stanford, PSU, Texas, USC, or Nebraska. I'll buy into this, with the exception of liberro/DS position. Never highly ranked, but you better have good ones if you want to win, especially with specialization these days.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Jun 6, 2013 12:09:16 GMT -5
AY wrote: "It used to be that landing a some top 10 recruits put a team in firm position to take home hardware. Not anymore...nowadays a random top 10 player is not excessively superior to a player in the 20's or 30's, and this increase in talent level will only expand." (Sorry, I'm having problems with the quote function). There is no clear way of quantifying differences in ability among highly ranked players and in any case I don't know what "excessively superior" denotes. But if you think of AA first and second team awards as a reasonable indicator of who are the best players, with the most impact, on the success of the best teams, I don't think one can say that the success achieved by recruits in the top 10 is only marginly more than that achieved by recruits ranked in the 20s and 30s. Review the prepvolleyball rankings of the awardees over the last 6 or 7 years: you'll find a much larger percentage--I'm guessing at least 4 to 5 times in numbers--of top 10 players getting these awards than even top 20's, and an even bigger disparity when you get to the 30's level players, who virtually never reach first team status. There will always be exceptions, players whose considerable success belies their relatively modest ranking out of HS, but as a general rule the teams at the very top--you know, the usual suspects--get there on the backs of their top 10, ok stretch that to top 15, recruits. You can see that coaches with their pick of the top 15 or so players (Elliot, Rose, Dunning), coaches who presumably can spot as well as recruit talent, almost never bother to recruit in the 30's. Indeed, I think the significance of the prepv class rankings varies depending on whether you're talking about teams that hope to be, or remain, very good, and those with top 8 aspirations. This is because the class rankings depend in part on the number of ranked players in the class. If you get 6 players ranked between 30 and 40, you'll get a very high class ranking; and that team is likely to be pretty good. Yet, that same class might not have even a single recruit of interest to Stanford, PSU, Texas, USC, or Nebraska. I'll buy into this, with the exception of liberro/DS position. Never highly ranked, but you better have good ones if you want to win, especially with specialization these days. Always interested in facts in regards to recruiting rankings and eventual college success. Here are the 2012 All-American's and their respective prepvolleyball.com rankings their senior HS years> 1st Team Bergsma-65 Cook-18 Eckerman-5 Hagglund-27 Hamson-98 Hancock-41 Harms-7 Hartong-48 Love-Canadian Mann-? Plum-35 A Scott-17 Webster-1 Wopat-4 2nd Team Arslanbekova-Russia Billings-60 Brenner-22 Dixon-13 Hahn-? Henderson-21 Jarmoc-Canadian Mancuso-20 Selsky-? Slay-18 Turner-17 Vansant-1 Werth-4 Wicinski-? 3rd Team Cranston-Canadian Cross-Canadian Fuller-9 Henning-50 Hole-Norway Holthaus-31 Landwehr-24 McClendon-7 McLaurin-? Mead-38 Neff-89 Rucker-basketball Sims-95 Woolever-38
|
|