|
Post by jasonr on Jul 21, 2014 17:39:16 GMT -5
No, I'm saying it's absurd to claim Wisconsin was better than Illinois when they tied in the Big Ten standings and Illinois beat Wisconsin on their home court. I do not think it is absurd. The results on paper do not necessarily dictate who was and is better. Two very different teams that finished in the same place but for very different reasons. I know, I know...I'll be harangued for saying so, but given all that WI faced early in the season with SIGNIFICANT injuries, they simply lost matches they shouldn't have due to a variety of factors including chemistry, youth, players out of position for the first time in years...they underperformed early on and got much better as the season progressed. It's not a vacuum, folks. WI was out-played and out-talented by PSU and NE, but I believe by the end of the season were better than IL. Even when playing well, IL has struggled to produce at the MH position. McMahon was spotty. Yeah, they're seniors now, but I don't think they've got "it." In fact, I don't even see them even placing 4th. On to the BIG results... NE will be a different team this year losing Robinson. They lose passing, leadership, defense and an amazing terminator. If Mary continues to struggle connecting with solid MHs, they will not win conference. PSU is young. Fact is there are a lot of unknowns with a team that could be comprised of as many as 4 starters. We'll see how they gel, but I suspect they'll do very well. 1. PSU 1. WI 3. NE 4. Purdue 5. IL 6. MN 7. MSU 8. MI 9. OSU 10. IN 11. IA 12. NW 13. MD 14. Rutgers 100... Losing great players doesn't always result in a worse team. After seeing Nebraska's results in China, I don't think they'll see any appreciable drop off. You have to account for how young they were last year, all those players seem to have improved, especially the middles. While I still think their big years will be '15 & '16, they're more than capable of stepping up and winning the Big Ten. I wouldn't count them as the definitive frontrunner, but they're in the top tier of contenders.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jul 21, 2014 19:11:19 GMT -5
This is concerning. It also exacerbates the inequality caused by the scheduling contortions necessary to avoid breaking the conference into divisions and maintain some semblance of a round-robin format. Some may say that Wisconsin gets it easy by only playing PSU and Nebraska once, and getting Rutgers twice and Maryland once. But with the latter two's bottom-of-the-barrell OOC scheduling, every match we play them is one we have to make up for in our own OOC scheduling. Whereas teams in other conferences get roughly an equal RPI impact from their conference schedule, the impact of the conference schedule is different for each B1G team depending on who they play. I strongly sense that last year, when the B1G got eight teams into the tournament, will be the last year we get so many. We'll definitely get five, maybe six. I find more to be highly unlikely. The B1G is MUCH MUCH better off with Rutgers/Maryland scheduling like this and winning 7/8 matches than scheduling average and walking into conference six games below .500. OppSOS is a really minor concern compared to whether Rutgers/Maryland finish 9-21 v 2-28. Very fair point. You're absolutely correct in terms of raw RPI calculation. It is better for Rutgers and Maryland to win most of their preconference games. I guess I was concerned about seeding. I know that that is more subjective, and the committee considers the teams' opponents' overall ranking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 19:52:01 GMT -5
I see Wisconsin and Illinois contending, but not so sure about Purdue. The Badgers and Illini return all but one player from their rotation. Purdue graduated four regulars from this past year and finished the 2013 season a game behind both teams.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 21, 2014 22:15:28 GMT -5
Wisconsin was decent last year during the regular season, got hot in the tournament (aided by a favorable path). I suspect they will be closer to the NCAA team this year than the B1G team, but people are still making too many assumptions based on that NCAA run. See Michigan 2013. I think this is a pretty accurate description of 2013 Wisconsin and your opinion of 2014 is very reasonable.
I think the similarities to 2013 Michigan bring pause for 2014 Wisconsin. But here is where I think there is some differences pointing to Wisconsin's favor besides the obvious disappointment of 2013 Michigan that may be unique.
2013 Wisconsin was better than 2012 Michigan:
1) Wisconsin was 12-8 in conference, while Michigan was 11-9 2) Wisconsin's point differential supported the better record than Michigan 3) 2013 Big 10 was a tougher and deeper conference than 2012 Big 10 (this is debatable, but they went from 3 seeds to 5 seeds. 4) Michigan had probably the easiest Big 10 schedule in 2012, playing both Penn State and Ohio State just once. 5) Wisconsin advanced farther in the tournament making it to the finals. 6) Both teams lose 1 starter, but I believe the MB that Michigan lost is harder to replace (also debatable). 7) Wisconsin was a seeded team last year - Michigan wasn't really close to being seeded in 2012.
I believe 2014 is likely to be a down year in the Big 10 vs. 2013 (debatable). Almost every team in the league lost their best player to graduation, or in the case of Penn State lost 3 AA. The Big 10 had a great recruiting year, but in most cases I will take the 2013 version over the 2014 version. And for this reason - I think Wisconsin is deserving of the top tier of Big 10 teams for the preseason (along with Penn State and Nebraska).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 22:20:20 GMT -5
The biggest difference, of course, is Carlini.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 3:52:24 GMT -5
My guess, I guess.
1. Penn State (18-2) 2. Wisconsin (17-3) 3. Nebraska 4. Michigan State 5. Purdue 6. Illinois 7. Michigan 8. Northwestern 9. Minnesota 10. Ohio State 11. Iowa 12. Indiana 13. Maryland 14. Rutgers (0-20)
|
|
|
Post by mplssetter on Jul 22, 2014 5:20:21 GMT -5
My guess, I guess. 1. Penn State (18-2) 2. Wisconsin (17-3) 3. Nebraska 4. Michigan State 5. Purdue 6. Illinois 7. Michigan 8. Northwestern 9. Minnesota 10. Ohio State 11. Iowa 12. Indiana 13. Maryland 14. Rutgers (0-20) 1. Penn State 2. Wisconsin 3. Nebraska 4. Michigan State 5. Purdue 6. Illinois 7. Michigan 8. Northwestern 9. Ohio State 10. Minnesota 11. Iowa 12. Indiana 13. Maryland 14. Rutgers You switched MN and Ohio St. Which list are you going with?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 7:15:44 GMT -5
My guess, I guess. 1. Penn State (18-2) 2. Wisconsin (17-3) 3. Nebraska 4. Michigan State 5. Purdue 6. Illinois 7. Michigan 8. Northwestern 9. Minnesota 10. Ohio State 11. Iowa 12. Indiana 13. Maryland 14. Rutgers (0-20) 1. Penn State 2. Wisconsin 3. Nebraska 4. Michigan State 5. Purdue 6. Illinois 7. Michigan 8. Northwestern 9. Ohio State 10. Minnesota 11. Iowa 12. Indiana 13. Maryland 14. Rutgers You switched MN and Ohio St. Which list are you going with? My new one!
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Jul 22, 2014 7:32:03 GMT -5
You switched MN and Ohio St. Which list are you going with? My new one! Cathy George would get my vote for COY if this occurs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 7:42:48 GMT -5
Cathy George would get my vote for COY if this occurs. She should get it regardless.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Jul 22, 2014 8:00:04 GMT -5
I do not think it is absurd. The results on paper do not necessarily dictate who was and is better. Two very different teams that finished in the same place but for very different reasons. I know, I know...I'll be harangued for saying so, but given all that WI faced early in the season with SIGNIFICANT injuries, they simply lost matches they shouldn't have due to a variety of factors including chemistry, youth, players out of position for the first time in years...they underperformed early on and got much better as the season progressed. It's not a vacuum, folks. WI was out-played and out-talented by PSU and NE, but I believe by the end of the season were better than IL. Even when playing well, IL has struggled to produce at the MH position. McMahon was spotty. Yeah, they're seniors now, but I don't think they've got "it." In fact, I don't even see them even placing 4th. On to the BIG results... NE will be a different team this year losing Robinson. They lose passing, leadership, defense and an amazing terminator. If Mary continues to struggle connecting with solid MHs, they will not win conference. PSU is young. Fact is there are a lot of unknowns with a team that could be comprised of as many as 4 starters. We'll see how they gel, but I suspect they'll do very well. 1. PSU 1. WI 3. NE 4. Purdue 5. IL 6. MN 7. MSU 8. MI 9. OSU 10. IN 11. IA 12. NW 13. MD 14. Rutgers 100... Losing great players doesn't always result in a worse team. After seeing Nebraska's results in China, I don't think they'll see any appreciable drop off. You have to account for how young they were last year, all those players seem to have improved, especially the middles. While I still think their big years will be '15 & '16, they're more than capable of stepping up and winning the Big Ten. I wouldn't count them as the definitive frontrunner, but they're in the top tier of contenders. I think the extra month that Nebraska got to play together as team because of there China tour will be a huge advantage for them especially doing the first two monthes of the season before everyone else kind of catches up. Not sure it will be as much of an advantage come late November and into the post season. But as far as their win-loss record in the BIG, they have a good chance to be on top. Robinson was our go to play last year as we really didn't have many other young players stepping up. I'd expect they will be a pretty balanced team in the fall and overall they could be quite a bit better. Time will tell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 8:18:26 GMT -5
I think the extra month that Nebraska got to play together as team because of there China tour will be a huge advantage for them especially doing the first two monthes of the season before everyone else kind of catches up. Not sure it will be as much of an advantage come late November and into the post season. I think it's hard to tell if the extra volleyball and travel has a benefit on the court or not. I imagine Michigan had the same expectation when they travelled to Argentina and Brazil last year. Didn't work out so well for them.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jul 22, 2014 9:18:59 GMT -5
I don't disagree that NE could take the BIG, but I'm Just not that high on Mary P. Again, I know she won awards, blah, blah, blah... she is a good setter. However, she never connected with a very talented middle. She had two outstanding OHs to make her look good. She puts up a hittable ball, but I don't think she can take this team to the next level. If a team becomes one-dimensional against top tier talent, they will lose (see TX match at NE, TX against WI). Have to adjust, keep teams guessing, put defenses on their heels. Almost never happens without a really good to great setter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 10:07:36 GMT -5
Cathy George would get my vote for COY if this occurs. She should get it regardless. Cathy George should have been COY last year. MSU was the only team to defeat Penn State (19-1 B1G) and lose to Indiana (1-19) at E. Lansing for Indiana's only conference win. Seems difficult to pull that off but Ms. George found a way.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 22, 2014 12:41:12 GMT -5
I don't disagree that NE could take the BIG, but I'm Just not that high on Mary P. Again, I know she won awards, blah, blah, blah... she is a good setter. However, she never connected with a very talented middle. She had two outstanding OHs to make her look good. She puts up a hittable ball, but I don't think she can take this team to the next level. If a team becomes one-dimensional against top tier talent, they will lose (see TX match at NE, TX against WI). Have to adjust, keep teams guessing, put defenses on their heels. Almost never happens without a really good to great setter. You're acting like Nebraska has no recourse if Mary underperforms. They can just switch to Hunter who was a top 3 setter in her class and has a year in the program already. She also just set some excellent matches in China. If Mary isn't getting it done, Cook has an excellent plan B.
|
|