|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 23, 2014 1:50:27 GMT -5
she's very good. Glad she's staying in the Pac-12, but my god, the last thing USC is another high profile OH in the next few seasons...By 2016 no team in the country will have more top 10 OH's than USC. Gillis, Ruddins, Nwanebu, and Abercrombie already are top 10, Wallace Ford probably will be in 2015, and Lanier has all the potential to land in the top 10 in 2016. USC could put together two completely separate 5-1 teams and both of them could compete with any team in the country. Sickening, just sickening. Btw, she's class of 2016...at this point she doesn't "choose" Stanford, Stanford first has to choose her. Meh people thought this back after their 2010 class and nothing came of it except one final four appearance. Abrecrombie and Nwanebu are legit, Lanier maybe too, the rest?? Not really. This is a pretty unfair statement. USC went to the final four TWICE with the 2010 class. Firstly, that was ONE class, whereas these are multiple classes moving forward. And even in that 2010 class only three players were projected "game changers" (FF, Olgard, and Hagglund). As we all know, FF flamed out after just one season for personal reasons, NOT because of volleyball... and while she didn't take the volleyball world by storm like the hype suggested, she certainly wasn't bad. Olgard turned out to be solid, and hagglund certainly is a game changing libero. Who knows what USC would have accomplished had FF stayed...they probably would have beaten Illinois in the 2011 final four and probably would have beaten Washington this past year to get to the final four. I will be the first to say that USC is largely a product of its recruiting talents rather than its coaching ability, but to suggest that nothing really came of the 2010 class is pretty unfair. Nwanebu has obviously shown her worth, and I think most would agree with you on Abercrombie. Lanier is still young but the hype is there. As for the others, frankly, I thought Gillis as the #1 rated OH this past year was wrong and over the years it will probably end up being so, but she's very good. Ruddins played out of position last year so I'll wait to see if she competes well on the OH to make a determination about her skills. I actually like Wallace-Ford...she's undersized but plays like a Danielson, just very dynamic. Regardless, the sheer talent on the pins lining up to be trojans is unreal. I doubt any coach in the country wouldn't trade for USC's OH corps, even the might Penn State.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 2:06:01 GMT -5
He'll be 71 next month. I would guess he's changed his mined. Is he hiding a Backstreet Boy One Direction(-er/ee/??) somewhere in the Galen Center? I don't understand how, of all the PAC-12 coaches, he is the one roping in teenage girls. Uhh, Backstreet Boys...?
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Jul 23, 2014 3:46:27 GMT -5
Did anyone else read the against early recruiting article by Sealy at prepvolleyball.com.
I am sure he would sing a different tune if he can recruit as welll as Haley did
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 23, 2014 4:09:10 GMT -5
Has USC ever really been bad at recruiting? Not discrediting Mick, he's getting it done wrt recruiting, but I can't believe USC is a tough sell. Then again, UCLA has inexplicably found a way to make Westwood a tough sell... It does make you wonder, what is Mick doing that Sealy is not? USC holds no distinct advantage in terms of the school and location, albeit UCLA kids tend to get in on merit rather than legacy status and financial resources and actually work for their grades (yes that's my jab at the USC stereotype), and both schools have a very long tradition of volleyball excellence, but, recruiting and player retainment at UCLA seems to be almost laughable when compared with USC. As a school and program, anything USC can offer, UCLA can offer, so are players really taking a pass on UCLA because of the coaching staff? Is constantly yelling at you Mick Haley really that impressionable? It's not like USC is winning national championships every other year or has some impressive track record at player development. What is Mick doing that Sealy isn't! The short answer is that Mick, as a program director, does just about everything better than Sealy. I'm not particularly a fan of Mick Haley as a coach (or a person actually), but will readily acknowledge that he is a smart guy and his management ability ranks up there among D1 volleyball coaches. Steve Sample the former USC President did a brilliant job of rebranding USC with a campaign emphasizing academics and athletics in order to promote a vision of USC--particularly with its alumni-- as an elite institution (although the truth of that is debatable). The core of the strategy was to pour boatloads of money into high profile projects. Mick is extremely effective in promoting the institutional view of USC as elite to recruits, and as a coach, he operates with an Executive/CEO approach of determining the goal and delegating the responsibility. Sealy's early national championship appeared to be an affirmation of his ability to coach and relate to his players, but masked the fact that he is not an experienced manager of people or resources, and that over time his somewhat prickly personality appears to have interfered with or overshadowed the over-all growth and direction of the program.
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Jul 23, 2014 6:42:43 GMT -5
Did anyone else read the against early recruiting article by Sealy at prepvolleyball.com. I am sure he would sing a different tune if he can recruit as welll as Haley did There are coaches who are excellent at recruiting who share Sealy's position.
|
|
|
Post by bballnut90 on Jul 23, 2014 11:15:33 GMT -5
Meh people thought this back after their 2010 class and nothing came of it except one final four appearance. Abrecrombie and Nwanebu are legit, Lanier maybe too, the rest?? Not really. This is a pretty unfair statement. USC went to the final four TWICE with the 2010 class. Firstly, that was ONE class, whereas these are multiple classes moving forward. And even in that 2010 class only three players were projected "game changers" (FF, Olgard, and Hagglund). As we all know, FF flamed out after just one season for personal reasons, NOT because of volleyball... and while she didn't take the volleyball world by storm like the hype suggested, she certainly wasn't bad. Olgard turned out to be solid, and hagglund certainly is a game changing libero. Who knows what USC would have accomplished had FF stayed...they probably would have beaten Illinois in the 2011 final four and probably would have beaten Washington this past year to get to the final four. I will be the first to say that USC is largely a product of its recruiting talents rather than its coaching ability, but to suggest that nothing really came of the 2010 class is pretty unfair. Nwanebu has obviously shown her worth, and I think most would agree with you on Abercrombie. Lanier is still young but the hype is there. As for the others, frankly, I thought Gillis as the #1 rated OH this past year was wrong and over the years it will probably end up being so, but she's very good. Ruddins played out of position last year so I'll wait to see if she competes well on the OH to make a determination about her skills. I actually like Wallace-Ford...she's undersized but plays like a Danielson, just very dynamic. Regardless, the sheer talent on the pins lining up to be trojans is unreal. I doubt any coach in the country wouldn't trade for USC's OH corps, even the might Penn State. Put Falyn on USC the last 3 years and I bet USC wins at least 1 title and makes all 4 Final Fours. FF had moments of greatness (ie. against Stanford in the Regional Final) and was a terrific option on the outside. Put her on USC in 2011 with Jupiter on the outside, Bateman setting and Hagglund playing defense and you get the obvious favorite to win a championship. In 2012 and 2013 USC would have joined Texas/Penn State as the teams with the best chance to win a title. Can you imagine a senior FF with Nwanebu and Olgard? USC would have had the best collection of hitters in the nation.
|
|
|
Post by memorybankrupt on Jul 23, 2014 11:56:16 GMT -5
Has USC ever really been bad at recruiting? Not discrediting Mick, he's getting it done wrt recruiting, but I can't believe USC is a tough sell. Then again, UCLA has inexplicably found a way to make Westwood a tough sell... It does make you wonder, what is Mick doing that Sealy is not? USC holds no distinct advantage in terms of the school and location, albeit UCLA kids tend to get in on merit rather than legacy status and financial resources and actually work for their grades (yes that's my jab at the USC stereotype), and both schools have a very long tradition of volleyball excellence, but, recruiting and player retainment at UCLA seems to be almost laughable when compared with USC. As a school and program, anything USC can offer, UCLA can offer, so are players really taking a pass on UCLA because of the coaching staff? Is constantly yelling at you Mick Haley really that impressionable? It's not like USC is winning national championships every other year or has some impressive track record at player development. What is Mick doing that Sealy isn't! I'm also perplexed that UCLA hasn't been a more attractive option. USC does have its share of spoiled rich kids (so does UCLA), but there's a ton of bright academic-minded ones that do get in on their own merit. Anyhow I bet UCLA will rebound at some point under Sealy. Maybe it'll just take a few good recruiting classes.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 23, 2014 17:27:27 GMT -5
This is a pretty unfair statement. USC went to the final four TWICE with the 2010 class. Firstly, that was ONE class, whereas these are multiple classes moving forward. And even in that 2010 class only three players were projected "game changers" (FF, Olgard, and Hagglund). As we all know, FF flamed out after just one season for personal reasons, NOT because of volleyball... and while she didn't take the volleyball world by storm like the hype suggested, she certainly wasn't bad. Olgard turned out to be solid, and hagglund certainly is a game changing libero. Who knows what USC would have accomplished had FF stayed...they probably would have beaten Illinois in the 2011 final four and probably would have beaten Washington this past year to get to the final four. I will be the first to say that USC is largely a product of its recruiting talents rather than its coaching ability, but to suggest that nothing really came of the 2010 class is pretty unfair. Nwanebu has obviously shown her worth, and I think most would agree with you on Abercrombie. Lanier is still young but the hype is there. As for the others, frankly, I thought Gillis as the #1 rated OH this past year was wrong and over the years it will probably end up being so, but she's very good. Ruddins played out of position last year so I'll wait to see if she competes well on the OH to make a determination about her skills. I actually like Wallace-Ford...she's undersized but plays like a Danielson, just very dynamic. Regardless, the sheer talent on the pins lining up to be trojans is unreal. I doubt any coach in the country wouldn't trade for USC's OH corps, even the might Penn State. Put Falyn on USC the last 3 years and I bet USC wins at least 1 title and makes all 4 Final Fours. FF had moments of greatness (ie. against Stanford in the Regional Final) and was a terrific option on the outside. Put her on USC in 2011 with Jupiter on the outside, Bateman setting and Hagglund playing defense and you get the obvious favorite to win a championship. In 2012 and 2013 USC would have joined Texas/Penn State as the teams with the best chance to win a title. Can you imagine a senior FF with Nwanebu and Olgard? USC would have had the best collection of hitters in the nation. Hell, I could have coached that team to a NC ... but Mick is loading up again everyone so lookout!
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 23, 2014 17:36:01 GMT -5
Having great play on the pins is important, but that's still only two spots and there's one ball. USC's fate will still be dictated by setting and backrow play.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 23, 2014 17:55:29 GMT -5
Did anyone else read the against early recruiting article by Sealy at prepvolleyball.com. I am sure he would sing a different tune if he can recruit as welll as Haley did There are coaches who are excellent at recruiting who share Sealy's position. And they all - including Sealy - are recruiting 14-15 year old kids ( I know two 2016's and one 2017 that UCLA has been actively recruiting). They don't necessarily like it, and might be working to change it, but in the meantime are playing the same recruiting game as everyone else. I don't believe that's been an issue in respect to UCLA losing recruits to USC (or Stanford, Cal etc). As someone mentioned above, Haley is just really, really good at managing a program - including recruiting. Another thing to keep in mind is that while USC legitimately upped its academic cred in the last decade, they also have very liberal admissions policies for athletes, including volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Jul 23, 2014 18:08:59 GMT -5
There are coaches who are excellent at recruiting who share Sealy's position. And they all - including Sealy - are recruiting 14-15 year old kids ( I know two 2016's and one 2017 that UCLA has been actively recruiting). They don't necessarily like it, and might be working to change it, but in the meantime are playing the same recruiting game as everyone else. I don't believe that's been an issue in respect to UCLA losing recruits to USC (or Stanford, Cal etc). As someone mentioned above, Haley is just really, really good at managing a program - including recruiting. Another thing to keep in mind is that while USC legitimately upped its academic cred in the last decade, they also have very liberal admissions policies for athletes, including volleyball. I agree with all of this. There is a collective action problem. Even if Sealy and others would very much prefer to focus recruiting on 17 year olds it would be suicidal for them to do this while so many other major programs are focusing on 14 and 15 year olds. I also agree that Mick does a great job running his program in all sorts of ways.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jul 23, 2014 18:14:08 GMT -5
And they all - including Sealy - are recruiting 14-15 year old kids ( I know two 2016's and one 2017 that UCLA has been actively recruiting). They don't necessarily like it, and might be working to change it, but in the meantime are playing the same recruiting game as everyone else. I don't believe that's been an issue in respect to UCLA losing recruits to USC (or Stanford, Cal etc). As someone mentioned above, Haley is just really, really good at managing a program - including recruiting. Another thing to keep in mind is that while USC legitimately upped its academic cred in the last decade, they also have very liberal admissions policies for athletes, including volleyball. I agree with all of this. There is a collective action problem. Even if Sealy and others would very much prefer to focus recruiting on 17 year olds it would be suicidal for them to do this while so many other major programs are focusing on 14 and 15 year olds. I also agree that Mick does a great job running his program in all sorts of ways. There's a difference between recruiting/building relationships with kids and offering/closing them too early. I think Sealy and Co. are just bad closers. I think there's something to be said for keeping elite players on the hook but waiting as long as possible before giving them a commitable offer. It takes a great recruiting staff to pull it off though.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 23, 2014 18:35:13 GMT -5
I don't really understand--you can't possibly have an elite player "on the hook" if you haven't made an offer. But I don't believe it's about closing ability at all. Cultivating a relationship is painstaking work. Regular contacts, remembering birthdays and important details, following progress and watching matches, letting the athlete know you're watching and interested is time-consuming and requires a lot of organization and discipline. For a coach who does this really well, the closing is simply the culmination. UCLA's vb difficulties are internal, because there is still tremendous interest among athletes in UCLA as an institution.
|
|
|
Post by fightonsc on Jul 23, 2014 20:53:28 GMT -5
Having great play on the pins is important, but that's still only two spots and there's one ball. USC's fate will still be dictated by setting and backrow play. Understand he is looking at a couple of so cal setters in the class of 2016. One from the Long Beach Mizuno 17 team and the other from the Laguna Beach 16's.
|
|
|
Post by afanofthegame on Jul 23, 2014 22:50:47 GMT -5
Having great play on the pins is important, but that's still only two spots and there's one ball. USC's fate will still be dictated by setting and backrow play. Understand he is looking at a couple of so cal setters in the class of 2016. One from the Long Beach Mizuno 17 team and the other from the Laguna Beach 16's. Mick already has two setters committed, 2015-Johnson and 2017-Botkin. Can't imagine he'd pick up a 2016 too.
|
|