|
Post by WahineFan44 on Aug 11, 2014 15:48:31 GMT -5
Also 2006. Washington won it last year and Nebraska was the number one pick in 2006 pre season. eh, the difference I see here is that Nebraska's overall body of work for 2005, coupled with who they brought back, justified a #1 preseason ranking. Over UW? debatable, but definitely over the field. I just don't think that Wisconsin's overall body of work for 2013 justifies them starting out preseason #1. But I digress, someone has to be there. Oh I understand that and I completely agree. But the poster did ask when's the last time it happened, it doesn't happen often, but sometimes the voters aren't focused on tournament results. I mean let say hawaii won the 2003 championship. Even as a hawaii fan, I wouldn't have voted them 1st pre season cause they lost 6 starters. Granted they good in 2004, but that was a total shocker
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 11, 2014 15:55:18 GMT -5
Some surprises... PAC12 seems top heavy this year. Will be interesting to see if feasting on RU and UMD will help keep more B1G teams in... Not feeling the American love, call my unpatriotic But I can get behind any poll that doesn't rank M*ch!g@n The better question is if they choose to rank American (who only lost 1 impact player), why rank them below Duke (who loses two impact players)? I mean if Tourney results dictate so much of the preseason poll, if American swept Duke @ Duke to advance to the sweet 16, and return more players than Duke, why isn't American ranked above duke?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 15:58:33 GMT -5
Why are we pretending or expecting that logic went into this poll...? Everyone needs to take it for what it is: nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 11, 2014 15:58:46 GMT -5
eh, the difference I see here is that Nebraska's overall body of work for 2005, coupled with who they brought back, justified a #1 preseason ranking. Over UW? debatable, but definitely over the field. I just don't think that Wisconsin's overall body of work for 2013 justifies them starting out preseason #1. But I digress, someone has to be there. I agree. Its a combination of what you bring back and what you did last year, in that order. UW didn't have a top 5 team, they went on an incredible run. Do they have a better roster than PSU, Stanford, Texas, Nebraska, UW, USC? We need some resolution over UW and its use here on volleytalk. Too much confusion.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 11, 2014 16:01:32 GMT -5
Why are we pretending or expecting that logic went into this poll...? Everyone needs to take it for what it is: nothing. IMO the AVCA preseason poll is the official start of the volleytalk season. It's when the forum really starts getting into full swing, and all the major schools will start talking about preseason practice, someone will try (and fail) to start a fantasy league, pick the winners starts up etc. etc. It's more of a welcome back thread, than anything.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 11, 2014 16:03:58 GMT -5
coaches probably be like, "I'll just copy and paste the poll I submitted at the end of last season."
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Aug 11, 2014 16:07:45 GMT -5
Ok, all of last year on this board UW was Washington and now it's Wisconsin. Let's settle on something, how about it (made all the more confusing when a Washington poster is talking about the Badgers).
Nebraska should be above Wisconsin. That's my only 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Aug 11, 2014 16:08:16 GMT -5
Some surprises... PAC12 seems top heavy this year. Will be interesting to see if feasting on RU and UMD will help keep more B1G teams in... Not feeling the American love, call my unpatriotic But I can get behind any poll that doesn't rank M*ch!g@n The better question is if they choose to rank American (who only lost 1 impact player), why rank them below Duke (who loses two impact players)? I mean if Tourney results dictate so much of the preseason poll, if American swept Duke @ Duke to advance to the sweet 16, and return more players than Duke, why isn't American ranked above duke? There is not a committee "choosing to rank" teams in certain places. Each voter submits their own ranking and results are tallied. Some may put Duke on their list, some American. There is no direct comparison made by a committee between two teams.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 11, 2014 16:09:55 GMT -5
Psu is ranked one cause they were national champions last year. Most would agree that Stanford is probably best team in nation. I can see why they did it though. That will sort itself out in first two weeks when they play each other. If Stanford wins they will go to 1 if psu wins with what everyone is saying ( all those freshman against a team that most believe is favorite this year ) then psu should maintain 1 and the rest of the league should be worried. If the two didn't play each other this year or so early I can see the disrespect but it will sort itself out so I think no foul here.
|
|
BoilerOn
Freshman
Boiler Up and Fight On!!
Posts: 71
|
Post by BoilerOn on Aug 11, 2014 16:09:54 GMT -5
Why is everyone so bent up about the poll? This same thing happens with football... the COACHES vote. Meaning they have to try and think about 25 other teams other right as practice is starting and preseason is approaching fast. Usually they give the job to their assistant coaches or they fill it out real quick relying a lot on last season and reputation. They are probably thinking "PSU will reload like they always do", "Wisco has a damn good setter and got to the 'ship last year", "Purdue had a good run and a good recruiting class", "USC has a load of talent but fell short last year", and so on and so forth. They don't think about it like we do on here analyzing each players' role and who graduated and who will step in her place. I usually just take these with a grain of salt and look at them for what they are.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 11, 2014 16:10:16 GMT -5
IMO...
UW=U Dub=Washington
Wisconsin=Wisconsin in the same vein as Iowa=Iowa ... no one says UI, right?
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Aug 11, 2014 16:15:14 GMT -5
IMO... UW=U Dub=Washington Wisconsin=Wisconsin in the same vein as Iowa=Iowa ... no one says UI, right? I'll accept that, as long as we're consistent!
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Aug 11, 2014 16:33:09 GMT -5
Why is everyone so bent up about the poll? Because it's annoying and it would take very little time to do a better job.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 11, 2014 16:35:13 GMT -5
Why is everyone so bent up about the poll? This same thing happens with football... the COACHES vote. Meaning they have to try and think about 25 other teams other right as practice is starting and preseason is approaching fast. Usually they give the job to their assistant coaches or they fill it out real quick relying a lot on last season and reputation. They are probably thinking "PSU will reload like they always do", "Wisco has a damn good setter and got to the 'ship last year", "Purdue had a good run and a good recruiting class", "USC has a load of talent but fell short last year", and so on and so forth. They don't think about it like we do on here analyzing each players' role and who graduated and who will step in her place. I usually just take these with a grain of salt and look at them for what they are. I've never heard the expression "bent up" before.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 11, 2014 16:41:28 GMT -5
Why is everyone so bent up about the poll? This same thing happens with football... the COACHES vote. Meaning they have to try and think about 25 other teams other right as practice is starting and preseason is approaching fast. Usually they give the job to their assistant coaches or they fill it out real quick relying a lot on last season and reputation. They are probably thinking "PSU will reload like they always do", "Wisco has a damn good setter and got to the 'ship last year", "Purdue had a good run and a good recruiting class", "USC has a load of talent but fell short last year", and so on and so forth. They don't think about it like we do on here analyzing each players' role and who graduated and who will step in her place. I usually just take these with a grain of salt and look at them for what they are. I've never heard the expression "bent up" before. Would "bent out of shape" have worked? Or how about "bent over"?
|
|