|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 16, 2014 7:47:54 GMT -5
Well Kadie Rolfzen was a way better hs player than Robo, was a way better freshman than Robo, and overall is a better athlete than Robo. It isn't outrageous to suggest Kadie could play at that level. Now the experience/maturity part is a big issue. Let's take a look at a scenario in which they could be as good or better which isn't a stretch at all. 1. Three great freshman Kadie, Amber, Justine, are all better as sophomores than they were as freshman which is what in most cases happens. Second, two middles who are really athletic but with limited playing experience contribute where they didn't a year ago. Third, A setter who didn't set the middle or RS that well improves after the incredible amount of energy they invested this spring in summer to make that happen. If 5 players who started with little or not experience improve and a setter improves in an important area, they cant be as good? Time will tell of course, but I certainly see a scenario where that could happen. Of the top teams this team may have the most room to improve given how inexperienced they were last year. Well firstly, Kadie herself contributed about 4 points per set, she would need to avoid a potential sophomore slump and, at the very least equal her freshmen performance JUST to say Nebraska is "as good". She's only going to take so many more swings...she's not the answer to replacing Kelsey's production because even if Kadie could do all the things Robinson did for them last year (She's more than likely NOT going to pass, defend, and hit as well as Robinson). Maybe she gets a point more per set, but even then thats still 4 more points (at a +.300 hitting percentage) to make up as a team. I agree it has to come from the middle and the RS, but THAT much is dependent largely on the passing and the setting this year. Nebraska didn't necessarily underset the RS and the middle (sure it could have been more, but it wasn't nonexistent...it was 50% of the touches), it's just that those players weren't as efficient with their swings (with Amber coming in at under .200, and the middles barely hitting a combined .300). Will the passing sans Robinson be steady enough to run the middle and the RS to high efficiency? We shall see. Robinson also produced a lot of backcourt defense that Kadie simply did not do. Matches of the top caliber are generally won by the production of the LS hitters. Robinson was a steady, aggressive player who produced....I just don't see 2014 Nebraska being BETTER than 2013 Nebraska. Not sure either but certainly possible given their situation. Players get better in that program, and as many as 5 starters will go from no years experience to a full season of experience.
|
|
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: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2014 7:57:03 GMT -5
I think the Pac 12 is stronger than the B1G at the top and bottom of the leagues (although I would love Wisconsin to prove me wrong there), but the B1G may be better in the middle, although I think it will be down overall from last year. It is an interesting year because most of the national contenders lost key contributors to graduation and there really doesn't seem to be a favorite. As far as an evaluation, I think a lot will hinge on which conference can get more of its teams in the middle hosting the first two rounds, which was a clear advantage for the B1G last year. Bingo. The big 10 was better last year, surely, but the bracket surely favored the conference to advance more than any other team. Would Minny have survived that match with Colorado had the match been played anywhere but Minneapolis? probably not. Illinois' fate for losing almost half of its matches throughout the season? a seed, a subregional host, and Marquette in the second round (rolls eyes). Could a team like Oregon or ASU have advanced to the sweet 16 and potentially further if they got to play @ Kentucky or @ Duke instead of against BYU in the first round or @ Nebraska? probably. If we compare the 2012 and 2013 tournaments: The B1G and Pac 12 both had 15 teams make the tournament. Both conferences had 8 seeds/hosts and 7 that had to go on the road. The B1G advanced 13 of these 15 teams to the Sweet 16, while the Pac 12 advanced 7. The B1G was 16-0 in these sub regional matchups as a home team, the Pac 12 was 15-1 (UCLA lost to Michigan State in 2012). The B1G was 6-1 on a neutral court, while the Pac 12 was 4-3. The B1G was 5-1 as a road team and the Pac 12 was 0-4.
Yes, hosting the 1st two rounds makes a significant difference in advancement - but when comparing the two conferences over the past two years, the B1G was much more successful despite the same opportunities as the Pac 12. I hate to conclude 'everything' by how teams do in the tournament, but since both conferences have had equal hosting representation over the past 2 years, I don't think we can say the B1G success in the tournament is due to better opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 16, 2014 12:58:43 GMT -5
Bingo. The big 10 was better last year, surely, but the bracket surely favored the conference to advance more than any other team. Would Minny have survived that match with Colorado had the match been played anywhere but Minneapolis? probably not. Illinois' fate for losing almost half of its matches throughout the season? a seed, a subregional host, and Marquette in the second round (rolls eyes). Could a team like Oregon or ASU have advanced to the sweet 16 and potentially further if they got to play @ Kentucky or @ Duke instead of against BYU in the first round or @ Nebraska? probably. For Oregon to advance further in the Kentucky region? Not likely (unless they play vs. Utah). They would have met either Penn State, Kentucky, or Michigan State (in which they lost 3-1 earlier). For ASU, would have lost vs. Penn State; lost vs. Michigan State (based on Illinois game earlier); lost vs. Utah; toss up vs. Kentucky. So, the only realistic chance for Oregon and ASU to win is vs. Utah/Kentucky in the Kentucky region. Therefore, I would only give them a maximum of 25% chance of advancing to Sweet 16. Would have had a better chance @ Duke. 25% chance to advance to the sweet 16? i was saying that if Oregon was in that Kentucky subregional rather than MSU, Oregon would have had a better chance to advance to the sweet 16 than the subregional they actually got which was @ Nebraska. Much higher than 25%, Kentucky wasn't that great and Oregon was a solid team. What I'm advocating is, as a Big 10 team, MSU was given one of the easier regionals to advance to the sweet 16. Both ASU and Oregon almost surely would have had a better chance to advance to the sweet 16 if they were in, say the Duke or the Kentucky regionals, because those were weaker seeds and weaker 1st round opponents...Conversely, MSU, just as an example, would have had a tougher time advancing to the sweet 16 if they got ASU's draw, which had BYU in the first round and Hawaii in the second.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 16, 2014 13:22:00 GMT -5
Bingo. The big 10 was better last year, surely, but the bracket surely favored the conference to advance more than any other team. Would Minny have survived that match with Colorado had the match been played anywhere but Minneapolis? probably not. Illinois' fate for losing almost half of its matches throughout the season? a seed, a subregional host, and Marquette in the second round (rolls eyes). Could a team like Oregon or ASU have advanced to the sweet 16 and potentially further if they got to play @ Kentucky or @ Duke instead of against BYU in the first round or @ Nebraska? probably. If we compare the 2012 and 2013 tournaments: The B1G and Pac 12 both had 15 teams make the tournament. Both conferences had 8 seeds/hosts and 7 that had to go on the road. The B1G advanced 13 of these 15 teams to the Sweet 16, while the Pac 12 advanced 7. The B1G was 16-0 in these sub regional matchups as a home team, the Pac 12 was 15-1 (UCLA lost to Michigan State in 2012). The B1G was 6-1 on a neutral court, while the Pac 12 was 4-3. The B1G was 5-1 as a road team and the Pac 12 was 0-4.
Yes, hosting the 1st two rounds makes a significant difference in advancement - but when comparing the two conferences over the past two years, the B1G was much more successful despite the same opportunities as the Pac 12. I hate to conclude 'everything' by how teams do in the tournament, but since both conferences have had equal hosting representation over the past 2 years, I don't think we can say the B1G success in the tournament is due to better opportunities.
I surely agree, they have been the better conference the last couple years, but I think you are understating the impacts of the draw, especially at the subreigonal level. You look purely at the win-loss records and don't factor in the most important factor, which is the matchups. Assuming your numbers are correct, The matchups are not created equally (and they obviously won't ever be). Lets assume that these same 15 teams from each conference arbitrarily flipped draws the last couple years, while I do think that the Big 10 would still have advanced more sweet 16 teams, I don't think the gap would have been as large.
|
|
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: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2014 17:33:03 GMT -5
If we compare the 2012 and 2013 tournaments: The B1G and Pac 12 both had 15 teams make the tournament. Both conferences had 8 seeds/hosts and 7 that had to go on the road. The B1G advanced 13 of these 15 teams to the Sweet 16, while the Pac 12 advanced 7. The B1G was 16-0 in these sub regional matchups as a home team, the Pac 12 was 15-1 (UCLA lost to Michigan State in 2012). The B1G was 6-1 on a neutral court, while the Pac 12 was 4-3. The B1G was 5-1 as a road team and the Pac 12 was 0-4.
Yes, hosting the 1st two rounds makes a significant difference in advancement - but when comparing the two conferences over the past two years, the B1G was much more successful despite the same opportunities as the Pac 12. I hate to conclude 'everything' by how teams do in the tournament, but since both conferences have had equal hosting representation over the past 2 years, I don't think we can say the B1G success in the tournament is due to better opportunities.
I surely agree, they have been the better conference the last couple years, but I think you are understating the impacts of the draw, especially at the subreigonal level. You look purely at the win-loss records and don't factor in the most important factor, which is the matchups. Assuming your numbers are correct, The matchups are not created equally (and they obviously won't ever be). Lets assume that these same 15 teams from each conference arbitrarily flipped draws the last couple years, while I do think that the Big 10 would still have advanced more sweet 16 teams, I don't think the gap would have been as large. Fair enough - the initial underlined comment stated 'more teams hosting', not matchups. So the stats I provided do not account for difficulty of machups, I was only responding to 'hosting'.
Again - none of this proves which conference is/was better as we put way too much into tournament results (I think). My opinion (not stat based), the B1G was better last year, but they should have been better with all their talented seniors. The Pac 12 exceeded my expectations and a pretty decent case could be made for either being better. I think this season is a flip - the Pac 12 should be better (and I expect them to be better), but the young players from the Big 10 could exceed expectations.
|
|
|
Post by redincolorado on Aug 16, 2014 18:10:07 GMT -5
I'm still most disappointed the B1G & Pac-12 backed out of their agreement to play each other in football and volleyball.
IMHO, on paper, at this time, both conferences appear to be pretty evenly matched in womens VB. For me it's waaaaaaaaay to early to make this call until I see some real play from the top dogs in both.
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Aug 16, 2014 21:19:25 GMT -5
Well firstly, Kadie herself contributed about 4 points per set, she would need to avoid a potential sophomore slump and, at the very least equal her freshmen performance JUST to say Nebraska is "as good". She's only going to take so many more swings...she's not the answer to replacing Kelsey's production because even if Kadie could do all the things Robinson did for them last year (She's more than likely NOT going to pass, defend, and hit as well as Robinson). Maybe she gets a point more per set, but even then thats still 4 more points (at a +.300 hitting percentage) to make up as a team. I agree it has to come from the middle and the RS, but THAT much is dependent largely on the passing and the setting this year. Nebraska didn't necessarily underset the RS and the middle (sure it could have been more, but it wasn't nonexistent...it was 50% of the touches), it's just that those players weren't as efficient with their swings (with Amber coming in at under .200, and the middles barely hitting a combined .300). Will the passing sans Robinson be steady enough to run the middle and the RS to high efficiency? We shall see. Robinson also produced a lot of backcourt defense that Kadie simply did not do. Matches of the top caliber are generally won by the production of the LS hitters. Robinson was a steady, aggressive player who produced....I just don't see 2014 Nebraska being BETTER than 2013 Nebraska. Not sure either but certainly possible given their situation. Players get better in that program, and as many as 5 starters will go from no years experience to a full season of experience. I liked this post, but wanted to emphasize that while they lost Robinson, they overperformed last year given their extreme inexperience. Players make their biggest jump from first to second year starters. I'm not particularly a fan of much of what Cook does, but there is no denying he is among the best coaches in the nation. They will have a much more balanced and IMO better team this season.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 17, 2014 3:06:09 GMT -5
It will be two B1G teams vying for the NC...unless they do something crazy with the tourney pairings to encourage fandom over a greater geographic area.
In my humble (yet always correct) opinion, Pac-12 are just wannabees....be it volleyball (B1G owns) or football (SEC owns). Pac-12 are "wannabees"? Who is this clown? comparing SEC football to Big 10 volleyball is a joke. The Big 10 has clearly established itself as a very deep top level league, but this new plateau is pretty recent, certainly not historical. 4 different teams have won a title in SEC football in the last decade, can the Big 10 say the same? No, not even close. PSU has been consistently at the top for years, but the rest of the Big 10, in terms of elite level cannot say the same (obviously the bulk of Nebraska's historical success cannot be attributed as Big 10 success). Let me lay some FACTS for you. For the 33 years the NCAA has had a volleyball tournament, The Big 10 has had a finalist in 12 of them, with PSU accounting for 9 of them. The Pac-12 has had at least one finalist in 24 of them, with 6 different schools represented. And this isn't ancient success either, considering that 3 different Pac-12 schools have reached the finals in the last 4 tournaments. The big 10 has obviously established itself as a conference that will continue to make defining contributions in our sports history, but to suggest that the Pac-12 are "wannabees" is, without question, the stupidest thing I've ever heard on volleytalk.
|
|
|
Post by Paulj on Aug 17, 2014 3:22:51 GMT -5
Husky...I LOVE how Pac-12 fans consider almost making it the same as the real deal. A perfect example is my nieces that went to Oregon. They think Duck football rules.
So your riposte is as expected. And by the way, "wannabees" probably wasn't an accurate term, but thanks for helping me make my point.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Aug 17, 2014 3:24:21 GMT -5
Husky...I LOVE how Pac-12 fans consider almost making it the same as the real deal. A perfect example is my nieces that went to Oregon. They think Duck football rules. So your riposte is as expected. And by the way, "wannabees" probably wasn't an accurate term, but thanks for helping me make my point. Stanford, USC and even Washington all have the fire power and skills to beat any b1g team. The b1g overall is better, but the pac12 top is stronger than the b1gs top this year
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 3:31:16 GMT -5
Husky...I LOVE how Pac-12 fans consider almost making it the same as the real deal. A perfect example is my nieces that went to Oregon. They think Duck football rules. So your riposte is as expected. And by the way, "wannabees" probably wasn't an accurate term, but thanks for helping me make my point. The b1g overall is better, but the pac12 top is stronger than the b1gs top this year How do you know? They haven't played a single point of the season yet.
|
|
|
Post by Paulj on Aug 17, 2014 3:31:50 GMT -5
But H.O., we have all seen victories that shouldn't have happened. From memory, hasn't Michigan beat Stanford the last 3 plays? Pre-season poll has Michigan at #8 in conference.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Aug 17, 2014 3:35:06 GMT -5
The b1g overall is better, but the pac12 top is stronger than the b1gs top this year How do you know? They haven't played a single point of the season yet. It's just a guess on my part. I'm thinking with who the b1g lost and who the PAC 12 lost, who would be better. Am I right? Who knows. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I won't claim to be right because I don't know 100 percent. But up until season starts, every thread like this is all about hunches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 4:07:14 GMT -5
How do you know? They haven't played a single point of the season yet. It's just a guess on my part. I'm thinking with who the b1g lost and who the PAC 12 lost, who would be better. Am I right? Who knows. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I won't claim to be right because I don't know 100 percent. But up until season starts, every thread like this is all about hunches. You didn't say it was a hunch.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Aug 17, 2014 4:11:02 GMT -5
It's just a guess on my part. I'm thinking with who the b1g lost and who the PAC 12 lost, who would be better. Am I right? Who knows. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I won't claim to be right because I don't know 100 percent. But up until season starts, every thread like this is all about hunches. You didn't say it was a hunch. I thought it was implied. This whole thread is opinions and hunches. Like you said, we don't know until they play, but IMO, the top three in the PAC, are better than the others.
|
|