|
|
Post by austintatious on Dec 19, 2014 14:58:48 GMT -5
Weather, two hugely popular Cities - San Francisco, LA, a good decade of established tradition before PSU even won their first NC. UCLA, Stanford and USC are also simply considered better academic institutions than PSU, which in itself is a really good school as well. Have you seen Stanford's typical endowment? USC is also a private school like Stanford. I know you aint a fool - at the very least, please don't try to counter the weather argument. Please. Three things have conspired and allowed PSU and the B1G to dominate: (1) Number of substitutions and the Libero; (2) Growth of club volleyball; (3) Demographics. While there are a lot of good players in CA, teams like UCLA, USC, Stanford, UW, Cal, and others split the talent. Now, put a pin down on Happy Valley and swing a radius arm of 500 miles and tell me what other volleyball power is inside the resulting circle? PSU is now recruiting successfully outside that circle nationally because of their success in 2007 thru 2010. No one is arguing or disagreeing with your points, you just come off as an arrogant old school west coaster, which normally isn't your style at all. Maybe its the way it is written but does sure seem like that. |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Dec 19, 2014 15:01:13 GMT -5
If you say so. Bottom line is that Stanford is not the program they were 10 years ago. The reasons why are irrelevant. I disagree - Stanford is very much the same program. They're still getting ultra-elite players (including the 2015 #1 recruit), and Stanford remains one of the best programs in the country. But while Stanford has stayed the same, other programs have caught up to them (and in the case of Penn St, surpassed them). And I'm not sure John, Denise & Co have adapted to the changes in the sport as well as other elite programs. I strongly agree with that assessment. Rose to his credit has exploited the rule changes very effectively which allows for more specialization and diminishes the role of all-around skilled players. PSU eliminated Stanford in 2007, 2008, 2013, and now 2014. In each of those years Stanford probably was the 2nd best team in the nation. |
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Dec 19, 2014 15:07:55 GMT -5
If you say so. Bottom line is that Stanford is not the program they were 10 years ago. The reasons why are irrelevant. I disagree - Stanford is very much the same program. They're still getting ultra-elite players (including the 2015 #1 recruit), and Stanford remains one of the best programs in the country. But while Stanford has stayed the same, other programs have caught up to them (and in the case of Penn St, surpassed them). And I'm not sure John, Denise & Co have adapted to the changes in the sport as well as other elite programs. While I applaud that Stanford/Dunning continue to play multiple 6-rotation players, it clearly costs them competitively. Watch the rallies and consider how Penn State's front-row specialists hit a bit higher and their back-row specialists dig an extra ball or two. The new substitution rules allow you to employ more specialists, and Penn State has capitalized on it, while Stanford has not. edit: Dang, Hammer beat me to this by 6 minutes. I'll keep this here, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by vbkid111 on Dec 19, 2014 15:10:28 GMT -5
I disagree - Stanford is very much the same program. They're still getting ultra-elite players (including the 2015 #1 recruit), and Stanford remains one of the best programs in the country. But while Stanford has stayed the same, other programs have caught up to them (and in the case of Penn St, surpassed them). And I'm not sure John, Denise & Co have adapted to the changes in the sport as well as other elite programs. I strongly agree with that assessment. Rose to his credit has exploited the rule changes very effectively which allows for more specialization and diminishes the role of all-around skilled players. PSU eliminated Stanford in 2007, 2008, 2013, and now 2014. In each of those years Stanford probably was the 2nd best team in the nation. Rose has been known to play 9-12 players strategically in a match. He played 9 regularly in last night's match. And he works the system to squeeze very specific things out of each kid. Some may criticize him for not developing "complete" players for the next level--who knows. But PSU pays him to win championships, not get kids ready for international play, which in my mind should be the kid's job anyway if that's what she really wants. He's going to take advantage of any little opportunity the rules offer him. (Of course, he's not the only one who does this.) |
|
|
|
Post by ncaavballguru on Dec 19, 2014 15:15:43 GMT -5
I am always amazed and how thoroughly the Volleytalk "analysts" can dissect everything right and wrong with every program in the NCAA (and their coaches) by watching one NCAA semifinal match.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardbop on Dec 19, 2014 15:18:24 GMT -5
RR talks about how he did not adapt quickly enough to the rules changes and for a few years he kept recruiting players that could play six rotations. I was there in the stands during those relatively lean years when PSU was getting out muscled by the better teams with coaches who were early adopters. RR to his credit did what he had to do to field the most competitive team possible. That's what good coaches do.
|
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Dec 19, 2014 15:20:48 GMT -5
I am always amazed and how thoroughly the Volleytalk "analysts" can dissect everything right and wrong with every program in the NCAA (and their coaches) by watching one NCAA semifinal match. Experts...if they've got the requisite number of posts and stars under their names. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 19, 2014 15:30:02 GMT -5
I am always amazed and how thoroughly the Volleytalk "analysts" can dissect everything right and wrong with every program in the NCAA (and their coaches) by watching one NCAA semifinal match. Actually, I watched two last night. So there. |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Dec 19, 2014 15:43:12 GMT -5
I strongly agree with that assessment. Rose to his credit has exploited the rule changes very effectively which allows for more specialization and diminishes the role of all-around skilled players. PSU eliminated Stanford in 2007, 2008, 2013, and now 2014. In each of those years Stanford probably was the 2nd best team in the nation. Rose has been known to play 9-12 players strategically in a match. He played 9 regularly in last night's match. And he works the system to squeeze very specific things out of each kid. Some may criticize him for not developing "complete" players for the next level--who knows. But PSU pays him to win championships, not get kids ready for international play, which in my mind should be the kid's job anyway if that's what she really wants. He's going to take advantage of any little opportunity the rules offer him. (Of course, he's not the only one who does this.) Exactly, Stanford needs to do the same thing or go political and get the number of subs rolled back similar to FIVB rules. Why do you think International Basketball has a trapezoid and a shorter 3 point line? Those rules were put in to thwart US Basketball's inside game. |
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Dec 19, 2014 15:44:41 GMT -5
Watching the match from a future national team perspective, Inky is clearly a player they'll want to consider.
I'm interested, however, in seeing how Courtney develops. Her all-around game should translate internationally. She reminds me a bit of Larson. Anyone know if she's even on the radar screen for the national program?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Dec 19, 2014 16:00:58 GMT -5
For what it's worth, the 6-rotation players have been important to PSU the last 10 years. Hodge, McClendon, now Courtney and Frantti all play back row and do it well. PSU has used more DS's this year for serving I think mainly because they've gotten good tough serving out of the Pierce sisters. Kendall Pierce also played some very nice back row D for them last night. I strongly agree with that assessment. Rose to his credit has exploited the rule changes very effectively which allows for more specialization and diminishes the role of all-around skilled players. PSU eliminated Stanford in 2007, 2008, 2013, and now 2014. In each of those years Stanford probably was the 2nd best team in the nation. Rose has been known to play 9-12 players strategically in a match. He played 9 regularly in last night's match. And he works the system to squeeze very specific things out of each kid. Some may criticize him for not developing "complete" players for the next level--who knows. But PSU pays him to win championships, not get kids ready for international play, which in my mind should be the kid's job anyway if that's what she really wants. He's going to take advantage of any little opportunity the rules offer him. (Of course, he's not the only one who does this.) |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 19, 2014 16:02:38 GMT -5
Watching the match from a future national team perspective, Inky is clearly a player they'll want to consider. I'm interested, however, in seeing how Courtney develops. Her all-around game should translate internationally. She reminds me a bit of Larson. Anyone know if she's even on the radar screen for the national program? I kept wondering how she struggled all year. Such a beautiful armswing, and that contact point. She also looks like a very smooth passer. Serving is a weakness, but we don't seem to have trouble in the USWNT producing good servers. |
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Dec 19, 2014 16:06:18 GMT -5
For what it's worth, the 6-rotation players have been important to PSU the last 10 years. Hodge, McClendon, now Courtney and Frantti all play back row and do it well. PSU has used more DS's this year for serving I think mainly because they've gotten good tough serving out of the Pierce sisters. Kendall Pierce also played some very nice back row D for them last night. Rose has been known to play 9-12 players strategically in a match. He played 9 regularly in last night's match. And he works the system to squeeze very specific things out of each kid. Some may criticize him for not developing "complete" players for the next level--who knows. But PSU pays him to win championships, not get kids ready for international play, which in my mind should be the kid's job anyway if that's what she really wants. He's going to take advantage of any little opportunity the rules offer him. (Of course, he's not the only one who does this.) I caught that also last night. Kendell for quite a bit of floor time and was good. It was something that goes unnoticed but important. Gonzalez and fuller were all over court last night and it allowed them to get breather in case in went 5. The benefits of being deep. U just eventually ware the opponent out. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 19, 2014 16:12:20 GMT -5
I thought PSU's defense really picked it up toward the end of the match, which gave them some separation from Stanford. The point about servers is correct too. Whenever Russ felt he needed more aggression at the service line because he felt the other team was getting too comfortable, he would bring in the other DS's. It generally worked pretty well. Last night he seemed to use it from the get go.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarredk on Dec 19, 2014 16:14:07 GMT -5
Watching the match from a future national team perspective, Inky is clearly a player they'll want to consider. I'm interested, however, in seeing how Courtney develops. Her all-around game should translate internationally. She reminds me a bit of Larson. Anyone know if she's even on the radar screen for the national program? I kept wondering how she struggled all year. Such a beautiful armswing, and that contact point. She also looks like a very smooth passer. Serving is a weakness, but we don't seem to have trouble in the USWNT producing good servers. I think Courtney's problem (from an attacking perspective) is that she hits from a lower point than most of the other elite OHs. Although it didn't happen much yesterday, she has a tendency to get blocked more than an elite hitter should. She has such great volleyball acumen, she almost anticipates getting blocked - which typically results in her either pulling up and attempting (an often weak) push or tip shot or attempting to hit it over the block and hitting it out of bounds. When she does hit the seam or around the block - she has great velocity and angle. Probably the best on the team. Of course, her serve/receive and defense are also hugely overlooked. |
|
