|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Dec 18, 2014 15:46:39 GMT -5
If it's that important to you . . . Texas goes 3-0. Now, you will proceed to tell me why they wouldn't. That is your agenda, correct? I didnt have an agenda, Texas is legit although I felt they got a very lofty seed and good draw, and Wisconsin is legit and certainly had an advantageous Big schedule. You were just highly critical of 3 losses that I thought were pretty damn good losses. Personally, I dont think any team in the country goes 3-0 in those matches. Anybody This was the most pointless and anticlimactic ending to this particular tangent of this thread. The only thing that's been affirmed is that there's a disagreement on what you "think."
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 18, 2014 15:50:21 GMT -5
I didnt have an agenda, Texas is legit although I felt they got a very lofty seed and good draw, and Wisconsin is legit and certainly had an advantageous Big schedule. You were just highly critical of 3 losses that I thought were pretty damn good losses. Personally, I dont think any team in the country goes 3-0 in those matches. Anybody So, who should have gotten that "very lofty" #2 national seed, if not Texas? Washington? As it turned out, obviously not. A team only gets credit for "good losses" in RPI/SOS. But, those were Wisconsin's e toughest matches (according to the seeds) and they couldn't win any of the three. To answer your direct question directly (because that's what people do) I think Washington should have been the #2 seed. Secondly "as it turns out" is irrelevant as seeding is done based on regular season results, unless of course you are suggesting BYU should have been a top 4 seed, and that last year Wisconsin should have been #2 seed. Lastly, as I have always stated, draw is way more important than seed. I think had you given this years #1 seed the option of playing the #2 teams draw, they would have jumped at it, and I wouldnt imagine anyone would disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Dec 18, 2014 16:49:55 GMT -5
2014 AVCA DIVISION I FIRST-TEAM ALL-AMERICA
Inky Ajanaku* Stanford University MB Jr. Madi Bugg^ Stanford University S Jr. Jordan Burgess Stanford University OH Jr. Lauren Carlini^ University of Wisconsin S So. Haley Eckerman!$* University of Texas OH Sr. Nia Grant Penn State University MB Sr. Jennifer Hamson$ Brigham Young University RS Sr. Micha Hancock$* Penn State University S Sr. Briana Holman Louisiana State University MB So. Alex Holston University of Florida RS So. Karsta Lowe UCLA OH Sr. Chiaka Ogbogu^ University of Texas MB So. Taylor Simpson University of Colorado OH Sr. Krista Vansant@* University of Washington OH Sr.
In a vain attempt to move the thread back to AA's: here are the first teamers again. Congrats to all!
|
|
|
Post by onfiya on Dec 18, 2014 16:51:54 GMT -5
So, who should have gotten that "very lofty" #2 national seed, if not Texas? Washington? As it turned out, obviously not. A team only gets credit for "good losses" in RPI/SOS. But, those were Wisconsin's e toughest matches (according to the seeds) and they couldn't win any of the three. To answer your direct question directly (because that's what people do) I think Washington should have been the #2 seed. Secondly "as it turns out" is irrelevant as seeding is done based on regular season results, unless of course you are suggesting BYU should have been a top 4 seed, and that last year Wisconsin should have been #2 seed. Lastly, as I have always stated, draw is way more important than seed. I think had you given this years #1 seed the option of playing the #2 teams draw, they would have jumped at it, and I wouldnt imagine anyone would disagree. Amen! No one is saying that Texas isn't good, they just got a cupcake path. How the committee saw fit to put Stanford, Penn State and Wisconsin on one side of the bracket is redonkulous! Pick any 3 on Texas side of the bracket and see how they stack up; they don't! Stanford says, "Thank you sir, may I have another???"
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Dec 18, 2014 16:54:24 GMT -5
2014 AVCA DIVISION I FIRST-TEAM ALL-AMERICA In a vain attempt to move the thread back to AA's: here are the first teamers again. Congrats to all! Will there be any live tweeting/posts of the ceremony (either here or elsewhere)?
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Dec 18, 2014 17:01:57 GMT -5
Martenne Bettendorf as some posters have already mentioned has been great for Oregon all year she really emerged as their best player this season great recognition for her.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 18, 2014 17:05:41 GMT -5
2014 AVCA DIVISION I FIRST-TEAM ALL-AMERICA Inky Ajanaku* Stanford University MB Jr. Madi Bugg^ Stanford University S Jr. Jordan Burgess Stanford University OH Jr. Lauren Carlini^ University of Wisconsin S So. Haley Eckerman!$* University of Texas OH Sr. Nia Grant Penn State University MB Sr. Jennifer Hamson$ Brigham Young University RS Sr. Micha Hancock$* Penn State University S Sr. Briana Holman Louisiana State University MB So. Alex Holston University of Florida RS So. Karsta Lowe UCLA OH Sr. Chiaka Ogbogu^ University of Texas MB So. Taylor Simpson University of Colorado OH Sr. Krista Vansant@* University of Washington OH Sr. In a vain attempt to move the thread back to AA's: here are the first teamers again. Congrats to all! So what you're saying is, that Micha Hancock is money?
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Dec 18, 2014 17:29:40 GMT -5
No, I think it is swearing at her setter dumps!
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Dec 18, 2014 17:46:06 GMT -5
Um, Washington was without one of its two starting setters. FL was not the team WA was with a complete team. FYI, that setter was lost the last game of their regular season. Before you argue someone else should have stepped up, not much time to work the freshman setter in. And, when Washington was at full strength, they couldn't win at Utah or Colorado. Look, you chose to call Texas a fraud and derail this entire thread (which is about the All-Americans). You can make excuses until you are blue in the face, but Wisconsin didn't beat anyone who made the Elite 8 outside of Nebraska, and you just stated that Nebraska's win against Washington wasn't all that since Udub wasn't at full strength, so that just further weakens Wisconsin's home win against Nebraska. The Badgers may have the B1G trophy, but that's because they feasted on Rutgers and Maryland, and only played Nebraska and PSU once -- both at home. Anyone who believes Wisconsin was the best team in the B1G this season is delusional. And anyone who believes Texas is the second best team in the country is equally, if not more delusional. I'll root for Texas but the fanbase really makes me want to root against the team. For every sport. Texas fans are almost worse than SEC football fans.
|
|
|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Dec 18, 2014 17:52:27 GMT -5
And, when Washington was at full strength, they couldn't win at Utah or Colorado. Look, you chose to call Texas a fraud and derail this entire thread (which is about the All-Americans). You can make excuses until you are blue in the face, but Wisconsin didn't beat anyone who made the Elite 8 outside of Nebraska, and you just stated that Nebraska's win against Washington wasn't all that since Udub wasn't at full strength, so that just further weakens Wisconsin's home win against Nebraska. The Badgers may have the B1G trophy, but that's because they feasted on Rutgers and Maryland, and only played Nebraska and PSU once -- both at home. Anyone who believes Wisconsin was the best team in the B1G this season is delusional. And anyone who believes Texas is the second best team in the country is equally, if not more delusional. I'll root for Texas but the fanbase really makes me want to root against the team. For every sport. Texas fans are almost worse than SEC football fans. No one is twisting your arm to root for Texas...
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Dec 18, 2014 18:05:37 GMT -5
And, when Washington was at full strength, they couldn't win at Utah or Colorado. Look, you chose to call Texas a fraud and derail this entire thread (which is about the All-Americans). You can make excuses until you are blue in the face, but Wisconsin didn't beat anyone who made the Elite 8 outside of Nebraska, and you just stated that Nebraska's win against Washington wasn't all that since Udub wasn't at full strength, so that just further weakens Wisconsin's home win against Nebraska. The Badgers may have the B1G trophy, but that's because they feasted on Rutgers and Maryland, and only played Nebraska and PSU once -- both at home. Anyone who believes Wisconsin was the best team in the B1G this season is delusional. And anyone who believes Texas is the second best team in the country is equally, if not more delusional. I'll root for Texas but the fanbase really makes me want to root against the team. For every sport. Texas fans are almost worse than SEC football fans. Hopefully we can be more like you then, because that wasn't obnoxious at all!
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 18, 2014 18:13:35 GMT -5
To answer your direct question directly (because that's what people do) I think Washington should have been the #2 seed. Secondly "as it turns out" is irrelevant as seeding is done based on regular season results, unless of course you are suggesting BYU should have been a top 4 seed, and that last year Wisconsin should have been #2 seed. Lastly, as I have always stated, draw is way more important than seed. I think had you given this years #1 seed the option of playing the #2 teams draw, they would have jumped at it, and I wouldnt imagine anyone would disagree. Amen! No one is saying that Texas isn't good, they just got a cupcake path. How the committee saw fit to put Stanford, Penn State and Wisconsin on one side of the bracket is redonkulous! Pick any 3 on Texas side of the bracket and see how they stack up; they don't! Stanford says, "Thank you sir, may I have another???" Since you are quoting me, I never said Texas path was cupcake, I said it wasnt as difficult at Stanfords, or favorable.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Dec 18, 2014 18:15:25 GMT -5
To answer your direct question directly (because that's what people do) I think Washington should have been the #2 seed. Secondly "as it turns out" is irrelevant as seeding is done based on regular season results, unless of course you are suggesting BYU should have been a top 4 seed, and that last year Wisconsin should have been #2 seed. Lastly, as I have always stated, draw is way more important than seed. I think had you given this years #1 seed the option of playing the #2 teams draw, they would have jumped at it, and I wouldnt imagine anyone would disagree. Amen! No one is saying that Texas isn't good, they just got a cupcake path. And, all I'm saying is that Wisconsin got a cupcake B1G conference schedule, and was not the best team in the B1G this season, despite getting the trophy to take photographs with . . .
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Dec 18, 2014 18:26:38 GMT -5
No, I think it is swearing at her setter dumps! Micha doesn't dump. She thumps.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 18, 2014 18:27:33 GMT -5
Amen! No one is saying that Texas isn't good, they just got a cupcake path. And, all I'm saying is that Wisconsin got a cupcake B1G conference schedule, and was not the best team in the B1G this season, despite getting the trophy to take photographs with . . . to be fair, Texas in conference played 8 matches vs teams in the top 25 rpi and went 7-1, while Wisconsin played 4 and went 3-1. Having said that the only thing I questioned was the focus on Wisconsin losing their big games, which of course were against 3 teams superior in rpi than the teams Texas played. I am just trying to bring some measure of fact or data to the debate.
|
|