|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 17, 2014 13:02:07 GMT -5
for MB's Stats: 2.34 K/S, .442 hitting percentage, 1.11 B/S Stats: 2.66 K/S, .458 hitting percentage, 1.32 B/S Stats: 2.53 K/S, .445 hitting percentage, 1.21 B/S All 3 play for current top 5 AVCA teams ...which one is the first team All American? Girl, Bye. The senior. People vastly underestimate the seniority bonuses players get. And it's SOOOOO wrong. Number of remaining eligibility years is NOT a criteria the AVCA gives it's voters.
|
|
|
Post by SakiBomb25 on Dec 17, 2014 13:04:43 GMT -5
for MB's Stats: 2.34 K/S, .442 hitting percentage, 1.11 B/S Stats: 2.66 K/S, .458 hitting percentage, 1.32 B/S Stats: 2.53 K/S, .445 hitting percentage, 1.21 B/S All 3 play for current top 5 AVCA teams ...which one is the first team All American? Girl, Bye. You can't just look at stats though - the teams probably compiled separate stats against teams in the NCAA. You don't know what type of competition they faced. Not really a fair comparison, in my book. By the way, congrats to all the Stanford playersN pleasantly surprised at Burgess, but she is the best all-around outside hitter in the country.
|
|
|
Post by Stanlifornia on Dec 17, 2014 13:06:16 GMT -5
I think the Stanford picks (and omissions) are spot-on.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 17, 2014 13:07:48 GMT -5
Nia Grant should've been on the 2nd team; looks like she got the sympathy vote being a senior. Hayleigh Washington was robbed. She, instead of Ali Franti, should have been FOY. Briana Holman? Really?? And very questionable choices for 1st team accolades for Bugg, Burgess, and Holston. I feel they deserved 2nd team at best. Ece Taner should have been at least 2nd team AA. She was robbed too. Committee did a poor job of compiling the third-team selections and could have really made the list better. We all are well aware that the collegiate volleyball recruiting timeline has accelerated over the past decade. As a result, college coaches seeking to lock up prized recruits before their senior years are more dependent on club directors to be the principal liaison for communication. A trust relationship between college coaches and club directors is more essential than ever. The trend of seniors foregoing their final season of club volleyball to enroll early in college or leaving their final club season before it’s over to enroll in summer school is putting pressure on that trust relationship. Club directors are helping collegiate programs get players only to have those programs encourage players to leave their clubs early. Like all industries or professions, change is inevitable, and the landscape constantly shifts. Club and collegiate volleyball are certainly no exception. The recruitment process has changed from in-home visits and high school seniors taking official visits to ninth graders flying across the country on their own dime in search of scholarship offers. Given that the recruiting process is starting well before the NCAA permits collegiate programs to initiate contact with players, clubs and their directors serve a critical role in recruiting, which of course is the number one determinant of a college program’s success. Beyond acting as an intermediary between the college coach and the young player, collegiate coaches depend on a club to appropriately assess that player’s talent level, her work ethic, level of commitment and how well she relates to coaches and teammates. Clubs, which use the successes of their players to help build their teams and businesses, will want to know that their players are being treated fairly during the recruiting process and that college coaches will honor what they communicated to players during the recruiting process after a commitment is received. That relationship demands a high level of trust. As the director of Renaissance VBC in Pittsburgh, I have had players who have made the decision to leave early for college at the request of their college program and I am sure will have others in the future. I am concerned that college coaches do not consider the full impact of their request or simply choose to ignore it. While the reason for leaving for college early may be to better prepare a player for her first collegiate season, the reality is she will end up playing significantly less volleyball during the collegiate spring season than she would her senior year of club. With hour and competition restrictions mandated by the NCAA, she will get far less training and competition as a spring collegiate player than she would as a club player. Equally important, the player is foregoing an important part of her high school experience. I am not so old that I forget how special and how much fun my last semester of high school was, and the great memories of that special time with the people I grew up with. Also sacrificed is one last season of club competition with friends and teammates with whom the player most likely grew up playing the game. That, in my opinion is a lot to give up, and miss out on. Do college coaches consider whether enrolling early is really in the best overall interest of the player? Do they ask whether the player is ready to be on a college campus, in school, that early? In my opinion, the fall semester, when freshmen traditionally head to campus, provides more structure, and routine, as their day-to-day schedule is far more regimented than the spring semester. It’s not only about what’s happening but, in many instances, how it is happening. In my experience, a college program presents the idea of early enrollment to players in most cases only after they have committed. That probably is not a coincidence. I think college programs know that if they came out early in the recruiting process and communicated their intention to have the player leave early, that it would impact the level of support they may get from the club coach or director they are relying on and impact their ability to sign players. Do college coaches consider the impact of early enrollment on the club whose help they have required to obtain the commitment in the first place? The club loses one year of dues and may not be as competitive, which may negatively impact the college recruitment of other players as well as hurt the club’s ability to attract high-level talent in ensuing years. In short, collegiate programs have a responsibility to be up front about what their intentions are, to the athlete certainly but also to the club they are relying on that will be impacted negatively by an early exit. Clubs do not want to feel blindsided the way college coaches feel when their players announce with little warning that they wish to transfer. As a club director I believe my role in the recruiting process is whatever the student-athlete and the collegiate program want it to be. I also believe that it doesn’t matter what I think about players leaving early, as they are not a club’s property. It is for the family to make a decision that is in its best interest. Like all changes in the landscape, when it happens you aren’t quite sure how you feel about it, and you are unsure as to how it will impact you. However, right or wrong, good or bad, the one thing I do feel strongly about is that college programs have a responsibility to communicate to the prospective student athlete and the club or person they are leaning on what their intentions are. This is something I hope we all can agree upon. Sympathy for being a senior? It's really hard on vtalk to say something that standouts as ridiculous, but you've managed.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 17, 2014 13:10:25 GMT -5
for MB's Stats: 2.34 K/S, .442 hitting percentage, 1.11 B/S Stats: 2.66 K/S, .458 hitting percentage, 1.32 B/S Stats: 2.53 K/S, .445 hitting percentage, 1.21 B/S All 3 play for current top 5 AVCA teams ...which one is the first team All American? Girl, Bye. If it was all about those three stats, the committee wouldn't require video footage, or consider performance against ranked opponents, etc. There wouldn't even need to be a committee if they could go purely by the numbers. The stats are just one part of the formula. And what does that those video footage show for Grant that it doesn't show for Lutz or Alhassan? Because what I see is Grant sharing front row rotations with Hancock's who VISIBLY holds the opposing middle blocker because she's a threat with her left hand which makes it easier for Grant to score. What I see is Grant being front row when Hancock serves, which has resulted in how many easy over passed kills? or easy blocks after poor serve receive. How many ranked teams has Lutz played against? I'll give you a hint, more than Grant. I'm not saying Grant isn't deserving, per say, I just don't think that she's done anything, on paper or on video, that shows that she should get 1st team over other MB's, period.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Dec 17, 2014 13:10:29 GMT -5
Dorothy, other than the last sentence, WTF?
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Dec 17, 2014 13:12:20 GMT -5
Looks like a cut and paste issue
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 17, 2014 13:13:25 GMT -5
The senior. People vastly underestimate the seniority bonuses players get. And it's SOOOOO wrong. Number of remaining eligibility years is NOT a criteria the AVCA gives it's voters. Could someone please help me understand how or where you are coming up with seniors getting a bump? There are 4 sophs on first team, and 17 of 30 on the top 2 teams arent seniors.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 17, 2014 13:18:17 GMT -5
If it was all about those three stats, the committee wouldn't require video footage, or consider performance against ranked opponents, etc. There wouldn't even need to be a committee if they could go purely by the numbers. The stats are just one part of the formula. And what does that those video footage show for Grant that it doesn't show for Lutz or Alhassan? Because what I see is Grant sharing front row rotations with Hancock's who VISIBLY holds the opposing middle blocker because she's a threat with her left hand which makes it easier for Grant to score. What I see is Grant being front row when Hancock serves, which has resulted in how many easy over passed kills? or easy blocks after poor serve receive. How many ranked teams has Lutz played against? I'll give you a hint, more than Grant. I'm not saying Grant isn't deserving, per say, I just don't think that she's done anything, on paper or on video, that shows that she should get 1st team over other MB's, period. What do you mean you arent saying she isnt deserved per say? That is EXACTLY what you are saying. If you're going to make a big statement, make it, nobody thinks you are making any other point than Grant should not have made first team. Also, can you tell us your observations on the three players AA video that they submitted?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 17, 2014 13:23:50 GMT -5
And what does that those video footage show for Grant that it doesn't show for Lutz or Alhassan? Because what I see is Grant sharing front row rotations with Hancock's who VISIBLY holds the opposing middle blocker because she's a threat with her left hand which makes it easier for Grant to score. What I see is Grant being front row when Hancock serves, which has resulted in how many easy over passed kills? or easy blocks after poor serve receive. How many ranked teams has Lutz played against? I'll give you a hint, more than Grant. I'm not saying Grant isn't deserving, per say, I just don't think that she's done anything, on paper or on video, that shows that she should get 1st team over other MB's, period. What do you mean you arent saying she isnt deserved per say? That is EXACTLY what you are saying. If you're going to make a big statement, make it, nobody thinks you are making any other point than Grant should not have made first team. Also, can you tell us your observations on the three players AA video that they submitted? I said what I said and I meant what I said. IF she's deserving (I'm not making that distinction one way or the other) then the other two are deserving. IF she turned in 1st team AA performance this year (which, is all relative to the other players within that year), then the other two did.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 17, 2014 13:30:46 GMT -5
What do you mean you arent saying she isnt deserved per say? That is EXACTLY what you are saying. If you're going to make a big statement, make it, nobody thinks you are making any other point than Grant should not have made first team. Also, can you tell us your observations on the three players AA video that they submitted? I said what I said and I meant what I said. IF she's deserving (I'm not making that distinction one way or the other) then the other two are deserving. IF she turned in 1st team AA performance this year (which, is all relative to the other players within that year), then the other two did. It isnt just stats and video, its stats vs top opponents as well. While Lutz may have played more top teams than Grant ( I think we can agree they both played more than their share) Grant certainly played more than Alhassan. Head to head Grant had 9 kills and hit .316, Lutz 2 kills for .250
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 17, 2014 13:35:12 GMT -5
I said what I said and I meant what I said. IF she's deserving (I'm not making that distinction one way or the other) then the other two are deserving. IF she turned in 1st team AA performance this year (which, is all relative to the other players within that year), then the other two did. It isnt just stats and video, its stats vs top opponents as well. While Lutz may have played more top teams than Grant ( I think we can agree they both played more than their share) Grant certainly played more than Alhassan. Head to head Grant had 9 kills and hit .316, Lutz 2 kills for .250 you should list stats against all the ranked competition if that is what you are harping on, not cherry pick their ONE head to head the second week into the season where Lutz was starting just her 3rd match of her career. I'd think that given Lutz's overall better stats, that her stats against ranked competition, overall, is probably better than Grant's too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 13:36:14 GMT -5
What do you mean you arent saying she isnt deserved per say? That is EXACTLY what you are saying. If you're going to make a big statement, make it, nobody thinks you are making any other point than Grant should not have made first team. Also, can you tell us your observations on the three players AA video that they submitted? I said what I said and I meant what I said. IF she's deserving (I'm not making that distinction one way or the other) then the other two are deserving. IF she turned in 1st team AA performance this year (which, is all relative to the other players within that year), then the other two did. Because you've seen every match that Alhassan and Grant have played in this season and have decided that all three performances are equal to each other?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 17, 2014 13:38:11 GMT -5
I said what I said and I meant what I said. IF she's deserving (I'm not making that distinction one way or the other) then the other two are deserving. IF she turned in 1st team AA performance this year (which, is all relative to the other players within that year), then the other two did. Because you've seen every match that Alhassan and Grant have played in this season and have decided that all three performances are equal to each other? Get real, NONE of people making the selections have seen all the matches. They see what has been submitted to them, via the AVCA awards packet guidelines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 13:39:49 GMT -5
If it was all about those three stats, the committee wouldn't require video footage, or consider performance against ranked opponents, etc. There wouldn't even need to be a committee if they could go purely by the numbers. The stats are just one part of the formula. And what does that those video footage show for Grant that it doesn't show for Lutz or Alhassan? Because what I see is Grant sharing front row rotations with Hancock's who VISIBLY holds the opposing middle blocker because she's a threat with her left hand which makes it easier for Grant to score. What I see is Grant being front row when Hancock serves, which has resulted in how many easy over passed kills? or easy blocks after poor serve receive. How many ranked teams has Lutz played against? I'll give you a hint, more than Grant. What about the level of competition that Alhassan plays in conference? Since you're bringing up the ease at which Grant gets kills, after all... Your argument is literally, "Grant plays with Hancock, so she gets easier opportunities in the form of single-block situations and overpass swings, and she therefore isn't worthy of AA honors." It's like Bugg isn't capable of getting Lutz single-blocks or something. Is Hancock really creating this ridiculously easy scoring scenario for Grant that no other middle in the country is getting?
|
|