|
Post by vbnerd on May 28, 2015 18:40:09 GMT -5
All I can say is, Don Shaw would have hired Tonya Harding as his volunteer assistant if necessary. But you still have to factor in the rule changes which I think definitely boosted PSU and Texas. Of course, you can argue that Dunning could have adapted his recruiting strategy to one that more aptly takes advantage of the new rules. Ok, I'm missing the reference. What rule change? And what did it have to do with Don Shaw and Tonya Harding?
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on May 28, 2015 18:51:19 GMT -5
But you still have to factor in the rule changes which I think definitely boosted PSU and Texas. Of course, you can argue that Dunning could have adapted his recruiting strategy to one that more aptly takes advantage of the new rules. Ok, I'm missing the reference. What rule change? And what did it have to do with Don Shaw and Tonya Harding? Far more mundane, I fear. I think it's going from 12 to 15 substitutions per set.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on May 28, 2015 19:04:02 GMT -5
All I can say is, Don Shaw would have hired Tonya Harding as his volunteer assistant if necessary. But you still have to factor in the rule changes which I think definitely boosted PSU and Texas. Of course, you can argue that Dunning could have adapted his recruiting strategy to one that more aptly takes advantage of the new rules. Maybe a very small percentage. The bigger percentage of the pie is when Penn State moved to the B10. After the move, their women's volleyball scholarship increased from 3 to 12.
|
|
|
Post by dlflick on May 28, 2015 20:08:50 GMT -5
Dunning has gotten soft since he escaped the ghetto. Dunning has gone "soft"?? He lost to Penn State in 2007 finals (in 5), 2008 finals, 2013 regional final (in 5), and 2014 semis. I do not believe that any of those 4 matches were big upsets. Stanford may have been favored in some of those, but not overwhelming favorites. Rather that the coach getting "soft", it appears that they ran into a better team when it mattered most. Had Stanford won those 4 and the eventual championships, everyone would be talking about the Stanford dynasty with 10 titles. Give the other guy credit. Losing to Penn State doesn't make anybody soft, just good enough to get to the point that the best team eliminates them. Dale Flickinger PSU 1969 Aero Engr
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 0:01:04 GMT -5
Dunning has gotten soft since he escaped the ghetto. Dunning has gone "soft"?? He lost to Penn State in 2007 finals (in 5), 2008 finals, 2013 regional final (in 5), and 2014 semis. I do not believe that any of those 4 matches were big upsets. Stanford may have been favored in some of those, but not overwhelming favorites. Rather that the coach getting "soft", it appears that they ran into a better team when it mattered most. Had Stanford won those 4 and the eventual championships, everyone would be talking about the Stanford dynasty with 10 titles. Give the other guy credit. Losing to Penn State doesn't make anybody soft, just good enough to get to the point that the best team eliminates them. Dale Flickinger PSU 1969 Aero Engr I never suggested that his softness had anything to do with Penn State. It is true, however, that if Stanford had won one or more more of those matches, some people probably wouldn't be talking about Penn State as a dynasty.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on May 29, 2015 0:07:48 GMT -5
Dunning has gone "soft"?? He lost to Penn State in 2007 finals (in 5), 2008 finals, 2013 regional final (in 5), and 2014 semis. I do not believe that any of those 4 matches were big upsets. Stanford may have been favored in some of those, but not overwhelming favorites. Rather that the coach getting "soft", it appears that they ran into a better team when it mattered most. Had Stanford won those 4 and the eventual championships, everyone would be talking about the Stanford dynasty with 10 titles. Give the other guy credit. Losing to Penn State doesn't make anybody soft, just good enough to get to the point that the best team eliminates them. Dale Flickinger PSU 1969 Aero Engr I never suggested that his softness had anything to do with Penn State. It is true, however, that if Stanford had won one or more more of those matches, some people probably wouldn't be talking about Penn State as a dynasty. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.... The same can said had Penn State won in 1997, 1998, along with their 1999 title, Penn State would have been in the same sentence as Stanford prior to 2007 and another dynasty feather on their cap. 1997 and 1998 title matches were very close and could have gone either way.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 0:11:56 GMT -5
I never suggested that his softness had anything to do with Penn State. It is true, however, that if Stanford had won one or more more of those matches, some people probably wouldn't be talking about Penn State as a dynasty. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.... The same can said had Penn State won in 1997, 1998, along with their 1999 title, Penn State would have been in the same sentence as Stanford prior to 2007 and another dynasty feather on their cap. 1997 and 1998 title matches were very close and could have gone either way. I wasn't making excuses. My point is the opposite: to the victor go the spoils.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on May 29, 2015 0:15:56 GMT -5
Who has the best chance to win the whole thing every year? Penn State and then Texas. Then it's another PAC school, usually Stanford, and another BiG school, usually Nebraska. That's been it for at least 10 years, and probably longer. I'm talking EVERY year. 10 years is 2005. I'd pick a handful of pac-10 teams in the mid to late 2000's over Texas every day of the week....and the results showed it in the tourney, 06 loss to Texas, 07 loss to USC, 08 loss to Stanford....IMO Texas REALLY didn't break into that consistently top elite category until post 2009, where they were up 2 sets to none on PSU with Hooker turning in an historic performance, and still managed to lose. If we are picking top programs since say 2010 PSU and Texas are obviously 1 and 2.....anything longer than that and Texas goes down several notches. I took a look at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago, this would be my ranking of the top 4. 1-Stanford 2-Penn State 3- Nebraska 4- USC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 0:34:43 GMT -5
Who has the best chance to win the whole thing every year? Penn State and then Texas. Then it's another PAC school, usually Stanford, and another BiG school, usually Nebraska. That's been it for at least 10 years, and probably longer. I'm talking EVERY year. 10 years is 2005. I'd pick a handful of pac-10 teams in the mid to late 2000's over Texas every day of the week....and the results showed it in the tourney, 06 loss to Texas, 07 loss to USC, 08 loss to Stanford....IMO Texas REALLY didn't break into that consistently top elite category until post 2009, where they were up 2 sets to none on PSU with Hooker turning in an historic performance, and still managed to lose. If we are picking top programs since say 2010 PSU and Texas are obviously 1 and 2.....anything longer than that and Texas goes down several notches. I took a look at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago, this would be my ranking of the top 4. 1-Stanford 2-Penn State 3- Nebraska 4- USC +1 For a more direct comparison between programs, it's also probably worth pointing out that when Texas was in the Big 12 from 1996-2010, they only finished ahead of Nebraska TWICE in conference standings. Six of those 15 years they weren't even Top 2 where as Nebraska only fell out of first or second place in the Big 12 once.
|
|
|
Post by bball on May 29, 2015 6:34:08 GMT -5
I've been real disappointed in Nebraska and their ability to compete for National Championships, due to the history of their program. They haven't reached the final four in years..... I think recruiting has been an issue for them, seems the last few seasons they've been getting some better recruits in. I think they are in the best position they have been in, in a long time, with their current rosters. Time will tell. There is nothing better with a final four of the powers. Stanford, Penn State, Nebraska and Texas. Love it! Stanford has been in a slump as well, but had a great season last year.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 29, 2015 8:24:39 GMT -5
But you still have to factor in the rule changes which I think definitely boosted PSU and Texas. Of course, you can argue that Dunning could have adapted his recruiting strategy to one that more aptly takes advantage of the new rules. Maybe a very small percentage. The bigger percentage of the pie is when Penn State moved to the B10. After the move, their women's volleyball scholarship increased from 3 to 12. Penn St had more scholarships than three when they joined the Big. Whoever is telling you that is sandbagging. They didnt have 12, but three is a ridiculous exaggeration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 8:42:50 GMT -5
Who has the best chance to win the whole thing every year? Penn State and then Texas. Then it's another PAC school, usually Stanford, and another BiG school, usually Nebraska. That's been it for at least 10 years, and probably longer. I'm talking EVERY year. 10 years is 2005. I'd pick a handful of pac-10 teams in the mid to late 2000's over Texas every day of the week....and the results showed it in the tourney, 06 loss to Texas, 07 loss to USC, 08 loss to Stanford....IMO Texas REALLY didn't break into that consistently top elite category until post 2009, where they were up 2 sets to none on PSU with Hooker turning in an historic performance, and still managed to lose. If we are picking top programs since say 2010 PSU and Texas are obviously 1 and 2.....anything longer than that and Texas goes down several notches. I took a look at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago, this would be my ranking of the top 4. 1-Stanford 2-Penn State 3- Nebraska 4- USC Disagree. Texas and Penn State are getting the best athletes and have been for the last decade. The other programs can compete, but not year in and year out -- and even then they have a hard time beating those two programs. As I said, these are the teams with the BEST chance to win the whole thing EVERY year. You could argue Stanford SHOULD be one of those teams, but for whatever reason they have not been.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 29, 2015 8:55:02 GMT -5
You can go back and forth all day long unless someone wants to define a timeline. 10 years seems appropriate. In that window, I believe PSU, Texas, Stanford and Nebraska would be the top programs, with PSU and Texas clearly better than the other two if titles, FF's, regional finals are the measuring stick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 8:56:59 GMT -5
Eye-test, too. They are just a cut above.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 29, 2015 8:57:10 GMT -5
10 years is 2005. I'd pick a handful of pac-10 teams in the mid to late 2000's over Texas every day of the week....and the results showed it in the tourney, 06 loss to Texas, 07 loss to USC, 08 loss to Stanford....IMO Texas REALLY didn't break into that consistently top elite category until post 2009, where they were up 2 sets to none on PSU with Hooker turning in an historic performance, and still managed to lose. If we are picking top programs since say 2010 PSU and Texas are obviously 1 and 2.....anything longer than that and Texas goes down several notches. I took a look at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago, this would be my ranking of the top 4. 1-Stanford 2-Penn State 3- Nebraska 4- USC Disagree. Texas and Penn State are getting the best athletes and have been for the last decade. The other programs can compete, but not year in and year out -- and even then they have a hard time beating those two programs. As I said, these are the teams with the BEST chance to win the whole thing EVERY year. You could argue Stanford SHOULD be one of those teams, but for whatever reason they have not been. Over the last 10 years (2005-2014), Texas is 1-6 vs PSU and 1-4 vs Stanford.
|
|