Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 8:59:41 GMT -5
Says something about Stanford's failures when it counts, doesn't it? You can't be losing to Michigan et al and it not counter that 1-4. Texas does better when it counts.
Furthermore, Penn State and Texas are #1-2 headed into the future. I don't see any other program ahead of those two headed into 2015-2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 9:18:36 GMT -5
Here's another way to look at this question. Ask yourself which two programs would you put $1000 on to win it all each year, if you had to bet on the next 4 seasons?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 9:37:47 GMT -5
Here's another way to look at this question. Ask yourself which two programs would you put $1000 on to win it all each year, if you had to bet on the next 4 seasons? I double-down and put $2000 on Penn State.
|
|
|
Post by southie on May 29, 2015 10:04:06 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 +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. Jim Moore's final season at Texas in 2000 where the team finished 10-18 was rock bottom for the Texas program; his first 3 years were actually good, but there was obviously something going on with players transferring and nose-diving from 22-8 in 1999. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Longhorns_women%27s_volleyballJerritt had to come in and re-build things from scratch. Not sure anyone ever thought we'd catch up to Nebraska (let alone surpass the Huskers) in the Big 12 as they were so solid for many years; but, Jerritt got the program to the point where he is 7-2 against Nebraska since 2008.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on May 29, 2015 10:23:22 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. Recent history, I'd pit Stanford's athletes (Barboza, Foluke, Folkl, Kehoe, Klineman, Lichtman) against Texas' (Hooker, Paolini, Engle, Adams, Faucette) any day. even at present, I like Stanford's athletes more than Texas or at worst, it's a wash.
|
|
|
Post by southie on May 29, 2015 10:28:21 GMT -5
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. We have beaten PSU twice recently (in Palo Alto and Austin).
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on May 29, 2015 10:30:31 GMT -5
Says something about Stanford's failures when it counts, doesn't it? You can't be losing to Michigan et al and it not counter that 1-4. Texas does better when it counts. Furthermore, Penn State and Texas are #1-2 headed into the future. I don't see any other program ahead of those two headed into 2015-2016. diagree. texas still lacks a six rotation passer until proven otherwise. Amy Neal is ineffective. Passing is suspect. Setting is a huge issue. Collins is 5'7" and has connection issues and judgement is sometimes suspect. Dalton is out and didn't prove herself last year. This team is not that of which a dynasty is made. Great MH. Good recruits. Still big questions at most critical positions, in my opinion. Will they continue to recruit? yes? Will they make final four consistently going-forward? I do not think so. I believe other teams are better positioned to do so, including NE, PSU, Stanford and WI (at least for the next two years).
|
|
|
Post by Reach on May 29, 2015 10:56:47 GMT -5
Says something about Stanford's failures when it counts, doesn't it? You can't be losing to Michigan et al and it not counter that 1-4. Texas does better when it counts. Furthermore, Penn State and Texas are #1-2 headed into the future. I don't see any other program ahead of those two headed into 2015-2016. I agree with you. I think its more about the coaching then the players that stanford has. Also, I disagree about the future... do you see the players Stanford has coming in the next few seasons???
|
|
|
Post by Reach on May 29, 2015 11:08:01 GMT -5
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. Recent history, I'd pit Stanford's athletes (Barboza, Foluke, Folkl, Kehoe, Klineman, Lichtman) against Texas' (Hooker, Paolini, Engle, Adams, Faucette) any day. even at present, I like Stanford's athletes more than Texas or at worst, it's a wash. folkl??? Richards maybe..
|
|
|
Post by Reach on May 29, 2015 11:09:19 GMT -5
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. Exactly, against the big dogs... PSU has been number 1 Stanford has been number 2 Nobody else has really been close.
|
|
|
Post by southie on May 29, 2015 12:02:26 GMT -5
Over the last 10 years (2005-2014), Texas is 1-6 vs PSU and 1-4 vs Stanford. Exactly, against the big dogs... PSU has been number 1 Stanford has been number 2 Nobody else has really been close. It's not about how you start the season, it's how you finish. Stanford with zero national titles in the last 10 years. And while Penn State has been their nemesis for many of those seasons, Michigan and USC also knocked them out earlier than expected in several tourneys.
|
|
|
Post by akbar on May 29, 2015 12:07:20 GMT -5
Exactly, against the big dogs... PSU has been number 1 Stanford has been number 2 Nobody else has really been close. It's not about how you start the season, it's how you finish. Stanford with zero national titles in the last 10 years. And while Penn State has been their nemesis for many of those seasons, Michigan and USC also knocked them out earlier than expected in several tourneys. Ah yes.....the dreaded Wolverines. Almost forgot about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 12:31:50 GMT -5
Over the last 10 years (2005-2014), Texas is 1-6 vs PSU and 1-4 vs Stanford. Exactly, against the big dogs... PSU has been number 1 Stanford has been number 2 Nobody else has really been close. Too bad Stanford can't beat the smaller dogs. As for the athletes coming in, they've always had great recruits. That's not the problem. My money would still be on Texas and Stanford. If others would put their money elsewhere, then obviously we disagree on this. That's OK. Somebody has to make money.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 29, 2015 12:32:39 GMT -5
Exactly, against the big dogs... PSU has been number 1 Stanford has been number 2 Nobody else has really been close. It's not about how you start the season, it's how you finish. Stanford with zero national titles in the last 10 years. And while Penn State has been their nemesis for many of those seasons, Michigan and USC also knocked them out earlier than expected in several tourneys. I think you need to factor in one and done also. And, that's what the NCAA tournament is. In our sports crazed culture it's all about winning "the championship." But if the method of picking your champion is flawed and biased, then you must weigh that methodology. So I tend to take the season as a whole and give a lot of weight to winning a conference championship, because that is pool play where everyone plays everyone home and home (with some exceptions now due to large conferences).
|
|
|
Post by akbar on May 29, 2015 12:42:26 GMT -5
It's not about how you start the season, it's how you finish. Stanford with zero national titles in the last 10 years. And while Penn State has been their nemesis for many of those seasons, Michigan and USC also knocked them out earlier than expected in several tourneys. I think you need to factor in one and done also. And, that's what the NCAA tournament is. In our sports crazed culture it's all about winning "the championship." But if the method of picking your champion is flawed and biased, then you must weigh that methodology. So I tend to take the season as a whole and give a lot of weight to winning a conference championship, because that is pool play where everyone plays everyone home and home (with some exceptions now due to large conferences). Isn't pool play designed to sharpen your team for the final run?
|
|