Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 12:45:01 GMT -5
This is true. But you can't lose to Michigan twice and be in this conversation. One is an upset. Two is a sign of a fundamental flaw in the program.
This doesn't happen to Texas. That's why I put them in there with PSU -- which is obviously a cut above Texas, too.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 29, 2015 12:46:20 GMT -5
This is true. But you can't lose to Michigan twice and be in this conversation. One is an upset. Two is a sign of a fundamental flaw in the program. This doesn't happen to Texas. That's why I put them in there with PSU -- which is obviously a cut above Texas, too. Thrice - 2009, 2011, 2012. All in the Bay Area too. And it's not just losing to Michigan, it's beating Penn St. in the regular season and losing in the playoffs (same with USC in 2010).
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 29, 2015 13:17:20 GMT -5
This is true. But you can't lose to Michigan twice and be in this conversation. One is an upset. Two is a sign of a fundamental flaw in the program. This doesn't happen to Texas. That's why I put them in there with PSU -- which is obviously a cut above Texas, too. I totally agree, it doesnt matter if your record is exceptional vs the best teams if you are being tripped up by teams that are not. Texas has totally outperformed Stanford over the past 7 yrs or so.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 29, 2015 13:39:41 GMT -5
For what it's worth, average Pablo ranking over the past decade:
1) Penn State [8329] 2) Texas [7969] 3) Nebraska [7917] 4) Stanford [7865] 5) Washington [7786] 6) USC [7572] 7) UCLA [7541] 8) Minnesota [7418] 9) Hawaii [7381] 10) Cal [7344]
If we're using the 10-year time frame and strictly results, I'd be inclined to include Washington. They have a national championship and consistently were near the top of the Pac 10/12 and there's a pretty big jump between them and USC.
That being said, 'powerhouse programs' don't lose their coaches to a school who went 6-23 the previous year.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 29, 2015 14:01:12 GMT -5
Traditional powers should apply to long- established programs that have been successful over a long period of time. With this in mind, these are the traditional powers in Women's collegiate volleyball:
Stanford Nebraska Penn State Texas USC UCLA Hawaii
LBSU has fallen off and other programs like Florida, Washington and Minnesota are not as established as the ones mentioned above. If we were just talking about the past few years, Penn State and Texas would obviously be the top two teams but from a traditional perspective, the 7 teams above are it.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on May 29, 2015 14:02:34 GMT -5
For what it's worth, average Pablo ranking over the past decade: 1) Penn State [8329] 2) Texas [7969] 3) Nebraska [7917] 4) Stanford [7865] 5) Washington [7786] 6) USC [7572] 7) UCLA [7541] 8) Minnesota [7418] 9) Hawaii [7381] 10) Cal [7344] If we're using the 10-year time frame and strictly results, I'd be inclined to include Washington. They have a national championship and consistently were near the top of the Pac 10/12 and there's a pretty big jump between them and USC. That being said, 'powerhouse programs' don't lose their coaches to a school who went 6-23 the previous year. They do if that school is one of the biggest schools in the nation, he has both a religous and personal connection to the school, as does his wife, and the pay is about the same....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 14:59:28 GMT -5
Traditional powers should apply to long- established programs that have been successful over a long period of time. With this in mind, these are the traditional powers in Women's collegiate volleyball: Stanford Nebraska Penn State Texas USC UCLA Hawaii LBSU has fallen off and other programs like Florida, Washington and Minnesota are not as established as the ones mentioned above. If we were just talking about the past few years, Penn State and Texas would obviously be the top two teams but from a traditional perspective, the 7 teams above are it. Not USC. They are a recent power. UCLA's been too up-and-down. Florida has a better claim than either.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 29, 2015 15:11:07 GMT -5
Traditional powers should apply to long- established programs that have been successful over a long period of time. With this in mind, these are the traditional powers in Women's collegiate volleyball: Stanford Nebraska Penn State Texas USC UCLA Hawaii LBSU has fallen off and other programs like Florida, Washington and Minnesota are not as established as the ones mentioned above. If we were just talking about the past few years, Penn State and Texas would obviously be the top two teams but from a traditional perspective, the 7 teams above are it. Not USC. They are a recent power. UCLA's been too up-and-down. Florida has a better claim than either. USC isn't a recent power, they won the very first NCAA D1 Women's Volleyball Championship. UCLA has been in the hunt since the very beginning and won its most recent National Title in 2011. Florida didn't enter the National stage until 1992 and doesn't have a National title (like the aforementioned teams). I like the Gator program. If we are doing a top 10 list of traditional powers, they are definitely in there.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2015 15:32:20 GMT -5
Every single one of these programs has had at least one long stretch where it failed to make a Final Four. Penn St and Florida missed an entire decade until they made it in the early nineties. Penn St then had a 6 year absence. Florida is currently in an even longer stretch of misses. USC had an especially long period of 14 years, and Texas 12. Nebraska 5, 4 and currently 6.
There are still only 10 teams that have a National Championship. That is the first and most important cut-off (with the possible exception of Florida). After that, we're just quibbling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 16:06:33 GMT -5
Not USC. They are a recent power. UCLA's been too up-and-down. Florida has a better claim than either. USC isn't a recent power, they won the very first NCAA D1 Women's Volleyball Championship. UCLA has been in the hunt since the very beginning and won its most recent National Title in 2011. Florida didn't enter the National stage until 1992 and doesn't have a National title (like the aforementioned teams). I like the Gator program. If we are doing a top 10 list of traditional powers, they are definitely in there. USC was an also-ran for a good 15 years! They started to improve with Elliott as interim coach and then came to power with Haley. There was a loooooong stretch there where they weren't awful, but no power.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on May 29, 2015 16:44:34 GMT -5
Not USC. They are a recent power. UCLA's been too up-and-down. Florida has a better claim than either. USC isn't a recent power, they won the very first NCAA D1 Women's Volleyball Championship. UCLA has been in the hunt since the very beginning and won its most recent National Title in 2011. Florida didn't enter the National stage until 1992 and doesn't have a National title (like the aforementioned teams). I like the Gator program. If we are doing a top 10 list of traditional powers, they are definitely in there. Long stretches of time when USC and UCLA were "meh."
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 29, 2015 17:03:29 GMT -5
USC isn't a recent power, they won the very first NCAA D1 Women's Volleyball Championship. UCLA has been in the hunt since the very beginning and won its most recent National Title in 2011. Florida didn't enter the National stage until 1992 and doesn't have a National title (like the aforementioned teams). I like the Gator program. If we are doing a top 10 list of traditional powers, they are definitely in there. USC was an also-ran for a good 15 years! They started to improve with Elliott as interim coach and then came to power with Haley. There was a loooooong stretch there where they weren't awful, but no power. Eh, Lisa Love had some very good squads throughout the 90's, usually hanging around the Top 10 and making regional semi's/finals. USC just couldn't get by some great Stanford teams in the west regionals during that era. Some of those Marinkovic/Kessy/Mounts teams were really tough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 17:40:23 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). There was just a hockey-stat article on that--that with their system of best-of-_____, the best team only wins the Cup 20-24% of the time. With single-elimination, you're liable to greater disparity. But...at a certain point, you see PSU and.... ...just how many years do you have to go back before they aren't #1? They dominated the East Coast, then the Big Ten, now the nation. If that's not a long tradition, I don't really know what is....and then add a record number of titles.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on May 29, 2015 18:18:22 GMT -5
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. Well, you better inform Tom Tait (women's volleyball coach prior to RR) then when he said: "It was obvious when Russ arrived that he was a take-charge type," Tait said. "Russ wanted to take the [women's] program over and run with it and that's what he did." But where to run? There wasn't much to work with. There were just three in-state scholarships, forcing Rose to recruit one player for just $250 and another simply for the price of books. The equipment that was promised wasn't all there. And there were no assistant coaches to help.www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_9aab9040-d202-5a07-8ee5-03f9abb042b3.htmlSo if Penn State didn't have 3 scholarships like Tom Tait said, how many did they have then? Did someone "sandbag" Tom? Or what about when RR said this: When Rose started, the team had funding problems.
He said, “I had three scholarships and I was competing with people that had 12 scholarships. So the fact that I had 25 percent of what they had to offer, they had 75 percent more opportunities to make a mistake and not be saddled with a mistake. I couldn’t make a mistake. So I had to recruit differently.” Penn State officials increased the complement of scholarships for volleyball Rose said, when the University joined the Big Ten in 1991.www.hearstfdn.org/hearst_journalism/competitions.php?type=writing&year=2012&id=19Did someone "sandbag" RR as well? So if Tom Tait and RR were wrong about the number of scholarships (3) they had before joining Big 10, how many did they have then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 18:19:46 GMT -5
USC was an also-ran for a good 15 years! They started to improve with Elliott as interim coach and then came to power with Haley. There was a loooooong stretch there where they weren't awful, but no power. Eh, Lisa Love had some very good squads throughout the 90's, usually hanging around the Top 10 and making regional semi's/finals. USC just couldn't get by some great Stanford teams in the west regionals during that era. Some of those Marinkovic/Kessy/Mounts teams were really tough. Tough ain't the criteria.
|
|