Year of the Pac-12 jinx?

[tomclen]

Is this the year of the Pac-12 Aaaack?!
Washington loses JMac.
Trojans lose Ebony Nwanebu.
Stanford may be without Inky Ajanku.

What's next?

[rainbowbadger]

So Wazzu is going all the way this year.

[uscyaaa]

dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria...

[mclvbdad]

Texas-Nebraska-Penn State fans all come together in unity. ISIS sees their example and apologizes for all their atrocities against humanity...

[hammer]

Jun 28, 2015 12:38:52 GMT -5 mclvbdad said:

Texas-Nebraska-Penn State fans all come together in unity. ISIS sees their example and apologizes for all their atrocities against humanity...

[redbeard2008]

Should make for an interesting and competitive conference season, with arguably the top three teams (Stanford, USC, and UW) having been "knee-capped" (literally and figuratively).

[southie]

Not sure of the jinx, but PAC only had 1 team in the Elite 8 last season. And, outside of that only one other team in the Sweet 16. For a conference that has been the most dominant overall in this sport, it sure seems like PAC volleyball is trending downward, just like PAC softball (which has been surpassed by the SEC the last few years).

So, in 2015, not sure if the PAC will do better or worse than last season.

[c4ndlelight]

Jun 28, 2015 16:09:15 GMT -5 southie said:

Not sure of the jinx, but PAC only had 1 team in the Elite 8 last season. And, outside of that only one other team in the Sweet 16. For a conference that has been the most dominant overall in this sport, it sure seems like PAC volleyball is trending downward, just like PAC softball (which has been surpassed by the SEC the last few years).

So, in 2015, not sure if the PAC will do better or worse than last season.

The PAC-12 had 5 teams in the Sweet 16 ............

I do agree the PAC-12 is not up to historical standards. The culprit is the California schools. There should never not be at least 3 of them among the top dozen or so schools in the nation. Right now, there's only 1.

[southie]

Jun 28, 2015 16:23:22 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Jun 28, 2015 16:09:15 GMT -5 southie said:

Not sure of the jinx, but PAC only had 1 team in the Elite 8 last season. And, outside of that only one other team in the Sweet 16. For a conference that has been the most dominant overall in this sport, it sure seems like PAC volleyball is trending downward, just like PAC softball (which has been surpassed by the SEC the last few years).

So, in 2015, not sure if the PAC will do better or worse than last season.

The PAC-12 had 5 teams in the Sweet 16 ............

I do agree the PAC-12 is not up to historical standards. The culprit is the California schools. There should never not be at least 3 of them among the top dozen or so schools in the nation. Right now, there's only 1.

My mistake. Overlooked UCLA, Oregon, and Oregon State. Obviously, 5 of 16 teams is still great. 1 of 8 is a bit disappointing based on the standards they have set.

[FOBRA]

PAC12 was going to be a bit down this year already after graduating Vansant, Lowe, Simpson, Kingdon and Brenner. Tacking on Inky and Ebony on top of that really brings it down even more.

[hammer]

Jun 28, 2015 18:49:24 GMT -5 FOBRA said:

PAC12 was going to be a bit down this year already after graduating Vansant, Lowe, Simpson, Kingdon and Brenner. Tacking on Inky and Ebony on top of that really brings it down even more.

It's almost like every player on every team is playing with their shoes tied together.

[trianglevolleyball]

At least there's optimism for Cal to be improved this year. And despite their sizable losses USC and Stanford should both stay steady. But even if the California schools take a step forward it seems that the rest off the teams in conference are having rebuilding years other than Oregon and ASU. Maybe ASU will surprise people returning all of its starters and having the Pickrell sisters to possibly upgrade at setter and one of the pin spots.
However, I don't think the conference's lull is as dramatic or permanent as the softball comparison, as Stanford, USC and Oregon are bringing in great talent the next few years and there are world class coaches throughout the conference.

[ay2013]

Jun 29, 2015 1:02:13 GMT -5 trianglevolleyball said:

At least there's optimism for Cal to be improved this year. And despite their sizable losses USC and Stanford should both stay steady. But even if the California schools take a step forward it seems that the rest off the teams in conference are having rebuilding years other than Oregon and ASU. Maybe ASU will surprise people returning all of its starters and having the Pickrell sisters to possibly upgrade at setter and one of the pin spots.
However, I don't think the conference's lull is as dramatic or permanent as the softball comparison, as Stanford, USC and Oregon are bringing in great talent the next few years and there are world class coaches throughout the conference.

1- I don't think that the softball "lull" is dramatic

2- I don't think the softball "lull" is permanent

If anything I think the comparison needs to be taken with a grain of salt because while the Pac-12 has gone 4 straight years without a softball championship, it's in comparison to TRUE dominance. Even excluding the UCLA/Arizona hegemony of the pre 2000's, the Pac-12, prior to 2012 had won 10 of the last 12 championships comprising an astounding 5 different schools (half the conference during that time). No conference in any sport comes anywhere close to that level of depth and dominance for that long. So when the Pac-12 goes 4 straight without contending, it SEEMS like a big drop, because it is, but it's really only because the bar was set so high. Also, the most stark difference is that, if going off of tournament performance, softball usually progresses the better team because of the many layers of repetitiveness such as the round robin format in the early rounds, best of 3 for the next level, 2 and out for the world series, and best of 3 to determine the championship. The volleyball tournament is 1 and done which makes the bracket a heavy influence on how far any given teams advance. IMO a Pac-12 softball teams that is perceived to be "better" than everyone else has a much better chance of advancing to the last stages of the tournament than a similarly situated Pac-12 volleyball team.

[mclvbdad]

Jun 29, 2015 3:53:51 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

Jun 29, 2015 1:02:13 GMT -5 trianglevolleyball said:

At least there's optimism for Cal to be improved this year. And despite their sizable losses USC and Stanford should both stay steady. But even if the California schools take a step forward it seems that the rest off the teams in conference are having rebuilding years other than Oregon and ASU. Maybe ASU will surprise people returning all of its starters and having the Pickrell sisters to possibly upgrade at setter and one of the pin spots.
However, I don't think the conference's lull is as dramatic or permanent as the softball comparison, as Stanford, USC and Oregon are bringing in great talent the next few years and there are world class coaches throughout the conference.

1- I don't think that the softball "lull" is dramatic

2- I don't think the softball "lull" is permanent

If anything I think the comparison needs to be taken with a grain of salt because while the Pac-12 has gone 4 straight years without a softball championship, it's in comparison to TRUE dominance. Even excluding the UCLA/Arizona hegemony of the pre 2000's, the Pac-12, prior to 2012 had won 10 of the last 12 championships comprising an astounding 5 different schools (half the conference during that time). No conference in any sport comes anywhere close to that level of depth and dominance for that long. So when the Pac-12 goes 4 straight without contending, it SEEMS like a big drop, because it is, but it's really only because the bar was set so high. Also, the most stark difference is that, if going off of tournament performance, softball usually progresses the better team because of the many layers of repetitiveness such as the round robin format in the early rounds, best of 3 for the next level, 2 and out for the world series, and best of 3 to determine the championship. The volleyball tournament is 1 and done which makes the bracket a heavy influence on how far any given teams advance. IMO a Pac-12 softball teams that is perceived to be "better" than everyone else has a much better chance of advancing to the last stages of the tournament than a similarly situated Pac-12 volleyball team.

Your argument seems to invalidate your premise. Since double elimination and 2 of 3 series are used I agree the better teams are likely to advance. In recent years the better teams have been from the SEC.

What is still yet to be seen is if the increased coverage of women's athletics and of SEC sports like volleyball and softball through the SEC Network will have an impact on recruiting in the SEC. I think we may be seeing hints of that in softball where a single phenom recruit can have a greater impact than in sports like volleyball.

[ay2013]

Jun 29, 2015 9:18:14 GMT -5 mclvbdad said:

Jun 29, 2015 3:53:51 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

1- I don't think that the softball "lull" is dramatic

2- I don't think the softball "lull" is permanent

If anything I think the comparison needs to be taken with a grain of salt because while the Pac-12 has gone 4 straight years without a softball championship, it's in comparison to TRUE dominance. Even excluding the UCLA/Arizona hegemony of the pre 2000's, the Pac-12, prior to 2012 had won 10 of the last 12 championships comprising an astounding 5 different schools (half the conference during that time). No conference in any sport comes anywhere close to that level of depth and dominance for that long. So when the Pac-12 goes 4 straight without contending, it SEEMS like a big drop, because it is, but it's really only because the bar was set so high. Also, the most stark difference is that, if going off of tournament performance, softball usually progresses the better team because of the many layers of repetitiveness such as the round robin format in the early rounds, best of 3 for the next level, 2 and out for the world series, and best of 3 to determine the championship. The volleyball tournament is 1 and done which makes the bracket a heavy influence on how far any given teams advance. IMO a Pac-12 softball teams that is perceived to be "better" than everyone else has a much better chance of advancing to the last stages of the tournament than a similarly situated Pac-12 volleyball team.

Your argument seems to invalidate your premise. Since double elimination and 2 of 3 series are used I agree the better teams are likely to advance. In recent years the better teams have been from the SEC.

What is still yet to be seen is if the increased coverage of women's athletics and of SEC sports like volleyball and softball through the SEC Network will have an impact on recruiting in the SEC. I think we may be seeing hints of that in softball where a single phenom recruit can have a greater impact than in sports like volleyball.

Nobody would disagree that the SEC was the better conference the last few years, my issue was with future predictions of this "lull", I don't think its dire.

Also, in terms of the WCWS as a whole, I'd argue that the SEC was only distinctly better the last two years which could easily be chalked up to a superior recruiting class for a year or two rather than a permanent shift.