|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 30, 2018 10:16:15 GMT -5
Have to account for the fact that some are a #1-#10 coming out of Senior year in HS, but that was their peak... The list is supposed to be based on college potential and not who is the most ready right now. That is easier said than done. I look at #9 and #10 as a classic contrast of potential and polish. One has tremendous potential upside which may never be realized, and the other may be much closer to her potential with not as much room to improve. How do you compare and rank those two? Well, if it's true that future potential is the barometer, then where a recruit commits should make some kind of a difference. But I am skeptical of the ability of anyone to actually make that type of projection with any certainty or precision.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Aug 30, 2018 10:44:24 GMT -5
The list is supposed to be based on college potential and not who is the most ready right now. That is easier said than done. I look at #9 and #10 as a classic contrast of potential and polish. One has tremendous potential upside which may never be realized, and the other may be much closer to her potential with not as much room to improve. How do you compare and rank those two? Well, if it's true that future potential is the barometer, then where a recruit commits should make some kind of a difference. But I am skeptical of the ability of anyone to actually make that type of projection with any certainty or precision. You're assuming the prior post is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by John Tawa-VolleyballMag.com on Aug 30, 2018 10:58:07 GMT -5
I think this statement is inaccurate and misleading. Chris Tobolski of our company does an analysis every year and there is a correlation. It is perfect? Of course not. We frame it every year as the best minds in college prospect evaluation making a determination of collegiate impact as of a snapshot in time. When viewed that way, it is a fun, informative list, which is its intent. It is not gospel. JT, when you make your list are you basing it on volleyball skill alone? Do you consider things like court presence and attitude, demeanor, social media posts, coachability? You can still be very talented but if a "diva", you can end up being a cancer for a team. I have definitely seen this with one of your top players in particular which is why I ask. I am sure coaches consider it. For every diva who doesn't pan out (like Falyn), there is another who does (like Hodge).
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Aug 30, 2018 11:11:24 GMT -5
JT, when you make your list are you basing it on volleyball skill alone? Do you consider things like court presence and attitude, demeanor, social media posts, coachability? You can still be very talented but if a "diva", you can end up being a cancer for a team. I have definitely seen this with one of your top players in particular which is why I ask. I am sure coaches consider it. For every diva who doesn't pan out (like Falyn), there is another who does (like Hodge). Henceforth, 'immediate impact' should probably go to print as: immediate "impact." We just never can tell what that impact might be. (yikes) Thanks for the work on the list and for giving vt another sparring gobstopper.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 30, 2018 11:32:38 GMT -5
Well, if it's true that future potential is the barometer, then where a recruit commits should make some kind of a difference. But I am skeptical of the ability of anyone to actually make that type of projection with any certainty or precision. You're assuming the prior post is accurate. That's why I said "If it's true..." It's really a question of the state of mind of the coaches when they evaluate, and what instructions they are given about what criteria they should be using.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 30, 2018 11:34:44 GMT -5
Like I always say, please read the All American lists and look at their pvb rankings, almost laughable. Especially how many top 10s are missing from that award. I'm glad these are put together, but the amount of weight some people in this forum put into this as Gospel is an eye roll. I think this statement is inaccurate and misleading. Chris Tobolski of our company does an analysis every year and there is a correlation. It is perfect? Of course not. We frame it every year as the best minds in college prospect evaluation making a determination of collegiate impact as of a snapshot in time. When viewed that way, it is a fun, informative list, which is its intent. It is not gospel. What is the correlation?
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Aug 30, 2018 11:45:57 GMT -5
Well, on a positive note: you guys just won the National Championship in beach. That's pretty cool. Ucla is going to dominate in beach vball simply becos it has the advantage for being a public school. Beach vball allows 6 scholarships and it will be cheaper for California players to walk on. Furthermore Sealy allows players to cross over which means their beach program did not pay anything to get the services of Sponcil Muno May and Simo last year. Their contributions were huge for the beach program. Metzger better not burn his bridges with Sealy Well, nobody who played for UCLA last season was a walk-on - they were all getting either beach money or indoor money. Very few top players are interested in walking on at any program, they are all looking for scholarship $$. However, here's where I think your point has merit: UCLA's two primary rivals in California are private schools, USC and Pepp. An in-state family with a kid getting an offer for, say, a 50% beach scholarship at UCLA might find that more attractive than the same offer by two very expensive private schools. UCLA will likely phase out the two-way player model. Mac May looks to keep playing both, and I think Harrer wants to play beach as well. But off the top of my head, I can't think of any other future UCLA indoor commits who are beach players.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Aug 30, 2018 13:29:17 GMT -5
Pepperdine lost out on a big-time recruit because they wouldn't allow cross-over. All indications are that Sparks will be beach-only at UCLA. Not talking about Sparks
|
|
|
Post by volleylbc on Aug 30, 2018 14:11:03 GMT -5
All indications are that Sparks will be beach-only at UCLA. Not talking about Sparks Sparks originally verballed to Pepperdine for Indoor and was to play Beach as well before seeing the light and choosing UCLA. Is the recruit you’re talking about Van Winkle? She is a STUD, also going to UCLA. She had so many big indoor offers as well, I know Dunning wanted her bad!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 14:11:06 GMT -5
What was with all of that nonsense about the bruins NOT performing in the S.A.'s throughout its history? Btw: it is NOT a very elite program anymore: since '94 (the beginning of Stanford's dynasty - three titles in four years; 4 NCs out of 6), they have been in exactly TWO FF's: 2006 and '11 (where they won in A MOST Definitely 'outlier' kinda year: Florida State & Illinois? Come On, now!). That is Two appearances in over 23 years: not quite the historic, legendary juggernaut some of those fanatics "KoolAid" it to be! So, if they don't have top SA's? Get some.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Aug 30, 2018 16:06:18 GMT -5
Karsta Lowe was a walk on, wasn't she?
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on Aug 30, 2018 16:41:51 GMT -5
10. Stanford 9. LSU 8. Michigan 7. USC 6. Baylor 5. Stanford 4. Nebraska 3. Stanford 2. Stanford 1. Texas Go Card! No matter what some posters would say, Stanford is reloading with some pretty good players. I have projected Kipp and Baird to be in the top 5, Xu in the top 10 and Vicini in the top 20.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 30, 2018 16:42:39 GMT -5
10. Stanford 9. LSU 8. Michigan 7. USC 6. Baylor 5. Stanford 4. Nebraska 3. Stanford 2. Stanford 1. Texas Go Card! No matter what some posters would say, Stanford is reloading with some pretty good players. I have projected Kipp and Baird to be in the top 5, Xu in the top 10 and Vicini in the top 20. Is anyone saying Stanford isn't reloading?
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on Aug 30, 2018 16:48:14 GMT -5
Go Card! No matter what some posters would say, Stanford is reloading with some pretty good players. I have projected Kipp and Baird to be in the top 5, Xu in the top 10 and Vicini in the top 20. Is anyone saying Stanford isn't reloading? They don’t deserve their rankings.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Aug 30, 2018 17:01:04 GMT -5
It's hard to win a National Championship. These lists really hammer this fact home. Some schools have had a wealth of talent and nothing but a second place ribbon at best to show for it.
|
|