|
UCLA
Jan 3, 2019 21:00:27 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Jan 3, 2019 21:00:27 GMT -5
You mean the recruiting classes neither he nor Sealy will be there for? UCLA did not bring Keller over to the women's side to potentially give him the ax. Not intentionally, perhaps. But the baby gets thrown out with the bath water all the time in sports. Keller chose to switch over. But it's ludicrous to think that the staff was cleared of assistants in order to give Brad 2-3 years to work on his recruiting skills. Sealy has got to be feeling the heat to produce results immediately, even more so with the exodus of players, and he must be relying on Brad to deliver in the short run (whether or not Sealy sees himself as part of the problem is another issue). It is foolish to think otherwise.
|
|
|
UCLA
Jan 3, 2019 21:03:15 GMT -5
Post by Hawk Attack on Jan 3, 2019 21:03:15 GMT -5
UCLA did not bring Keller over to the women's side to potentially give him the ax. But it's ludicrous to think that the staff was cleared of assistants in order to give Brad 2-3 years to work on his recruiting skills. That's pretty much exactly what I was told is happening.
|
|
|
UCLA
Jan 3, 2019 21:11:32 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Jan 3, 2019 21:11:32 GMT -5
But it's ludicrous to think that the staff was cleared of assistants in order to give Brad 2-3 years to work on his recruiting skills. That's pretty much exactly what I was told is happening. And you believed them? Okay.
|
|
|
UCLA
Jan 3, 2019 21:36:23 GMT -5
Post by pepperbrooks on Jan 3, 2019 21:36:23 GMT -5
But it's ludicrous to think that the staff was cleared of assistants in order to give Brad 2-3 years to work on his recruiting skills. That's pretty much exactly what I was told is happening. Gotta believe that’s based on contingencies. If things get worse, it doesn’t matter what year Keller is in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
UCLA
Jan 3, 2019 22:53:13 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2019 22:53:13 GMT -5
Or you can say that in a much easier tournament to make that Sealy missed twice in 5 years after the school missed a total of once in the previous 42 years, while Alford missed only once in 5 years after the team had missed 4 times in the 11 previous years. Some of the in game coaching moves (like timeouts) by Sealy are questionable, but even if you subscribe to the idea he is an ok coach, he probably gets a grade of C- for attracting and retaining talent, which is by far the most important measure of success in the sport of Women's College Volleyball. Because of location, prestige, and history of UCLA (and their Women's Volleyball program), that grade should be at least a B. Looking back on both men's and women's programs they have had incredible amounts of success year in and year out with their former coaches. Now, both programs consistently underperform. There are still a ton of talented kids that would die to play for the Bruins. Personally I know a number of players that are successfully playing against the current UCLA coaches that would have have preferred to be on the Westwood campus. I guess the old Wooden idea of recruiting and keeping the best players on his own bench rather than playing against them was lost with the staff turnover. Stanford still gets the best and the brightest. I see no reason why UCLA hasn't been able to do the same on the women's side. The talent on the men's side was insane last year and couldn't get it done. I think Knipe and Hambly are real personable and down to earth which makes them great recruiters and their players feel connected and will play hard for them. Scates and Banachawski were that way as I recall, ummm?
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on Jan 4, 2019 11:55:19 GMT -5
Some of the in game coaching moves (like timeouts) by Sealy are questionable, but even if you subscribe to the idea he is an ok coach, he probably gets a grade of C- for attracting and retaining talent, which is by far the most important measure of success in the sport of Women's College Volleyball. Because of location, prestige, and history of UCLA (and their Women's Volleyball program), that grade should be at least a B. Looking back on both men's and women's programs they have had incredible amounts of success year in and year out with their former coaches. Now, both programs consistently underperform. There are still a ton of talented kids that would die to play for the Bruins. Personally I know a number of players that are successfully playing against the current UCLA coaches that would have have preferred to be on the Westwood campus. I guess the old Wooden idea of recruiting and keeping the best players on his own bench rather than playing against them was lost with the staff turnover. Stanford still gets the best and the brightest. I see no reason why UCLA hasn't been able to do the same on the women's side. The talent on the men's side was insane last year and couldn't get it done. I think Knipe and Hambly are real personable and down to earth which makes them great recruiters and their players feel connected and will play hard for them. Scates and Banachawski were that way as I recall, ummm? There is also the issue of Speraw staying with the Gold Medal Squared philosophy of serving as hard as you can to the tune of 7 service errors in a row to grab defeat from the jaws of victory in the national Championships. Perhaps the greatest choke in UCLA mens VB history.
|
|
|
Post by Volleyfan024 on Jan 4, 2019 12:18:05 GMT -5
Looking back on both men's and women's programs they have had incredible amounts of success year in and year out with their former coaches. Now, both programs consistently underperform. There are still a ton of talented kids that would die to play for the Bruins. Personally I know a number of players that are successfully playing against the current UCLA coaches that would have have preferred to be on the Westwood campus. I guess the old Wooden idea of recruiting and keeping the best players on his own bench rather than playing against them was lost with the staff turnover. Stanford still gets the best and the brightest. I see no reason why UCLA hasn't been able to do the same on the women's side. The talent on the men's side was insane last year and couldn't get it done. I think Knipe and Hambly are real personable and down to earth which makes them great recruiters and their players feel connected and will play hard for them. Scates and Banachawski were that way as I recall, ummm? There is also the issue of Speraw staying with the Gold Medal Squared philosophy of serving as hard as you can to the tune of 7 service errors in a row to grab defeat from the jaws of victory in the national Championships. Perhaps the greatest choke in UCLA mens VB history.
That’s not GMS, that’s the mens game. Yes, they had a serving meltdown in the NCAA finals, but their service pressure is what got them that far.
|
|
VBSH 2
Banned
banned
Posts: 890
|
UCLA
Jan 4, 2019 12:50:24 GMT -5
Post by VBSH 2 on Jan 4, 2019 12:50:24 GMT -5
That's pretty much exactly what I was told is happening. And you believed them? Okay. I think that is pretty much UCLA. Guerrero does not want to rock the boat in any of the sports (to him, changing a coach is rocking the boat). His hires for football have been Dorrell, Neuheisel and Mora. All 3 coaches were not on anyone's radar as a hire and none of them got a gig afterwards that were even as sideways step to UCLA. Dorrell was the only one that got a gig as a coach and mostly as a position coach. His 2 decent hires were Ben Howland and Chip Kelly. He lucked into both and with Kelly, he was not involved in the recruiting and signing of Kelly. Speraw was hired because he was an alumnus and the men's Olympic coach. Maybe he can get Karch? You have to stop thinking like other colleges would think. It is Guerrero.
|
|
|
UCLA
Jan 4, 2019 13:28:07 GMT -5
Post by volleyguy on Jan 4, 2019 13:28:07 GMT -5
And you believed them? Okay. I think that is pretty much UCLA. Guerrero does not want to rock the boat in any of the sports (to him, changing a coach is rocking the boat). His hires for football have been Dorrell, Neuheisel and Mora. All 3 coaches were not on anyone's radar as a hire and none of them got a gig afterwards that were even as sideways step to UCLA. Dorrell was the only one that got a gig as a coach and mostly as a position coach. His 2 decent hires were Ben Howland and Chip Kelly. He lucked into both and with Kelly, he was not involved in the recruiting and signing of Kelly. Speraw was hired because he was an alumnus and the men's Olympic coach. Maybe he can get Karch? You have to stop thinking like other colleges would think. It is Guerrero. I know Guerrero, back to his days at UCI. The only issue I am debating is whether there is urgency for Keller--directly, or indirectly on behalf of Sealy--to make an immediate impact. As I've said before, that pressure is directly related to how much time Sealy has remaining on his current contract. I can't see any circumstances where Keller has several years to get his bearings with recruiting, given the current state of affairs with the program (missing the tournament, staff fired, and players leaving). Regardless of whether bringing on Keller was Sealy's choice, or the administration's choice, a season or two of languishing in mediocrity doesn't help Sealy or Keller. I also don't really buy the idea that Keller needs 2-3 years to have an impact. He could improve team dynamics and relationships with many different parties right away. But he is also not the Head Coach, and his impact can be limited in many ways by what Sealy chooses to do with him. Finally, Guerrero is 67 and has been there a while. It wouldn't be shocking for him to retire soon, with or without any fallout from the basketball decision, which could change the entire dynamics of the situation in itself.
|
|
VBSH 2
Banned
banned
Posts: 890
|
UCLA
Jan 4, 2019 13:54:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by VBSH 2 on Jan 4, 2019 13:54:58 GMT -5
I think that is pretty much UCLA. Guerrero does not want to rock the boat in any of the sports (to him, changing a coach is rocking the boat). His hires for football have been Dorrell, Neuheisel and Mora. All 3 coaches were not on anyone's radar as a hire and none of them got a gig afterwards that were even as sideways step to UCLA. Dorrell was the only one that got a gig as a coach and mostly as a position coach. His 2 decent hires were Ben Howland and Chip Kelly. He lucked into both and with Kelly, he was not involved in the recruiting and signing of Kelly. Speraw was hired because he was an alumnus and the men's Olympic coach. Maybe he can get Karch? You have to stop thinking like other colleges would think. It is Guerrero. I know Guerrero, back to his days at UCI. The only issue I am debating is whether there is urgency for Keller--directly, or indirectly on behalf of Sealy--to make an immediate impact. As I've said before, that pressure is directly related to how much time Sealy has remaining on his current contract. I can't see any circumstances where Keller has several years to get his bearings with recruiting, given the current state of affairs with the program (missing the tournament, staff fired, and players leaving). Regardless of whether bringing on Keller was Sealy's choice, or the administration's choice, a season or two of languishing in mediocrity doesn't help Sealy or Keller. I also don't really buy the idea that Keller needs 2-3 years to have an impact. He could improve team dynamics and relationships with many different parties right away. But he is also not the Head Coach, and his impact can be limited in many ways by what Sealy chooses to do with him. Finally, Guerrero is 67 and has been there a while. It wouldn't be shocking for him to retire soon, with or without any fallout from the basketball decision, which could change the entire dynamics of the situation in itself. Guerrero is supposed to retire next year with a $200k pension. He probably does nothing. That is what he does best
|
|
VBSH 2
Banned
banned
Posts: 890
|
UCLA
Jan 4, 2019 18:05:58 GMT -5
Post by VBSH 2 on Jan 4, 2019 18:05:58 GMT -5
Looking back on both men's and women's programs they have had incredible amounts of success year in and year out with their former coaches. Now, both programs consistently underperform. There are still a ton of talented kids that would die to play for the Bruins. Personally I know a number of players that are successfully playing against the current UCLA coaches that would have have preferred to be on the Westwood campus. I guess the old Wooden idea of recruiting and keeping the best players on his own bench rather than playing against them was lost with the staff turnover. Stanford still gets the best and the brightest. I see no reason why UCLA hasn't been able to do the same on the women's side. The talent on the men's side was insane last year and couldn't get it done. I think Knipe and Hambly are real personable and down to earth which makes them great recruiters and their players feel connected and will play hard for them. Scates and Banachawski were that way as I recall, ummm? There is also the issue of Speraw staying with the Gold Medal Squared philosophy of serving as hard as you can to the tune of 7 service errors in a row to grab defeat from the jaws of victory in the national Championships. Perhaps the greatest choke in UCLA mens VB history.
I was at the match. Speraw messed it up long before the finals. He sat Arnitz for close to 2 months. JT Hatch and Missry are solid players, but on the short side and are not really terminal hitters. They did well in UCLA's soft p[art of the schedule, but they were never going to beat LB with that lineup. You needed Arnitz on full blast to win. If they would have switched the amount of sets going to Arnitz instead of Hess, UCLA would have won. But, I have a feeling Arniz was not up to speed with Ma'a because of the long layoff and messed up timing. This was on Speraw.
|
|
|
UCLA
Jan 5, 2019 13:14:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jengal on Jan 5, 2019 13:14:37 GMT -5
So back to the women's team...is anyone other than Miller transferring? Mac May was rumored, but sounds like she was just visiting family?
|
|
|
UCLA
Jan 5, 2019 13:45:24 GMT -5
Post by charger0304 on Jan 5, 2019 13:45:24 GMT -5
So back to the women's team...is anyone other than Miller transferring? Mac May was rumored, but sounds like she was just visiting family? An interesting question. How does UCLA's quarter system affect the new transfer rule and scholarships? For example if a player puts her name in the portal now can UCLA cancel her scholarship at the end of the quarter, which would be in the middle of the semester for just about everywhere else? If so then we might not know of any further transfers until the end of spring.
|
|
|
UCLA
Jan 7, 2019 18:10:01 GMT -5
BeiBei likes this
Post by 642fiddi on Jan 7, 2019 18:10:01 GMT -5
There is also the issue of Speraw staying with the Gold Medal Squared philosophy of serving as hard as you can to the tune of 7 service errors in a row to grab defeat from the jaws of victory in the national Championships. Perhaps the greatest choke in UCLA mens VB history.
I was at the match. Speraw messed it up long before the finals. He sat Arnitz for close to 2 months. JT Hatch and Missry are solid players, but on the short side and are not really terminal hitters. They did well in UCLA's soft p[art of the schedule, but they were never going to beat LB with that lineup. You needed Arnitz on full blast to win. If they would have switched the amount of sets going to Arnitz instead of Hess, UCLA would have won. But, I have a feeling Arniz was not up to speed with Ma'a because of the long layoff and messed up timing. This was on Speraw. I also was at the match. UCLA had it won. and then served 7 straight service errors. I was sitting with a number of UCLA MVB alums. They could not believe what they were seeing. They were literally yelling "Just serve it in!"
|
|
|
UCLA
Jan 7, 2019 21:03:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by fetchin on Jan 7, 2019 21:03:58 GMT -5
Don’t remind me of that epic choke job.. I was at the match. Speraw messed it up long before the finals. He sat Arnitz for close to 2 months. JT Hatch and Missry are solid players, but on the short side and are not really terminal hitters. They did well in UCLA's soft p[art of the schedule, but they were never going to beat LB with that lineup. You needed Arnitz on full blast to win. If they would have switched the amount of sets going to Arnitz instead of Hess, UCLA would have won. But, I have a feeling Arniz was not up to speed with Ma'a because of the long layoff and messed up timing. This was on Speraw. I also was at the match. UCLA had it won. and then served 7 straight service errors. I was sitting with a number of UCLA MVB alums. They could not believe what they were seeing. They were literally yelling "Just serve it in!"
|
|