|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 13:20:19 GMT -5
Post by WahineFan44 on Feb 8, 2019 13:20:19 GMT -5
Is sealey really that bad at recruiting compare to the past?
And if so,i is it fair to compare him to the past, when the landscape of collegiate volleyball has changed, when no longer is the west coast the for sure top dog, and with so many other viable D1 programs.
I know its UCLA, and I know it should be an easy job to recruit there, but aren't there other factors to explain his recruiting, (if it really is that bad) besides "sealey sucks"
|
|
|
Post by Word on Feb 8, 2019 14:14:45 GMT -5
Why do people keep pointing to recruiting as the issue? The team is littered with high recruits. The current senior group lost TVW and Kylie Miller who were both top 15 recruits, so that didn't help. But the junior class was a top 5 class as well I believe. They have been bringing in great talent, just haven't developed any of that talent and never created a cohesive product. Recruiting had a solid run for several years, just no results to show for it.
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 14:28:02 GMT -5
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 8, 2019 14:28:02 GMT -5
I'd be interested to know if Mike would have rather won the national title in his 2nd year or his 5th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 15:06:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 15:06:35 GMT -5
I'd be interested to know if Mike would have rather won the national title in his 2nd year or his 5th. Some people will never be happy that UCLA won a national championship under Sealy. I have pointed this out before, there are very few current coaches that have won a national championship
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 15:08:50 GMT -5
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 8, 2019 15:08:50 GMT -5
Oh, I don't care either way. That team had some fun players on it. It was an awful final four and a boring championship match, but that's not UCLA's fault.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 8, 2019 15:18:04 GMT -5
I'd be interested to know if Mike would have rather won the national title in his 2nd year or his 5th. Some people will never be happy that UCLA won a nationalg championship under Sealy. I have pointed this out before, there are very few current coaches that have won a national championship I think you may be confusing unhappiness or dissatisfaction with disappointment. Sealy's National Championship win in his 2nd season gave the illusion of perhaps greater things to come for UCLA, but any such expectations have ceased to exist. I agree with the sentiment that player development (and relationships with players), not recruiting, is the primary reason for UCLA's troubles.
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 15:28:06 GMT -5
Post by hammer on Feb 8, 2019 15:28:06 GMT -5
Oh, I don't care either way. That team had some fun players on it. It was an awful final four and a boring championship match, but that's not UCLA's fault. Some will say Sealy lucked into it using Andy's recruits, but a win is a win, and it goes down in the books that way. Could be that the first year he was energetic and enthusiastic and was more reluctant to tinker. Now it has gone downhill a bit (but probably still recoverable) but maybe the enthusiasm is gone. Maybe those who transferred out have picked that up and feel like the team is a rudderless ship. In the grand scheme of things women's volleyball is a minor sport, hence it is probably off the AD's radar screen, but if the trend continues Sealy might be asked to shape up or ship out in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Feb 8, 2019 18:12:42 GMT -5
Some people will never be happy that UCLA won a nationalg championship under Sealy. I have pointed this out before, there are very few current coaches that have won a national championship I think you may be confusing unhappiness or dissatisfaction with disappointment. Sealy's National Championship win in his 2nd season gave the illusion of perhaps greater things to come for UCLA, but any such expectations have ceased to exist. I agree with the sentiment that player development (and relationships with players), not recruiting, is the primary reason for UCLA's troubles.I think a quick poll of the outgoing and transferred players would substantiate this.
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 18:16:05 GMT -5
Post by bigfan on Feb 8, 2019 18:16:05 GMT -5
Sealy's National Championship win in his 2nd season gave the illusion of perhaps greater things to come for UCLA, but any such expectations have ceased to exist. I agree with the sentiment that player development (and relationships with players), not recruiting, is the primary reason for UCLA's troubles. Sealy's National Championship win in his 2nd season is the only reason he still has a job at UCLA. Football and basketball coach's both replaced in he last year. He will be next.
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 19:32:15 GMT -5
Post by BeiBei on Feb 8, 2019 19:32:15 GMT -5
Sealy's National Championship win in his 2nd season gave the illusion of perhaps greater things to come for UCLA, but any such expectations have ceased to exist. I agree with the sentiment that player development (and relationships with players), not recruiting, is the primary reason for UCLA's troubles. Sealy's National Championship win in his 2nd season is the only reason he still has a job at UCLA. Football and basketball coach's both replaced in he last year. He will be next. He is safer than you think. There are quite a few underwhelming and mediocre coaches at UCLA. The next to go is probably the men's soccer coach
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 19:40:01 GMT -5
bigfan likes this
Post by BeiBei on Feb 8, 2019 19:40:01 GMT -5
I'd be interested to know if Mike would have rather won the national title in his 2nd year or his 5th. Some people will never be happy that UCLA won a national championship under Sealy. I have pointed this out before, there are very few current coaches that have won a national championship UCLA won the national championships 4 times and missed the tournament 3 times which means it is easier for them to win the tournament than to stay home during postseason. Winning a championship is hard but you really have to mess up big time for a storied program like UCLA to miss the tournament. Sealy was responsible for 2 of them. When Banachowski team missed the tournament in 1996, it was due to an insane number of injuries (Millings, Johnson, Wittenburg, Wendt etc) I dont think injuries were big issues for the team in 2013 and 2018
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 20:10:26 GMT -5
via mobile
BeiBei likes this
Post by naujack85 on Feb 8, 2019 20:10:26 GMT -5
Oh, I don't care either way. That team had some fun players on it. It was an awful final four and a boring championship match, but that's not UCLA's fault. Huh? 2013, 2014, and 2015 were much more boring than 2011. You could probably argue 2012, 2016, and 2017 were about as interesting too.
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 8, 2019 20:31:56 GMT -5
Post by BeiBei on Feb 8, 2019 20:31:56 GMT -5
Oh, I don't care either way. That team had some fun players on it. It was an awful final four and a boring championship match, but that's not UCLA's fault. Huh? 2013, 2014, and 2015 were much more boring than 2011. You could probably argue 2012, 2016, and 2017 were about as interesting too. dont know what he is talking about. The first 3 sets of the final were close and all 3 had a difference of 2 points. The semifinal between USC and Illinois was great and the last point was long
|
|
|
UCLA
Feb 9, 2019 3:27:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jengal on Feb 9, 2019 3:27:34 GMT -5
I went to University of Portland...it gets mixed up with Portland State ALL THE TIME, even by people in Portland! Ok, so now I am confused. Is the setter that is transferring to UCLA coming from the school that the USC coach, coached at? ie. Did Sealy just recruit a setter that the USC HC originally recruited? You are correct!
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Feb 9, 2019 4:05:06 GMT -5
Why do people keep pointing to recruiting as the issue? The team is littered with high recruits. The current senior group lost TVW and Kylie Miller who were both top 15 recruits, so that didn't help. But the junior class was a top 5 class as well I believe. They have been bringing in great talent, just haven't developed any of that talent and never created a cohesive product. Recruiting had a solid run for several years, just no results to show for it. 2016 and 2017 recruiting classes were good (but hurt by the transfers of Van Winden and Miller). 2018 and 2019 were terrible recruiting classes. And, 2020 is looking to be equally bad. It is really difficult to remain a top program with 3 consecutive poor recruiting classes.
|
|