Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2019 18:35:04 GMT -5
Couldn’t disagree more. This game is going to bigger and bigger defenders. Hughes is small at 5’10. Her game is okay. She got a ton of publicity and is solid but...Heck, in Hawaii...Callahan out dug her and out killed her in their 3 set match. If Plummer goes to the beach by that time she will play with a much bigger defender. This game is changing so fast on the women’s side; bigger and bigger and bigger. 6’2-6’3 defender with a big blocker like Plummer will take up a ton of space. A side out and transition game with a powerful, big defender would be mind blowing. Just can’t emphasize enough how fast this game is changing and how big the players are getting. In 3 years you’ll be hard pressed to find a defender under 6-6’1. Interesting POV. There is definitely a trend in all sports of athletes getting bigger and stronger so it makes sense that beach would follow suit. I do think that like baseball, beach can support good athletic, "shorter" players. I believe there is an advantage to have the option to split block, but as athletes get bigger, unless you are a Big with the mobility of Kerri, you better have someone quick with the ability to read backing you up.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Dec 31, 2019 17:45:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Dec 31, 2019 18:22:38 GMT -5
Couldn’t disagree more. This game is going to bigger and bigger defenders. Hughes is small at 5’10. Her game is okay. She got a ton of publicity and is solid but...Heck, in Hawaii...Callahan out dug her and out killed her in their 3 set match. If Plummer goes to the beach by that time she will play with a much bigger defender. This game is changing so fast on the women’s side; bigger and bigger and bigger. 6’2-6’3 defender with a big blocker like Plummer will take up a ton of space. A side out and transition game with a powerful, big defender would be mind blowing. Just can’t emphasize enough how fast this game is changing and how big the players are getting. In 3 years you’ll be hard pressed to find a defender under 6-6’1. Don’t tell MHP, the 5’9” Best Defensive player in the world!
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jan 1, 2020 4:35:28 GMT -5
Couldn’t disagree more. This game is going to bigger and bigger defenders. Hughes is small at 5’10. Her game is okay. She got a ton of publicity and is solid but...Heck, in Hawaii...Callahan out dug her and out killed her in their 3 set match. If Plummer goes to the beach by that time she will play with a much bigger defender. This game is changing so fast on the women’s side; bigger and bigger and bigger. 6’2-6’3 defender with a big blocker like Plummer will take up a ton of space. A side out and transition game with a powerful, big defender would be mind blowing. Just can’t emphasize enough how fast this game is changing and how big the players are getting. In 3 years you’ll be hard pressed to find a defender under 6-6’1. Don’t tell MHP, the 5’9” Best Defensive player in the world! Maybe the best digger, but the best player who plays defense? I'd take Duda and April by a pretty big margin over MHP. April could do well with Pavs, but could MHP take second at a 5 star with Lauren Fendrick? Or win with a player like Kessey? Same for Duda. Ludwig is also a much better player than MHP. Defenders are definitely trending bigger, even MHP is bigger than her counterparts of a decade or two ago (Holly, Rachel, Fontana, etc.) but the 6'1 thing is preposterous. A few current players under 6'1: Brandie Wilkerson Kira Walkenhorst Agatha Talita Carolina Salgado Thats 5 blockers on top teams that are under 6'1 Here is the list of current defenders who aren't terrible and are 6'1 or over: April Anouk 3 years isn't changing that
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Jan 3, 2020 13:08:05 GMT -5
Question is why can’t Andrew Fuller recruit better players? UCLA’s bench is better than Stanford’s entire current team. Wonder how long Stanford will allow its beach team to under perform Costs. Beach is an equivalency sport. When you only get 6 scholarships for 16-18 players, it goes a lot further at UCLA, especially for in-state players who pay in-state tuition. Not in actuality. As I posted in another Thread, Stanford's Endowment is currently just under $28 billion. Because of this resource, Stanford is able to offer free attendance to any walk-on athlete (because the same applies to any student) whose parents make $75k or less, even if they own a nice home. If the walk-on's parents' taxable income is under $150k, which is probably 80% of the US (90th percentile US income is $184k, median is $90k), Tuition is waived but the student pays room and board, and incidentals, so let's say around $20k. That practically means that the Stanford Beach program can have several "walkons" who pay between $0 and $20k to attend Stanford and play Beach. UCLA's Fees + Residence Hall/Board this year is $30k for California residents. It is $59,500 for Out of State students. So, at which University is the student going to pay more to walk on? Clearly Stanford has the least expensive walkon cost option for 80% of the US... which SHOULD make every single Stanford sport, including Beach, the low cost option for a walk-on student athlete for 80% of their roster. Bottom line is that it costs *more*, not less, to walk on at UCLA, even for an In-State student, for 80% of the population, in comparison to walking on at Stanford.
|
|
|
Post by diskprotek on Jan 15, 2020 1:17:23 GMT -5
Costs. Beach is an equivalency sport. When you only get 6 scholarships for 16-18 players, it goes a lot further at UCLA, especially for in-state players who pay in-state tuition. Not in actuality. As I posted in another Thread, Stanford's Endowment is currently just under $28 billion. Because of this resource, Stanford is able to offer free attendance to any walk-on athlete (because the same applies to any student) whose parents make $75k or less, even if they own a nice home. If the walk-on's parents' taxable income is under $150k, which is probably 80% of the US (90th percentile US income is $184k, median is $90k), Tuition is waived but the student pays room and board, and incidentals, so let's say around $20k. That practically means that the Stanford Beach program can have several "walkons" who pay between $0 and $20k to attend Stanford and play Beach. UCLA's Fees + Residence Hall/Board this year is $30k for California residents. It is $59,500 for Out of State students. So, at which University is the student going to pay more to walk on? Clearly Stanford has the least expensive walkon cost option for 80% of the US... which SHOULD make every single Stanford sport, including Beach, the low cost option for a walk-on student athlete for 80% of their roster. Bottom line is that it costs *more*, not less, to walk on at UCLA, even for an In-State student, for 80% of the population, in comparison to walking on at Stanford. That’s interesting, but the walk-ons that I know who are on the roster come from much more affluent situations. Not to mention that walk-ons also need to gain admission close to the normal applicants in terms or grades and SATs. Now you’re talking about a small pool of candidates.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jan 15, 2020 1:31:55 GMT -5
Costs. Beach is an equivalency sport. When you only get 6 scholarships for 16-18 players, it goes a lot further at UCLA, especially for in-state players who pay in-state tuition. Not in actuality. As I posted in another Thread, Stanford's Endowment is currently just under $28 billion. Because of this resource, Stanford is able to offer free attendance to any walk-on athlete (because the same applies to any student) whose parents make $75k or less, even if they own a nice home. If the walk-on's parents' taxable income is under $150k, which is probably 80% of the US (90th percentile US income is $184k, median is $90k), Tuition is waived but the student pays room and board, and incidentals, so let's say around $20k. That practically means that the Stanford Beach program can have several "walkons" who pay between $0 and $20k to attend Stanford and play Beach. UCLA's Fees + Residence Hall/Board this year is $30k for California residents. It is $59,500 for Out of State students. So, at which University is the student going to pay more to walk on? Clearly Stanford has the least expensive walkon cost option for 80% of the US... which SHOULD make every single Stanford sport, including Beach, the low cost option for a walk-on student athlete for 80% of their roster. Bottom line is that it costs *more*, not less, to walk on at UCLA, even for an In-State student, for 80% of the population, in comparison to walking on at Stanford. If Stanford is offering that much free admission how in the world do they make money. are most of their applicants in that upper crust of income?
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jan 15, 2020 6:57:03 GMT -5
Not in actuality. As I posted in another Thread, Stanford's Endowment is currently just under $28 billion. Because of this resource, Stanford is able to offer free attendance to any walk-on athlete (because the same applies to any student) whose parents make $75k or less, even if they own a nice home. If the walk-on's parents' taxable income is under $150k, which is probably 80% of the US (90th percentile US income is $184k, median is $90k), Tuition is waived but the student pays room and board, and incidentals, so let's say around $20k. That practically means that the Stanford Beach program can have several "walkons" who pay between $0 and $20k to attend Stanford and play Beach. UCLA's Fees + Residence Hall/Board this year is $30k for California residents. It is $59,500 for Out of State students. So, at which University is the student going to pay more to walk on? Clearly Stanford has the least expensive walkon cost option for 80% of the US... which SHOULD make every single Stanford sport, including Beach, the low cost option for a walk-on student athlete for 80% of their roster. Bottom line is that it costs *more*, not less, to walk on at UCLA, even for an In-State student, for 80% of the population, in comparison to walking on at Stanford. If Stanford is offering that much free admission how in the world do they make money. are most of their applicants in that upper crust of income? facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances/Breaks down their income but of course if you start with 28 billion not making money is the real challenge
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Jan 15, 2020 17:28:15 GMT -5
If Stanford is offering that much free admission how in the world do they make money. are most of their applicants in that upper crust of income? facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances/Breaks down their income but of course if you start with 28 billion not making money is the real challenge that link appears to indicate that Stanford collects 15% of its budget from students, and spends 5% of its budget in financial aid. The problem is graduate students tend to pay full amount, and about half of Stanford's students are graduate students. If I can extrapolate from that, then Stanford collects roughly half its actual published tuition from undergraduates, meaning, on average, a Stanford undergraduate pays half the rack rate. But there is no way to tell if 100% are paying half, or 50% are paying full and 50% zero. *edit* nevermind, I forgot google is my friend. "Last year 47% received need-based aid from Stanford and paid an average of $13,600 toward their bills."So, to reiterate my point from above, $13,600 is a hell of a lot lower than UCLA's cost of attendance of about $30,000 for California residents, and about $60,000 for non-California residents. The bottom line is that all the non-revenue sports at Stanford can essentially operate as though they had unlimited scholarships. And I'm not complaining about that. With the enormous revenue advantage the SEC has in athletics, and also to an extent the B1G, the PAC needs at least one school that can compete financially on even footing. There's a reason that Stanford blows everyone out of the water in the Director's Cup standings every year, or to put it succinctly, 13,600 reasons.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Jan 15, 2020 17:38:44 GMT -5
Not to mention that walk-ons also need to gain admission close to the normal applicants in terms or grades and SATs. Fuller can still interface with Admissions to provide a list of preferred walkons to his Beach roster. As can all Stanford coaches. He can even hire Donna Heinel to advise him on the best way to do that because it will still be awhile before she's a taxpayer supported resident at Club Fed. Admission won't treat them the same a full scholarship NLI's, but there is still preferential admission.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Jan 20, 2020 22:44:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jan 21, 2020 0:59:25 GMT -5
“Florida Memorial?” I thought I knew pretty much every beach program in the country, but I am clearly mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Jan 21, 2020 1:49:02 GMT -5
“Florida Memorial?” I thought I knew pretty much every beach program in the country, but I am clearly mistaken. I just looked them up: NAIA. Most of their team is from Puerto Rico, with a couple of Brazilians, a Dominican, a Venezuelan, and three (mainland) Americans. Oh, and a Serbian.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jan 21, 2020 2:00:02 GMT -5
“Florida Memorial?” I thought I knew pretty much every beach program in the country, but I am clearly mistaken. I just looked them up: NAIA. Most of their team is from Puerto Rico, with a couple of Brazilians, a Dominican, a Venezuelan, and three Americans. Oh, and a Serbian. A bunch of Caribbean and South American kids with a random Serbian thrown in? And they’re coached by Rita Crockett’s daughter, to boot. How did I miss this? Rhetorical question, of course.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Jan 21, 2020 2:19:26 GMT -5
Oh, that's Rita's daughter? I was wondering if there was a connection.
|
|