|
Post by aaronic on Dec 11, 2005 20:52:30 GMT -5
Well, this season 2c has been very VERY weird-in a good way, creating sooo much parity than I can ever remember in women's collegiate volleyball.
I mean I have to completely agree with many of the posters on this board in the fact that after NU and UW, then PSU I guess, it is wide open. In the beginning of the season it was Hawaii, then Stanford, then Florida....as to why they didn't move too far down after loosing to 2 unranked teams is kinda weird, but now, I think that between Tenn and SCU, I'd go with SCU, they've been more consistent than the Vols this year. Even though I think beating PSU and Missouri and Minnesota is remarkable, SCU has been the more consistent one. If Tennessee can upset UW then it will more than negate their "inconsistency."
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 11, 2005 21:17:17 GMT -5
I mean I have to completely agree with many of the posters on this board in the fact that after NU and UW, then PSU I guess, it is wide open. In the beginning of the season it was Hawaii, then Stanford, then Florida....as to why they didn't move too far down after loosing to 2 unranked teams is kinda weird, but now, I think that between Tenn and SCU, I'd go with SCU, they've been more consistent than the Vols this year. Even though I think beating PSU and Missouri and Minnesota is remarkable, SCU has been the more consistent one. If Tennessee can upset UW then it will more than negate their "inconsistency." The reason I believe Florida should be the ranked 4th is because they returned nearly their entire lineup from the team that was the only team to give Stanford a tough match during last year's run to the title. The sad thing is that rankings will probably be based on who advanced furthest in tournament even after the messed up brackets. Tenn win over PSU and Mizzou have be be considered as does SCU's wins over Stanford and Arizona's but Florida's only losses this year were to Notre Dame in a very close match (28-30, 29-31, 28-30) early in the year, to Tennessee (22-30, 30-32, 30-19, 39-37, 12-15) prior to lossing to Nebraska. Even Washington and Nebraska had those matches where they may not have shown their best games (Arizona/UCLA, Mizzou/Texas). Florida could have easily been undefeated going into the tournament and would have probably been at least the 3rd or 4th seed if not the #1 seed and then would have been in the Stanford regional. Would have loved to watch Florida and Arizona play this year. I just think Florida was way under-rated this year.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 11, 2005 21:23:41 GMT -5
I mean I have to completely agree with many of the posters on this board in the fact that after NU and UW, then PSU I guess, it is wide open. In the beginning of the season it was Hawaii, then Stanford, then Florida....as to why they didn't move too far down after loosing to 2 unranked teams is kinda weird, but now, I think that between Tenn and SCU, I'd go with SCU, they've been more consistent than the Vols this year. Even though I think beating PSU and Missouri and Minnesota is remarkable, SCU has been the more consistent one. If Tennessee can upset UW then it will more than negate their "inconsistency." The reason I believe Florida should be the ranked 4th is because they returned nearly their entire lineup from the team that was the only team to give Stanford a tough match during last year's run to the title. The sad thing is that rankings will probably be based on who advanced furthest in tournament even after the messed up brackets. Tenn win over PSU and Mizzou have be be considered as does SCU's wins over Stanford and Arizona's but Florida's only losses this year were to Notre Dame in a very close match (28-30, 29-31, 28-30) early in the year, to Tennessee (22-30, 30-32, 30-19, 39-37, 12-15) prior to lossing to Nebraska. Even Washington and Nebraska had those matches where they may not have shown their best games (Arizona/UCLA, Mizzou/Texas). Florida could have easily been undefeated going into the tournament and would have probably been at least the 3rd or 4th seed if not the #1 seed and then would have been in the Stanford regional. Would have loved to watch Florida and Arizona play this year. I just think Florida was way under-rated this year. I don't think the Gators were way under-rated, not when you consider the results this season. They were under-seeded but not under-rated. To say that they would have advanced out of the Penn State or Stanford regionals is just a lot of smoke in the wind.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 11, 2005 21:26:05 GMT -5
I try not to make a point, unless I can back it up so here are the stats for the 3 UW OH's and the 4 Huskers. I still think both are great and may play one of the best finals in NCAA history, and I am not nocking UW at all, they are awesome, just want to keep BIK in check. The Washington OH"s hit a combined .326 averaging a little over 12.5 kpg. Husker OH's hit .335 with just under 14 kpg. Houghtelling is the best of the lot with .375, Tomasevic second with .360 Pavan at .351 Morrison at .341. I have been saying it for months, why is Houghtelling not mentioned with Pavan and Tomasevic as POY, she certainly is statistically the best. So Nebraska's best OH hit better than UW's best, and Nebraska's second hit better than UW's 2nd, and Nebraska 3 and 4 hit better than UW"s 3rd. After the Huskies win the title, will you stand corrected or will you, as usual, come up with some lame excuse?
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 11, 2005 21:37:26 GMT -5
I don't think the Gators were way under-rated, not when you consider the results this season. They were under-seeded but not under-rated. To say that they would have advanced out of the Penn State or Stanford regionals is just a lot of smoke in the wind. And the reason you feel Florida was not under-rated? Not a Top-5 team? They didn't have any bad or questionable losses, especially considering the current Tennessee results. Stanford's injuries took them down, Arizona maybe but had a few good losses and some mediocre losses. Hawaii's losses to PSU/Wash/UNL were nothing but LMU coupled with some poor wins. Louisville is also a close but way to many 4 game wins to mediocre teams. Mizzou loss to CU, Texas loss to ISU... Florida is easily as good a 4/5 ranked team as anyone prior to the tournament and should have been sent to the Stanford regional (or at least the PSU).
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 11, 2005 21:42:01 GMT -5
I don't think the Gators were way under-rated, not when you consider the results this season. They were under-seeded but not under-rated. To say that they would have advanced out of the Penn State or Stanford regionals is just a lot of smoke in the wind. And the reason you feel Florida was not under-rated? Not a Top-5 team? They didn't have any bad or questionable losses, especially considering the current Tennessee results. Stanford's injuries took them down, Arizona maybe but had a few good losses and some mediocre losses. Hawaii's losses to PSU/Wash/UNL were nothing but LMU coupled with some poor wins. Louisville is also a close but way to many 4 game wins to mediocre teams. Mizzou loss to CU, Texas loss to ISU... Florida is easily as good a 4/5 ranked team as anyone prior to the tournament and should have been sent to the Stanford regional (or at least the PSU). Florida WAS ranked in the top 5. The Gators definitely deserved to be seeded higher if that is what you are getting at. You need to direct your arguments to the Committee, I'm sure Hawai'i would have prefered to travel somewhere closer than State College Pennsylvania as well.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 11, 2005 21:49:14 GMT -5
Florida WAS ranked in the top 5. The Gators definitely deserved to be seeded higher if that is what you are getting at. You need to direct your arguments to the Committee, I'm sure Hawai'i would have prefered to travel somewhere closer than State College Pennsylvania as well. I think you lost track of the sub-thread deviation, the comment that Florida was over-rated at #4 prompted the the deviation. You've confirmed many times how you felt about Florida's climbing the rankings, no? So, did florida not deserver a #4/#5 seed in the tournament with a trip to Stanford? If not, why?
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 11, 2005 21:51:36 GMT -5
[ After the Huskies win the title, will you stand corrected or will you, as usual, come up with some lame excuse? Have you come to terms (or stand corrected) yet that Stanford was better than Hawaii in 2002 and Florida was better than Hawaii in 2003 and both proved it on the court during the FinalFour?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 11, 2005 22:01:18 GMT -5
Florida WAS ranked in the top 5. The Gators definitely deserved to be seeded higher if that is what you are getting at. You need to direct your arguments to the Committee, I'm sure Hawai'i would have prefered to travel somewhere closer than State College Pennsylvania as well. I think you lost track of the sub-thread deviation, the comment that Florida was over-rated at #4 prompted the the deviation. You've confirmed many times how you felt about Florida's climbing the rankings, no? So, did florida not deserver a #4/#5 seed in the tournament with a trip to Stanford? If not, why? Based on the results and the teams competing against them for a high seed, I did feel as though Florida should have been given either the 4 or 5 seed. The Committee twisted the seeds so that it fit what they wanted to do with the tourney instead of ensuring that the tournament fit the seeds. Florida got hosed but a good majority of the other teams did as well.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 11, 2005 22:02:03 GMT -5
[ After the Huskies win the title, will you stand corrected or will you, as usual, come up with some lame excuse? Have you come to terms (or stand corrected) yet that Stanford was better than Hawaii in 2002 and Florida was better than Hawaii in 2003 and both proved it on the court during the FinalFour? I already said that those teams were the better team when it mattered most.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 11, 2005 22:30:43 GMT -5
Have you come to terms (or stand corrected) yet that Stanford was better than Hawaii in 2002 and Florida was better than Hawaii in 2003 and both proved it on the court during the FinalFour? I already said that those teams were the better team when it mattered most. Oh sorry. It's IB that still refuses to acknowledge it. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 11, 2005 22:32:01 GMT -5
I think you lost track of the sub-thread deviation, the comment that Florida was over-rated at #4 prompted the the deviation. You've confirmed many times how you felt about Florida's climbing the rankings, no? So, did florida not deserver a #4/#5 seed in the tournament with a trip to Stanford? If not, why? Based on the results and the teams competing against them for a high seed, I did feel as though Florida should have been given either the 4 or 5 seed. The Committee twisted the seeds so that it fit what they wanted to do with the tourney instead of ensuring that the tournament fit the seeds. Florida got hosed but a good majority of the other teams did as well. Ok, so based on that. Where should Florida fall in the final rankings after losing in the Regional Final to Nebraska? What about Texas?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 11, 2005 23:05:18 GMT -5
Based on the results and the teams competing against them for a high seed, I did feel as though Florida should have been given either the 4 or 5 seed. The Committee twisted the seeds so that it fit what they wanted to do with the tourney instead of ensuring that the tournament fit the seeds. Florida got hosed but a good majority of the other teams did as well. Ok, so based on that. Where should Florida fall in the final rankings after losing in the Regional Final to Nebraska? What about Texas? Don't know. Not far I would expect. Texas may fall a couple of spots but they will be ranked in the top 15 of the final poll, probably around the 12 spot.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Dec 11, 2005 23:06:25 GMT -5
Well, if we're basing rankings upon how well a team did against Nebraska, then Florida should be ranked below UCLA, who scored more points than Florida against Nebraska. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 11, 2005 23:06:29 GMT -5
I already said that those teams were the better team when it mattered most. Oh sorry. It's IB that still refuses to acknowledge it. My bad. IB knows the Wahine could've played much better.
|
|