|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 11, 2005 23:08:02 GMT -5
Well, if we're basing rankings based upon how well a team did against Nebraska, then Florida should be ranked below UCLA, who scored more points than Florida against Nebraska. :-) Nebraska shouldn't be the measuring stick. Florida will probably be ranked 6th in the final poll.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 11, 2005 23:12:26 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. :-) Yeah, but it's those other 10 losses that are the problem for UCLA.
|
|
|
Post by Netter on Dec 12, 2005 0:56:17 GMT -5
It would be a valid point to say Washington has the edge because they were in the Final Four last year and they bring with them mostly the same team. You easily could say that because of that experience last year, they know what to expect, how to act and what it will take to carry them to victory.
But statistics play a big part in volleyball. Many times the statistics tell you everything. They tell you things before the match and they tell you a lot after the match. Sometime the statistics line up for a reason. Nebraska won it all in 1995, they won the championship in 2000 and they are on a mission that the stars will line up again for them in 2005. Its really simple. Nebraska is on a 5-year plan. They believe that every 5 years, we win.
I don't know who Cooked up this plan, but I guess it falls under whatever it takes to get the team to buy into it. They don't want a negative connotation to it when they hear people say after the finals - Remember the Alamodome!
|
|
|
Post by simplycurious on Dec 12, 2005 1:43:24 GMT -5
But statistics play a big part in volleyball. They tell you things before the match and they tell you a lot after the match. Not in the case of Santa Clara vs. Arizona, Netter. The statistics coming into the match said Arizona would win. The statistics at the end of the match said that Arizona should have won. In fact, John Wallace even pointed this out in his post-match press conference. However, Arizona did NOT win. So statistics sometimes, "don't really amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world" (sorry Bogart!)
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 12, 2005 2:43:23 GMT -5
But statistics play a big part in volleyball. They tell you things before the match and they tell you a lot after the match. Not in the case of Santa Clara vs. Arizona, Netter. The statistics coming into the match said Arizona would win. The statistics at the end of the match said that Arizona should have won. In fact, John Wallace even pointed this out in his post-match press conference. However, Arizona did NOT win. So statistics sometimes, "don't really amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world" (sorry Bogart!) And final stats mean even less when the winning team gets blown out one game.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 12, 2005 5:36:43 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." Tennessee dealt with injuries earlier in the season and did some additional lineup switching as well after that. After recovering from injuries and getting used to the lineup changes they've been very consistant and very good.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Dec 12, 2005 9:01:41 GMT -5
BIK, if you read my posts (assuming you can read) I stated on more than one occasion that Washington is great, and that they very well may win. So I am not sure why I would need to "stand corrected", or "make an excuse"? I take opposition to your assertion that Washington is clearly better, they are not, and that they will dominate Nebraska, they won't. They may win, (I think that is the 4th time I have said that now) but neither team will dominate. If one team should get dominated, it will not be because the other is that much better, it will be because one team tanks. I appreciate your opinions, but would appreciate you actually reading mine before you make a silly and innacurate post regarding mine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2005 10:03:28 GMT -5
BiK's specialty is silly and inaccurate posts. So Nebraska's a lock, eh? (I just read that last part.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2005 10:05:48 GMT -5
And, as much as I hate to, I'll agree with key about Houghtelling. Tomasevic and Pavan's %s are helped immeasureably by swinging from the rightside. I know CH hits out there some (and SP and ST hit from the left some), but .375 from an OH is really remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Dec 12, 2005 10:12:09 GMT -5
Houghtelling hits from all over the court . I would not even say that she's primarily right side. Many of her kills come from left, middle, backrow, etc. Pavan also wonders a bit but not as much as Houghtelling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2005 10:34:02 GMT -5
True. But CH is primarily a left. The other two are primarily rights. That's going to help their percentages. Hitting out of the backrow does _not_ help your hitting % generally.
All these hitters are also helped by the fact they have other great hitters on their teams.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Dec 12, 2005 11:16:21 GMT -5
True. But CH is primarily a left. The other two are primarily rights. That's going to help their percentages. Actually, Houghtelling plays opposite of Pavan in the rotation, which makes them the two primary RS players in the NU lineup. As stated by others, they both hit from the left at times, but I think it is inaccurate to say that Houghtelling is "primarily a left". She is normally on the left much less than either Saleaumua or Larson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2005 11:27:21 GMT -5
Really? She wasn't when they played Minnesota--at least she may have been opposite Pavan but she was swinging from the left more. I guess the 4 hitters are pretty interchangeable depending on serve receive. I stand corrected and humiliated. But, OK, CH's % is inflated by rightside attacks, too. You've convinced me. That makes Hagerty's % the most impressive of the lot. Btw, does Morrison hit rightside at all this year?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2005 11:48:31 GMT -5
I've watched Washington on tape a couple of times(UCLA at Wash, Wisconsin). It's hard to compare things from watching Nebraska live and Washington on tape but here goes.
I find Courtney a great setter but I don't see them running a tempo like Missouri did with Hunter that will give Nebraska fits from a blocking perspective. She is deceptive and she is quite quite accurate. In the matches I watched I see her middle sets being very accurate but certainly not a middle dominated attack.
I see Washington's outsides being more alittle more finese attackers that can certainly bring on the heat. It's hard to tell how tough a team serves on television. The libero is outstanding.
This could be an epic match. Part of me thinks it will be. Part of me thinks Nebraska will have it's hands more than full given how great of a setter Thompson is and how good their outsides are along with their right side and middles. Part of me thinks that Nebraska will have little problems slowing down the higher attack enough to be successful. I'll be much better equipped to make a prediction after I see Washington play on Thursday in person.
Things we don't know: 1)How will Washington's players react to being expected to advance? 2)How will Washington's coaching staff react to being in their first national championship match? 3)How will the Husker players respond to never being at a final four themselves?
Can't wait. Just hope the Huskers are in the title match for starters.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Dec 12, 2005 12:52:10 GMT -5
2)How will Washington's coaching staff react to being in their first national championship match? Actually, it will be Jim's third. He has one national championship at USC and one runner up.
|
|