|
Post by royalshock on Aug 27, 2006 14:11:03 GMT -5
The young Shockers (no seniors, starting 2 freshman) went 4-0, dropping only one game:
d. LaTech, 30-22, 30-26, 30-16 d. UT-San Antonio, 30-12, 19-30, 30-22, 30-19 d. E. Wash, 30-25, 30-26, 30-22 d. Syracuse, 30-15, 30-14, 30-20
We'll find out more about the Shocks when they face Kansas State this Friday.
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 28, 2006 17:33:39 GMT -5
I think Sara Lungren (6'4" junior outside hitter) should be a candidate for All American honors this year or next year. She was the Most Valuable Player in the Best Western Volleyball Classic this last weekend. Last year WSU was 18-0 in the MVC, lost the MVC tourney championship title game, finished the year ranked 25th and was not invited to the NCAA tourney. Others have pointed out that the NCAA selection committee made an error (e.g. Mike Falcon www.richkern.com/vb/Articles/outside051212/outside.asp "Which leaves us to contemplate only why the committee chose North Carolina and overlooked Wichita State. And a few others. UNC is a terrific team (and we LIKE the Wolf Pack as well), but WSU was ranked #25 in the last AVCA poll, with UNC at 34. RKPI's were 27 and 38, respectively. Pablo rankings were 21 and 55. C'mon, this isn't even close."). Another nice player is freshman Stephanie Tokarz (6'5" MB), who redshirted at LBSU last year. " Wichita State volleyball student-athlete Stephanie Tokarz has been named the Missouri Valley Conference Freshman-of-the-Week for the week of Aug. 21-27. Tokarz, a middle blocker from Wichita, Kan., helped the Shockers to the tournament title at the Best Western Volleyball Classic. She averaged 2.62 kills per game, 0.46 service aces per game and 1.00 block per game, while hitting a team-best .353. In her first match as a Shocker, she hit .438 with eight kills on 16 swings. Against UTSA, she had 11 kills, three service aces, six digs and three blocks. Against Eastern Washington, she had 10 kills and four blocks and against Syracuse she added five kills and two blocks." goshockers.com/volleyball.aspx
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 28, 2006 17:56:55 GMT -5
I have to modify one of Odin's rules. ;D 6. Please do not complain that this board is overrun by Hawaii, Stanford, USC, or Long Beach State fans. The board is whatever you make it. If you have something to say about your favorite teams, say it dammit! If there are no discussions on Wichita State, it's your fault!
|
|
|
Post by beachvball on Aug 28, 2006 18:21:42 GMT -5
Glad to see Stephanie do well. We never got to see her play at the Beach.
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 28, 2006 18:29:16 GMT -5
Glad to see Stephanie do well. We never got to see her play at the Beach. Do you know why she red-shirted at LBSU? She seems to have really long arms (and 6'5" doesn't hurt either) and was blocking shots with her feet on the ground. As a well respected poster on ShockerNet said: " Stephanie will be a very solid middle for us. She had 3 blocks last night that she jumped early, landed on her feet, and then made the block. On some of the quick sets to her it looks like her arm grows another 2-3 inches to reach the ones that are to high. If you watch her in warm ups she can get up pretty high." www.shockernet.net/sn/viewtopic.php?t=4308Anyway I can't see why she didn't play last year at LBSU unless she was hurt (or you had a 6'8" MB last year). ;D
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 28, 2006 18:33:43 GMT -5
I don't know Mike Falcon, but Wichita St's ommission from the NCAA tournament last year was not that big of a surprise for anyone who has paid attention to what the committee finds important. For starters, there is precidence, with Eastern Washington a couple of years ago.
The committee has made it clear throughout the years that they don't have a lot of love for teams that do not have quality teams on their schedule. You can argue all you want about what the committee should or shouldn't do, but that does not change the fact of what they actually do.
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 28, 2006 19:39:16 GMT -5
WSU had a great deal of trouble putting together a OOC schedule last year. How does a school get "quality teams on their schedule" when those teams refuse to play? The same problem occurs in basketball and has been written about by Scott Soshnick (Boomberg News columnist) www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=alJlYwjRlV20&refer=columnist_soshnickSouthern Illinois' coach www.thesouthern.com/articles/2006/07/09/sports/10006694.txtand elsewhere (including ESPN, I believe). I understand that Kansas State was in a tourney last year. When it was suggested that Wichita State would be added to the tourney, KSU threatened to withdraw. For example, "Just heard Lambo say that other programs in the region were threatening to drop out of a tournament last year if WSU was invited." "He didn't mention names, but it was pretty clear that several schools fairly close by made it abundantly clear that they wanted no part of a tournament that included WSU's volleyball team. Saul, if the shoe fits, wear it proudly. I have the audio clip if you dare question that he said it." "As far as I know Lamb is 0-2 with both games being played at KSU. I don't have the schedule from his first two years. I hope that KSU is not trying to avoid playing WSU, and I understand that it is easy for frustration over the selection committee to get deflected onto KSU, but it is frustrating that when Lamb has finally assembled a senior laden team with tournament experience, he can't get anyone from the BCS to play him." www.shockernet.net/sn/viewtopic.php?t=4225 (Here "Lambo" is WSU coach Chris Lamb and "Saul" is a KSU fan.) I try to provide links so you can check (some of) my statements. When a lesser known team is good in a particular year, the "quality teams" often avoid playing that team and wait until that team is weaker (e.g. KSU & WSU). I find your comment "You can argue all you want about what the committee should or shouldn't do, but that does not change the fact of what they actually do." to be self-serving and disingenuous. The board rules here include 8. If you don't like someone's opinion, you have 3 options: (a) debate the substance of that post civilly, intelligently, and openly on the forum; (b) ignore his/her post; or (c) take it offline.I look forward to hearing your side of the "top schools will not play lesser known schools when they are very good" debate. PS Perhaps I should explain my criticism of your comment. disingenuous: "Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating" The NCAA VB selection system acts to reward well-regarded teams. Other than getting an automatic bid, a team can demonstrate that it is worthy of an at-large bid by playing top teams and either winning or, at least, putting up a good fight. If the "top teams" refuse to play an up-and-coming team, they are denied this opportunity. This refusal to play up-and-coming teams is calculated. In my opinion, your comment is also calculated to support the current selection process and to make the current system appear to be fair or objective. It is certainly self-serving for "quality programs" to attempt to reserve NCAA tourney spots for themselves and members of their conferences and it is self-serving for fans of such schools to attempt to justify their schools' behavior. You may not agree with my opinion or characterization of your statement. This is your right. I guess I should add that Kansas State was far from the only "quality program" to avoid WSU last year. I think Stanford and others declined to play WSU, as is their right.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Aug 28, 2006 20:32:28 GMT -5
I don't post much on NCAA stuff, but I will point out that p-dub is one of the most objective posters on this board.
What he said came out of years of his research on how things like the polls and NCAA selection really work as opposed to how it is supposed to or should work. He has more than 4000 posts on this board most of which will demonstrate that. He is also the man (behind the computer) behind the Pablo Rankings which seem to be the best predictor of the immediate future going.
What he wrote is based on his assessment of the historical record, no hidden agenda.
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 28, 2006 20:57:13 GMT -5
I don't post much on NCAA stuff, but I will point out that p-dub is one of the most objective posters on this board. What he said came out of years of his research on how things like the polls and NCAA selection really work as opposed to how it is supposed to or should work. He has more than 4000 posts on this board most of which will demonstrate that. He is also the man (behind the computer) behind the Pablo Rankings which seem to be the best predictor of the immediate future going. What he wrote is based on his assessment of the historical record, no hidden agenda. I understood his comment to be a justification of the current system. If my understanding of his intent is correct, then I don't care how well respected he is; I think he is supporting an unfair and somewhat corrupt system. If, on the other hand, he was merely commenting on the "facts of life" in NCAA tourney selection, then I hope he used his position to encourage reform in the selection process. In different sports (e.g. basketball, baseball), there is a national debate about the NCAA and its behavior. Many people believe the NCAA exists to protect the "haves" and keep the "have nots" in their place. The RPI serves as a vehicle to accomplish this goal. When the RPI worked in favor of "mid-major" teams in basketball last March, "quality program" supporters like Maryland coach Gary Williams, television sports figures Jim Nantz and Billy Packer and others had hissy fits over the number of Missouri Valley Conference teams invited to the NCAA MBB tourney. In volleyball, Valley (i.e. Missouri Valley Conference) fans, players and coaches know the NCAA is stacked against MVC teams, as illustrated by this quote from sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2218728But since WSU competes in a mid-major conference, it might be necessary to win the conference tournament to earn a return trip the NCAAs. That's something that doesn't sit well with the Shockers, especially since this year's tournament will be held at UNI.
"The Missouri Valley Conference has gotten so much better in the past three years, the top three or four teams are always really good," Hartig says. "Last year, we really felt two or three teams in our conference could have beat Nevada. It just didn't seem fair that they're not getting those at-large bids."
Lamb agrees with his setter that there were several conference teams that deserved to participate in the NCAA Tournament. "We played last year in the first round as the lower seed against a team that might have finished fourth or fifth in our league," he says. "I felt last year, Southwest Missouri State was a tournament team. I felt Northern Iowa was a tournament team. Illinois State was a tournament team. "I've wondered: "How do you make your argument?" You have to go out and beat teams, but if they won't let you schedule them, your hands are tied."
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 28, 2006 21:09:12 GMT -5
I guess I should add that if p-dub is so knowledgeable and well respected, then perhaps he can enter into a debate on the merits of the current NCAA VB selection system and reforms he would like to see. My arguments may be wrong. For example, it might be common in some parts of the country for top programs to play up-and-coming programs in the OOC schedule frequently; in this case, someone can provide evidence of this. Of course, my next question would be "Why won't teams play WSU when it is strong?" Perhaps fans of BCS teams and "mid-major" teams can offer opinions. I can see a friendly, well-reasoned debate based on scheduling patterns, NCAA selections, etc.
|
|
|
Post by wsufan on Aug 28, 2006 21:41:30 GMT -5
I don't post much on NCAA stuff, but I will point out that p-dub is one of the most objective posters on this board. What he said came out of years of his research on how things like the polls and NCAA selection really work as opposed to how it is supposed to or should work. He has more than 4000 posts on this board most of which will demonstrate that. He is also the man (behind the computer) behind the Pablo Rankings which seem to be the best predictor of the immediate future going. What he wrote is based on his assessment of the historical record, no hidden agenda. If the Pablo Rankings are "the best predictor of the immediate future going", WSU was ranked 21st in the Pablo Rankings, UNC was ranked 55th in the Pablo Rankings and p-dub "is ... the man (behind the computer) behind the Pablo Rankings", then should I understand p-dub's comment to mean that the NCAA selection committee had no interest in selecting the best volleyball teams for the tourney but wished to select those that played "quality teams"?
|
|
|
Post by Xplaya on Aug 28, 2006 23:00:02 GMT -5
Don't know why you keep bringing up UNC over Wichita...UNC won the ACC and the automatic bid, so it's a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by Go Iowa on Aug 28, 2006 23:02:44 GMT -5
All I know is that WSU got robbed last year.
Anyway, Stephanie sat out of practice today. Some of the players have been pretty banged up on that team early on, but hopefully she'll be ready to go this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by cougarize on Aug 28, 2006 23:07:19 GMT -5
WSU = Washington State University in my mind. Give the Kansas school 10 years of volleyball success and maybe, maybe others around the country will take notice and care.
|
|
|
Post by roy on Aug 28, 2006 23:28:26 GMT -5
Some things I really don't understand with respect to Lamb's argument. Wichita only has 9 preseason matches. Of those, one is against Kansas State who is ranked. One match is against Illinois and another against North Carolina, both of whom might be decent (not sure about either school). The point is that they have their chances. You can't expect a preseason schedule laced with ranked teams when all you have are 9 preseason matches. Hawaii has 12 preseason matches and they are only playing 5 ranked teams (Pepperdine 2 times) and then Norte Dame in the middle of the conference season. UNI has 3 ranked teams (Kansas State, Norte Dame, and Minnesota) along with Georgia Tech (not ranked) in 12 preseason matches.
I agree with Pablo in that the standards were set a few years ago. The committee really looks at who you beat. Nevada beat Cal last year, who was ranked #23 if I am correct. That was one of the major reasons Nevada got in.
|
|