|
Post by Ye Olde Dawg on Nov 2, 2006 16:21:10 GMT -5
As a hitter, I would pick a program where I knew the setter for the next few years was top notch. As a setter, I would pick a program where I knew the hitters were fast, versatile, and low error. Let's assume for a moment that I am Alix Klineman (which of course according to VolleyTalk rules I'm prohibited from actually confirming, although I can tell you that I am not her mother).... Out of the five schools I'm considering, which will have the best setter in 2007/2008. UCLA? Washington? Texas? Hawaii? Stanford? Isn't it interesting that all of these programs have setters who are near the end of their eligibility, which means their replacements are unproven high schoolers? What's a #1 recruit to do? Consider USC? ;D Hey, that was a straight line too good to pass up.Seriously, didn't Taylor Carico go to the same school? With that connection -- and clearly a quality setter that Klineman has already played with -- I'm a little surprised that USC hasn't been on her list.
|
|
|
Post by snivelingidiot on Nov 2, 2006 16:47:25 GMT -5
I don't post much, but I might be able to offer some insight into Alix's thinking.
Hawaii -- far away and not great academically Texas -- is coach great coach or just great recruiter? Stanford -- Klineman's a good student but will Stanford be overwhelming academically? UCLA -- loves the team but coaching staff has reputation for not improving players Washington -- loves coach, hates rain
Believe her when she says she's still uncertain. She's not playing anybody/
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 2, 2006 17:00:42 GMT -5
Stanford -- Klineman's a good student but will Stanford be overwhelming academically? I don't know of anyone knowledgeable about them who insists that they (or many other "elite" private universities) have a brutal academic environment for the student-athlete. It's not like MIT where the first-year is considered so difficult that all classes are mandated as pass-fail.
|
|
|
Post by romeo on Nov 2, 2006 17:01:02 GMT -5
Alix doesn't need to worry about overwhelming academics. She is one smart cookie.
|
|
|
Post by pedro el leon on Nov 2, 2006 17:15:05 GMT -5
Undergraduate classes are not much different at any school in the nation. Stanford might hold higher standards, but it certainly doesn't teach quantum physics instead of calc-based physics in physics 101, just like every other school.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 2, 2006 17:29:19 GMT -5
Undergraduate classes are not much different at any school in the nation. Stanford might hold higher standards, but it certainly doesn't teach quantum physics instead of calc-based physics in physics 101, just like every other school. I was trying to get at the belief that they (as well as other similar schools) are notorious for grade inflation. At times in their history they outlawed the D and F grade. The joke (told to me from some Stanford grads) was 'Hard to get in, and hard to flunk out." Perhaps they were talking about certain fields of study, because I have heard that the sciences and engineering there aren't graded generously. The ability to drop a class at any time probably doesn't help the student-athlete though. Special athletic dept tutoring (available from many athletic depts) probably helps. It's also a place where around one out of ten students is a varsity athlete. I understand that professors there are very accomodating given the demands on SA's schedules. I do remember once asking a former Stanford prof if he ever had to deal with their athletic dept. He said that someone in a position of authority "strongly suggested" that he should give a student-athlete who didn't show up to classes a B in a class that he needed to stay eligible. I'm sure things like that weren't unlikely with almost any athletic dept in the country at certain times.
|
|
|
Post by beachman on Nov 2, 2006 18:38:19 GMT -5
This whole Klineman scenario reminds me of another HS superstar kristin richards, don't you think??
|
|
|
Post by StanfordFan on Nov 2, 2006 18:42:26 GMT -5
So the lesson we've learned is that by waiting until the very end to commit, it could very well mean that Klineman doesn't really want to go to Stanford, or it could mean that she really does want to go to Stanford. Well good, that solves that.
|
|
|
Post by Mix Breed-TEXAS,HI,LBSU on Nov 2, 2006 18:47:04 GMT -5
I say if she really really wanted to go to Stanford, she would have already commited... I have a great feeling that it will come down to her going to Hawai'i or Washington.
|
|
|
Post by Mix Breed-TEXAS,HI,LBSU on Nov 2, 2006 18:48:22 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Licht has said she will attend Nebraska I'm actually talking about another OH recruit going to Stanford. I think she's from the San Diego area? not quit sure though.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 2, 2006 18:53:52 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Licht has said she will attend Nebraska I'm actually talking about another OH recruit going to Stanford. I think she's from the San Diego area? not quit sure though. 6'0" OH Cassidy Lichtman from Francis Parker. The player commiting to Nebraska is 6'4" (OH?) Lindsey Licht from Grandview HS in Aurora, Colorado.
|
|
|
Post by Mix Breed-TEXAS,HI,LBSU on Nov 2, 2006 19:03:03 GMT -5
I'm actually talking about another OH recruit going to Stanford. I think she's from the San Diego area? not quit sure though. 6'0" OH Cassidy Lichtman from Francis Parker. The player commiting to Nebraska is 6'4" (OH?) Lindsey Licht from Grandview HS in Aurora, Colorado. Thanks, I knew I was pretty close. So when is Cassidy Lichtman going to Stanford? 07' 08' 09'? just curious... She must be really good to get recruited by Stanford.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 2, 2006 19:07:56 GMT -5
6'0" OH Cassidy Lichtman from Francis Parker. The player commiting to Nebraska is 6'4" (OH?) Lindsey Licht from Grandview HS in Aurora, Colorado. Thanks, I knew I was pretty close. So when is Cassidy Lichtman going to Stanford? 07' 08' 09'? just curious... She must be really good to get recruited by Stanford. She's an '07. I could understand the confusion with the similar names.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Nov 2, 2006 19:41:37 GMT -5
I think it comes down to Texas and Engle v. Stanford. Hawaii and Washington are possibilities, but not the same chance of her going there.
Licht is a huge left-handed kid.
As for setting, I don't think Klineman has to worry about that at any of the schools she's looking at.
|
|
|
Post by Mix Breed-TEXAS,HI,LBSU on Nov 2, 2006 20:06:45 GMT -5
I think it comes down to Texas and Engle v. Stanford. Hawaii and Washington are possibilities, but not the same chance of her going there. Licht is a huge left-handed kid. As for setting, I don't think Klineman has to worry about that at any of the schools she's looking at. I agree with you on the setting. All of her top final choices Hawai'i, Stanford, Texas, Washington, UCLA almost always produce AA setters...with Washington, CT is their first. But I still don't think she will go to Texas considering Juliann Faucette going into Texas as probably a top 5 vball recruit next year, maybe even being #2 or #3. I still think it'll be between Hawai'i and Washington...that she'll pick from.
|
|