Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2006 0:16:54 GMT -5
I lthink that Pepperdine is an incredibly fascinating team....they can be good and they can be pretty awful.....probably due to just how they match up with their opponents....if you can run a quick offense you will beat them 9 out of 10 times I suspect..... I think there inconsistencies are a matter of the youth in leadership positions on the floor. When they are serving and passing well, they are a tough team to beat ... but then again, so is every other team. Again, no. There are plenty of teams who could serve and pass great and still not have a chance of winning against the better team. Sorry to be picky, but you are making sweeping generalizations. A top 10 team is different than a top 100 team. Heck, a top 10 team is different than a top 20 team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2006 0:19:41 GMT -5
UCLA is the most vulnerable of the AVCA's top 5. You may be right, but I think they are among the 5 best teams in the country right now. If you look at the Top 10, UCLA is not the most vulnerable of that group. Personally, I'm not too sold on Washington yet. What quality road wins do they have? On their own court, they've been outstanding ~ which is why I pick them to advance from their regional, but I don't expect them to advance to the Championship match. I like Texas and Florida over UCLA. I don't know about Utah, but I suspect they can at least hang with them -- as can Minnesota and Wisconsin. Hawaii and Cal Poly (LSU and Oklahoma?) are the dark horses.
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Nov 23, 2006 0:22:08 GMT -5
I think there inconsistencies are a matter of the youth in leadership positions on the floor. When they are serving and passing well, they are a tough team to beat ... but then again, so is every other team. Again, no. There are plenty of teams who could serve and pass great and still not have a chance of winning against the better team. Sorry to be picky, but you are making sweeping generalizations. A top 10 team is different than a top 100 team. Heck, a top 10 team is different than a top 20 team. hehe, ok, be picky! hehe .. Let's change that to "but then again, so is every other Top 20 team" I do believe that there is enough parity among the Top 20 this year that if any of the Top 20 teams are serving and passing well that they would be tough to beat. Am I saying they can't be beat? No, just that it is tougher. The Top 10 teams will be able to beat a Top 20 team that is passing and serving well. UCLA did that with Pepp. Pepp was serving and passing very well in that match, yet UCLA still pulled out the match. You really seem to have an issue with UCLA this year.
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Nov 23, 2006 0:26:57 GMT -5
You may be right, but I think they are among the 5 best teams in the country right now. If you look at the Top 10, UCLA is not the most vulnerable of that group. Personally, I'm not too sold on Washington yet. What quality road wins do they have? On their own court, they've been outstanding ~ which is why I pick them to advance from their regional, but I don't expect them to advance to the Championship match. I like Texas and Florida over UCLA. I don't know about Utah, but I suspect they can at least hang with them -- as can Minnesota and Wisconsin. Hawaii and Cal Poly (LSU and Oklahoma?) are the dark horses. I think Texas and Florida are close to UCLA. But i choose UCLA because they seem to win those matches, even when they're not playing well. Texas has been all over the map this year and have been just as inconsistent as Pepperdine if you ask me. I suspect Minnesota and Wisconsin CAN hang with UCLA, that was never in question. I just think UCLA would come out on top in the end. This is again why I think all of these teams are beatable. Unlike other years, all of the teams outside of Nebraska have shown that they are not as solid as we would normally expect a Top 5 team to be. Nebraska really hasn't been challenged so it's hard to say, but they also have their weaknesses ...weaknesses that I happen to think UCLA can exploit.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 23, 2006 0:30:47 GMT -5
UCLA is the most vulnerable of the AVCA's top 5. In your opinion. My opinion differs. Most vulnerable, AVCA TOP 5, in order of perceived vuneralbility 1) Penn State 2) Nebraska 3) UCLA 4) Stanford 5) U Dub
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 23, 2006 0:32:37 GMT -5
What I find fascinating about Pepperdine is all the assumptions that have been made about their _opponents_ based on their matches with the Waves. They are a worthless measuring stick, for exactly the reason Beachman gave: their inconsistency. Even so, the #4 team in the country should not be going 5 with them. No? Why? the Number one team in the Country LOST to an Unranked in 5. Oh, perhaps this fact escaped you?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 23, 2006 0:34:41 GMT -5
You may be right, but I think they are among the 5 best teams in the country right now. If you look at the Top 10, UCLA is not the most vulnerable of that group. Personally, I'm not too sold on Washington yet. What quality road wins do they have? On their own court, they've been outstanding ~ which is why I pick them to advance from their regional, but I don't expect them to advance to the Championship match. I like Texas and Florida over UCLA. I don't know about Utah, but I suspect they can at least hang with them -- as can Minnesota and Wisconsin. UCLA already swept the Gators, and Texas is getting way too much credit for their Washington win. What else have the longhorns done besides step on the court?
|
|
|
Post by brybry on Nov 23, 2006 3:01:29 GMT -5
I think UCLA, Penn State, and Washington are all vulnerable. UCLA's outside hitters are often ineffective. Penn State goes into shank tank. Washington also has some weak serve receivers and Mussie can be very hot/cold. Stanford and Nebraska should be the two most solid teams. They both have little excuse not to play well since they generally have strong passing, setting, and a wealth of hitters. The only excuse for Stanford is Kristin Richard's knee problems.
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Nov 23, 2006 5:07:40 GMT -5
You really seem to have an issue with UCLA this year. Not just this year, maybe UCLA would have met his standard and do much better if they have as many top 20 recruits as Minnesota has
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2006 9:17:37 GMT -5
UCLA always has the talent. Maybe too much talent?
My problem with UCLA is that they _always_ get more credit than they deserve. Every year, it's the same thing. They -- and Arizona -- are the biggest beneficiaries of Pac10 inflation.
It's a very nice shade of blue, however.
(My being a fan of Minnesota is completely irrelevant, so I don't know why that is brought up. Well, I know why BiK brings it up.)
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Nov 23, 2006 10:55:29 GMT -5
UCLA always has the talent. Maybe too much talent? My problem with UCLA is that they _always_ get more credit than they deserve. Every year, it's the same thing. They -- and Arizona -- are the biggest beneficiaries of Pac10 inflation. It's a very nice shade of blue, however. (My being a fan of Minnesota is completely irrelevant, so I don't know why that is brought up. Well, I know why BiK brings it up.) Didn't you bring up Minnesota? I happen to agree with you that the Pac-10 tends to enjoy inflated ratings at the beginning of the year which is used to keep them high up in the polls, even after losses. But it is only those programs that are rated highly at the beginning of the year. Regarding UCLA, they ALWAYS have highly recruited players on the floor. I'm not a fan of Banachowski in terms of developing players, because I dont' think that is his forte. I also get to see UCLA several times a year, every year. This year they are better than usual. UCLA had a very good preseason ~ mostly on the road. They have had a successful Pac-10 season losing only to Stanford twice (no sweeps), and once to Washington (no sweep). No one has beaten Washington at home, and the losses to Stanford are nothing to call them out on. UCLA has good wins, and three losses to teams among the Top 5. I'm sorry, but that resume speaks volumes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2006 14:04:20 GMT -5
No, I didn't (bring up Minnesota).
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Nov 23, 2006 14:15:12 GMT -5
passing, setting, and a wealth of hitters. The only excuse for Stanford is Kristin Richard's knee problems. Stanford has shown some signs that they can be inconsistant. They did lose to USC and Washington (though that was early) in a sweep. My problem with UCLA is that they _always_ get more credit than they deserve. Every year, it's the same thing. They -- and Arizona -- are the biggest beneficiaries of Pac10 inflation. So they shouldn't get credit for being the only team to beat Washington (National Champions) last year? And for doing that again this year against another strong Washington team? Nellie Spicer and Nana Meriwether aren't a good 1-2 punch?
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Nov 23, 2006 21:35:00 GMT -5
UCLA always has the talent. Maybe too much talent? (My being a fan of Minnesota is completely irrelevant, so I don't know why that is brought up. Well, I know why BiK brings it up.) Too much talent at UCLA? Not as much talent as Minnesota has, let's compare the Prepvolleyball ranking of the recruits UCLA #8 Johnson #9 Spicer #15 Daley #17 Sather #19 Lyman #24 Carter Minnesota #4 Bowman #10 Nelson #11 Hartman #13 Jones #18 Katie V #19 Haggerty #20 Kyla R
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2006 9:16:53 GMT -5
And then the bench? Too much means too much.
|
|