|
|
Post by BeiBei on Nov 24, 2006 9:30:06 GMT -5
And then the bench? Too much means too much. No problem only Green Mehring is ranked in the top 50 at 32nd compared to Kelly Schmidt who is ranked at 31st Still not as much talent as Minnesota has why don't you do your research before u make all those statement, support your statement with facts |
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Nov 24, 2006 9:43:00 GMT -5
forgot Meghan Cumpston who is ranked 39th (?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2006 12:21:48 GMT -5
What statement did I make exactly? It was never I who was comparing Minnesota to UCLA. And I still think UCLA's bench is deeper -- how many players do they have anyhow -- than most teams. I just get the impression it's easier to plug in another player than it is to develop talent there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2006 12:24:05 GMT -5
Oh, wait a second, it was YOU who brought Minnesota into this discussion. Funny.
Perhaps you could stick to the topic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2006 12:26:26 GMT -5
Here's your roster:
1 Spicer, Nellie S 5-10 SO 1V Barrington, IL (Barrington)
2 Daley, Ali OH 6-0 SO TR Grass Valley, CA (Long Beach State)
3 Sather, Kaitlin OH 6-1 SO 1V Santa Rosa, CA (Maria Carrillo)
4 Jagd, Nikki S 5-11 SO TR Palos Verdes, CA (Pacific)
5 Carstensen, Elise MB 6-3 SO 1V Atlanta, GA (Westminster)
6 Socci, Blair DS/Libero 5-6 SO 1V San Juan Capistrano, CA (Rancho Santa Margarita)
7 Meriwether, Nana MB 6-1 SR 2V Potomac, MD (Duke)
8 Johnson, Rachell OH/MB 5-11 RS JR 2V San Diego, CA (Torrey Pines)
9 Carter, Katie OH 6-3 SR 3V Steamboat Springs, CO (Steamboat Springs)
10 Schoen, Meghan MB 6-1 SO 1V Aurora, CO (Michigan State)
11 Lyman, Colby OPP 6-0 SR 3V Los Altos Hills, CA (St. Francis)
12 Clements, Emily OPP 6-0 FR HS Metaire, LA (Isidore Newman)
13 Mehring, Becky OH 6-1 JR 2V Huntington Beach, CA (Marina)
14 Smith, Jordan OH 6-0 FR 1V Corona Del Mar, CA (Corona Del Mar)
15 Machado, Jade S 5-6 SO 1V Encinitas, CA (LaCosta Canyon)
16 Ferrell, Ashley DS/Libero 5-8 FR HS Los Angeles, CA (Bishop Montgomery)
17 Douglas, Diana OH 5-10 FR HS Woodside, CA (Woodside)
20 Fine, Jessica DS/Libero 5-6 SO 1V Tarzana, CA (Harvard Westlake)
22 Dominguez, Stacy MB 6-0 JR 2V Yorba Linda, CA (Esperanza)
24 Kroneberger, Laura DS/Libero 5-8 SR 3V Los Alamitos, CA (Los Alamitos)
20 players...
It's only a theory anyhow. YOU tell me why UCLA always underachieves...
|
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Nov 24, 2006 13:29:17 GMT -5
Soo, if they have 20 players, what's the problem? And why don't you like them? Because they have a lot of players but underachieve? With a record of 3 losses they underachieve? By beating Washington (twice) they underachieve?
|
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Nov 24, 2006 13:31:24 GMT -5
Oh, wait a second, it was YOU who brought Minnesota into this discussion. Funny. Perhaps you could stick to the topic? He was on the topic, if you couldn't figure it out, Beibei was saying why do you hate on UCLA because of they have "too much talent" while Minnesota also has talent but you don't hate on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 24, 2006 13:36:40 GMT -5
(R)uffda wants to look at a program that continually underachieves, he should look at Penn State before he looks towards Westwood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Nov 24, 2006 13:46:24 GMT -5
Ruffda's other pet peeve is Stanford's monopoly on junior level volleybal talent. Illegal tie-ins, bid-rigging, price fixing, and whatnot. Shame on Stanford. And shame on Ruffda's obsession of same.
And Jewel. He has an obsession with Jewel.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 24, 2006 14:10:13 GMT -5
(R)uffda wants to look at a program that continually underachieves, he should look at Penn State before he looks towards Westwood. RR always has the Lions peaking early .. then the toilet flushes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2006 14:25:12 GMT -5
Oh, wait a second, it was YOU who brought Minnesota into this discussion. Funny. Perhaps you could stick to the topic? He was on the topic, if you couldn't figure it out, Beibei was saying why do you hate on UCLA because of they have "too much talent" while Minnesota also has talent but you don't hate on them. That's _his_ topic. It's not mine. Nowhere in this thread -- or anywhere else -- did I say anything about hating UCLA because they have too much talent. I offered it (too many talented players) as a theory for why they underachieve. beibei brings up Minnesota because he knows I am a fan. So where's the connection -- other than to try to irritate me? There is none. I'll explain this one more time and then you all can rip Minnesota some more if you'd like: What do I have against UCLA? My ONLY gripe with UCLA is that they are constantly given more credit than they deserve -- just like the Pac-10 Conference. The hype is just out-of-control. Hate is much too strong a word. I don't even dislike the Bruins. I just think they are constantly over-rated. Now, since Wolfgang brings it up, Stanford is another issue. I don't hate them either. They are rarely over-rated. I'm just tired of the advantage they have over every other team in VB. It's nothing they or the players need to (or ever would) apologize for. But I'll never root for them. It's like rooting for the Yankees. I'll root for the Bruins first. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2006 14:29:08 GMT -5
Soo, if they have 20 players, what's the problem? And why don't you like them? Because they have a lot of players but underachieve? With a record of 3 losses they underachieve? By beating Washington (twice) they underachieve? This is 1) circular reasoning and 2) incorrect. I'll just let the former go, but as to the latter -- UW and UCLA split. UW was also up 2-0 in LA and lost. |
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Nov 24, 2006 22:12:44 GMT -5
Oh, wait a second, it was YOU who brought Minnesota into this discussion. Funny. Perhaps you could stick to the topic? He was on the topic, if you couldn't figure it out, Beibei was saying why do you hate on UCLA because of they have "too much talent" while Minnesota also has talent but you don't hate on them. Thanks I just do not understand why he always hammer UCLA even when they only have 3 losses and when they won 5 games matches. Using the excuse that 20 players on the roster is lame, it is a public institution and UCLA is a school that receives the most number of application every year, many players would want to go there even if they have to walk on so what if a school has 30 players on the roster, only 6 can be on the court. I quote Minnesota because I did not think it occurred to him that Minnsota had done a better job at recruiting over the past few years and they have more top 15/20/50 recruits than UCLA. UCLA still gets good players but not the top recruits they got a decade ago. |
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Nov 24, 2006 22:13:51 GMT -5
(R)uffda wants to look at a program that continually underachieves, he should look at Penn State before he looks towards Westwood. He would not because Minnesota had not beaten PSU for a while, if he does that, it would make Minnesota look bad |
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Nov 24, 2006 22:24:18 GMT -5
I don't agree with Ruffda's assessment of UCLA, but that's all personal opinion anyway.
But, Ruffda's argument is that UCLA is over-rated. Obviously, he doesn't feel Minnesota is overrated and they do usually have to earn their ranking. When Minnesota loses, then tend to drop farther and faster than a Pac-10 team would ....and that's a big part of his argument. Whereas, UCLA usually starts the season ranked fairly high although they haven't truly been a contender for quite a few years now.
That being said, I still believe that this UCLA team is better than years past. They have much better chemistry and they play well together. I don't look at a 5-game match against a 20-something ranked team and think, "gosh, they are over-rated". I look at the 5-game match and think ...they are now solid enough to pull out the win even when they may be a little off that night. That is something that they couldn't do in recent years past.
|
|
