|
Post by holidayhusker on Dec 17, 2006 2:53:05 GMT -5
One perplexing thing that I didn't understand. Cooper seemed to be playing well. Why Gates at such a crucial time?
|
|
|
Post by tsunami on Dec 17, 2006 3:01:47 GMT -5
Congratulations to the Lady Huskers!
|
|
|
Post by fromohtosf on Dec 17, 2006 3:20:24 GMT -5
Such a jerk comment. Poor sportsmanship. Sour grapes. Anything I'm missing? Let's take a poll, outside of nebraska, who really thinks that nebraska could have really beaten any of the other final 4 teams on a neutral court. Based on the plan Stanford came out with, if these teams played on a neutral court, Nebraska would win. Cynthia had a double block on her almost all night. Stanford gave Pavan a single block many many times. That has always been Stanford ball. They leave there outside hitters to block right side attacks alone often. This was a perfect match up for Pavan. From watching the game a second time, Stanford had a lot of respect for Stalls and worked on containing her and weren't too worried about Larson...oops. I probably would have done the same thing, thinking that she would play tight. Larson was the star of Game 4. I also think Busboom was underrated the whole year. On the other hand, set Waller any chance you get. What a great attacker! I'd set her now if I could. I would recommend Barboza learn to hit line during off season. I have watched Stanford all season. The girl can't do it.
|
|
|
Post by clivehusker on Dec 17, 2006 3:26:22 GMT -5
One perplexing thing that I didn't understand. Cooper seemed to be playing well. Why Gates at such a crucial time? Cooper is more of an attacker while Gates is a stronger blocker. And if you look at where she contributed when Gates did come in, it was pretty helpful.
|
|
|
Post by roy on Dec 17, 2006 5:04:21 GMT -5
Exactly. No matter where you hold the finals, some team has a chance to be "the home team." As long as they dont keep it permanently in omaha, or start going there too frequently, then there is nothing unfair about it. The only thing messed up is only 150 tickets per school. Each of the 4 schools should have way more tickets than that (with unused tickets going back to the general pool). If 2000 UCLA fans had wanted to show up, then they should have gotten to sit in a solid block of 2000 UCLA fans. I know for some reason they probably cant give each school 25%, but it should be at least 10%, if not 15% or 20%. As for the homecourt advantage, it helps, but some people are making it a much bigger deal than it was. I thought Nebraska was the best team there. I don't have an anti pac 10 bias, because last year i said UDub would definately win. Stanford (at HOME) barely beat a team the Huskers swept twice, so i don't think they have any room to cry about how Nebraska only won because of HCA. Completely agree with the portion about winning at home this year. Every team has that chance. Every team has the opportunity to put in a bid to host the Final Four. This title for Nebraska in no way is tainted simply because they won it at home. However, I do disagree that if this were played on a nuetral site, the outcome would have been the same. This is a hard one to call, as the Huskers have been known to play tight before their home fans, so wins might have been easier on a nuetral court. On the flip side, it was obvious they were feeding off the crowd during some crucial points, which did look like it helped them. But on the flip side of that, playing the "villian" in front of a huge crowd gets some opposing players really amped up and they play better. Basically, you can make arguments either way, but what's done is done and Nebraska won the national title. In it's own ways, this unknown hurts the Huskers chances of hosting again. They will host in 2008, however winning a national title on your home floor with some close scores will make the committee take notice. After 2008, it is going to be hard to give them another championship hosting site within only a few years without causing an uproar.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Dec 17, 2006 8:31:15 GMT -5
In regards to hosting the event, what decison does the NCAA make that is not motivated first and foremost by money? You are going to see more FF's in Omaha, and sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Dec 17, 2006 10:14:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by flatlander on Dec 17, 2006 11:24:42 GMT -5
One perplexing thing that I didn't understand. Cooper seemed to be playing well. Why Gates at such a crucial time? I watched the match on TV after I got home (made for a REALLY late night). If you only watched the match on TV, I can understand why you're puzzled about the substitution. It didn't seem on TV that it made much difference. But being there, it was clear that Gates's entry changed the entire complexion of Game 3. Kehoe had been doing a tremendous job during most of Game 2 and all of Game 3 of freezing Cooper and leaving NU's outsides 1-on-1 against Stanford's outsides, and Waller, especially, was really making NU pay for that. Plus, NU was not running the middle hardly at all (at least to the front), and Cooper, when she did get the ball, wasn't terminating. Wasn't much point having her in there. When Gates came in, NU recorded something like 2 stuff blocks in the next 4 points, and the block finally started closing on the outside. Gates didn't add much offensively, but she did have a couple of great plays off the net as well -- a diving 1-armed up of a dribble serve over the net is one that particuarly I recall. I was having a fit about even this year's reduced NU block not showing up to this match until, voila -- Gates. Stanford was outblocking NU (!!!) until the end of Game 3. Gates's blocking got the team and the fans fired up, and I think that had a real effect on Stanford. A little irony here: Stanford and NU tie for blocks at 13 apiece, but Nebraska outdigs Stanford. When's the last time THAT's happened?
|
|
|
Post by flatlander on Dec 17, 2006 11:32:58 GMT -5
I think Barboza's match last night in some ways mirrored Larson's from Thursday night. I haven't looked at the stats yet, but while Barboza clearly struggled offensively, it seemed during the match that she was receiving very well and vacuuming up everything that came near her on defense. I remember thinking to myself that so many of the digs she had off high-velocity kills were coming up as 3-pointers. Incredible floor game.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Dec 17, 2006 13:20:12 GMT -5
actually she did not dig many balls at all. She is a great player who struggled in a match. It just so happened it was a big match. It doesn't change how I feel about her as a player. It makes her human.
|
|
|
Post by Chance on Dec 17, 2006 13:42:04 GMT -5
I didn't say it was unfair that most of the visiting teams fans couldnt get tickets or something like that. I just think in a 17,000 seat arena the visiting teams should get the chance to use more than 150 tickets. Since none of them used their full 150, it's no big deal. But if any of them actually had fans locked out by such a low number of tickets, then that would be EXTREMELY messed up...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2006 13:52:39 GMT -5
What I wondered was why Stanford kept running the 3-2 type set to Barboza and Richards, it wasn't effective. Barboza was matched up against Holloway and couldn't attack line given that set. Just wondered.
|
|
|
Post by flatlander on Dec 17, 2006 13:53:02 GMT -5
I know of a couple of Washington alums living in Omaha who were able to call the athletic department and have tickets sent to them out of U-Dub's allocation. I know I only saw about 4 rows of Washington fans at the games ... there could have been more, though.
|
|
|
Post by TheRange on Dec 17, 2006 14:23:20 GMT -5
I was at the match (thanks AVCA!) and it didn't seem that Barboza "choked", she just didn't have her usual dominant performance. Other people did step up, namely Waller and Foluke. I think Cook made a great gamble by sending in Gates for some help with the block. She had two clutch roofs at the end of game 3. The notion that the officials were biased is ridiculous. They did a relatively good job, let the girls play and the match was better for it. Some of the rallies had you flying out of your seat. Both teams definitely brought the heat tonight. I don't think I've ever seen Richards hit the ball as hard as she did last night. I think the home crowd "advantage" can work for you and against you. It's a lot of pressure playing in front of that many of your fans. Now if you do something good, the crowd is going to let you know it tenfold, but if you screw up, you feel pretty damn small, and that affects your play (see Jordan Larson vs UCLA). I don't think the ticket situation was handled very well, I had a lot of friends that weren't so lucky in that department and were scrambling up until game time (scalping at a volleyball match - how cool is that?), but I'm not sure the NCAA expected this type of reaction, although on a positive note, it was cool to be a part of the largest crowd to watch an NCAA Women's Volleyball match ever. Does anyone know what the men's record is? Congrats to Nebraska and Omaha for a great Final Four. And to Stanford, who from the looks of it, will be back next year. Hopefully Sacremento will be a better time than the last time I was there.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 17, 2006 14:36:54 GMT -5
Nebraska would NOT have won if it weren't in OMAHA. This match is biased from the start. Where do you propose they play the national championship match, then? I say Hawaii. That way there'l never be a home court advantage for the winners. Florida has yet to even win a National title, end of story! Anyways congrats to the Huskers and their fans. I guess the third time (being the top seed) is the charm. I'd congratulate Stanford but this is familiar territory for the Cardinal. They've been here before, and they'll be here again.
|
|