|
Post by brentmoritz on May 31, 2007 18:16:21 GMT -5
This coming year there is a handful of teams that have the potental to win a national championship. How many think its going to Be a repeat or is there going to be a Cinderella in the finals? I think its going to be a repeat of Stanford and Nebraska, and if Nebraska dosent play with everything they have Stanford will take the match in 3 or maybe 4. Tell me what you think!
|
|
|
Post by redincolorado on May 31, 2007 19:39:25 GMT -5
On paper it would look like Stanford and Nebraska would be the front runners. If Texas's incoming freshmen make an impact comparable to last years----Texas will be in the hunt. Penn State and Minnesota look be serious contenders as well. UCLA? I've got questions. They scored something like 65% of their points when Merriweather was in the front row. I'll have to see how their season plays out. Hawaii is lurking. Washington has graduated a lot the past two years----going to have to keep tabs on them as well before I have a clue where they're at. USC? It's going to be a good season. I just hope w/the #'s at last years finals, cstv & espnu and 2 broadcast more matches this season.
|
|
|
Post by huskervbfan on May 31, 2007 20:36:21 GMT -5
I think its going to be a repeat of Stanford and Nebraska, and if Nebraska dosent play with everything they have Stanford will take the match in 3 or maybe 4. Tell me what you think! I think if Stanford doesn't play with everything they have, they may not even make it to the finals. Of course the same can be said for Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by wolverine on May 31, 2007 21:14:18 GMT -5
I was going to reply that simple probability suggests it's unlikely there will be a repeat champion and even less so the same two teams in the final. But I went and looked at all the title winners:
1981 University of Southern California (27-10) 1982 University of Hawaii (33-1) 1983 University of Hawaii (34-2) 1984 University of California, Los Angeles (33-6) 1985 University of the Pacific (36-3) 1986 University of the Pacific (39-3) 1987 University of Hawaii (37-2) 1988 University of Texas (34-5) 1989 Long Beach State University (32-5) 1990 University of California, Los Angeles (36-1) 1991 University of California, Los Angeles (31-5) 1992 Stanford University (31-2) 1993 Long Beach State University (32-2) 1994 Stanford University (32-1) 1995 University of Nebraska (32-1) 1996 Stanford University (31-2) 1997 Stanford University (33-2) 1998 Long Beach State University (36-0) 1999 Pennsylvania State University (36-1) 2000 University of Nebraska (34-0) 2001 Stanford University (33-2) 2002 University of Southern California (31-1) 2003 University of Southern California (35-0) 2004 Stanford University (30-6) 2005 University of Washington (32-1) 2006 University of Nebraska (33-1)
Five times in the last twenty-six years there has been a repeat champion. That's statistically huge, actually. So although the odds are against a repeat, it would still make a very attractive bet. As would Stanford; based on history, they're just about due.
|
|
|
Post by wolverine on May 31, 2007 21:15:59 GMT -5
But I'm going with Michigan as the dark horse.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
|
|
|
Post by huskervbfan on May 31, 2007 22:14:05 GMT -5
Five times in the last twenty-six years there has been a repeat champion. That's statistically huge, actually. So although the odds are against a repeat, it would still make a very attractive bet. As would Stanford; based on history, they're just about due. Another stat that's interesting is that only twice in the entire history has a team taken second one year and came back and won the next. The first was UCLA lost to Hawaii in 1983 and then beat Stanford in 1984. The next was Nebraska lost to Washington in 2005 and then beat Stanford in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by snivelingidiot on May 31, 2007 23:57:21 GMT -5
Stanford will win. They got the terminator they needed on the left in AK47, Browne's big block in the middle to team with Foluke, intense Waller on the right and great backcourt help for Fish in Ailes and Cassidy.
Healthy, no one touches this team.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jun 1, 2007 0:35:14 GMT -5
Regional hosts should be big this year; Seeding order should be something like Nebraska #1, then Stanford/Penn State winner #2, Stanford/Penn State Loser #3, #4Texas, #5 Washington, #6Florida, #7Minnesota, #8USC, #9 Hawaii, #10 Wisconsin, #11 UCLA or Ohio State, etc. As usual, will be hard to seed Hawaii and Florida due to their conference. Looks like Nebraska will go to Wisconsin, with USC a second seed there, Minnesota to Stanford, Washington to Penn State and Texas to Florida, to avoid intra-conference regional finals. Assuming Penn State, Nebraska and Stanford all solve defensive issues (as opposed to more severe "questions" or "problems"), they should be joined by Texas in a great final four. Talk again to see who's playing well at the end of the year for winners. But see Stanford-Missouri last year, that's a good team that got touched almost fatally. I see USC as a "dark-horse" is such a thing is possible about USC; almost everybody back, great recruiting class, and a great performance v. Stanford last year that showed they could beat anybody.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Jun 1, 2007 1:10:28 GMT -5
I'm really not sold on Minnesota like everyone else is. With Peniata, Nelson and Cumpston gone. Those are huge, I mean huge holes to feel for that team..
|
|
|
Post by vbuzz on Jun 1, 2007 1:55:38 GMT -5
I would have to agree with you. Minnesota will be a good team, just not a title contender this year. I like Stanford, Nebraska, Texas, and Penn State's chances this upcoming season. Hawaii, UCLA, Florida, and USC are big question marks this season....but could very well surprise some people. Hawaii has to replace their 4-time All-American setter, UCLA lost the best MB in the country last season, Florida needs Killingsworth in the middle, and USC needs production in the middle, and not to mention passing and backrow defense. These are very huge areas to improve on if any of these teams wants to go to the Final Four and contend for a nation title.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Jun 1, 2007 1:58:09 GMT -5
This could be Florida's year. If this isn't, it will be awhile.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Jun 1, 2007 2:50:11 GMT -5
I believe Stanford is more likely to win in '08 in Omaha than in '07 in Sacramento. Why?
A. Because the Final Four puts terrible pressure on freshmen who need to carry as much of the load as Klineman will (and Ailes may) have to do in '07, and as Tom had to do in '99. By comparison, Folkl (in '94) and Walsh (in '96) were part of loaded veteran lineups... the kind that Stanford rates to have in '08. In Ogonna Nnamani's freshman year ('01), the Card had a hybrid lineup with seniors doing the setting (Robyn Lewis playing on gnarly knees and guts) and most of the passing/digging (displaced front-row players plus the underrated Emily Lawrence) and three underclassmen... Tom, Ivy and Nnamani... providing most of the offense.
B. In '06, Pavan got the 15,000+ Qwest Center fans wearing the wrong shade of red going much more than they got Pavan (and Nebraska) going. To me, that means Pavan's presence (in '07) vis a vi her absence (in '08) is more important than relatively few Huskers fans in Sacramento in '07 vis a vi zillions in Omaha in '08.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Jun 1, 2007 7:49:17 GMT -5
Minnesota will continue to be a strong team, but are not really there with the Neb, Stan,TX, PSU, maybe Florida. Those teams in my opinion are the front runners. I will throw Washington, UCLA,USC, in the next group.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Jun 1, 2007 7:58:09 GMT -5
My prediction. If they are both in the finals Pavan and Houghtelling ( if healthy ) will shut Klineman and Barboza down, and Jordan will have a feild day. Houghtelling and Pavan are two of the best blockers in the NCAA. The difference makers will be the middlles and how they perform. I will also wager that their will be more Husker fans than Cardinal Red. Why? Huskers always find a way to get those tickets.
|
|
|
Post by newvbfan on Jun 1, 2007 8:22:44 GMT -5
Five times in the last twenty-six years there has been a repeat champion. That's statistically huge, actually. So although the odds are against a repeat, it would still make a very attractive bet. As would Stanford; based on history, they're just about due. Another stat that's interesting is that only twice in the entire history has a team taken second one year and came back and won the next. The first was UCLA lost to Hawaii in 1983 and then beat Stanford in 1984. The next was Nebraska lost to Washington in 2005 and then beat Stanford in 2006. Didn't Penn State lose to Stanford in '97 and LBSU in '98 and then win in '99?
|
|