UCLA IS OVERRATED!

[Ye Olde Dawg]

ersatzhusker said:

As for UCLA and Washington, I'll take Texas or Florida over either one.

Eastern bias vs. West Coast bias. I'll stick with my bias though and say yes, it could happen. But if it does, then Texas or Florida is showing something that we haven't seen from them before.

[mervynpumpkinhead]

ersatzhusker said:

sankyu said:

Penn State very nearly made it to the FF last year. If not for Washington playing over their heads in front of a home crowd (and Hodge's attack of Freshman Jitters), I think they would have. (snip) Nebraska and Stanford look to be juggernauts, destined to meet in the finals. (snip) Texas and Florida are kind of in the same boat. [etc, etc]

IMO and many others, there are at least 8 teams which CAN win the NC. But, VBall is such a mental and momentum game that truly any given decent team can beat a great team on any given night. E.g., Colorado late last year beating NU mostly because NU's head wasn't in the game.

So...who's mentally the toughest during the NCAA Tourney and who has a good enough coach? I'll show my prejudice and vote for NU who have plenty of both.

I respect Stanford, but they won't win it in 2007 partly because they have two frosh who are great on paper but will probably hit the wall at that time; 2008 will be different. I'll pick PSU in the final against NU instead. Other than those 3, I think it's a free for all and will just sit back and watch and enjoy.

As for UCLA and Washington, I'll take Texas or Florida over either one.

I can't believe in Florida until they show they can do something different. I don't think they can. Texas is much more "believable" in my book.

[volleysean27]

USC . i think has the potential to make it to the final four.. Roleder should start at OH2 and losing seilhammer was huge, but after watching them practice over the weekend, USC should be better than last year, there passing is more solid with hilgren, urango, and avol in the backrow, and Johanson seems to hit with more heat , add Garrett, who is a blocking machine and you have a formula for a FF team.

[Keystonekid]

Add me to the list those kidding themselves.

[jgrout]

ersatzhusker said:

In the semis last year against NU, Nana Merriweather (sp?) was the only really dangerous player UCLA had.

Toward the end of last year's match at Maples, with the Bruins down two games to one, the Bruins had begun to dominate the rotations in which Meriwether played front row, as they had earlier in the match, but was otherwise vulnerable. When Stanford survived what turned out to be Nana's last three front row rotations, I yelled at the UCLA bench that she wasn't going to get back in because Stanford was going to win the match first (and they did). Is their coaching staff's talking the most smack to game officials at Maples over my ten years of watching matches there enough reason for me to do the same from fifteen rows back? No, it isn't... but now I understood why I did it.

[OverAndUnder]

If we're talking about reaching the Final Four, I strongly agree with ay2013. There are about 8 teams that have an equal claim to "title contender" based on potential, but in the postseason very few teams go deep without a specials setter who can keep the transition tempo from spinning out of control. I actually think on paper Texas should be #3 just barely behind Stanford, but setters at the other top 8 programs are a notch above when it comes to the transition and out of system plays that are the standard in regional finals. The FF has more hype because the stakes are so high, but we all know that the best volleyball matches - long rallies, trading sideouts, fifth game barnburners - usually take place in the regional finals.

[mervynpumpkinhead]

overandunder said:

If we're talking about reaching the Final Four, I strongly agree with ay2013. There are about 8 teams that have an equal claim to "title contender" based on potential, but in the postseason very few teams go deep without a specials setter who can keep the transition tempo from spinning out of control. I actually think on paper Texas should be #3 just barely behind Stanford, but setters at the other top 8 programs are a notch above when it comes to the transition and out of system plays that are the standard in regional finals. The FF has more hype because the stakes are so high, but we all know that the best volleyball matches - long rallies, trading sideouts, fifth game barnburners - usually take place in the regional finals.

You don't think Moriarity is one of the better setters in the nation? You surely can't be placing Washington's first year setter ahead of her.

[OverAndUnder]

I anticipated someone jumping in on that item, which is why I tried to emphasize that I was talking about transition tempo and out-of-system play. In system Moriarty is a very good setter, and she deserves every one of the many honors she has earned. But in my opinion there have always been a few young ladies (like, obviously, the one at UCLA) who were better at maintaining consistent set location and improving the ball even when chasing down bad passes. For what it's worth, I do think the improvement between 2005 and 2006 was greater than between 2004 and 2005. With a good group of defenders like Jennings, Hall, and Kisner, I think Texas will be able to win through to the Final Four. But this thread is about UCLA; let's not hijack it too much.

[skyhigh]

Nellie Spicer and Kanoe Kamanao were the only setters last season that can turn a bad pass into a great set. With Kamanao gone, Spicer has no equal this year, she is the best setter in my opinion. And I believe Spicer was the main reason why UCLA got such a high pre-season ranking. She is a hitters dream.....getting a beautiful set from her is money for any hitter.

Don't ever underestimate a great setter, many have already counted UCLA out, but the main reason why the Bruins have been successful is their All-American setter.

[StanfordFan]

Actually, I think Courtney Thompson and Bryn Kehoe are both pretty good at converting bad passes into well-set balls as well.

[Keystonekid]

This isn't Div 1 basketball where any team who advances to a final four is a contender to win the title. UCLA, Wash, Florida, may be contenders for a FF, but not the championships. How well did Tennessee and Santa Clara contend?

[roofed!]

keystonekid said:

This isn't Div 1 basketball where any team who advances to a final four is a contender to win the title. UCLA, Wash, Florida, may be contenders for a FF, but not the championships. How well did Tennessee and Santa Clara contend?

The difference between your first group (UCLA, UW and Florida) and your second group (Tennessee and Santa Clara) is that the second ones are Cinderella teams going to their first "big balls". UCLA is a seasoned program and coming off their FF last season can build around that experience and they have a group of OHs and the setter to make the charge. Florida also have athletic players to contend for the championship as well.

As this point everyone seems to have Nebraska, Stanford, Penn State and Texas all locked for Sacramento, but for me, aside from Nebraska, the other 3 teams are no locks and if you analyze closely, they may be in the same boat with UCLA, Florida and Washington: Stanford - will the freshmen able to carry their loads; Texas & Penn State - big talents for the past few years but still fell short, and why should one automatically assume that this is the year they'll break through?

I doubt that this year is like 2003 when USC, Hawaii and Florida were almost sure to be in FF, and not only that, to be a national championship contender as well.

[Keystonekid]

Cinderella or not, those teams cannot compete with Nebraska, Stanford and maybe not PSU. Texas has the great upside but until they prove to me otherwise, are a little soft and vulnerable to lesser teams than the previous mentioned. I think Florida, UW etc are very good, but a full level behind the top teams. I guarantee you that Nebraska and Stanford are only thinking about winning it all. If
you look at UW last year, I think it was pretty clear they saw themselves as a team that could advance to the final four, but not win it.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

keystonekid said:

I think Florida, UW etc are very good, but a full level behind the top teams. I guarantee you that Nebraska and Stanford are only thinking about winning it all.

You can't guarantee anything, especially if you haven't spoken to the players on teams other than Nebraska and Stanford.

Nebraska and Stanford may look good on paper but matches are won and lost on the court, not on a message board or Newspaper article.

Fwiw, I don't expect to see the Huskers vs the Cardinal for the NCAA Women's Volleyball Championship this year.

[roofed!]

Yup, as Bik pointed out, nothing is guaranteed and it still is a long season towards Sacramento. Lots of things have to be right, even for the top teams, including the players being fully healthy. A serious injury to a key player could cause the previously "invincible" team to move from the "sure thing" to the the ranks of "maybe". During the 2003 season, I was hoping that the USC team remained healthy all season -- a serious injury to Ross, Adams or Anderson etc and the team would have had a problem on its hands.

I'm sure that other top teams, apart from Nebraska and Stanford, are also thinking of winning it all. Most of the players and coaches in the top programs are competitive, and you know that when the road ends for the losing teams, you could see many of the players crying at falling short of their goals.