|
Post by AAVolley on Apr 18, 2005 20:41:29 GMT -5
Oh jumpman? Where is your big talk now? Or your excuses about a mormon outside who can't play on sundays or a team running slides? I am pure west coast but nobody respects a team that talks big and backs it up with only excuses. I said they would go out early a week ago and I was definitely right. Cocky can only take you so far...
|
|
|
Post by nellakwah21 on Apr 18, 2005 23:07:18 GMT -5
Actually, Illinois had a state championship in Division II. Both Dominican (River Forest) and Augustana (Rock Island) are in the MCVA and also met for the conference championship two weeks before Nationals. I would hardly consider that an Illinois State Championship. Unless you mean that they are both from Illinois AND in the finals of DII . The only reason they are all from Illinois is because the MCVA conference is a less expensive and competitive alternative to the MIVA, their travel costs are minimum and so are tourney entry fees. The conference is half other school's "B" teams. Congrats to both teams for their finishes at Nationals though. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, that championship you speak of is not really comparable to the scope and organization of the WVC's league, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by vbfan430 on Apr 19, 2005 7:44:06 GMT -5
The conference is half other school's "B" teams. Congrats to both teams for their finishes at Nationals though. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, that championship you speak of is not really comparable to the scope and organization of the WVC's league, that's all. The only "B" teams in the MCVA are Iowa and Illinois. UIC says its "B" team is in the MCVA, but the same players play both A and B. The rest of the conference is made up of smaller schools which participate in D-II at nationals. With both finalists in Gold and one finalist in Silver, the MCVA did pretty good for a weak conference. Are they weaker than the big schools? Are Juniata and Springfield weaker than Penn State? That's why they have D-II.
|
|
|
Post by star035 on Apr 19, 2005 10:06:51 GMT -5
I've noticed that Dominican was #1 in the D-II rankings all year long. They held the ranking and then backed it up at nationals. Good for them!
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 19, 2005 11:48:42 GMT -5
But I don't believe the parity equaled a lack of talent this year. Even DI-AA was much stronger as a whole than last year. Great tournament, and I can't wait for Salt Lake 2006! I agree AND disagree with nellakwah's comment above. I believe that likely, the top to bottom strength of teams was better at this years Nationals, than any other prior tourneys. However, and this is to take nothing away from Marquette, Oshkosh and the MIVA. BUT......I strongly believe that Marquette is the weakeast National Champion that I can remember (and I have seen almost every championship team for the past 10+ years). Again, the depth of this year DI field was incredible. Teams like UC Davis, Penn St, Dayton, Texas A&M, and Colorado all ended up in the silver division, but likely would be Top 16 teams in most prior tourneys. YET, there truly was no dominant team, as for Marquette and Oshkosh, the "draw" God's were definately in their corner, as neither had to face a true top quality team (ie..a Top 8-10) until the semis ( I would agrgue Cal and maybe even Arizona played 3 top quality teams...a top 8-10 team..and neither even made the semis) For anyone who wants to argue my 'opinion', I ask this. Name the last NIRSA National Champion who lost more than a small handful (2 or 3, max!) of matches during the regular season to other club teams?? There are none. NONE. ZERO Those of you out there think Marquette would have beat MATC or even Fresno last year!?? Doubt it? The Arizona or Utah Valleys before that? The only champion since 95 (my first year at Nationals) I could see Marquette competing with is Maryland in 96'. And that team had Tony Mazullo, who was a bomber! Marquette won a wide open tourney and should be congradulated for doing so. But the most impressive win of the whole weekend was Illnois beating a very good Cal team. They played great in that match, and had they kept that up, they'd have won the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 19, 2005 12:08:58 GMT -5
BUT......I strongly believe that Marquette is the weakeast National Champion that I can remember (and I have seen almost every championship team for the past 10+ years). ..... Those of you out there think Marquette would have beat MATC or even Fresno last year!?? Doubt it? The Arizona or Utah Valleys before that? The only champion since 95 (my first year at Nationals) I could see Marquette competing with is Maryland in 96'... is it bad to respond to my own quote?? My comment got me thinking about all the National Champs I have seen play, and how they rank against each other. Here is my thoughts, don't know if any of the people reading this have seen more than a handful of tourneys, but I'd enjoy some feedback and thoughts. Also, its hard to remember who was on each Arizona team, they all blend together. But I think their best team was maybe in Reno, when I thought there were at least 3-4 teams that would have won this years tourney. 95'- Sac State, without a doubt the best non-Arizona team I saw play. I think they beat a bunch of NCAA teams that year. Would have played Arizonas best team straight up, maybe better than them. 96'-Maryland, this team was good, had two bombers but the rest of the team seemed ordinary 97-Sac State Another very good team. Solid everywhere with an outstanding OH who jumped out of the gym. 98-Graceland over Cal Mike Stowell single handily won the finals over a good Cal team. Both these teams roll this years tourney 99-the Arizona run begins oevr Graceland 00-Maybe Arizonas best team, beat a very good UVSC team. SDSU and Fresno were also VERY Good that year. 01-UVSC won the DI title with Hillmen (started for BYU's NCAA championship team last year!), Arizona and all the California schools played in the OPEN division. Marquette would have been the 4-5 best team in this tourney. But wold have beaten the Colorado team UVSC faced in the DI finals 02-Arizona was very good. The rest of the field was so so. Marquette as about as good as finalist UC Davis 03-Missed that tourney. 04-MATC over Fresno St No chance so there you go. one mans thoughts. now time to focs on the womens spring season Have a good summer all
|
|
|
Post by nellakwah21 on Apr 19, 2005 12:29:20 GMT -5
I believe UC Davis was the finalist in 2003, not 2002. And Providence was in 2002, not 2003. I'm too young to know about the other teams.
One question for anyone that knows. How good is Britt Burridge OPP, Arizona, compared to the other "greats" of Arizona's previous teams? I saw him play and he is definitely an NCAA caliber player. He's big and actually uses his height and reach to make good powerful swings.
One last thing. I know I am from the Midwest, but in their defense being flashy or smooth is not Marquette's style. The only one on the team who can be considered a true "banger" is Chuck, their right side. But they use big blocking and great defense to put people away. They just wear you down till you make errors, and the hitters have the talent to put the ball away. I don't know how they would do against NCAA teams, but they don't have the opp. to play them around the MW, unlike some Cali teams. It doesn't really matter though. The whole point is, they won club Nationals. Its a great thing for their team, and their style of play may not win them all the fans, but at the end of the day they are the best team of 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 19, 2005 12:56:07 GMT -5
One question for anyone that knows. How good is Britt Burridge OPP, Arizona, compared to the other "greats" of Arizona's previous teams? I saw him play and he is definitely an NCAA caliber player. He's big and actually uses his height and reach to make good powerful swings. ... I don't know how they would do against NCAA teams, but they don't have the opp. to play them around the MW, unlike some Cali teams. Burridge is very good, and yes you are correct, could easily play NCAA. In fact, I think he was a High School Fab 50 ( not sure, just something in the back of my head ) . He is likely the best pure hitter I can remember from Arizona. Arizona's past champs were blessed with exceptional setters, VERY GOOD middles and amazingly steady and reliable passing. Just great teams with little weaknesses. Marquette would have zero chance against a average NCAA team. Just not enough strength and height to battle. To be honest, the Cali teams this year probably wouldn't fare any better. Although Glitz could play NCAA, and their Middle, Rod, has the height and raw talent to do so. the problem with Rob is that he only had a few weeks of practice time after hoops. I would still pick to Cal to win that tourney if they played it again. I feel comfortable saying that they were the best team I saw there. To be honest, the way Illinois played that match, they'd have beaten anyone in the tourney. It just happened to be a tough draw for Cal that particular time. Marquette need not apologize to anyone for winning this tourney. The stars aligned, things feel into place, and they beat all the teams they needed to. Sure would have made the finals enjoyable had they played Cal, or someone else that would have caused a rooting interest.
|
|
|
Post by cyberVBmidwest on Apr 19, 2005 13:05:38 GMT -5
Burridge is very good, and yes you are correct, could easily play NCAA. In fact, I think he was a High School Fab 50 ( not sure, just something in the back of my head ) . A quick check of the Fab 50 for 2001-2004 doesn't show Burridge. Is he older? eteamz.active.com/mensvolleyballfab50/Does anyone have the pre 2001 Fab 50 lists?
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 19, 2005 13:55:49 GMT -5
Again, I am not sure of my comment of him being Fab 50. Not many are overlooked by NCAA schools. But its just seems like something I heard. For the record, he definately would be pre 2001. I think this is at least his 4th year at Arizona, maybe 5th. So he is likely a 99 or 00 HS grad
|
|
|
Post by MarqVB11 on Apr 19, 2005 17:34:50 GMT -5
02-Arizona was very good. The rest of the field was so so. Marquette as about as good as finalist UC Davis 03-Missed that tourney. 04-MATC over Fresno St No chance If we're into comparing us (Marquette this year) to former champs, I'll start with when I got to MU. 2002, Arizona played Providence...that AZ team would probably beat us. 2003, AZ still good, but not quite as great...not saying we would win, but would be a great match. 2004 MATC...no chance?! We narrowly lost to them last year in the championship at Hoosier- Illini...15-12 3rd game. We are obviously a better team this year than we were last year. I'm gonna put it out there and say this year's MU team would beat last years MATC. As for saying we are a worse team for having more than a handful of losses...what do you expect when the 2 teams in the national championship match play 9 times through the year? That one team is going to win 8 of 9? Playing Lakeland (national semifinalist) 7 times in a year is no cakewalk either. Tell me the last time the national champion played the runner- up 9 times in a year. I don't remember who said it, but it's true that we were just a steady team with enough blocking and defense and strong enough passing, hitting, and serving to wear people down. It may not be the most exciting game, but it was the best way to win this year. Maybe I'm wrong, but Oshkosh played the 2nd game like we had already won the match. As for our road at Nationals...we played the team across the net from us and we soundly beat every one of them. I would've liked to play "more exciting" matches with teams we don't see all the time, but it's not my fault that those bigger name teams got whipped before we got a shot at them by less widely known (or not known at all) schools. Great job this year midwest (especially WVC)...maybe next year more people will respect our top 10 rankings.
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 19, 2005 18:31:23 GMT -5
If we're into comparing us (Marquette this year) to former champs, I'll start with when I got to MU. 2002, Arizona played Providence...that AZ team would probably beat us. 2003, AZ still good, but not quite as great...not saying we would win, but would be a great match. 2004 MATC...no chance?! We narrowly lost to them last year in the championship at Hoosier- Illini...15-12 3rd game. We are obviously a better team this year than we were last year. I'm gonna put it out there and say this year's MU team would beat last years MATC. As for saying we are a worse team for having more than a handful of losses...what do you expect when the 2 teams in the national championship match play 9 times through the year? That one team is going to win 8 of 9? Playing Lakeland (national semifinalist) 7 times in a year is no cakewalk either. Tell me the last time the national champion played the runner- up 9 times in a year. ... As for our road at Nationals...we played the team across the net from us and we soundly beat every one of them. I would've liked to play "more exciting" matches with teams we don't see all the time, but it's not my fault that those bigger name teams got whipped before we got a shot at them by less widely known (or not known at all) schools. Great job this year midwest (especially WVC)...maybe next year more people will respect our top 10 rankings. Let me answer with this. I was under the impression that Marquette went 0-1 versus Cal this year, 0-1 versus Arizona, and 0-1 versus Santa Clara. Is that wrong??? So we'll feel free to exclude your matches versus Lakeland and Oshkosh, two very good teams. Tell me this, who did you beat outside the Midwest? Its just a question. Also, you are right, you beat who was across the net from you...no doubt about it. But even you must admit your path to the final 4 was amazingly easy (any top 10 teams prior to your semi-final match???). And yes, some of the other strong teams failed to win when they needed to. But your team has shown inconsistency against other top teams nationally (outside your own conference), and who is to say how you would have fared given tougher opponents on your way to the finals?? No one will ever know. You are the champs, and I gave credit where it was due. And my comments were based soley on what my eyes and experience told me. Also, I dont think anyone disrespected your rankings, you were seeded #2 and in my opinion, I thought the second best team there. Cal lost to a VERY HOT Illinois team, I dont think your team played a team playing well the entire time. Oshkosh did roll over and die, similiar to Fresno State last year. And yes, part of that may be the way your squad played, but you weren't challenged at all. Lakeland acted as if their win over Arizona was enough, and played terrible agianst you. Good luck next year...my comments were nothing personal. And you may note that PRIOR to the tourney, I made similiar statements that I believed this was a season of parity and there were no dominant teams. I stated I thought there were 8-10 teams who could knock off anyone (I placed Illinois in that list), buut only 5 who could win it all (Cal, Marquette, Oshkosh, Arizona and maybe Cal Poly). After the tourney I'd change that to Cal, Marquette, Arizona and Oshkosh.
|
|
|
Post by fishman5 on Apr 19, 2005 20:04:20 GMT -5
It is extremely moronic to make a list of teams that have a chance at taking the title. Any team can beat any team on any day, regardless of seeds and how "easy" someones road is. Maybe cal had to play against a bunch of good teams, but if they were the best team in the tourney they would have won the whole thing.
This years final four goes out strictly to the wvc, and the midwest. Great teams beat Great teams everyday, and when it comes down the the top 16 there is no such thing as an upset. If you made it that far you have proven you're legit.
|
|
|
Post by Madlib7 on Apr 19, 2005 20:07:43 GMT -5
Let me throw a thought out there...
What if Arizona did beat Lakeland in the third game between the two? I don't remember exactly how close the game between Marquette and AZ out in San Diego, but lets say Arizona won the matchup last weekend and advanced to the finals. I would also bet that had Oshkosh met Cal-Berk in the semi's on the other side, OK would have come away with the win. Oshkosh was playing very well up until the second game of the final match. Using the same logic as before, I think that Oshkosh would have walked away from the tourney champions.
Given the outcome of the quarters onward, what is the way things "should" have gone? Just outta curiousity, would like to see some feedback on that.
Realistically, its all a giant game of rock-paper-scissors, with the way it fell out. Lakeland's slides were enough to take down Arizona, but then again, what would have happened if it didnt work out that way? There's a lot of speculation that could be done on what would have happened if the outcome of one match or another went the opposite way.
|
|
|
Post by Gordon55M on Apr 19, 2005 20:22:29 GMT -5
My take from Nationals:
Marquette was the best TEAM there. They don't need 1 individual to play out of their minds to win. They do it with their entire team. A CAL-MU match would have been great to watch, but CAL didn't hold their end of the bargin so they are left looking up at Marquette. If they were the better team, they should have found a way to win, simple as that. Great teams find a way to win no matter who they play. No offense to CAL's big middle, he is pretty damn good. But when I watched him he leaves a lot of gaps in the seam. A team with a middle who runs on time and a semi-smart OH shouldn't have too much problems with him. But he was very intimidating I bet to see across the net.
The other thing I realized is how much one play changed the whole tournament. Us(Ball State) had match point against Lakeland in game two and our other OH had a 1-1 and hit it out of bounds and Lakeland came back to beat us in 3. If we had won that point, we would have sent Lakeland to the Silver and IU would have played in the Gold vs. Illinois and we would have drawn Maryland. Granted we realize we were not going to do any damage on Sat. because we had two intoxicated middles and were more or less gased as a team so it really doesn't effect us. But if we win that point, Arizona probably makes it one more round further. I was just amazed at how much one point can make a difference and how much we screwed IU.
Illinois amazed me this weekend as well. We beat them twice in the regular season, but somehow they have a switch they can turn on at nationals and it is amazing. Thier middles finally showed and I think that is what put them ahead of other teams.
My dissapointments with the tournament: -Kansas City being a dump, (My buddy Casey on Arizona got mugged outside my hotel) I will never go back there again, worst place to host nationals. -All Tournament teams...how is it Marquette wins and Oshkosh dominates the all-tournament 1st team. I was also pissed at the setter choice. I may be bias, but our setter Mark Caravello is the only setter other teams probably have to consistantly fear. I thought he deserved at least HM over myself. We had an average team and performed way above our expectations...we did that because he ran our offense to it's advantages. Maybe I am just mad in his last year he got no love at nationals. -Seeds 8-13...Boy, these team's really proved they earned those seeds. No offense to Dayton and Penn State, they did do the best they could with the Silver. I am looking more at the Colorado's, James Madison, and MSU.
Oh well, club ball was fun I wish you all best of the luck in the future and congrats again to Marquette.
|
|