|
|
Post by northbeach on Apr 8, 2006 21:33:32 GMT -5
Game 1: Pepp 30-28
|
|
|
|
Post by northbeach on Apr 8, 2006 21:53:35 GMT -5
Game 2: Pepp 30-22
|
|
|
|
Post by puwave on Apr 8, 2006 22:13:26 GMT -5
Tied 19-19 in Game 3
|
|
|
|
Post by northbeach on Apr 8, 2006 22:23:01 GMT -5
Game 3: Pepp sweeps 30-24
Does anyone know what happened to Patak? He seems to be MIA the last two matches. Eligibility issues?
|
|
|
|
Post by puwave on Apr 8, 2006 22:27:00 GMT -5
Pepp sweeps 30-28, 30-24, 30-24 (after being tied 24-24)
The hitting percentages for Pepp were insane....
Game 1:
Pepp: .531
UCSB: .412
Game 2:
Pepp: .583
UCSB: .100
Game 3:
Pepp: .571
UCSB:.379
|
|
|
|
Post by mikesmith on Apr 9, 2006 11:21:10 GMT -5
Without Patak, that isn't saying much.
|
|
|
|
Post by puwave on Apr 9, 2006 13:23:54 GMT -5
Without Patak, that isn't saying much. I don't think Patak is much of a blocking and digging machine.... |
|
|
|
Post by mikesmith on Apr 9, 2006 13:39:39 GMT -5
He is the best server in the nation... And he is a good blocker. Without Patak, there is no pressure on Pepperdine at all. It's a step up from playing Pacific.
I just thought you shouldn't be so impressed. Against BYU, great. Against UCI, great. Against UH, great. Against UCSB without the best hitter in the nation... Good job.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikesmith on Apr 9, 2006 13:40:32 GMT -5
You should do that. After all, what happened to Pepperdine when he was playing?
|
|
|
|
Post by puwave on Apr 9, 2006 14:22:59 GMT -5
I just don't buy it... Sure UCSB would have definitely been better offensively AND defensively had Patak played, but hitting .560% as a team is great no matter what the opponant.
Pepp's best team hitting percentage for a match this season was .391 (vs. Stanford) early in the season... this is .170 better than that...
According to your reasoning, Pepp should have hit crazy percentages against other "weak" teams, but they were always in the mid .300's....
Also, Pepp's hitting percentage during their 5-game loss to UCSB earlier in the season (w/ Patak) was .374% (2nd highest of the season before last night)
|
|
|
|
Post by swingaway on Apr 9, 2006 21:22:17 GMT -5
Important win for the waves but certainly not impressive without the UCSB's team leader and best player. His presence changes the flow of a game.
Shame on UCSB to allow Patak to become ineligible. Black eye to the program. How can the coaches, department and academic supervisors allow something like that? Wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by D1VBFan on Apr 9, 2006 22:51:45 GMT -5
Important Shame on UCSB to allow Patak to become ineligible. Black eye to the program. How can the coaches, department and academic supervisors allow something like that? Wow. I'm sorry, but I think it's complete bunk to blame the coaches, department and academic supervisors for something like this. We're talking about a young man (21/22) who has been given a free ride to an excellent university in a prime location. Frankly, I don't understand the use of taxpayers dollars for athletic scholarships at all. In any event, let's put the responsiblity for maintaining eligibility where it belongs - on the student! |
|
|
|
Post by wholeinone04 on Apr 9, 2006 23:45:07 GMT -5
It's not to difficult to get a 2.0, especially with the classes he's probably taking, visual arts, womens studies, earth, whatever...
|
|
|
|
Post by puwave on Apr 10, 2006 1:24:22 GMT -5
I'll preface this by saying that I don't know Patak personally at all.... While I do think that the student SHOULD be up on his eligibility and what not, it is reasonable to think that Patak has been given a lot of things while at UCSB (scholarship, social attention, tutors, academic advising help....)... it may be a shock to some of you with more "life experience", but 21 year-olds in today's world are NOT the independent thinking, responsible, self-reliant people that I'm SURE the baby boomers all were.... Why should we assume Patak knew any better?
If Patak received misguided advice from someone in UCSB's Student Affairs Dept and took it, he'd HARDLY be the first American college student finding themselves short on classes, units, credits, pre-reqs after it's too late to change it.... Most can take another term of school, but in Patak's case, you can't defer the volleyball season to the summer...
It's also reasonable for something like this to happen at a place where the volleyball coach who by many accounts makes his own "curious" decisions... I just have a hunch that he doesn't have all his player's academic histories committed to memory...
So yeah, Patak losing eligibility is pathetic on many fronts, but knowing how needy even college kids still are today.... if it's just a "taking the right classes" issue, I put more fault on the coaching staff .... if it's a "failed all his classes" issue, THEN it's on Patak.
|
|
|
|
Post by wholeinone04 on Apr 10, 2006 2:59:43 GMT -5
The only way he would be ineligible this quarter is if he has lower than a 2.0 cumulative GPA. For UC's you only need 12 units per quarter to be eligible, so if you're going to fall below 12, you can wait until 9th week and drop with a W, but then you will be ineligible for the rest of that quarter. You only have to take 36 units per year to be eligible for the next school year, and that 36 units can be done in summer school too. There would be no reason to drop below 12 units this early in a quarter, because you can still add classes, so he must gotten poor grades last quarter, which dropped his cum below a 2.0.
|
|
