Boy's FAB 50 for 2003, Volleyball Magazine

[Theory of relativity]

Remember Idaho-Boy that of the 315 DI Girls teams about 250 are simply not good teams ....maybe I exagerate but come on. Most of the DI teams on the Girls side are weak.

I would rather watch a JV girls basketball game...Puke....oh don't get me started on Girls basketball....the most overrated , overexposed waste of money sport out there.


But I digress.

Look any exposure that the men's game get is deserved and needed.

[Napolean took arsenic]

Taking a look at the SCVA point standing for this year. The LBC with soooooo many guys on the fab 50 aren't in 1st. Also 8 of the top 20 from cali are 17's teams proving the point that this is not a deep California class of Seniors.

I remember 5 years ago at Nationals when the Pace team took LAAC to 3 games in the Finals. They only did it with one ...actually maybe no players ont eh Fab 50 as the top Pace Player was from Canada (PSU's Kolesar)

I also don't buy the arguement of last July's results of Nationals as being the greatest element of consideration for the Fab 50.

1. Some 17's last year were playing up
2. Some players peaked (I can think of a couple LBC players
3. Some Mid-West and Eastern players are just coming into their own
4. Some phenomenal Athletes are on weak teams.
5. Many factors that must be considered

Players get better and some remain just good HS players.


1 SCVC Kaepa 18Blue 1 400 370 760 1530
2 Balboa Bay 18Blue 4 360 360 800 1520
3 Central Cal 18Gold 2 380 400 740 1520
4 LBC 18 3 370 360 700 1430
5 SCVC Kaepa 17Blue 8 310 380 700 1390
6 Balboa Bay 17Blue 7 320 340 700 1360
7 SMBC 181 9 300 290 740 1330
8 Seaside 18Blk 12 285 300 700 1285
9 LBC 17 5 350 320 600 1270
10 Surf City 18Gold 6 340 320 600 1260
11 Classic 18Blk 10 295 295 600 1190
12 Balboa Bay 18Wht 11 290 270 600 1160
13 TVA18Troy 13 280 275 550 1105
14 SDVBC 181 20 255 250 540 1045
15 Surf City 17Gold 15 270 270 490 1030
16 SMBC 171 28 235 235 540 1010
17 Balboa Bay 18Red 19 255 255 490 1000
18 SDVBC 171 18 260 250 480 990
19 Seaside 17Green 35 215 230 540 985
20 Balboa Bay 17Wht 24 245 260 480 985


Hey....its all good

[My 2 Sense]

IdahoBoy™ said:

Does anyone think that maybe the Boys' Fab 50 should be more like the Boys' Fab 10? I ask because there are only about 30-40 D1 NCAA teams, right? Even if there were 50, each team would be ABLE to have at least one Fab player. On the girls' side, there are over 315 NCAA D1 teams. A Fab 50 player at that level is much more sparce. I think a Fab 50 for Boys' is a little too much, they should cut it back proportionally or make it a fab 500 for the girls'. Thank you.

With 315 girls teams multiplied by 12 schollarships they already have enough advantages over the boys. Why feed their egos more. This has NOTHING to do with the girls. Leave them out of it, for once. This sport has been decemated enough.

There are only 21 D-1 Mens' teams. There certainly are 50 deserving boys in the country, and the list isn't a projection of boys who are supposed to make it big in college. It's a list of the 50 best boys in high school. Period. No one says you have to project future play. It's about rewarding those boy's from their high school play.

[My 2 Sense]

StanfordFan said:

One thing though, if you read Erin Pryor's intro piece in this issue (she's the managing editor or something like that), it sounds like Volleyball Magazine compiled the list themselves with virtually no experience or personal knowledge of the boys' prep scene themselves. If I recall, she says she started the process of compiling the FAB 50 by calling around to a bunch of coaches.

Sometimes, I wish the new staff of Volleyball Magazine would just admit they really don't know that much about the sport, and commission people who really do to work on some of these FAB 50 type projects. I'd bet Bookumdano, VBCrusin, and a few others on this board could put together a much more accurate list.

I totally agree. And I'd have a man who is close to the boy's national scene do it. I was going to see if they started with the USA VB High Performance teams lists but didn't get around to comparing. That's where I'd have started. Then J.O.s All Tournament team lists, then All C.I.F. and All State in the "hot bed" states, then filled in with some opinions of the D-1 program coaches who scout the kids and put their careers on the line when they recruit the players.

Also, it was dissapointing to not have the annual article and spotlights that they usually have. This was just a list. The editorial creativity was lacking, obviously. At least they didn't put a woman on the cover, and spelled "Boy's Fab 50" properly.

They've put up the list by the way on their site. Here's the URL:
www.volleyballmag.com/images/boys-fab50-03.html

[OC Homer]

What has been lost is the credibility that former editior Jon Hastings spent many years building. With the move of the editorial offices to the east coast and a rookie editor we can expect more of the same. On the other hand, the added midwest and east coast exposure, deserved or not, can only be good for the overall growth of the sport. In the long run this will benefit everyone, even SoCal, the heart and soul of the sport, and the place where the best Mens/Boys VBall is played, Club, High School, College and Beach.

[sweetieVBfan]

Guest-My said:

There are only 21 D-1 Mens' teams. There certainly are 50 deserving boys in the country, and the list isn't a projection of boys who are supposed to make it big in college. It's a list of the 50 best boys in high school. Period. No one says you have to project future play. It's about rewarding those boy's from their high school play.

i totally agree. it doesn't really matter how well previous fab50s have done in college. this is about high school - how well the played there. college is a totally different atmopshere, and there are so many factors that could change their play. but this list is about exactly what My 2 Sense said.

[My 2 Sense]

Guest-Midwest said:

Out of last year's Fab 50, who do you think was overrated or even underrated?

I'd have to start with Pat Nihipali being the most overrated player, seeing how he was #2 on the list and didn't even play at all this year.

Mr. Midwest, don't feed your underfed ego by bashing others. If you'd followed Nihipali's year this year you'd know he has had a respiratory problem all year long that started in the fall and has just recently gotten better, has lost weight and hasn't even practiced, and has gotten a medical redshirt because of it. You owe him an apology, and you owe it to yourself to post responsibly.

No one can say Nihipali is not deserving of his Fab 50 ranking from his HS play last year. He was certainly in the top tier, was CIF champion and player of the year, and was a starter on the USA Junior National Team.

[Rollshot]

I think everyone is in agreement that (1) there are lots of different approaches you could take to generate the list, and (2) no list is perfect.

Having said that, I would do the following:

1. The first and most important rule is, no writer should ever be in a position to judge volleyball talent. I don't care what background you have, a writer simply does not have the knowledge nor the wherewithall to judge talent and potential. We see players perform on the court and only for 3 or 4 games at best. Coaches see players every single day. So, bottom line, a writer should not include or exclude a name for the list based on his personal opinion. This is the most important rule.

2. Start with USA volleyball. Theoretically, they know the vb talent around the country (or they should). Talk to Colin first and then he would send you off to several coaches who have been associated with USA volleyball (like John Speraw, etc). Talk to these coaches.

3. Get a list of the final finishes in USA Junior Nationals from 1 to 32. Contact the club coaches from these clubs, including the ones from Puerto Rico -- hey, do your job and pay for the long distance charge.

4. Go through the list of names that keep coming up. Process them in your head. Alternatively, use a point system - 10 for the top #1 kid, 9 for the next kid at #2, 8 for #3 kid, 7 for #4 kid, and so on. When you get to kids 10 through 30, give them all 1 pt because hell, how do you really distinguish between kid #10 and kid #30. For kid #31-50, give them all 0.5 pts.

5. Contact all 21 Men's collegiate vb coaches. It can't be too hard.

6. Again, go through the list of names that keep coming up. Process them in your head. Alternatively, tally the points.

7. Generate a list of 75-100 kids.

8. Here's the fun part. Generate the Fab 50 list as follows: 70% solid players based on solid undisputed potential (according to coaches), 20% based on high school/club performance regardless of potential, and 10% sleepers (this is the fun stuff ... who do you think is deserving based on your convos with coaches even though some coaches never mentioned them or heard of them?).

9. If you use the point system, forget about the % distribution above.

Ultimately, you have to talk to about 50+ coaches (to the extent possible). Overkill? Maybe but at least you can't be accused of being less than thorough. A Fab 50 list based on convos with 50+ coaches is so much better than a Fab 50 list based on convos with 5 coaches.

You really can't go wrong with this method. At the very least, you will have built up a solid network of vb coaches across the country with whom you can work with in the future as a valuable resource.

If you're going to do a job, you should do a GOOD job. Otherwise, let someone else do it.

[IdahoBoy]

So you DO have a formula! I KNEW IT!

Here's the fun part. Generate the Fab 50 list as follows: 70% solid players based on solid undisputed potential (according to coaches), 20% based on high school/club performance regardless of potential, and 10% sleepers (this is the fun stuff ... who do you think is deserving based on your convos with coaches even though some coaches never mentioned them or heard of them?).

[Rollshot]

No formula. It's what they should have done if they thought about it. (I will entertain the possibility that they thought about it already) I came up with the %'s just now. On second thought, let's change it to 60-20-20.

[Angriffe]

EAST
Bill Freesmeir 6'3 S - RVC Way overated- Going to George Mason. Chao is not a good recruiter
Joe Klein 6'1 S - Eden - Northridge needs a setter. Could have a steal with both him and Rhodes. Two of the best athletes out there.
Dan Rhodes 6'5 OH - RVC CSUN - Great pick up for Cambbell.
Jay Sawicki 6'4 OH - Warren PSU- Need a redshirt and training
Graham Sheppard 6'4 OH - RVC- Big and strong going to Mason. Raw
Aaron Smith 6'6 OH - RVC PSU - Not a bad pickup for Pav

Puerto Rico
Julio Acevedo 6'2 S Torrimar UCLA - Smooth as silk

MIDWEST
Drew Adams 6'5 OH adversity - Stiff swing
James Grunst 6'7 MB NorthShore - Will pan out in 3 years
Brian Guntli 6'4 OPP
Alex Gutor 6'3 OH Addison PSU - Major Hops - Will be impact player
Mitch Hazelett 6'5 S
Thomas Hulse 6'7 MB Adversity PEPP- The well is still full for Dunphy out in the midwest
Sam Kim 5'10 L Adversity- overated - Swings OH for Club but really needs to focus on Libero from now on.
Kyle Masterson 6'8 adversity MH - Slow but size matters
Nick meyer 6'8 MB Cin Attack -
Ian Peckler OH Adversity - Nice Player
Ed Ryan 6'5 MB Premier Quincy - Well trained and effective. Smart.
Brett Versen 6'5 OH Northcoast OSU - Not impressed
Doug willman 6'8 MB BSU - Typical BSU player. Not explosive
Andrew Zabeck 6'4 OH Quincy

WEST
Brian Beckwith - 6'4 S Balboa Bay - Hawaii - Competitve nature is a question
Jon Bergmann - 6'6 OH - Central Cal - Underated
Ben Brockman - 5'8 L
Jared Dayton - 6'5 OH
Brooks Dierdorff - 6'3 S UCSD
Jack Hauck - 6'0 S
Taylor Hein - 6'2 OH Irvine
Norm Hutton - 6'5 MB Long Beach
Jayson Jablosky - 6'4 Irvine
Eric Jones - 6'8 MB Stanford
Tyler Jones - MB Utah -??
Brett Kahout - 6'4 MB - Irvine
Steve Klosterman - 6'7 - LBC - UCLA - Real deal
Justin May 6'6 - Long Beach
Chad Miller - Outrigger
Brandon Mortenson - 6'1 OH
John Parfitt - 6'7 MB - Pepp
Brett Reid - S Irvine
Jeff Robinson - Las Vegas - ??
Jake Schkud - 6'5 MB - UCSB
Tim Schnieder - 6'0 S
Josh Schwarzapel - 6'5 OPP - Stanford
Garret Smith - 6'6 MB -
Andy stewart - 6'6 OH Utah - ??
Tanner Sutherland 6'3 - LBC - Pepp
Eric Vincent - 6'7 - MB Arizona Primitive
Ryan Walthal - 6'2 -S
Matt Weber - 6'5 Irvine
Jacob Wiens - 6'3 UCSB - Top OH






UCLA has the top recruits in Acevado and Klosterman,

I AGREE

UCSB in my mind is 2nd with a great catch in Wiens and Schkud.

AGAIN I AGREE

Pepp is 3rd with solid players in Hulse and Parfit.....still I think they needed to pick up a setter but I'm sure they will go after the Balboa 17's setter as will many schools.

YEP, BUT IS NORTHRIDGE PICKS UP THE eASTERN SETTER KID COUPLED WITH THE 6'10 KID FROM HOUSTON AND THE HAMMER FROM NORTHRIDGE, THEY COULD MOVE UP.

But of course this is on paper and we know that some players are not even close to peaking.

Top Players by position are the following:

SETTERS
Acevedo
Beckwith
Klein

OUTSIDE HITTERS
Kostermann
Wiens
Rhodes
Sutherland

OPPOSITES
Schwarzapel
May
Weber

MIDDLE BLOCKERS
Hulse
Parfitt
Schkud
Hutton
Willmann

[Guest]

Where have you seen all of these players compete?...just curious to see what you are basing your opinions on.

[FOGETABOUTIT]

Wow, those east coast and midwest guys must be really be studs. Adversity and RVC must be favored to win JO's with all that talent. Where were they last year? Eden came out here in Jan. for the MLK tourney and could do no better than 9th, finishing behind cali teams that had few or no Flub 50 players. The list is a joke. Fogetaboutit.

[Angriffe]

Much of it is based on last years JO's, this years Great Lakes Festival, the PSU invite and the results that I read on the SCVC website....and admittedly chatter among coaches people like you.

The RVC team had most guys playing up in 18's and the setter and rhodes kid played on Coastal last year. They are very physical.

The Adversity is very big and talented. Has had a dominant season thus far and drew alot of attention from almost every DI program and came in 5th last year.

The Eden team lost to a 17's team that has beaten almost every 18's team at one point this year and I think won a tourney outright.

The Premier SPRI, Northshore have significant players and will do damge at this years JO's. If you haven't notice take a look how many kids on the HP lists are coming form the Midwest.


Look..... the Cali Senior class is NOT STRONG and with Torrimar not coming I predict the National Championship will be earned by a Non-California team!

The lock of ALL the top players coming exclusively from California has been broken for quite a while now gentlemen. The college coaches know this. Why can't you admit this.

[My 2 Sense]

Guest-Angriffe said:

The lock of ALL the top players coming exclusively from California has been broken for quite a while now gentlemen. The college coaches know this. Why can't you admit this.

I don't see anyone using the word "exclussive." Certainly many are from Cali.

Any non-cali teams need to walk the talk before thinking they're going to mine gold in AZ, as usual.