|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 22, 2014 18:09:14 GMT -5
I forgot about Gonazaga. Savannah Blinn is putting up very quality numbers (over 5 points per set, .330%) she should be in solid contention for a spot. It really is unfair to all the conferences in the Pacific leagues. almost all of these players would almost surely land on a regional team in pretty much every other region. well, there may be a bottle-neck of quality players in the pacific north this year, but overall the realignment of the AVCA regions last year favored the pac-12. it may be more accurate to say that the realignment is "unfair to all conferences in the pacific regions that are not the pac-12." last year, the pac-12 got 16 selections on the region teams between the pacific north and pacific south regions (not counting HM selections). that's a whole "region team" essentially that the pac-12 has all to itself, and then some. "unfair" may not be the best word ... a lot of quality players from the pac-12, of course. but the realignment certainly benefits the pac-12, as it splits the conference into different regions, which then opens the door to more pac-12 selections. and mid-majors and all other conferences getting fewer. incidentally, the realignment greatly favors the power conferences in general. the big-10, having less competition from other quality conferences in its regions, took up all spots in the north region, and all but 2 spots in the northeast region. that's 26 of 28 region selections! i'm not sure how this discrepancy is remedied, unless as someone mentioned already ... the AVCA moves away from it's current format for selecting its honorees. Well I did say that the realignment is now BETTER than in years' past and does favor the power conferences...but the Pac-12 in both the Pacific North and South have more competition, whereas the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC essentially get two whole regionals to themselves whereas the Pac-12 does not. As far as a remedy? well it's simple, get rid of regional selection all together, or, at the very least, make the completely arbitrary regions more balanced in terms of which teams are in it.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Oct 22, 2014 19:02:24 GMT -5
If I was making a team, the players from the PAC (conference I've watxhed the most matches from) on the first team would be LOWE, Vansant, sybeldon, inky, bugg and boukather. Lutz maybe, but again, she is a frosh and her blocking numbers aren't great. Players on the second team would be lutz, brenner, bricio, KingDon, Simpson Third team I would have scambray, Gardner and gilbert. No Burgess? You win a membership in the Mick Haley Poll Voting and Team Selection Hall of Fame... er, Shame. Whatever. Baseball poll voters are finally recognizing that players actually play defense as well as offense. When will volleyball poll voters do the same for those who play six rotations? Tell me how many people in the Pac-12 are more valuable six-rotation hitters than Burgess. My list has one name: Vansant. If Bricio were having last season this season, she'd be on it too... but she isn't. I think Inky and either Bugg or Burgess will be first-team A-A's (and the other second-team A-A)... perhaps even all three.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Oct 22, 2014 19:15:49 GMT -5
If I was making a team, the players from the PAC (conference I've watxhed the most matches from) on the first team would be LOWE, Vansant, sybeldon, inky, bugg and boukather. Lutz maybe, but again, she is a frosh and her blocking numbers aren't great. Players on the second team would be lutz, brenner, bricio, KingDon, Simpson Third team I would have scambray, Gardner and gilbert. No Burgess? You win a membership in the Mick Haley Poll Voting and Team Selection Hall of Fame... er, Shame. Whatever. Baseball is finally recognizing that players actually play defense as well as offense. When will volleyball do the same for those who play six rotations? Tell me how many people in the Pac-12 are more valuable six-rotation hitters than Burgess. My list has one name: Vansant. If Bricio were having last season this season, she'd be on it too... but she isn't. I'm a huge Cardinal fan, but I don't think Burgess is having an AA season. She definitely CAN, and she has been improving, but as of now, I don't think she will be
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 22, 2014 19:39:58 GMT -5
well, there may be a bottle-neck of quality players in the pacific north this year, but overall the realignment of the AVCA regions last year favored the pac-12. it may be more accurate to say that the realignment is "unfair to all conferences in the pacific regions that are not the pac-12." last year, the pac-12 got 16 selections on the region teams between the pacific north and pacific south regions (not counting HM selections). that's a whole "region team" essentially that the pac-12 has all to itself, and then some. "unfair" may not be the best word ... a lot of quality players from the pac-12, of course. but the realignment certainly benefits the pac-12, as it splits the conference into different regions, which then opens the door to more pac-12 selections. and mid-majors and all other conferences getting fewer. incidentally, the realignment greatly favors the power conferences in general. the big-10, having less competition from other quality conferences in its regions, took up all spots in the north region, and all but 2 spots in the northeast region. that's 26 of 28 region selections! i'm not sure how this discrepancy is remedied, unless as someone mentioned already ... the AVCA moves away from it's current format for selecting its honorees. Well I did say that the realignment is now BETTER than in years' past and does favor the power conferences...but the Pac-12 in both the Pacific North and South have more competition, whereas the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC essentially get two whole regionals to themselves whereas the Pac-12 does not. As far as a remedy? well it's simple, get rid of regional selection all together, or, at the very least, make the completely arbitrary regions more balanced in terms of which teams are in it. right ... and i was merely pointing out that when you said it's "unfair" to all conferences in the pacific regions, the term "unfair" is really intended differently depending on the conference. what i'm saying is this ... it's unfair to the mid-major and below conferences in that they get squeezed out of some selections/recognition for their players which they would've otherwise rec'd under the old system, so that the pac-12 and other "power" conferences can get more. and what i'm also hearing is this ... it's also apparently unfair to the pac-12, because although they get more honorees under this new realignment, it's not as many as the big 10 (and others) are getting in their realigned regions. so yes, it's "unfair" ... but there are shades and degrees to it.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 22, 2014 20:18:41 GMT -5
ANNNNNYWAY, my point here was that if somebody really seriously wants to predict who will be on the AA list (as opposed to who *should* be on the list), then you have to consider the regional selections. There are certainly some players who might be AA-level players who get frozen out of their regional list, which means they won't even have a shot at the AA teams. The discussion above about Lutz is a prime example. It's possible she won't get onto the regional team, which would mean no AA team as well.
As far as I can tell, the only reason the program is structured the way it is is because it simplifies the life of the AVCA. Rather than having to look at all the volleyball players in America, they only have to look at a select list of those who are on the regional teams.
IMO, there should at least be as many players on each regional list as 1/2 the available slots in the final list. I can buy the argument that no region is going to have 100% of the legitimate AAs, but I think it is actually possible that a single region might have as many as 1/2 of them. They shouldn't be arbitrarily limited to only possibly filling 1/3 of the national list.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 22, 2014 20:22:02 GMT -5
Oh, and to azvb, yes, the coaches have to provide a nomination of the players to get on the regional lists. They also have to provide video if they want the players to be considered for the national lists. And they have to cast a vote, or else any players on their own team are automatically excluded. All these rules are available for reading on the AVCA website.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Oct 22, 2014 20:33:46 GMT -5
They did choose two liberos last year: Gilbert and Orlandini, although Orlandini was likely one of the at-large picks. Might have bumped Burgess to honorable mention. with so many quality front row players this year, I don't think we'll see a second libero this year. Benson's stats really aren't that great even if she passes the eye test, and the other libero's on the top teams Washington/CSU, are certainly not All regional worthy. Speaking of passing and Benson ... that girl passes nails when she is on. No wonder teams try their best to avoid serving her.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 22, 2014 21:52:10 GMT -5
Pacific North:
Hitting% (Blocks/Set):
1. Merete Lutz MB Stanford .481 (1.07) 3. Inky Ajanaku MB Stanford .472 (1.23) 10. Maddy O'Donnell MB Boise St .421 (1.08) 14. Laura Beach MB Wyoming .419 (0.99) 18. Erin Kirby MB Wyoming .416 (1.30) 19. Kaitlyn Oliver MB Boise St .415 (0.79) 21. Lianna Sybeldon MB Washington .409 (1.67) 25. Olivia Magill MB Hawaii .400 (1.49)
Kills (Points)/Set:
7. Savannah Blinn OH Gonzaga 4.86 (5.32) +.46 15. Krista Vansant OH Washington 4.54 (5.17) +.63 30. Audry Biggs OH Weber St 4.23 (4.70) +.47 34. Mary-Kate Marshall OH Oregon St 4.19 (4.65) +.46 57. Emily Liger OH Portland 3.96 (4.55) +.59 60. Sierra Nobley OH Boise St 3.90 (4.41) +.51 (tie) Kaylin Squyres MB UC Davis 3.90 (4.40) +.50 73. Lexi Elman OH Pacific 3.76 (4.33) +.57
As to the fairness issue, one of the problems is differences in conference RPI. A player in the Big Sky doesn't face the same level of competition as one in the Pac-12. One option might be to allocate All-American nominations per conference RPI, with the All-Region teams composed of those nominations.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Oct 22, 2014 22:09:13 GMT -5
Oh, and to azvb, yes, the coaches have to provide a nomination of the players to get on the regional lists. They also have to provide video if they want the players to be considered for the national lists. And they have to cast a vote, or else any players on their own team are automatically excluded. All these rules are available for reading on the AVCA website. Thanks, Mike for doing the research for me. I assume Coach Watson will not make that mistake again. Am I correct in assuming you cannot be on a Region team if your team didn't make the tourney? Therefore, no AA's from a non tourney team?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 22, 2014 22:44:40 GMT -5
Am I correct in assuming you cannot be on a Region team if your team didn't make the tourney? Therefore, no AA's from a non tourney team? No, I don't think there is any such rule. Didn't see anything like that, anyway.
|
|