|
Post by vbfan on Sept 17, 2004 22:42:33 GMT -5
The parity in college volleyball this year is unreal. It all started with Stanford losing to St. Mary's and then has cascaded with so many other upsets Nebraska to FAMU, USC to Illinois, Illinois to Loyola Chicago, UCLA to Hawaii (mild upset) and UCLA now to Utah. There have been many others but with Minnesota tonight going 5 with Rice anything this year is possible. Anybody speculate on why? More club teams=more good players... Foreign players making average teams good... The AVCA Top 25 this year is a crap shoot. In the past the top teams have usually stayed at the top and have avoided the major upset but with so many unranked teams, beating ranked teams so far this year, it is going to continue to be a wild year.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Sept 17, 2004 22:48:01 GMT -5
I'm gonna get kicked for this, but I think that there is not the same "collections" of top talent at the top 3-4 schools as there have been for the past 2-3 years.
Perhaps due to lack of scholarships at those schools? Perhaps due to better recruiting around the nation?
I will admit that there is also a "changing of the guard" in effect. The powerhouses are losing to teams that they usually don't lose to because of A) better athletes all across the board (bigger, faster, stronger athletes as genetics improve over generations) and B) a highly successful and developing prep program. Plus, you get more people who have had a lot of experience in volleyball getting into coaching, whereas C) 15 years ago, there were not as many athletes who had top program experience able to bring it back and coach at the prep levels.
It's cool... but man, my heart's really feeling it this year! Too many edge-of-the-seaters!
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Sept 17, 2004 22:48:13 GMT -5
I wonder how much the strength and sheer size of the graduating class has to do with the shaky performances of usually reliable programs. Clearly there are a lot of freshmen (including redshirt frosh) starting on many of the top tier programs. There were some pretty good players that graduated this past season ...
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 17, 2004 22:56:47 GMT -5
I think its a good thing to see the upper eschelon teams having competitive matches with and even losing to teams that are traditionally highly ranked.
Hopefully it starts getting more fans into the stands around the country. some additional media outlets start taking notice, and we start getting more coverage in the media as well.
|
|
|
Post by vbfan on Sept 17, 2004 23:07:07 GMT -5
I'm gonna get kicked for this, but I think that there is not the same "collections" of top talent at the top 3-4 schools as there have been for the past 2-3 years. Perhaps due to lack of scholarships at those schools? Perhaps due to better recruiting around the nation? I will admit that there is also a "changing of the guard" in effect. The powerhouses are losing to teams that they usually don't lose to because of A) better athletes all across the board (bigger, faster, stronger athletes as genetics improve over generations) and B) a highly successful and developing prep program. Plus, you get more people who have had a lot of experience in volleyball getting into coaching, whereas C) 15 years ago, there were not as many athletes who had top program experience able to bring it back and coach at the prep levels. It's cool... but man, my heart's really feeling it this year! Too many edge-of-the-seaters! Very perceptive but most of the top teams graduated only one or two players from last year although some of those players were go to players, (Ross, Olsovsky/USC) (Busse/Minnesota) (Nebraska/No one of significance) (Wilkens/Pepperdine) (Cruz, Jenkins/Florida) etc... What is the most stunning this year is Hawaii being as good as they are after losing 5 starters. I think people kind of wrote them off this year as being a 15-20 team but they are proving they are still a legit top 10. It will be interesting to see how the CAL match turns out.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Sept 17, 2004 23:10:38 GMT -5
Very perceptive but most of the top teams graduated only one or two players from last year although some of those players were go to players, (Ross, Olsovsky/USC) (Busse/Minnesota) (Nebraska/No one of significance) (Wilkens/Pepperdine) (Cruz, Jenkins/Florida) etc... What is the most stunning this year is Hawaii being as good as they are after losing 5 starters. I think people kind of wrote them off this year as being a 15-20 team but they are proving they are still a legit top 10. It will be interesting to see how the CAL match turns out. But of those one-two players (Kim Willoughby/Lily Kahumoku omitted, by the way ) They were starters for years! They didn't give other players as much time to develop on these top 3-4 teams, even though they were highly recruited and very gifted athletes coming into the program, they don't necesarily have as much experience as the lesser recruited players who've been playing while they were sitting. Perhaps a drawback to the super-loading is unfolding? Time will only tell.
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Sept 17, 2004 23:14:55 GMT -5
But of those one-two players (Kim Willoughby/Lily Kahumoku omitted, by the way ) They were starters for years! They didn't give other players as much time to develop on these top 3-4 teams, even though they were highly recruited and very gifted athletes coming into the program, they don't necesarily have as much experience as the lesser recruited players who've been playing while they were sitting. Perhaps a drawback to the super-loading is unfolding? Time will only tell. Same can be said for USC with Ross, Anderson, Olsovsky starting for four years Aury Cruz starting for four years, how many did Benavia and Jackie start? The one big thing that Stanford has always had was a formidable block but they have been hampered this season because Stanford had two middles graduate that had most all of the playing time for the last 2-3 years.
|
|
|
Post by Sandybeach on Sept 17, 2004 23:26:21 GMT -5
I think it is more attibutable to the club system rather the foreign players, although, in isolated situations, foreign players have, and will continue to play a dominant role for some teams that would otherwise be mediocre. Because of the club system, the college players have played against each other for years in tournements all over the country before they get to college and are used to seeing each other play. They are not "awed" by each other anymore. I think it also has to do with some pretty good college players now ending up coaching high school and club teams. They are doing a better job of preparing the girls for college than the former "walkon" coaches. But the really BIG factors that tip the scales when physical talent becomes fairly equal, as it is now, is mental toughness, chemistry and motivation. Those become HUGE factors, and are what I think has caused some many upsets. Another factor is the so-called "rating" system that everyone seems to hang their hat on. The so-called "Fab-50" ratings, to me, is a farce. It is evident now that there are more "fabulous" players that 50 in the US -- and having one or more of them does NOT guarantee success, because of -- the intangibles that I mention above -- mental toughness, chemistry and motivation. These factors might be JUST right on a girl's club or high school team -- which helps elevate her team to the top which makes her highly visible. When she gets in college, it is a different group and all these factors may neurtalize her athletic talents. However, an average girl an a mediorcr club or high school team may get on a college team where the chemistry and motivation and all the other intangibles are high and she contributes to making the team a winner. There are so many intangibles when the physical factors are in parity that I think THESE are the differences people are seeing this year. ;D
|
|
|
Post by foreignball on Sept 17, 2004 23:30:32 GMT -5
.... (Cruz, Jenkins/Florida) etc... Last season Florida lost four starters: the above 2 plus Mandes (Libero) and Robinson (RS). Generally nobody even speaks about Liberos (exception to Gentil and Zartman) but Mandes was quite good. Robinson had best F4 performance from all team FL.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Sept 17, 2004 23:33:58 GMT -5
Cruz, Jenkins, Robinson and Mandes were 4 year starters, when healthy, in the case of Benavia and Jacque. More than they miss the offense they provided, they miss the passing that Mandes and Cruz provided. That's 2/3 of their passing gone. It has affected them early this season.
|
|
|
Post by Sandybeach on Sept 17, 2004 23:51:48 GMT -5
I think another factor is Rally Scoring. Once a "weaker" team gets a reasonable lead, it is very tough to overcome that especially if the weaker team is a reasonably good side out team. It would be interesting to see how many games are actually won by a losing team that is behind by 5 points when the leading team gets to 20 points. Of course, it happens, and I can think of games where I have seen it, but, if my instincts are correct, I think it is rare. Another factor that is new is the Libero. Teams with good/great Liberos change the complex of the game dramatically. Conversely, those "good" teams with a bad to mediocre libero often get upset. ;D
|
|
|
Post by spikethis on Sept 18, 2004 2:23:52 GMT -5
Now, I might be totally wrong with this one. I think maybe a little factor might be the economical situation. Hence, a really good player will rather go to a decent volleyball program on a full ride than a great volleyball problem on a partial scholarship. Again, maybe a little too far fetched, but here it is.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Sept 18, 2004 9:48:56 GMT -5
Now, I might be totally wrong with this one. I think maybe a little factor might be the economical situation. Hence, a really good player will rather go to a decent volleyball program on a full ride than a great volleyball problem on a partial scholarship. Again, maybe a little too far fetched, but here it is. I don't think this is an issue on the women's side. Basically all the top programs offer full ride scholarships to essentially all their recruits (Hawaii might be an exception with their larger squad of local walkons) since they can carry 12 scholarship players. If anything, I think this would contribute to less parity overall.
|
|
|
Post by UCSBVball on Sept 18, 2004 12:52:38 GMT -5
Look at UCSB – a freshman/sophomore team for the most part. The marvel of it is (for me) having watched several un-ranked East Coast teams play this year the level of play I saw would have made them contenders (for the top 25) 5 or 10 years ago. I agree the club system has contributed highly to the talent pool. With the possibility of a scholarship, more and more parents getting their daughters involved in all sports. The main problem I see is the lack of fan support at many schools. Maybe there should be tailgate parties before the matches and home coming bonfires. ;D
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Sept 18, 2004 14:04:23 GMT -5
The main problem I see is the lack of fan support at many schools. Maybe there should be tailgate parties before the matches and home coming bonfires. ;D Does UCSB do this? What a great idea!! Pre-VolleyBall SOCIALS!! I like it, I like it, I like it. Someone with a solid following should try this and see how it helps attendance!
|
|