|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 10, 2016 19:13:29 GMT -5
I don't understand your point. USC has been a destination volleyball program for decades. It's not uncommon for USC or for any destination volleyball program to have multiple top recruiting classes  If anything, USC getting talented players is pretty par for the course, now, how those players have worked out for USC is another story all together. IMO. in the last 5 years, the only franchise recruits that are true game changers and have had a lasting impact has been Jupiter, Bricio, and Hagglund. Considering two of them are foreign and thus outside of the normal recruiting arena, I'd say that Mick's overall development has been kind of a disappointment. Falyn was supposed to be the second coming of christ, but her freshmen season certainly wasn't some standout performance, and then we all know she couldn't handle her business off the court she she was a waste of time. Players like Bateman, Shaw, and Olgard are solid for Pac-12 roll players, but they aren't what I would consider elite level players. Ruddins ended up being completely overrated. She went as the #2 overall recruit (would have been #1 had it not been for gods third child Carlini) and she's done next to nothing for USC on the pins, and has had decent success at MB this past year though she rarely had a strong performance against any ranked team. Nwanebu had a fantastic freshmen season but has been riddled with injury the past couple years, not to mention she transferred. Thankfully they realized early that Gillis wasn't going to give them anything and let her go. Still plenty of time left to see how players like Abercrombie, Ford, Johnson and future players like Lanier will shake out...but, like I said, many of USC's top billed recruits haven't really panned out like they should have, IMO. This past year looked great for USC, but how much of that was just from very low expectations because Mick and co. had one of their worst seasons in program history (despite having tons of talent) and the fact that Pac-12 was hit hard with graduation and injuries. Frankly, I think USC will continue to get top recruits, but they need some better results with them. I think being ranked #1 in the nation for most of the season is pretty great whether the prior season was good or bad. Falyn played pretty great her freshman actually. That was when USC was still running the high moon ball offense and she was getting kills with virtually 2 blockers in front of her every time. She was robbed of NFOY, IMO. year to year comparison is where you need to include expectations. Within year comparison is where SOS should be addressed. I'm not saying USC wasn't a strong team last year, but ignoring the lack of comparatively strong teams in the Pac-12 last year is kind of silly. The conference was hit hard with graduation and injury. The reality is that with the graduation/injury of terminal pin players like Vansant, Lowe, Simpson, Kingdon, Dalton, Brenner, Gardner, Burgess the Pac-12 as a conference lacked teams with consistent offense. Stanford, Washington, and UCLA were the only teams in conference that could match USC, and going by conference matchups on the whole, USC might be able to claim a slight advantage over these teams...might. And I never said Falyn's freshmen year was bad, what I said was that it wasn't anything special. There are a number of players who had equal, some better freshmen years. She hit under .250 so she wasn't some one woman wrecking ball all year. Sure she had fantastic games, but it wasn't always consistent and she wasn't anything to write home about in the backrow. Also, none of this matters as she left after her freshmen year, so, again, I put her squarely in the wasted effort for USC category. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Feb 11, 2016 13:01:13 GMT -5
Like most freshmen, Falyn had an inconsistent first year, but was generally quite good. But that ignores the bigger picture at the time: her potential to become a dominant player over the next three years was there for all to see (for comparison's sake: Vansant hit in the .240's her freshman year. But everyone saw the talent beyond the numbers). As for it being a "wasted effort," meh - hindsight is 20/20. Everyone knew there were risks in recruiting FF, but that didn't stop every major program in the country (outside of Stanford) from going after her. And in her one year at USC, she did play a major role in getting them to the Final Four, which is far from a waste.
Personally, I look at USC as a series of "What If's" rather than just label them as underachievers. As in what if FF stayed in school? What if Nwanebu never jacked up her back? We'll never know, but it's quite possible we'd be having an entirely different conversation about USC right now. For sure, things haven't worked out the way Mick planned, but does that equate "underachieving?"
While there is perhaps an argument to made that USC underperformed to some degree in the recent past, there is also a strong argument that the Trojans overachieved in 2015 all the way up to the Kansas match. Sure, they had Bricio back. But they started the season with one experienced middle (Ogoms, who played the entire season dealing with a painful injury. She had a remarkable season, taking all things into account), a pin hitter-recently-turned-middle, shaky setting, no depth, and with freshmen inserted into key roles. And all of that while transitioning to a new offense. Coming into the season, I don't think anyone in the country figured USC as a national championship contender, but they were there right up to a forgettable evening in San Diego.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 11, 2016 15:03:16 GMT -5
Like most freshmen, Falyn had an inconsistent first year, but was generally quite good. But that ignores the bigger picture at the time: her potential to become a dominant player over the next three years was there for all to see (for comparison's sake: Vansant hit in the .240's her freshman year. But everyone saw the talent beyond the numbers). As for it being a "wasted effort," meh - hindsight is 20/20. Everyone knew there were risks in recruiting FF, but that didn't stop every major program in the country (outside of Stanford) from going after her. And in her one year at USC, she did play a major role in getting them to the Final Four, which is far from a waste. Personally, I look at USC as a series of "What If's" rather than just label them as underachievers. As in what if FF stayed in school? What if Nwanebu never jacked up her back? We'll never know, but it's quite possible we'd be having an entirely different conversation about USC right now. For sure, things haven't worked out the way Mick planned, but does that equate "underachieving?" While there is perhaps an argument to made that USC underperformed to some degree in the recent past, there is also a strong argument that the Trojans overachieved in 2015 all the way up to the Kansas match. Sure, they had Bricio back. But they started the season with one experienced middle (Ogoms, who played the entire season dealing with a painful injury. She had a remarkable season, taking all things into account), a pin hitter-recently-turned-middle, shaky setting, no depth, and with freshmen inserted into key roles. And all of that while transitioning to a new offense. Coming into the season, I don't think anyone in the country figured USC as a national championship contender, but they were there right up to a forgettable evening in San Diego. I never said the program "underachieved", I said, given the recruiting pipe, the outcomes have been disappointing. Some of this isn't the program's fault, sh*t happens sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 11, 2016 15:25:34 GMT -5
Like most freshmen, Falyn had an inconsistent first year, but was generally quite good. But that ignores the bigger picture at the time: her potential to become a dominant player over the next three years was there for all to see (for comparison's sake: Vansant hit in the .240's her freshman year. But everyone saw the talent beyond the numbers). As for it being a "wasted effort," meh - hindsight is 20/20. Everyone knew there were risks in recruiting FF, but that didn't stop every major program in the country (outside of Stanford) from going after her. And in her one year at USC, she did play a major role in getting them to the Final Four, which is far from a waste. Personally, I look at USC as a series of "What If's" rather than just label them as underachievers. As in what if FF stayed in school? What if Nwanebu never jacked up her back? We'll never know, but it's quite possible we'd be having an entirely different conversation about USC right now. For sure, things haven't worked out the way Mick planned, but does that equate "underachieving?" While there is perhaps an argument to made that USC underperformed to some degree in the recent past, there is also a strong argument that the Trojans overachieved in 2015 all the way up to the Kansas match. Sure, they had Bricio back. But they started the season with one experienced middle (Ogoms, who played the entire season dealing with a painful injury. She had a remarkable season, taking all things into account), a pin hitter-recently-turned-middle, shaky setting, no depth, and with freshmen inserted into key roles. And all of that while transitioning to a new offense. Coming into the season, I don't think anyone in the country figured USC as a national championship contender, but they were there right up to a forgettable evening in San Diego. Also, on the topic of USC "overachieving" in 2015, I still say "meh" if you say so. I think it's ridiculous to discount the fact that USC came in with low expectations in 2015 BECAUSE 2014 was such cluster f*ck. But my question is why the 2015 team should get any subjectively low expectations because 2014 was so bad. Big things were expected of the 2014 team, they started with a top 5 ranking, but because THAT team failed abysmally, suddenly 2015 should have similar expectations? I call bull. REGARDLESS of who left USC after 2014, the 2015 returned a consensus pre-season POY OH (which gives said team a big advantage in ANY year), a 3 year starting senior setter (who was 2 points away from a final four a couple seasons ago), a returning libero, returning #2 recruit in the country, returning #4 recruit in the country, and an All Pac-12 MB. Lets say 2014 never happened, would you honestly keep a team with the aforementioned accolades out of your preseason top 6 or so? My point is that achievement is largely based on expectations. Expectations were low for USC because 2014 didn't fulfill their expectations. But that doesn't change the fact that 2015 USC had the horses to get the job done at the highest level. Also, looking back on the schedule, USC never faced any top quality competition from the Midwest. Their prominence was largely based on results on the west. And like I said in a previous post, I'm not sure that on the season USC was any distinctively better Washington, Stanford, or perhaps UCLA. Perhaps more consistent/lucky at times, but better? eh....a couple of points here and there against supposedly inferior programs like Colorado, Arizona State (post gardner), and WSU, and USC's record looks a lot different. the entire conference had huge graduation and injury issues. Unlike last year where 5/6 teams had pin hitters EQUAL to Bricio's output, this year with the loss of Vansant, Lowe, Simpson, Kingdon, Gardner, an injured Burgess, I think a legit argument can be made that USC's record is, at least on some part, the fact that their biggest offensive weapon remained intact, while the other teams loss their big guns. I'm in the camp that says team A isn't overachieving because team B isn't as good as they were before. |
|
|
|
Post by eldorado on Feb 11, 2016 17:32:37 GMT -5
Whatever, thread is future for USC, let's get back to that. Last two pages have been painful, was hoping there would be good info on team progress in running that fast Offense, new recruit info etc. Club season really starts this weekend in Utah (yes there's been a few 18s qualifiers) and there are a ton of top schools scheduled to be there including the Trojans. www.triplecrownsports.com/EventInformation/collegeCoaches.asp?sportid=7&tournyid=7096Will Mick be looking for 2018s or maybe it's time for 2019s to start getting looks |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 11, 2016 17:40:09 GMT -5
Whatever, thread is future for USC, let's get back to that. Last two pages have been painful, was hoping there would be good info on team progress in running that fast Offense, new recruit info etc. Club season really starts this weekend in Utah (yes there's been a few 18s qualifiers) and there are a ton of top schools scheduled to be there including the Trojans. www.triplecrownsports.com/EventInformation/collegeCoaches.asp?sportid=7&tournyid=7096Will Mick be looking for 2018s or maybe it's time for 2019s to start getting looks Mick has started looking for 2019s. Doesn't mean he's done with 2018s (or even 2017s). |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 11, 2016 18:05:21 GMT -5
I never said the program "underachieved"................ sh*t happens sometimes. LIKE THE DAWGS CHOKING AGAINST NEBRASKA IN THE REGIONAL FINAL. WOOF WOOF sure |
|
|
|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 11, 2016 21:18:12 GMT -5
maybe USC should just get a 25-year-old player to get a title...:::cough:::
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 11, 2016 21:44:04 GMT -5
maybe USC should just get a 25-year-old player to get a title...:::cough::: Morrison was actually UW's best weapon in the final four, evidenced by her MVP award, nice try though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2016 21:58:12 GMT -5
maybe USC should just get a 25-year-old player to get a title...:::cough::: Morrison was actually UW's best weapon in the final four, evidenced by her MVP award, nice try though. Tomasevic was a first-team all american and Pac 10 Player of the Year, so it's kind of foolish that you're trying to undermine her importance to Washington in 2005. Nice try though. |
|
|
|
Post by bumper2bumper on Feb 11, 2016 23:48:03 GMT -5
Like most freshmen, Falyn had an inconsistent first year, but was generally quite good. But that ignores the bigger picture at the time: her potential to become a dominant player over the next three years was there for all to see (for comparison's sake: Vansant hit in the .240's her freshman year. But everyone saw the talent beyond the numbers). As for it being a "wasted effort," meh - hindsight is 20/20. Everyone knew there were risks in recruiting FF, but that didn't stop every major program in the country (outside of Stanford) from going after her. And in her one year at USC, she did play a major role in getting them to the Final Four, which is far from a waste. Personally, I look at USC as a series of "What If's" rather than just label them as underachievers. As in what if FF stayed in school? What if Nwanebu never jacked up her back? We'll never know, but it's quite possible we'd be having an entirely different conversation about USC right now. For sure, things haven't worked out the way Mick planned, but does that equate "underachieving?" While there is perhaps an argument to made that USC underperformed to some degree in the recent past, there is also a strong argument that the Trojans overachieved in 2015 all the way up to the Kansas match. Sure, they had Bricio back. But they started the season with one experienced middle (Ogoms, who played the entire season dealing with a painful injury. She had a remarkable season, taking all things into account), a pin hitter-recently-turned-middle, shaky setting, no depth, and with freshmen inserted into key roles. And all of that while transitioning to a new offense. Coming into the season, I don't think anyone in the country figured USC as a national championship contender, but they were there right up to a forgettable evening in San Diego. Also, on the topic of USC "overachieving" in 2015, I still say "meh" if you say so. I think it's ridiculous to discount the fact that USC came in with low expectations in 2015 BECAUSE 2014 was such cluster f*ck. But my question is why the 2015 team should get any subjectively low expectations because 2014 was so bad. Big things were expected of the 2014 team, they started with a top 5 ranking, but because THAT team failed abysmally, suddenly 2015 should have similar expectations? I call bull. REGARDLESS of who left USC after 2014, the 2015 returned a consensus pre-season POY OH (which gives said team a big advantage in ANY year), a 3 year starting senior setter (who was 2 points away from a final four a couple seasons ago), a returning libero, returning #2 recruit in the country, returning #4 recruit in the country, and an All Pac-12 MB. Lets say 2014 never happened, would you honestly keep a team with the aforementioned accolades out of your preseason top 6 or so? My point is that achievement is largely based on expectations. Expectations were low for USC because 2014 didn't fulfill their expectations. But that doesn't change the fact that 2015 USC had the horses to get the job done at the highest level. Also, looking back on the schedule, USC never faced any top quality competition from the Midwest. Their prominence was largely based on results on the west. And like I said in a previous post, I'm not sure that on the season USC was any distinctively better Washington, Stanford, or perhaps UCLA. Perhaps more consistent/lucky at times, but better? eh....a couple of points here and there against supposedly inferior programs like Colorado, Arizona State (post gardner), and WSU, and USC's record looks a lot different. the entire conference had huge graduation and injury issues. Unlike last year where 5/6 teams had pin hitters EQUAL to Bricio's output, this year with the loss of Vansant, Lowe, Simpson, Kingdon, Gardner, an injured Burgess, I think a legit argument can be made that USC's record is, at least on some part, the fact that their biggest offensive weapon remained intact, while the other teams loss their big guns. I'm in the camp that says team A isn't overachieving because team B isn't as good as they were before. |
|
|
|
Post by bumper2bumper on Feb 12, 2016 0:17:12 GMT -5
You just don't like USC. The 2015 season was "overachieving" because 1) the team lost 2 top ten recruits to transfer (one of which was the national freshman of the year, the other was thought to make a bigger impact the next season, 2) your back row defensive depth was gone since Anne Marie Schmidt left the program, 3) you now have 3 true freshmen in the rotation, one which is your starting setter, another was an undersized pin hitter who many on VT said wouldn't fit with the moon ball offense, and the other was a DS whom most hadn't heard about, 4)you bring in 2 transfers, one of which switched from basketball, and finally 5) you coach changes up the offensive and defensive schemes. Now based on what the other teams were bringing back....UW - yeah you lost superwoman Vansant and her sidekick Nelson, but you brought back the best MB duo in the conference along with Strickland (Pac12 libero of year), Katy Beals who one can make the argument that had she not gotten hurt at WSU, the Dawgs had a better chance of going to the finals, plus the top five recruiting class who are now sophomores. Stanford - although you lost Inky, you still had the other 3 from that #1 recruiting class and brought in the #1 recruit. ASU - with that depth should have gone a long way, but she got hurt at the HecED in the first set, so everyone got lucky not to face her....including UW when they went to Tempe. UCLA - they lost Lowe and had to use some transfers, but they brought in an All-American honorable mention and first team Big 12 player in Anderson. And Formico was tough in the backrow. Colorado - Simpson graduated, but Bolder is a tough place to play (didn't the Huskies lose twice there the past 2 seasons? Lucky they didn't have to go there in 2015!) So with all of that, I don't think anyone had high expectations for the Trojans.
By the way, for the future, the LA schools only play the Washington schools once each in 2016.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 12, 2016 11:33:27 GMT -5
Morrison was actually UW's best weapon in the final four, evidenced by her MVP award, nice try though. Tomasevic was a first-team all american and Pac 10 Player of the Year, so it's kind of foolish that you're trying to undermine her importance to Washington in 2005. Nice try though. I never said Tomasevic wasn't a great player, obviously she is, but if you are looking for the biggest reason UW won the title, it's not her. Winning the pac 12 or being the best performer in conference is not the same as winning the NC title. 1st team AA is based on season stats. Winning the title is based on who you play for just 6 matches, and in those matches, particularly in the final four, Morrison was UW's top performer. |
|
|
|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 12, 2016 11:41:07 GMT -5
Morrison was actually UW's best weapon in the final four, evidenced by her MVP award, nice try though. Tomasevic was a first-team all american and Pac 10 Player of the Year, so it's kind of foolish that you're trying to undermine her importance to Washington in 2005. Nice try though. ' But you still needed a 25-year-old to help you win the title. We get it. You don't like USC. I know, shocking that you being a Washington fan wouldn't like USC. At least you give it the old college try.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 11:49:26 GMT -5
Tomasevic was a first-team all american and Pac 10 Player of the Year, so it's kind of foolish that you're trying to undermine her importance to Washington in 2005. Nice try though. ' But you still needed a 25-year-old to help you win the title. We get it. You don't like USC. I know, shocking that you being a Washington fan wouldn't like USC. At least you give it the old college try. Think you quoted the wrong person... |
|
