|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 12, 2016 12:04:51 GMT -5
' 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... aha, sorry on the context...I always like ay's back-handed "I'm not saying anything bad about USC...however..." posts....
|
|
|
Post by bumper2bumper on Feb 12, 2016 14:18:25 GMT -5
By the way, for the future, the LA schools only play the Washington schools once each in 2016. You sure about this? It was terrible that Stanford did not play at the Galen Center last season. Pretty sure. When both Colorado and Utah joined the Pac-10 in 2011, the conference played 22 games. But to help with the league and team RPI's, they went to a 20 game schedule starting in 2012. That year, SC played the Oregon schools once each. In 2013, they played the Mtn. schools once each, 2014 the Arizona's once each, and this past season the Bay area's once each. So that leaves the Washington schools for next season.
|
|
|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 12, 2016 14:48:36 GMT -5
You sure about this? It was terrible that Stanford did not play at the Galen Center last season. Pretty sure. When both Colorado and Utah joined the Pac-10 in 2011, the conference played 22 games. But to help with the league and team RPI's, they went to a 20 game schedule starting in 2012. That year, SC played the Oregon schools once each. In 2013, they played the Mtn. schools once each, 2014 the Arizona's once each, and this past season the Bay area's once each. So that leaves the Washington schools for next season. correct, the coaches did that to get away from the double round-robin format...
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Feb 12, 2016 16:29:07 GMT -5
By the way, for the future, the LA schools only play the Washington schools once each in 2016. You sure about this? It was terrible that Stanford did not play at the Galen Center last season. I'm looking forward to it in 2016 ... but I hope it isn't on a Wednesday night; otherwise hard for me to attend in person.
|
|
|
Post by bumper2bumper on Feb 12, 2016 16:36:32 GMT -5
By the way, for the future, the LA schools only play the Washington schools once each in 2016. You sure about this? It was terrible that Stanford did not play at the Galen Center last season. Big fan....I was trying to respond to your comment about the double round robin but for some reason your post disappeared...don't know what happened....must have been something I did, so I'm sorry about that!
But as I was saying, I agree that the teams should play each other twice. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the NCAA gives each team so many weeks to schedule their non-conference games, then their conference matches. Because the Pac-12 plays a 22 game round robin conference schedule, they might not have schedule as many non-conference games as other conferences. In 2011, SC finished the season #1 in AVCA poll, but because of the "bad lose" at UCF early in the season which hurt their RPI, they were only seeded as the 7th seed for the tourney. Haley wasn't happy about the seeding (probably other coaches as well), so I believe that the conference decided that beginning with the 2012 season, they would play 20 conference matches so that each team could possibly schedule a few more non-conference games to help increase their RPI.....sorry again for the issue with your post!
|
|
|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 13, 2016 0:22:44 GMT -5
You sure about this? It was terrible that Stanford did not play at the Galen Center last season. Big fan....I was trying to respond to your comment about the double round robin but for some reason your post disappeared...don't know what happened....must have been something I did, so I'm sorry about that!
But as I was saying, I agree that the teams should play each other twice. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the NCAA gives each team so many weeks to schedule their non-conference games, then their conference matches. Because the Pac-12 plays a 22 game round robin conference schedule, they might not have schedule as many non-conference games as other conferences. In 2011, SC finished the season #1 in AVCA poll, but because of the "bad lose" at UCF early in the season which hurt their RPI, they were only seeded as the 7th seed for the tourney. Haley wasn't happy about the seeding (probably other coaches as well), so I believe that the conference decided that beginning with the 2012 season, they would play 20 conference matches so that each team could possibly schedule a few more non-conference games to help increase their RPI.....sorry again for the issue with your post!
You are correct. That is the reason the coaches made the move.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 13, 2016 1:05:43 GMT -5
Think you quoted the wrong person... aha, sorry on the context...I always like ay's back-handed "I'm not saying anything bad about USC...however..." posts.... I have no animosity toward USC, they are in the pac 12 which I have proven my allegiance to. But that doesn't stop me from posting what I see is the reality which are a number of overrated top 5 recruits (Olegard, Ruddins, Gillis...perhaps Abercrombie?), some recruits who could have been great franchise players, who left (FF, Nwanebu), and some players who shouldered a big load, but we're nothing special (pretty much all their setters in the last 5 years, Fuller, to some extent Williams). I'm fully on board with the *what if* when it comes to USC, but IMO they have had too many *what ifs* in the last 5 years with players who have walked through that door. I want the pac 12 to be on top again, USC is a critical part of that.
|
|
|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 13, 2016 1:35:43 GMT -5
aha, sorry on the context...I always like ay's back-handed "I'm not saying anything bad about USC...however..." posts.... I have no animosity toward USC, they are in the pac 12 which I have proven my allegiance to. But that doesn't stop me from posting what I see is the reality which are a number of overrated top 5 recruits (Olegard, Ruddins, Gillis...perhaps Abercrombie?), some recruits who could have been great franchise players, who left (FF, Nwanebu), and some players who shouldered a big load, but we're nothing special (pretty much all their setters in the last 5 years, Fuller, to some extent Williams). I'm fully on board with the *what if* when it comes to USC, but IMO they have had too many *what ifs* in the last 5 years with players who have walked through that door. I want the pac 12 to be on top again, USC is a critical part of that. again, congrats on the back-handed compliments... Olgard was not overrated, she was a very top-notch player...FF was a totally different story... it's kind of like all of the "what ifs" involving Washington over the last decade since the 2005 title so you can continue to spout all you want....IMO it's all about the "what ifs" of every player who has walked in through the door in Seattle in the last 10 years....
|
|
|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 13, 2016 1:41:45 GMT -5
But we can save those comments for the "Future for Washington" thread....
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 13, 2016 2:20:00 GMT -5
aha, sorry on the context...I always like ay's back-handed "I'm not saying anything bad about USC...however..." posts.... I have no animosity toward USC, they are in the pac 12 which I have proven my allegiance to. But that doesn't stop me from posting what I see is the reality which are a number of overrated top 5 recruits (Olegard, Ruddins, Gillis...perhaps Abercrombie?), some recruits who could have been great franchise players, who left (FF, Nwanebu), and some players who shouldered a big load, but we're nothing special (pretty much all their setters in the last 5 years, Fuller, to some extent Williams). I'm fully on board with the *what if* when it comes to USC, but IMO they have had too many *what ifs* in the last 5 years with players who have walked through that door. I want the pac 12 to be on top again, USC is a critical part of that. Are you serious? Olgard was an All-American with a CAREER hitting percentage over .400...........
|
|
|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 13, 2016 2:22:41 GMT -5
I have no animosity toward USC, they are in the pac 12 which I have proven my allegiance to. But that doesn't stop me from posting what I see is the reality which are a number of overrated top 5 recruits (Olegard, Ruddins, Gillis...perhaps Abercrombie?), some recruits who could have been great franchise players, who left (FF, Nwanebu), and some players who shouldered a big load, but we're nothing special (pretty much all their setters in the last 5 years, Fuller, to some extent Williams). I'm fully on board with the *what if* when it comes to USC, but IMO they have had too many *what ifs* in the last 5 years with players who have walked through that door. I want the pac 12 to be on top again, USC is a critical part of that. Are you serious? Olgard was an All-American with a CAREER hitting percentage over .400........... yes but Ay's Washington players have always been better than USC's players....
|
|
|
Post by uscyaaa on Feb 13, 2016 2:57:25 GMT -5
let's take a wild guess...ay2013 is upset because Olgard (originally from Spokane) chose not to go to Washington....
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 13, 2016 14:26:18 GMT -5
let's take a wild guess...ay2013 is upset because Olgard (originally from Spokane) chose not to go to Washington.... Not really. UW has a winning record against USC with Olgard on the team, I think the UW middles were just fine. Though Barfield, as a top recruit, ended up being a dud. Like I said, I call it like I see it.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 13, 2016 14:28:38 GMT -5
I have no animosity toward USC, they are in the pac 12 which I have proven my allegiance to. But that doesn't stop me from posting what I see is the reality which are a number of overrated top 5 recruits (Olegard, Ruddins, Gillis...perhaps Abercrombie?), some recruits who could have been great franchise players, who left (FF, Nwanebu), and some players who shouldered a big load, but we're nothing special (pretty much all their setters in the last 5 years, Fuller, to some extent Williams). I'm fully on board with the *what if* when it comes to USC, but IMO they have had too many *what ifs* in the last 5 years with players who have walked through that door. I want the pac 12 to be on top again, USC is a critical part of that. again, congrats on the back-handed compliments... Olgard was not overrated, she was a very top-notch player...FF was a totally different story... it's kind of like all of the "what ifs" involving Washington over the last decade since the 2005 title so you can continue to spout all you want....IMO it's all about the "what ifs" of every player who has walked in through the door in Seattle in the last 10 years.... uh, ok....In the last 10 years, the only top billed recruit who didn't live up to the hype was Barfield and the only impact player to have left prematurely was Ross....Even without Olgard in the mix, USC has had twice as many just in the last 5 years. I'm not sure why we are even arguing about this. All I'm saying is that I want USC to be a perennial top team, the west coast equivalent to Nebraska... they have the recruits to do it, but a lot of "what ifs" have kept them from that distinction for a number of years.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Feb 13, 2016 14:50:27 GMT -5
I have no animosity toward USC, they are in the pac 12 which I have proven my allegiance to. But that doesn't stop me from posting what I see is the reality which are a number of overrated top 5 recruits (Olegard, Ruddins, Gillis...perhaps Abercrombie?), some recruits who could have been great franchise players, who left (FF, Nwanebu), and some players who shouldered a big load, but we're nothing special (pretty much all their setters in the last 5 years, Fuller, to some extent Williams). I'm fully on board with the *what if* when it comes to USC, but IMO they have had too many *what ifs* in the last 5 years with players who have walked through that door. I want the pac 12 to be on top again, USC is a critical part of that. Are you serious? Olgard was an All-American with a CAREER hitting percentage over .400........... Yes, relative to all the D1 players ever, Olgard was great, but in context to her "potential"...well. Do people forget that she was billed as a top MB in her class? She really wasn't a big factor offensively. Sure a good hitting percentage, but she wasn't an offensive force. Maybe it was by design by Mick, lack of ability from the setters, or whatever, but she was a role player, never a star. Her blocking for most of her career was under 1 block per set...again, maybe by design, or lack of ability, but again, a role player, never a star. She was a very good role player, but when I look around at other top billed MB's in other classes recently and see what they are doing for their respective teams (whether by design or ability), I see stars, Olgard, to me, wasn't a star.
|
|