|
Post by jasonr on Jan 9, 2018 19:38:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if USC didn't consult with Kiraly and McLaughlin (who won a men's championship at USC). One, or both, might have said, hey, there's this guy up in Portland who's a lot better than the program he's coaching. Both Fisher and K. Cook are GM2. UW hired Cook entirely on McLaughlin's recommendation. What matters today is data-driven coaching using the latest technology, over traditional seat-of-the-pants "intuitional" coaching using loose-leaf binders. Show me the top coaches that aren't data driven? Volleyball statistics aren't some voodoo only possessed by GM2 acolytes. However, the last time I had a discussion with GM2 advocates I found their strategic prescription based on data to be too linear for my liking. They cared way too much about acute efficiency numbers with no regard for nonlinear results. It's why so many of them have disregarded backrow attacks (and attack diversity in general) and serve aggression. They didn't dig deep enough into the data to see the big picture. I'm sure some of them have changed their tune over the years though.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jan 9, 2018 19:58:22 GMT -5
I don't know if you were as good at masking "S" as you might have thought lol. Does her name rhyme with Soarin’ Martini? LC fan here. LOL @ “Soarin’ Martini.” That’s great.
|
|
|
Post by huskergeek on Jan 9, 2018 20:06:26 GMT -5
Let's take John Cook and Russ Rose out of consideration for just a moment...they're in a special class. Aside from those two, please come up with a list of coaches who have had a better track record the past 15 years than Haley. How many on your list? 5? 2? 0? I'm actually asking. I don't know the answer. Maybe I'm missing some obvious names. But, it seems to me, whatever the reasons USC had for dumping Haley, his on-court track record certainly couldn't be one of them. Certainly not many. Just limiting it to the last seven years(What I have data for.), a final four and four additional elite eights ranks pretty highly. Looking at programs because I'm too lazy to look up where everyone was coaching, and I'm assuming outside of Hambly it wouldn't make a huge difference. Tier 1: Penn State (2 Championships, 4 x Final Four, 7 x Sweet Sixteen) and Nebraska (2 Championships, 3 x Final Four, 6 x Elite Eight) Tier 2: Texas (1 Championship, 2 x Runner Up, 5 x Final Four, 7 x Elite Eight) Tier 3: Stanford (1 Champ, 3 FF, 5 EE) Tier 4: UCLA (1 Champ, 2 EE, 5 SS) Tier 5: Florida (1 RU, 4 EE, 5 SS), Wisconsin (1 RU, 3 EE, 5 SS), Minnesota (2 FF, 3 EE, 6 SS), BYU (1 RU, 6 SS), Illinois (1 RU, 5 SS), USC (1 FF, 5 EE), Washington (1 FF, 3 EE, 5 SS) While USC is a blue blood and has recently been a step behind several of the other top-tier programs, you can't really say that their results have been too disappointing. The above list doesn't really have a weak link and every team on the list has at least five appearances in the second weekend of the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 9, 2018 20:51:29 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if USC didn't consult with Kiraly and McLaughlin (who won a men's championship at USC). One, or both, might have said, hey, there's this guy up in Portland who's a lot better than the program he's coaching. Both Fisher and K. Cook are GM2. UW hired Cook entirely on McLaughlin's recommendation. What matters today is data-driven coaching using the latest technology, over traditional seat-of-the-pants "intuitional" coaching using loose-leaf binders. Show me the top coaches that aren't data driven? Volleyball statistics aren't some voodoo only possessed by GM2 acolytes. However, the last time I had a discussion with GM2 advocates I found their strategic prescription based on data to be too linear for my liking. They cared way too much about acute efficiency numbers with no regard for nonlinear results. It's why so many of them have disregarded backrow attacks (and attack diversity in general) and serve aggression. They didn't dig deep enough into the data to see the big picture. I'm sure some of them have changed their tune over the years though. I'm not making a claim that one style is superior to the other, but simply that USC had a clear preference, if reports of the final candidates are correct (all GM2 coaches). Crouch is GM2. I'm an agnostic/skeptic on both scores, however. Nor that both haven't been influenced by the other. But it is ridiculous to claim the two camps don't exist. There are clear differences between the presumed "science of coaching" (GM2) coaches and the presumed "art of coaching" coaches. One of the main differences is the former tend to be younger, and the latter tend to be older.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 9, 2018 21:02:13 GMT -5
Moon ball so rude , and disgraceful should get you banned from board You are clueless. If bigfan, doubletrojan, and uscyaa haven't been banned yet, then no one should be. moonball is not even close to being in their league when it comes to being "rude and disgraceful". Me? I am an angel!
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 9, 2018 21:08:49 GMT -5
Show me the top coaches that aren't data driven? Volleyball statistics aren't some voodoo only possessed by GM2 acolytes. However, the last time I had a discussion with GM2 advocates I found their strategic prescription based on data to be too linear for my liking. They cared way too much about acute efficiency numbers with no regard for nonlinear results. It's why so many of them have disregarded backrow attacks (and attack diversity in general) and serve aggression. They didn't dig deep enough into the data to see the big picture. I'm sure some of them have changed their tune over the years though. I'm not making a claim that one style is superior to the other, but simply that USC had a clear preference, if reports of the final candidates are correct (all GM2 coaches). Crouch is GM2. I'm an agnostic/skeptic on both scores, however. Nor that both haven't been influenced by the other. But it is ridiculous to claim the two camps don't exist. There are clear differences between the presumed "science of coaching" (GM2) coaches and the presumed "art of coaching" coaches. One of the main differences is the former tend to be younger, and the latter tend to be older.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jan 9, 2018 21:16:51 GMT -5
Show me the top coaches that aren't data driven? Volleyball statistics aren't some voodoo only possessed by GM2 acolytes. However, the last time I had a discussion with GM2 advocates I found their strategic prescription based on data to be too linear for my liking. They cared way too much about acute efficiency numbers with no regard for nonlinear results. It's why so many of them have disregarded backrow attacks (and attack diversity in general) and serve aggression. They didn't dig deep enough into the data to see the big picture. I'm sure some of them have changed their tune over the years though. I'm not making a claim that one style is superior to the other, but simply that USC had a clear preference, if reports of the final candidates are correct (all GM2 coaches). Crouch is GM2. I'm an agnostic/skeptic on both scores, however. Nor that both haven't been influenced by the other. But it is ridiculous to claim the two camps don't exist. There are clear differences between the presumed "science of coaching" (GM2) coaches and the presumed "art of coaching" coaches. One of the main differences is the former tend to be younger, and the latter tend to be older. At the higher levels they really don't exist. Do you think guys like Russ Rose and John Cook are any less into quantifying the game than GM2 coaches? Russ was pushing stats in the sport decades before GM2 was even a thing. A subset of Zeleny's analytics team at UNL is dedicated to Cook and the volleyball program's statistical analyses. However, the thing about quantification is that the results are based on the specific questions investigated. Different coaches are going to have different hypotheses tested. It's why some GM2 trained coaches I know will show you data that conservative serving is better while Cook will show you data that more aggressive serving is better. The data will result on the specific question asked. For my money, I tend to trust many of the more experienced coaches to ask more interesting and sophisticated questions. The heuristics built on experience are often statistically correct even a priori the analysis. It's always good to find evidence to support a position, but the evidence is usually lagging behind application in real world and time sensitive situations.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 9, 2018 21:41:21 GMT -5
I'm not making a claim that one style is superior to the other, but simply that USC had a clear preference, if reports of the final candidates are correct (all GM2 coaches). Crouch is GM2. I'm an agnostic/skeptic on both scores, however. Nor that both haven't been influenced by the other. But it is ridiculous to claim the two camps don't exist. There are clear differences between the presumed "science of coaching" (GM2) coaches and the presumed "art of coaching" coaches. One of the main differences is the former tend to be younger, and the latter tend to be older. At the higher levels they really don't exist. Do you think guys like Russ Rose and John Cook are any less into quantifying the game than GM2 coaches? Russ was pushing stats in the sport decades before GM2 was even a thing. A subset of Zeleny's analytics team at UNL is dedicated to Cook and the volleyball program's statistical analyses. However, the thing about quantification is that the results are based on the specific questions investigated. Different coaches are going to have different hypotheses tested. It's why some GM2 trained coaches I know will show you data that conservative serving is better while Cook will show you data that more aggressive serving is better. The data will result on the specific question asked. For my money, I tend to trust many of the more experienced coaches to ask more interesting and sophisticated questions. The heuristics built on experience are often statistically correct even a priori the analysis. It's always good to find evidence to support a position, but the evidence is usually lagging behind application in real world and time sensitive situations. Except you're clearly expressing a preference for one over the other. I'm merely saying that USC's preference apparently wasn't yours.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 9, 2018 21:45:51 GMT -5
If USC’s L goes to middle from left now, I wonder if Adams wins the job. Will Crouch try to change Lanier’s serve?
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jan 10, 2018 0:37:46 GMT -5
At the higher levels they really don't exist. Do you think guys like Russ Rose and John Cook are any less into quantifying the game than GM2 coaches? Russ was pushing stats in the sport decades before GM2 was even a thing. A subset of Zeleny's analytics team at UNL is dedicated to Cook and the volleyball program's statistical analyses. However, the thing about quantification is that the results are based on the specific questions investigated. Different coaches are going to have different hypotheses tested. It's why some GM2 trained coaches I know will show you data that conservative serving is better while Cook will show you data that more aggressive serving is better. The data will result on the specific question asked. For my money, I tend to trust many of the more experienced coaches to ask more interesting and sophisticated questions. The heuristics built on experience are often statistically correct even a priori the analysis. It's always good to find evidence to support a position, but the evidence is usually lagging behind application in real world and time sensitive situations. Except you're clearly expressing a preference for one over the other. I'm merely saying that USC's preference apparently wasn't yours. It's not about preference, it's about there not being a significant group of coaches that don't incorporate analytics into their decision-making and overall coaching philosophy. If by "two schools" you mean 97 out of 100 use analytics and 3 out of 100 don't, then yeah, there are two schools.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 10, 2018 1:11:54 GMT -5
Except you're clearly expressing a preference for one over the other. I'm merely saying that USC's preference apparently wasn't yours. It's not about preference, it's about there not being a significant group of coaches that don't incorporate analytics into their decision-making and overall coaching philosophy. If by "two schools" you mean 97 out of 100 use analytics and 3 out of 100 don't, then yeah, there are two schools. A lot more than analytics is involved. There are clear philosophical differences. I'm not claiming one is better than the other. You are.
|
|
|
Post by bigdfromla on Jan 10, 2018 3:50:18 GMT -5
The decline of Pac-12 Women's Volleyball in the last 2-3 years continues.
Clay Helton was a mediocre, obscure coordinator/quarterback coach who, thanks to some luck and circumstances, found himself hired as the USC football coach. In that position he has put together a staff of assistants who were cronies/family members and fell far short of USC standards. While talented, USC has struggled in big games and moments under Helton, who really seems in over his head and not fit for such a prestigious position.
I may be wrong, but Crotch just gives off a Clay Helton-type vibe to me. I can see the same thing happening...good record and some success thanks to a high level of talent, but underachieving at the most important times and moments.
I didn't realize that the USC athletic department was in such turmoil and plagued by such horrible leadership. Now I know.
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Jan 10, 2018 6:36:10 GMT -5
It's not about preference, it's about there not being a significant group of coaches that don't incorporate analytics into their decision-making and overall coaching philosophy. If by "two schools" you mean 97 out of 100 use analytics and 3 out of 100 don't, then yeah, there are two schools. A lot more than analytics is involved. There are clear philosophical differences. I'm not claiming one is better than the other. You are. What are the "philosophical" differences then? Crouch has PhD in philosophy. I doubt he agrees that there are "philosophical" differences involved here. Earlier you claimed it was a contrast between GM2 coaches and "Art of Coaching" coaches. Those are different clinic series names that are part of the marketing of each series. If you think the leaders of the "Art of Coaching" series are less sophisticated in some way that the GM2 leaders then tell us what the differences are. Maybe you think that because one clinic series name is "Art of Coaching" that those involved focus on art rather than science? That would be an insightful assessment.
|
|
|
Post by big10volleyballfan on Jan 10, 2018 10:51:48 GMT -5
The very best line of the entire article "Crouch replaces Mick Haley, who did not return to USC after 17 seasons as head coach."Did not return, very interesting indeed The ultimate in "spinning" the description of what really happened. Total BS media coverage at it's best, actually at it's worst.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Jan 10, 2018 12:41:37 GMT -5
Has He met the team yet? Has He kept the incoming class? Yes, he has been reaching out to the current athletes for sure. I would imagine he has also been in contact with the incoming recruits. The ones that signed their NLIs are coming regardless. But locking down the juniors will b really important.
|
|