|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 13, 2018 20:07:07 GMT -5
I think the the last few posts re Minnesota is exactly the problem with these polls. We just don't come from the same criteria. I went into it with a very simple starting foundation: to start the season, I.e. week 1, if Team A played Team B 5 times, who wins 3 or more? It wasn't who will be great by the end of the season, or even who would win 4 weeks into the season, it's who are the 25 best teams to start the season. IMO, there is just no way I could argue that in week 1 Minnesota will have one of the best backcourts in the country when it's comprised of a part time DS and two true freshmen who have yet to play a single collegiate match. I really think people tend to underrate the jump from prep to high level D1 volleyball in these top conferences. There are very few freshmen year in and year out that come in and can actually hold floor in the backcourt. Plenty of them try, but that doesn't mean they are great at it in the beginning. Didn’t McGraw play a bunch with Team USA? I’d think that eases the transition. |
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Aug 13, 2018 20:10:29 GMT -5
I think the the last few posts re Minnesota is exactly the problem with these polls. We just don't come from the same criteria. I went into it with a very simple starting foundation: to start the season, I.e. week 1, if Team A played Team B 5 times, who wins 3 or more? It wasn't who will be great by the end of the season, or even who would win 4 weeks into the season, it's who are the 25 best teams to start the season. IMO, there is just no way I could argue that in week 1 Minnesota will have one of the best backcourts in the country when it's comprised of a part time DS and two true freshmen who have yet to play a single collegiate match. I really think people tend to underrate the jump from prep to high level D1 volleyball in these top conferences. There are very few freshmen year in and year out that come in and can actually hold floor in the backcourt. Plenty of them try, but that doesn't mean they are great at it in the beginning. Didn’t McGraw play a bunch with Team USA? I’d think that eases the transition. No, I don’t recall her playing a bunch with USA |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 20:11:47 GMT -5
I really think people tend to underrate the jump from prep to high level D1 volleyball in these top conferences. There are very few freshmen year in and year out that come in and can actually hold floor in the backcourt. Plenty of them try, but that doesn't mean they are great at it in the beginning. Are you referring specifically to liberos, DSs, and six-ro OHs? Because I think, if anything, the trend across all positions recently is that more and more freshmen are, in fact, able to make big impacts right away. Way more than ever before. Plummer, Samedy, Hentz, McClure, Gray, Rettke, Welsh, Rolfzen, Deluzio, Lockin, McLaughlin, Hilley, Eggleston (looked pretty good this summer), Nuneviller, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 20:16:27 GMT -5
I think the the last few posts re Minnesota is exactly the problem with these polls. We just don't come from the same criteria. I went into it with a very simple starting foundation: to start the season, I.e. week 1, if Team A played Team B 5 times, who wins 3 or more? This seems like the most difficult possible way to approach these rankings because it requires so much imagination and reliance on assumptions. How could you possibly decide how five matches between two teams would turn out when some of those teams have no idea what their lineups will even be next weekend? |
|
|
|
Post by BuckysHeat on Aug 13, 2018 20:23:11 GMT -5
This is interesting and helpful but not exhaustive. For example, St John's is not on it, it looks like about half of the schools (174) are listed. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 13, 2018 20:24:42 GMT -5
I really think people tend to underrate the jump from prep to high level D1 volleyball in these top conferences. There are very few freshmen year in and year out that come in and can actually hold floor in the backcourt. Plenty of them try, but that doesn't mean they are great at it in the beginning. Are you referring specifically to liberos, DSs, and six-ro OHs? Because I think, if anything, the trend across all positions recently is that more and more freshmen are, in fact, able to make big impacts right away. Way more than ever before. Plummer, Samedy, Hentz, McClure, Gray, Rettke, Welsh, Rolfzen, Deluzio, Lockin, McLaughlin, Hilley, Eggleston (looked pretty good this summer), Nuneviller, etc. I'm specifically referring backcourt play.....being able to not only keep the ball off the ground but get it to your setter to transition. I rarely see freshmen that excel at doing this from day 1....do you? |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 13, 2018 20:27:05 GMT -5
I think the the last few posts re Minnesota is exactly the problem with these polls. We just don't come from the same criteria. I went into it with a very simple starting foundation: to start the season, I.e. week 1, if Team A played Team B 5 times, who wins 3 or more? This seems like the most difficult possible way to approach these rankings because it requires so much imagination and reliance on assumptions. How could you possibly decide how five matches between two teams would turn out when some of those teams have no idea what their lineups will even be next weekend? I'd think about who is likely to start and go from there. I don't think it's that difficult, really. How are you basing your list if you don't think the team you rank number 7 would beat the team ranked number 8 in week 1? doesn't that seem disingenuous to then have that ranking? It SHOULD be about who you think would win more matches, generally speaking of course. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 13, 2018 20:38:13 GMT -5
I think the the last few posts re Minnesota is exactly the problem with these polls. We just don't come from the same criteria. I went into it with a very simple starting foundation: to start the season, I.e. week 1, if Team A played Team B 5 times, who wins 3 or more? It wasn't who will be great by the end of the season, or even who would win 4 weeks into the season, it's who are the 25 best teams to start the season. IMO, there is just no way I could argue that in week 1 Minnesota will have one of the best backcourts in the country when it's comprised of a part time DS and two true freshmen who have yet to play a single collegiate match. I really think people tend to underrate the jump from prep to high level D1 volleyball in these top conferences. There are very few freshmen year in and year out that come in and can actually hold floor in the backcourt. Plenty of them try, but that doesn't mean they are great at it in the beginning. I don't think Minnesota's question is regarding the backcourt. McGraw should be pretty solid.. it's about how are they better than last year - McGraw will be good, but I doubt better than Rosado was as a senior; I don't think whoever plays M2 will be better than Lohman, and the L2 at the end of the year left and they are probably going to replace with a player already on the roster. I think Rosado and Lohman in particular were somewhat underrated, and I know the returning players will improve, but I don't see how general team improvement gets them much better than where they were, especially since the Gophers already are very strong in playing to and executing their system. If you thought Minnesota was a Top 5 team last season, I could see having them there now. But they were 11 in EOS Pablo, and that even has the USC team that swept them below them. I think they start out in the 10-15 range..... and obviously we won't know if that's right or wrong until they start playing (or maybe a few weeks in given I don't think they'll have an opponent who will tell us much about them until Stanford). |
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Aug 13, 2018 21:06:39 GMT -5
I scanned the list and saw more than one of these (look at the "Names" of Top Newcomers and Top Players Lost): School Name: Florida State Conference Name: ACC Final AVCA Ranking: NR 2017 Overall Record: 18-11 2017 Conference Record: 12-8 2017 Postseason Finish: NCAA First Round 2017 Conference Finish: T-5th 2017 Final RKPI: 47 Returning Starters/Letterwinners: 4/7 Top Returners: Taryn Knuth (So., MB, 6’3 Top Newcomers: ACC Freshman of the Year Top Players Lost: AVCA East Region Freshman of the Year |
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Aug 13, 2018 22:04:32 GMT -5
For the 2018 season a couple of us thought it would be fun to put together a Volleytalk Top 25 weekly ranking I think it would be very good idea NOT TO POST WHAT EACH VOTER BALLOT is week to week. The attacks will get personal and tiring for these experts. I am just happy that we have such a esteemed panel. |
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Aug 13, 2018 22:09:58 GMT -5
For the 2018 season a couple of us thought it would be fun to put together a Volleytalk Top 25 weekly ranking I think it would be very good idea NOT TO POST WHAT EACH VOTER BALLOT is week to week. The attacks will get personal and tiring for these experts. I am just happy that we have such a esteemed panel. Great point. (whether that is about the attacks or the "esteemed panel" - I will leave that open) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 22:34:59 GMT -5
This seems like the most difficult possible way to approach these rankings because it requires so much imagination and reliance on assumptions. How could you possibly decide how five matches between two teams would turn out when some of those teams have no idea what their lineups will even be next weekend? I'd think about who is likely to start and go from there. I don't think it's that difficult, really. How are you basing your list if you don't think the team you rank number 7 would beat the team ranked number 8 in week 1? doesn't that seem disingenuous to then have that ranking? It SHOULD be about who you think would win more matches, generally speaking of course. I disagree. I think it should be about returning talent, development of returning talent through their career, incoming talent, coaching staff’s ability to develop talent, and that talent’s relative potential. Making complete guesses about the results of FIVE different matches makes no sense to me. Just because I ranked Nebraska #1 doesn’t mean that I think they’re going to be completely impervious to losses in week one. That’s ridiculous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 22:37:05 GMT -5
Are you referring specifically to liberos, DSs, and six-ro OHs? Because I think, if anything, the trend across all positions recently is that more and more freshmen are, in fact, able to make big impacts right away. Way more than ever before. Plummer, Samedy, Hentz, McClure, Gray, Rettke, Welsh, Rolfzen, Deluzio, Lockin, McLaughlin, Hilley, Eggleston (looked pretty good this summer), Nuneviller, etc. I'm specifically referring backcourt play.....being able to not only keep the ball off the ground but get it to your setter to transition. I rarely see freshmen that excel at doing this from day 1....do you? I can think of a few big names, but there’s no doubt that freshmen are more ready to contribute nowadays than in years past. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 22:48:54 GMT -5
Not that anyone cares, but Minnesota, imo, will be better because:
1) Samedy (and especially the Samedy-SSS connection) will be better
2) Pittman will be better as a soph
3) Hart will be better as a junior
4) Barnes will be better as a soph
5) McGraw is an elite libero, even if inexperienced
I'll grant you the M2 is a question mark, but they don't need a lot from that position. If Morgan is healthy, I think she will be fine. Worst case scenario, however, would be if she is not. Do they have anyone on the bench who can step in?
Some combo of Martin/Sheehan/Rollins/Zeiman will be an improvement over frosh Martin/departed Kleinman/departed McLean.
Now does that make them a top 4 team? We will see. I do think they are at least the 2nd best B1G team and that puts them damned close to top 4.
Rosado and Lohman will be missed. But I don't think their departure makes 2018 Minnesota worse than 2017 Minnesota.
BiK's comment about heart? Give me a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 13, 2018 23:02:24 GMT -5
I'd think about who is likely to start and go from there. I don't think it's that difficult, really. How are you basing your list if you don't think the team you rank number 7 would beat the team ranked number 8 in week 1? doesn't that seem disingenuous to then have that ranking? It SHOULD be about who you think would win more matches, generally speaking of course. I disagree. I think it should be about returning talent, development of returning talent through their career, incoming talent, coaching staff’s ability to develop talent, and that talent’s relative potential. Making complete guesses about the results of FIVE different matches makes no sense to me. Just because I ranked Nebraska #1 doesn’t mean that I think they’re going to be completely impervious to losses in week one. That’s ridiculous. Well yes that’s why you’d ask who would be more likely to win that same matchup 5 times, not just 1 match. Would you not agree that Nebraska- in week 1- would probably win a best of 5 matchup against most teams? And yes it should be about returning talent- but returning talent is also likely to start over newcomers in lots of situations, which is why I had a team like BYU up high on my list and a team like Penn State much lower. They have a lot of proven- returning talent- that was good last year and are likely to start this year. I feel like you are misconstruing what I’m actually evaluating here. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that I think BYU would beat say Minnesota more often than not in week 1 but that Minnesota may end up better than BYU as the season progresses. Development and coaching doesn’t happen overnight. |
|
