|
|
Post by mnsports255 on Aug 13, 2018 23:28:33 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. McGraw's an extraordinary talent and has also been with the team since spring semester (she was a winter semester HS grad). I get what your trying to say, but in McGraw's case, I just don't see your point being valid. Barnes was an integral part of the defense last year and really proved herself. Sure Minnesota has question marks (OH2/MB), but I don't think the Libero/DS situation is one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Aug 14, 2018 4:58:57 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
Yeah, I get the impression that the schools were asked to provide this information to the AVCA and some of them just flubbed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Aug 14, 2018 5:13:11 GMT -5
Re: McGraw
I am sure she will be amazing as she gets accustomed to the college game.
I only saw 1 Spring match, against Butler (?) and from what I remember she was missing a lot of 4 to 4 digs (that Pittman was getting when she served). Rollins was great in the back and Samedy is a defensive machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by minncoach on Aug 14, 2018 7:16:43 GMT -5
It's pretty easy for us to all name our favorite teams or the obvious top teams for 2018 success but which of the schools in the 50-100 RPI range are dark horses to make the tourney and maybe even win a match in the opening rounds. I'll take LSU, North Carolina and Iowa.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 14, 2018 8:20:15 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 think you're contradicting yourself. By my count, Minnesota loses only two starters from last year (Lohman, Rosado). The list of teams in the top 25 converstaion that graduated fewer starters is short: Stanford, BYU, Illinois, Pitt, Marquette, Washington St. Sure, they lost their libero but Nebraska and UCLA are dealing with freshmen setters. Texas, Kentucly, Florida, and Illinois also lost their liberos. I can definitely understand how a team featuring one of the best setters in the country (and a senior) and 4 resturning starting attackers could be picked to win 3 out of 5 over ANY team that has a true freshman setting (Nebraska, UCLA) or traditional powerhouses replacing many parts (Florida, Penn State). |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Aug 14, 2018 9:39:24 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 think you're contradicting yourself. By my count, Minnesota loses only two starters from last year (Lohman, Rosado). The list of teams in the top 25 converstaion that graduated fewer starters is short: Stanford, BYU, Illinois, Pitt, Marquette, Washington St. Sure, they lost their libero but Nebraska and UCLA are dealing with freshmen setters. Texas, Kentucly, Florida, and Illinois also lost their liberos. I can definitely understand how a team featuring one of the best setters in the country (and a senior) and 4 resturning starting attackers could be picked to win 3 out of 5 over ANY team that has a true freshman setting (Nebraska, UCLA) or traditional powerhouses replacing many parts (Florida, Penn State). I don’t see where I’m contradicting myself? In my poll I had Minnesota above, at minimum, 3 of the teams you just mentioned- Florida, Penn State, UCLA. Nebraska’s setting may not be as seasoned but their outlet attacking is there and they return 2/3rds of their primary passing- which was better than Minnesota’s last year anyway. All the teams I have above Minnesota, with the exception of Nebraska, return their setter and plenty of attackers. My point re Minnesota wasn’t to say that they are overrated or anything, just to point out that I can't point to enough to claim that Minnesota will have one of the best backcourts to start the season. Could they get there? Of course... on day 1- that’s a I’ll believe it when i see it situation, especially when, as I said earlier, I really don’t think Minnesota was all that great to end the season anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Aug 14, 2018 22:00:40 GMT -5
From all the responses I have gotten Minnesota’s ranking is justified by incoming freshmen talent. I don’t like that at all. Let them earn their rank. Also if McGraw is as good as Rosado who was very good that would be great and a middle being better than Lohman is a tough ask too, not to mention Goehner was solid in the back row aw well.
I think they are a touch overrated. I can’t justify putting them above teams like Kentucky, BYU, Wisconsin or even USC, put them in the back half of the top 10 or just outside.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Aug 14, 2018 22:03:23 GMT -5
From all the responses I have gotten Minnesota’s ranking is justified by incoming freshmen talent. I don’t like that at all. Let them earn their rank. Also if McGraw is as good as Rosado who was very good that would be great and a middle being better than Lohman is a tough ask too, not to mention Goehner was solid in the back row aw well. I think they are a touch overrated. I can’t justify putting them above teams like Kentucky, BYU, Wisconsin or even USC, put them in the back half of the top 10 or just outside. USC is way over-rated. |
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Aug 14, 2018 22:06:13 GMT -5
From all the responses I have gotten Minnesota’s ranking is justified by incoming freshmen talent. I don’t like that at all. Let them earn their rank. Also if McGraw is as good as Rosado who was very good that would be great and a middle being better than Lohman is a tough ask too, not to mention Goehner was solid in the back row aw well. I think they are a touch overrated. I can’t justify putting them above teams like Kentucky, BYU, Wisconsin or even USC, put them in the back half of the top 10 or just outside. Kentucky loses both their middles and a libero. The replacements for the middle don’t really seem like the pieces of a top 10 team to me IMO but I’d love to be proven wrong. MN, while they do lose two starters, has players IMO who could be equal or comparable to the graduating players they replace. I think Wisconsin could be very good, but even if you replace Bates with another L2 they will be in trouble if they can’t close out matches not to mention Williams on the right may or may not be that much of an upgrade over Duello. |
|
|
|
Post by mnsports255 on Aug 14, 2018 22:16:44 GMT -5
From all the responses I have gotten Minnesota’s ranking is justified by incoming freshmen talent. I don’t like that at all. Let them earn their rank. Also if McGraw is as good as Rosado who was very good that would be great and a middle being better than Lohman is a tough ask too, not to mention Goehner was solid in the back row aw well. I think they are a touch overrated. I can’t justify putting them above teams like Kentucky, BYU, Wisconsin or even USC, put them in the back half of the top 10 or just outside. I don't think anybody is using Minnesota's freshman to justify a top 4 ranking... that's not really the narrative anyone is going for. Besides the point, McGraw is better than Rosado. Goehner was not particularly strong in the back row last year. As much as Alyssa meant to the program and to VB in the state of Minnesota, she did not perform well last season. Now, they have earned their ranking because they return one of the top 2 setters in the country and have two dominant pins. They have a solid supporting cast around that, which yes, includes a special freshman libero. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Aug 14, 2018 22:18:07 GMT -5
Coaches poll is better.
They left Michigan unranked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Aug 14, 2018 22:20:10 GMT -5
Coaches poll is better. They left Michigan unranked. I read somewhere that students at OSU hate the UofM but secretly wish they got in there lolz. I’m only half kidding  |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 15, 2018 2:18:25 GMT -5
Coaches poll is better. They left Michigan unranked. I read somewhere that students at OSU hate the UofM but secretly wish they got in there lolz. I’m only half kidding The story of one our HS interns: Perfect SAT scores Every grade on his transcript was an A or A+ Started the Rocket Club at Gunn HS, one of the best public HS in the US Actually built and tested competition rockets Rejected by Cal Tech (his dream school) but Accepted by Stanford (his 2nd choice) |
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Aug 15, 2018 2:42:43 GMT -5
I read somewhere that students at OSU hate the UofM but secretly wish they got in there lolz. I’m only half kidding The story of one our HS interns: Perfect SAT scores Every grade on his transcript was an A or A+ Started the Rocket Club at Gunn HS, one of the best public HS in the US Actually built and tested competition rockets Rejected by Cal Tech (his dream school) but Accepted by Stanford (his 2nd choice) It's always good to apply to a gimme-school that you know you can get into, in case your #1 choice doesn't accept you. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 15, 2018 2:55:29 GMT -5
I knew people at MIT who desperately wished they had gotten into Harvard. Me, MIT was my #1 choice and Harvard and Stanford were backups. Cal Tech would be amazing for science, but I was always destined to be an engineer.
A daughter of a friend of mine got accepted to MIT but decided to go to Swarthmore instead. (She did go to MIT as a grad student.) His other daughter went to MIT and ended up an undergrad there while her older sister was a grad student. According to him, both thought they had chosen correctly.
If I could do it all over again, 100 times, I would probably go to 100 different schools. Not because they were better, but because they were different. Isn't that really what education is all about?
|
|
