|
Post by Gorf on Dec 12, 2004 3:46:07 GMT -5
Go to sleep you hater.... It really helped that Minn and Wash. were at home or else they both would have gone down. Same goes with Wis. How does a team with 5 loses (one to a team with a losing record) deserve to get a number 1 seed over a team that was undefeated.. You're the one that's behaving like a hater, and a whiner to boot. What team with 5 losses was a #1 seed? Nebraska, 1 loss (FAMU) Penn State, 2 losses (Minnesota and Ohio State) Hawaii, 0 losses. Minnesota, 4 losses (USC, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Penn State) My guess is that you're referring to Wisconsin, even though Hawaii was the #1 seed in the region and they managed to lose to that terrible Wisconsin team. The way Stanford took out Texas and Wisonsin, they probably would have thrashed Hawaii as well. If you didn't like the regionals having been played in Green Bay (not Wisconsin's "home town" by the way) then you can write your hate letter to the NCAA for deciding to change to pre-selected regional sites like they do in men's basketball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 3:51:44 GMT -5
Nahhh, but really hawaii may not have been a team with the talent of Minn, USC, NU, UW, PSU, SU but they did deserve to be a number 1 seed and anyone that says they didn't deserve it is an idiot.. The team with 5 loses was USC, whom Ruffda said should have been choosen over Hawaii as a #1 seed. Wow you Minn fans are strange...
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on Dec 12, 2004 4:38:03 GMT -5
[quote author= (R)uffda! link=board=general&thread=1102814122&start=13#0 date=1102836257]The problem was that the Green Bay Regional had no true #1 seed, whereas it could be argued that the other three had two EACH. Minnesota, OSU, PSU, USC, Washington, Nebraska were all legitimate #1s. What threw it off? Hawaii. I'm sorry if this rubs some people the wrong way, but it's the truth. OSU would have beaten Stanford. As for Penn State, they flopped. [/quote] Okay. I know you believe that but I believe the real problem with the seedings was the Minnesota regional. It was the NCAA committees way of assuring a non-west coast team gets in the Final Four. USC should have been in the Minnesota regional. Having Minn. and Ohio St. as the top seeds in the same regional (being held in Minnesota no less!) was ridiculous -- not to mention the ridiculousness of some of the earlier matchups. In fact, it was almost as ridiculous as putting Nebraska and USC together in the same regional but then that was ridiculous for an entirely different reason. BTW, Stanford would have beaten OSU, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 9:11:54 GMT -5
Nope. And this is what I object to. THIS is the Pac10 hype that goes on and on and on. Now it's "they should have had FOUR teams in the finals." Before it was OK that they had SIX teams ranked in the top 20.
Now it's Ogonna is the POY even though she only has 1/2 the game of Stacey.
Stanford cannot pass or defend. How the hell are they going to win it all?
You know what? Whatever. When one of the sole voices of reason coming from the Islands starts spouting the same nonsense, all is lost.
I make no predictions for the finals, but Minnesota deserves to be there. Ohio State deserved AT LEAST the same opportunity as Stanford. Flipping Texas and OSU would have been the simple solution. But having the guts to make Hawaii a #2 (which turns out to be too high) would have been another.
And when will you all realize that Washington WAS a #1. The only reason they called them a #7 was because they could do it without penalizing the Huskies. The only team that got shafted by the Pac10 having a #7 as their highest seed was Penn State. But I have no sympathy for the Lions. Not if they can't deal with the jet lag enough to handle UCLA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 9:18:07 GMT -5
Nahhh, but really hawaii may not have been a team with the talent of Minn, USC, NU, UW, PSU, SU but they did deserve to be a number 1 seed and anyone that says they didn't deserve it is an idiot.. The team with 5 loses was USC, whom (R)uffda! said should have been choosen over Hawaii as a #1 seed. Wow you Minn fans are strange... Not sure I said that. I understand why Hawaii was a #1. The Committee had no choice. My point was that they were NOT a #1 caliber team. The problem was that all the other regionals had TWO teams each of that caliber and the Green Bay regional had ZERO. Turns out, Hawaii was probably a #3 (in their region). A #2, at the highest. That's going to mess up a lot of brackets. You call me a hater, which is far, far from the truth. You, otoh, are delusional. You are, no doubt, one of the same people who refused to admit Hawaii was not as good as Florida last year in spite of the fact that ALL the match results pointed to that conclusion (as did the national semi-final). Then, this year, your team continued to eke out victories against mediocre opponents and you refused to admit what that indicated. You preferred to focus on their "heart" and bash anyone who dared question their record and ranking. Guess what? You were wrong. Again.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Dec 12, 2004 15:03:12 GMT -5
I would hate to be so bitter and have to sit on here and bitch at everyone else because I always think im right! Ruffda you are sounding worse than the Hawaii fans when they thought they were shafted. If Minnesota beats USC then you can bitch about the Big-10 not having the same opportunities. Until then relax, no reason to get so worked up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 16:16:40 GMT -5
I would hate to be so bitter and have to sit on here and bitch at everyone else because I always think im right! (R)uffda! you are sounding worse than the Hawaii fans when they thought they were shafted. If Minnesota beats USC then you can bitch about the Big-10 not having the same opportunities. Until then relax, no reason to get so worked up. How I am being bitter? I am responding to people making statements I totally disagree with. I am not bitching about the Big10 not getting the same opportunities. I am pointing out that if you're going to say the Pac10 having three teams in the finals proves they are a _vastly superior_ conference, then I am going to explain why no such thing is proven. I don't think this is a fair criticism of my posts. Tell me I'm full of s*** (I'm counting now for the first respnse), but don't tell me I'm doing this out of some bitterness. Or worse, some equivalent of the Hawaiian Myopia so often seen on this board. And I am FAR from always right. I never would have picked UCLA over PSU for instance. And I NEVER would have thought Stanford could make the finals. I thought Florida or Texas would take them down for sure.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Dec 12, 2004 16:30:33 GMT -5
Stanford would've lost to OSU? No way(though I'd loved to have seen that matchup). The way Stanford is playing right now, they will be national champions. They are playing better than every other team in America right now and if they keep that up, they will beat Washington and USC/Minnesota. Did they have the toughest regional? No, but they had the toughest 2nd round matchup and I think it all evened out in the end. Their road to the finals was not as easy as people think, they just made it look that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 16:37:25 GMT -5
Stanford would've lost to OSU? No way(though I'd loved to have seen that matchup). The way Stanford is playing right now, they will be national champions. You can say this 100 more times (I think you are up to 50 now) and it still won't make it true. They can't pass or defend with the other 3 teams in the tournament. How can they win it? OSU would beat them. Not easy. I didn't mean to imply it was easy. They had a Florida-Texas-Hawaii (oops) path to the finals. VERY tough. But not a true #1 in their way. That's all I meant to say. I would NEVER want to belittle what they have done. I'm sorry if it came off that way.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Dec 12, 2004 16:43:53 GMT -5
[quote author=(R)uffda! link=board=general&thread=1102814122&start=23#1 date=1102887445]
You can say this 100 more times (I think you are up to 50 now) and it still won't make it true. They can't pass or defend with the other 3 teams in the tournament. How can they win it?
OSU would beat them.
[/quote] Stanford split with USC and Washington, so obviously they can beat those 2. If USC gets by Minnesota, then why can't Stanford win it? They've already proven they can. USC beat Minnesota, I think Stanford would fare just fine against Minnesota.
When is the last time you watched Stanford? Are they the best passing team? No. But they are good enough. Do they play the best floor D? No, but it's good enough and their block really helps out. They are the best blocking team left in the tournament. Keep underestimating them, they'll just continue to win.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Dec 12, 2004 16:51:18 GMT -5
(R)uffda!, I never thought I'd say this and mean it but you are pathetic. Nothing else needs to be said.
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Dec 12, 2004 17:01:30 GMT -5
Ruffda, when was the last time you saw Stanford play? I won't even begin to say who would win between OSU and Stanford b/c it would just be pure speculation on any party's behalf. However, it seems as though you are basing many of your opinions about Stanford on how they played at the beginning of the season. At the beginning of the season, I would never have felt they had a shot at the national championship...having seen them play the past 2 months though, for the first time yesterday, I was like, actually you know what, looking at all the other teams, Stanford offense is good, their blocking is good, and their defense has become more than sufficient. Surely, there is not a Paula Gentil on this team. However, of the remaining 4 teams, there is not a go to player like Ogonna. She is definitely not god's gift to volleyball; however, she has taken over this team just like Logan Tom did in 2001. If she continues as she is playing, I have no question that Stanford is capable of taking each match, just as they surprised many by sweeping Nebraska and LBSU in 2001.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 17:38:37 GMT -5
[quote author=BiK link=board=general&thread=1102814122&start=25#1 date=1102888278](R)uffda!, I never thought I'd say this and mean it but you are pathetic. Nothing else needs to be said.
[/quote]
Thanks for that.
Why am I pathetic?
And why is it that I have to be personally attacked for my opinions? You are at least the 5th person who has done so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 17:41:11 GMT -5
And to answer the question above, I saw them play Florida and I saw them play Wisconsin. Those would be the most _recent_ times I have seen the Cardinal. I also saw them in person, at Long Beach last year.
I have probably seen Stanford, Pepperdine, Florida, Washington, USC and Nebraska more than any other non-Big10 teams this year.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Dec 12, 2004 18:10:42 GMT -5
[quote author=(R)uffda! link=board=general&thread=1102814122&start=28#1 date=1102891271]And to answer the question above, I saw them play Florida and I saw them play Wisconsin. Those would be the most _recent_ times I have seen the Cardinal. I also saw them in person, at Long Beach last year.
I have probably seen Stanford, Pepperdine, Florida, Washington, USC and Nebraska more than any other non-Big10 teams this year.[/quote]
How'd you see them play Florida?
|
|