Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 18:42:50 GMT -5
How'd you see them play Florida? That's right. It was FAMU-Florida I saw. Maybe that explains everything! I'm confusing FAMU with Stanford. This year: I saw them lose to USC, beat Cal, and beat Wisconsin. Pretty sure I saw them play another Pac10 team between the Cal win and the end of the season, but can't remember who it was. My impression is that they are still susceptible to tough serving and won't fare well against teams who can get them into rallies. Hucke has been impressive, as has Ogonna of course. I've always liked Richards and Kehoe is a solid setter. Not very strong in the middle, again. They've had a nice run here at the end of the year. I've admitted that. Still think they are the underdog of the finals--even if UW is without Morrison. The point you all are making is that they are better now than they were earlier this year, when they lost to PSU, St Marys (twice). I'll concede that point.
|
|
|
Post by Kampy on Dec 12, 2004 20:33:44 GMT -5
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. Nebraska took 1 game from Stanford in 2001 (stickler for detail...)
|
|
|
Post by Kampy on Dec 12, 2004 20:40:55 GMT -5
Nebraska took 1 game from Stanford in 2001 (stickler for detail...) DOH!! I just looked it up, and, in fact, Nebraska lost 3-0. Guess I thought Nebraska won when they actually blew about 5 game points in game 1 (if I recall correctly).
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Dec 12, 2004 21:00:59 GMT -5
[quote author=(R)uffda! link=board=general&thread=1102814122&start=21#1 date=1102886200] 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. [/quote] I think that is simply because you don't see the Pac-10 schools play on a regular basis.
From having seen Stanford towards the end of the regular season, I could see that they were going to be formidable in the playoffs. They could easily win it all now.
Also, you keep saying Gordon is better than Nnamani. I haven't seen Gordon, but if that's the case, why wasn't she on the Olympic Team instead of Nnamani?
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Dec 12, 2004 21:04:07 GMT -5
I think that is simply because you don't see the Pac-10 schools play on a regular basis. From having seen Stanford towards the end of the regular season, I could see that they were going to be formidable in the playoffs. They could easily win it all now. Also, you keep saying Gordon is better than Nnamani. I haven't seen Gordon, but if that's the case, why wasn't she on the Olympic Team instead of Nnamani? Gordon is Canadian
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 12, 2004 21:04:36 GMT -5
Also, you keep saying Gordon is better than Nnamani. I haven't seen Gordon, but if that's the case, why wasn't she on the Olympic Team instead of Nnamani? Uhhhhh.. Because she isn't US citizen? She's from Canada and though she practiced with the Canadian National Team prior to the Olympics she had decided not to tryout for the team for the Olympics. Probably at least in part because the CNT didn't have much chance of making it into the Olympics for 2004.
|
|
|
Post by TexasVB on Dec 12, 2004 21:08:39 GMT -5
Also, you keep saying Gordon is better than Nnamani. I haven't seen Gordon, but if that's the case, why wasn't she on the Olympic Team instead of Nnamani? Gordon is Canadian so she wouldn't have been eligible for our olympic team. Someone else may know more about this but I think there is some process you can go through if you want to play for another country's National team. With that said, I don't think Gordon would've made the team over Nnamani even if she was American. Nnamani made it because of her hitting - most notably the level that she contacts the ball at which is PROBABLY higher than anyone else on that team including Haneef.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2004 21:55:20 GMT -5
That's why I would have liked to have both.
But I don't agree. Gordon would have been a better choice than Phipps, too (at least the Phipps that was at Athens).
That is, I don't agree Nnamani would have been picked over her. I totally agree with your assessment as to what Ogonna brought to the team. That's what Ogonna has over Stacey--her vertical. But Stacey's ability to move on the floor and IN THE AIR is what makes her special. She is very, very quick.
I don't want this to come off like I'm dissing Ogonna. I am NOT. She is a fabulous player--and the 2nd best hitter in D1. I understand where some would believe she is the best hitter in D1.
Stacey is just at another level--the May, Walsh, Tom level.
|
|
|
Post by foreignball on Dec 12, 2004 23:03:36 GMT -5
[quote author=(R)uffda! link=board=general&thread=1102814122&start=37#2 date=1102906520]But I don't agree. Gordon would have been a better choice than Phipps, too (at least the Phipps that was at Athens). ..........
Stacey is just at another level--the May, Walsh, Tom level.[/quote] Agree 100%. Just wanted to add in international game a complete package is more valuable for OH's than being outstanding in a certain aspect of the game. For reference – see VT discussions during OG and some tapes from Athens.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Dec 13, 2004 0:44:41 GMT -5
Well, since they have all split in the pac10, can we all agree its possible for any team to win it this year!?
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Dec 13, 2004 0:50:06 GMT -5
Well, since they have all split in the pac10, can we all agree its possible for any team to win it this year!? I can, but (R)uffda doesn't buy it. I'd say this is probably the most wide open Final 4 in recent memory. Realistically, all 4 teams have a legitimate shot. I can't say that's happened recently. Usually there is at least 1 team there that has no chance.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Dec 13, 2004 0:53:35 GMT -5
I can, but (R)uffda! doesn't buy it. I'd say this is probably the most wide open Final 4 in recent memory. Realistically, all 4 teams have a legitimate shot. I can't say that's happened recently. Usually there is at least 1 team there that has no chance. Maybe this is why we say your bitter, or whatever else called you, you refuse to see the logic in some instances.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Dec 13, 2004 1:53:33 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.. OH YEAH Penn State flopped, at least Hawaii went down with a fight at the hhome of the team that beat them. You can imagine this "what if." What if the selection committee had given Hawaii the regional as everyone had expected. Perhaps Prince would not have gotten strep and Watanabe would not have broken her hand, and the team would not have had to do all those travelling back and forth which, (come on all you disbelievers, try to deny this) was taxing to the team.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 13, 2004 2:23:21 GMT -5
No one expected Hawaii to host a regional this year. OTOH: Most people expected that Hawaii would host a sub-regional.
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on Dec 13, 2004 4:57:43 GMT -5
[quote author=(R)uffda! link=board=general&thread=1102814122&start=18#1 date=1102860714]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.[/quote]
Well, at least I can phrase things in terms of you seeing things one way and me another instead of an "I'm so right and you're so wrong" way.
What I object to is the Pac10 not getting the respect that it deserves while the NCAA committee bent over backwards to help other teams out. So I'm happy with the final four result.
Oganna has only half the game of Stacey?! Whatever. They are both great and neither one is that much better than the other.
We'll see. I see them making it to the final two.
Thanks. I'll try to keep my nonsense to a minimum in the future. Must be something in the water that makes all those Hawaii people so delusional. (Now why would anyone think you ever had one bad thought about Hawaii as a whole?)
Any team in who makes it to the final four deserves to be there. It's not their fault where the NCAA committee put them in the tournament. And following your logic, Nebraska deserved AT LEAST the same opportunity as Minnesota.
I do realize that. This kind of behind the scenes logic by the committee does not make it okay. I'm sure Washington didn't care about the underlying logic. It proves that they play fast and loose with the seedings and that sucks. (And I guess, Penn State just wasn't up to their ranking either.)
|
|