bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,255 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 9, 2020 7:13:42 GMT -5
I think your predictions are really solid and I think all of them have a realistic chance of coming to pass. But I found your hypothesis that, based on their 2018 recruiting class rankings, you'd expect PSU, Washington and Oregon to be doing 'better' in the 2022 recruiting process confusing. Now that we (and the 2022 classes) have had 2 years to evaluate those classes, have they really achieved what some people expected of them? I understand that PV etc thought PSU, Washington and Oregon all had top 5 recruiting classes, but did they really? I thought I'd take a look... PSU had a big class of 8 with a host of top senior aces including Kaitlin Hord, Serena Gray, Gabby Blossom, Jonni Parker, Jenna Hampton and Allyson Cathey. Hord, Gray and Blossom have all been 'as advertised'. Parker has a great arm but isn't a strong blocker and PSU ended up passing 2 in 2019 partly because Parker couldn't keep up in serve receive (37% good pass percentage on the season). That two person SR featured another 2018 senior ace; Jenna Hampton. Hampton played OK in 2018 but struggled in 2019 falling to a 47% good pass percentage on the year, significantly behind Keeton Holcomb and Kendall White, limiting PSU's passing as a group. Having lost White and Holcomb, Rose was looking for a new libero in the portal back in the spring and I wouldn't be shocked if he picked incoming freshman Maddy Bilinovic over Hampton as libero as early as next year. Cathey, Amanda Phegley and Brooklyn Hill are all off the roster. Washington's 2018 class produced a very good player in Ella May Powell who, like the PSU setter, has 'blossomed' (I'm sorry) into one of the top players at her position. After EMP, Claire Hoffman has been the next most valuable. Hoffman was limited by injury in 2019 and also passed well for an outside last season (55%) but has a career hitting efficiency of .189. After those two, the rest have been disappointing; Dani Cole has 10 career kills (injuries and inconsistent play look likely to limit her career), Crenshaw played more than she would have, I think, if Hoffman had been healthy but also struggled hitting (.179) however unlike Hoffman, also couldn't pass; 46% good pass. Marin Grote (MB) has played sparingly through her first two seasons (37 kills in 2018 and 20 in 2019) and seems likely to be backup to Summers and Sanders in 2020/21. So that's quality player, one other starter, and the rest have been back ups. Oregon's 2018 unit was comprised of 5 players; Kylie Robinson, Karson Bacon, Brooke Nuneviller, Chandler Duff and Camryn Tastad. Of the 5, Nuneviller has been consistently strong. First as a libero in her freshman campaign, then as an outside last year. She'll remain at OH in 2020 and, with a bit more pop in her arm could become one of the better OH2s in the Pac. Robinson redshirted her freshman year and had an up and down 2019 as the Ducks finished 9-20. Bacon also redshirted 2018 and although she played last year, she has yet to show the kind of athleticism that led to her being the #11 senior ace. Neither Tastad or Duff made it to year 2 in Eugene. And what success have these classes achieved? Precisely 0 final fours. 0 conference championships and Oregon didn't even make the tournament in 2019. I'm not sure I'd even say any of these programs are top three in their conference heading into 2020 (although I think PSU and Washington both have a good claim to be fourth in the B1G and Pac respectively). My point is that ranking recruits and, by extension, recruiting classes is a crapshoot and the moment those classes get to their schools, you might as well burn the rankings. They mean nothing. Brooklyn Schirmer was the #12 senior ace in 2018. Lauren Mathews was the #100. If I were advising any 2022s (and, you never know, I might be...  ) I could name about 100 factors that would be more meaningful when choosing a college than the ranking of a previous recruiting class. Hindsight is always 20/20, but one cannot deny that these 3 programs had a number of scholarships dolled out in 2018 which would lead one to think that they would be bringing in a larger class for 2022 to replace them. I wasn't really focusing on their prep VB ranking so much as I was focusing on the fact that in a normal recruiting cycle there was going to be a big chunk of the roster missing and these programs would need to fill those slots. Presumably, given the high status in collegiate volleyball for these programs (In particular Penn State), they'd be filling these scholarships with new recruits who are also highly rated (regardless of what they do or do not end up doing in college). I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have? larger classes kind of go in cycles. Penn State 2010- had 5+ schollie players coming in, 2014- had 5+ schollie players coming in, 2018- had 5+ schollie players coming in....2022 should be a pretty large class Washington 2014- had 4 schollie players coming in, had 5 schollie players coming in....2022 should be a pretty large class Penn State hasn't been as bad over the past 4 years as people think. They were #2 in Pablo for 2018 and were top 10 in the other 3 years. They have dropped from their T4 program, but it hasn't been a free fall. Over the last 4 years in terms of Pablo - it is: 1. Nebraska, 2. Stanford, 3. Texas, 4. Minnesota, 5T. Wisconsin/Penn State. However, looking into the future - it is pretty uncertain for them to maintain this. They have by far the most black ink from their Junior Class (48.0) and not much to show for their 2022 class to replace them (unless some of those players stick around for a 5th year). Throw out their 2018 class - and they look a lot like Purdue. Washington's current Junior class in terms of black ink is 'only' 21.5 - which is similar to Purdue (20.5), UCLA (22.5), and Minnesota (19.5). This is still a very strong class - but a class that would need to be supplemented with other strong classes. Again - at this point they may have the option to bring back some of these Jr's for a 5th year and hit the 2023 class. Oregon - essentially their 2018 class redshirted and 65% of their current black ink is made up Sophomores. As for other schools and their current Junior class that would/should translate to 2022: Florida has the 2nd most BI from their Juniors (35) and appear to have a very strong 2022 class coming in. Texas is next with 27.5 BI - and so far they don't have much in terms of volume for 2022. I am guessing they are still in the mix for some of remaining impact players? Minnesota has 19.5 from their Juniors and have a huge 2022 class coming in. UCLA with 22.5 and looks like their 2022 class will be pretty strong. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Sept 9, 2020 8:07:15 GMT -5
And, now, back to 2022 Talent . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Sept 9, 2020 8:24:49 GMT -5
Hindsight is always 20/20, but one cannot deny that these 3 programs had a number of scholarships dolled out in 2018 which would lead one to think that they would be bringing in a larger class for 2022 to replace them. I wasn't really focusing on their prep VB ranking so much as I was focusing on the fact that in a normal recruiting cycle there was going to be a big chunk of the roster missing and these programs would need to fill those slots. Presumably, given the high status in collegiate volleyball for these programs (In particular Penn State), they'd be filling these scholarships with new recruits who are also highly rated (regardless of what they do or do not end up doing in college). I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have? larger classes kind of go in cycles. Penn State 2010- had 5+ schollie players coming in, 2014- had 5+ schollie players coming in, 2018- had 5+ schollie players coming in....2022 should be a pretty large class Washington 2014- had 4 schollie players coming in, had 5 schollie players coming in....2022 should be a pretty large class Penn State hasn't been as bad over the past 4 years as people think. They were #2 in Pablo for 2018 and were top 10 in the other 3 years. They have dropped from their T4 program, but it hasn't been a free fall. Over the last 4 years in terms of Pablo - it is: 1. Nebraska, 2. Stanford, 3. Texas, 4. Minnesota, 5T. Wisconsin/Penn State. However, looking into the future - it is pretty uncertain for them to maintain this. They have by far the most black ink from their Junior Class (48.0) and not much to show for their 2022 class to replace them (unless some of those players stick around for a 5th year). Throw out their 2018 class - and they look a lot like Purdue. Washington's current Junior class in terms of black ink is 'only' 21.5 - which is similar to Purdue (20.5), UCLA (22.5), and Minnesota (19.5). This is still a very strong class - but a class that would need to be supplemented with other strong classes. Again - at this point they may have the option to bring back some of these Jr's for a 5th year and hit the 2023 class. Oregon - essentially their 2018 class redshirted and 65% of their current black ink is made up Sophomores. As for other schools and their current Junior class that would/should translate to 2022: Florida has the 2nd most BI from their Juniors (35) and appear to have a very strong 2022 class coming in. Texas is next with 27.5 BI - and so far they don't have much in terms of volume for 2022. I am guessing they are still in the mix for some of remaining impact players? Minnesota has 19.5 from their Juniors and have a huge 2022 class coming in. UCLA with 22.5 and looks like their 2022 class will be pretty strong. There are still some elite 2022 prospects that have not committed. Programs with one commitment now might still get more. Some programs are focused on the 2023 class which they might believe to be stronger than the 2022 class. Alternatively, a program might have believed it has a better chance at the top talent in 2023 than in 2022 and adjusted its recruiting accordingly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 10:19:21 GMT -5
I think your predictions are really solid and I think all of them have a realistic chance of coming to pass. But I found your hypothesis that, based on their 2018 recruiting class rankings, you'd expect PSU, Washington and Oregon to be doing 'better' in the 2022 recruiting process confusing. Now that we (and the 2022 classes) have had 2 years to evaluate those classes, have they really achieved what some people expected of them? I understand that PV etc thought PSU, Washington and Oregon all had top 5 recruiting classes, but did they really? I thought I'd take a look... PSU had a big class of 8 with a host of top senior aces including Kaitlin Hord, Serena Gray, Gabby Blossom, Jonni Parker, Jenna Hampton and Allyson Cathey. Hord, Gray and Blossom have all been 'as advertised'. Parker has a great arm but isn't a strong blocker and PSU ended up passing 2 in 2019 partly because Parker couldn't keep up in serve receive (37% good pass percentage on the season). That two person SR featured another 2018 senior ace; Jenna Hampton. Hampton played OK in 2018 but struggled in 2019 falling to a 47% good pass percentage on the year, significantly behind Keeton Holcomb and Kendall White, limiting PSU's passing as a group. Having lost White and Holcomb, Rose was looking for a new libero in the portal back in the spring and I wouldn't be shocked if he picked incoming freshman Maddy Bilinovic over Hampton as libero as early as next year. Cathey, Amanda Phegley and Brooklyn Hill are all off the roster. Washington's 2018 class produced a very good player in Ella May Powell who, like the PSU setter, has 'blossomed' (I'm sorry) into one of the top players at her position. After EMP, Claire Hoffman has been the next most valuable. Hoffman was limited by injury in 2019 and also passed well for an outside last season (55%) but has a career hitting efficiency of .189. After those two, the rest have been disappointing; Dani Cole has 10 career kills (injuries and inconsistent play look likely to limit her career), Crenshaw played more than she would have, I think, if Hoffman had been healthy but also struggled hitting (.179) however unlike Hoffman, also couldn't pass; 46% good pass. Marin Grote (MB) has played sparingly through her first two seasons (37 kills in 2018 and 20 in 2019) and seems likely to be backup to Summers and Sanders in 2020/21. So that's quality player, one other starter, and the rest have been back ups. Oregon's 2018 unit was comprised of 5 players; Kylie Robinson, Karson Bacon, Brooke Nuneviller, Chandler Duff and Camryn Tastad. Of the 5, Nuneviller has been consistently strong. First as a libero in her freshman campaign, then as an outside last year. She'll remain at OH in 2020 and, with a bit more pop in her arm could become one of the better OH2s in the Pac. Robinson redshirted her freshman year and had an up and down 2019 as the Ducks finished 9-20. Bacon also redshirted 2018 and although she played last year, she has yet to show the kind of athleticism that led to her being the #11 senior ace. Neither Tastad or Duff made it to year 2 in Eugene. And what success have these classes achieved? Precisely 0 final fours. 0 conference championships and Oregon didn't even make the tournament in 2019. I'm not sure I'd even say any of these programs are top three in their conference heading into 2020 (although I think PSU and Washington both have a good claim to be fourth in the B1G and Pac respectively). My point is that ranking recruits and, by extension, recruiting classes is a crapshoot and the moment those classes get to their schools, you might as well burn the rankings. They mean nothing. Brooklyn Schirmer was the #12 senior ace in 2018. Lauren Mathews was the #100. If I were advising any 2022s (and, you never know, I might be... ) I could name about 100 factors that would be more meaningful when choosing a college than the ranking of a previous recruiting class. Hindsight is always 20/20, but one cannot deny that these 3 programs had a number of scholarships dolled out in 2018 which would lead one to think that they would be bringing in a larger class for 2022 to replace them. I wasn't really focusing on their prep VB ranking so much as I was focusing on the fact that in a normal recruiting cycle there was going to be a big chunk of the roster missing and these programs would need to fill those slots. Presumably, given the high status in collegiate volleyball for these programs (In particular Penn State), they'd be filling these scholarships with new recruits who are also highly rated (regardless of what they do or do not end up doing in college). I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have? larger classes kind of go in cycles. Penn State 2010- had 5+ schollie players coming in, 2014- had 5+ schollie players coming in, 2018- had 5+ schollie players coming in....2022 should be a pretty large class Washington 2014- had 4 schollie players coming in, had 5 schollie players coming in....2022 should be a pretty large class I see what you mean regarding cycles. I was confused in regards to the mention of those 3 classes specifically but yes, the number of 'impact' players in each class depends a lot on how many scholarships you have available. You're also right about the Covid situation changing things. I spoke to a friend at a top 50 school last week and asked about 2022 recruiting (because they'd been less active than I expected) and she confirmed that not only are they hoping to bring back some of their 2018 class, they're also anticipating an increase in high quality transfers over the next year, which I thought was interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Sept 9, 2020 11:09:19 GMT -5
Some have been posting about PSU's demise the last few years now, just too many emerging programs to compete for talent with anymore. For me, Oregon's fall off the radar was apparent early last year with the coach running the program into the ground. UW was the one hard to predict, but being the loyalist I am, I think they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat. I think the issue for Washington (and Oregon for that matter) is two fold. First, the amount of top tier California talent has dwindled as more players focus on beach only and demographics changes. California has historically been a nice picking ground to really bolster these teams rosters and get some truly impactful players to come to the Northwest. Secondly, the amount of elite talent in the Northwest has taken a hit between 2018-2022. It's not that the Northwest schools can't keep players home, it's that there haven't been as many Pac-12 level recruits in the last few years. The real test for Cook and Ulmer (though he hasn't had as much time to) was whether or not they'd be able to sustain picking off a handful of elite California kids like they have in the past and get a few national prospects to come when the northwest talent wasn't up to par. The programs were able to do that in 2018, it doesn't look like that will repeat in 2022. Penn State is the big surprise. They have been elite national recruiters for a long time. I have no idea what is happening there. I'm of the belief that a team can be a top 10 team year in and year out if they bring in at least 1 AA type player every year (don't need a Nebraska or Stanford like haul every year to be top 10). UW appears to be doing so, ie, Summers last year, Endsley this year, Bays and Wilmes next year, Elise Hani the year after and etc. If you got 4-5 quality players on the roster at any given time you can always be a top 10 team. Just need to stay healthy, bring in a few transfers, foreign players and average local players to fill in the holes. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 9, 2020 12:17:44 GMT -5
What an interesting recruiting class. I see maybe 5 or 6 impact players left on the board (future improvement notwithstanding) and I still find it SHOCKING that THREE of the top 5 2018 recruiting classes (Penn State, Washington, Oregon) have only one commitment each. If Hoffman, Powell, Grote, and Crenshaw all come back, and Mikkelson or Wilson is on scholie, UW would be up against the 12-scholie limit. A scholie-expansion is approved for 2021, but not for 2022. Cook could be holding onto some offers or offering grayshirts. Unlike "some" schools, UW doesn't offer scholies that they don't have to give, on the premise that they can "clear" a slot later. 2022: Srs: Hoffman (OH), Powell (S), Grote (Sr), Crenshaw (Sr) Jrs: Cole (OPP), Houghton* (L) Sos: Endsley (OH/OPP), Summers (MB), Wilmes (OH), Bush (OPP/MB), Bays (L), Mikkelson* (S), Wilson* (S), Griffin* (L) Frs: Hani (MB/OPP) * Walk-ons? Elise Hani (MB/OPP) looks like she could be another under-the-radar PNW recruit (haven't seen her mentioned in this thread - other than in the previous post, which I hadn't seen). |
|
|
|
Post by FTLOG on Sept 9, 2020 15:10:01 GMT -5
It's official, Grayce Olson to UCLA. she needs to develop a bit more power on her shots, but this is a good one! the LA school recruiting is on FIRE! just like the rest of LA |
|
|
|
Post by udubhuskiefan on Sept 9, 2020 15:13:42 GMT -5
What an interesting recruiting class. I see maybe 5 or 6 impact players left on the board (future improvement notwithstanding) and I still find it SHOCKING that THREE of the top 5 2018 recruiting classes (Penn State, Washington, Oregon) have only one commitment each. If Hoffman, Powell, Grote, and Crenshaw all come back, and Mikkelson or Wilson is on scholie, UW would be up against the 12-scholie limit. A scholie-expansion is approved for 2021, but not for 2022. Cook could be holding onto some offers or offering grayshirts. Unlike "some" schools, UW doesn't offer scholies that they don't have to give, on the premise that they can "clear" a slot later. 2022: Srs: Hoffman (OH), Powell (S), Grote (Sr), Crenshaw (Sr) Jrs: Cole (OPP), Houghton* (L) Sos: Endsley (OH/OPP), Summers (MB), Wilmes (OH), Bush (OPP/MB), Bays (L), Mikkelson* (S), Wilson* (S), Griffin* (L) Frs: Hani (MB/OPP) * Walk-ons? Elise Hani (MB/OPP) looks like she could be another under-the-radar PNW recruit (haven't seen her mentioned in this thread). Hope Washington gets a solid setter recruit. Not sure mikkelson or Wilson can fill Ella mays void when she graduates. I’d love for them to prove me wrong! |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 9, 2020 15:49:43 GMT -5
she needs to develop a bit more power on her shots, but this is a good one! the LA school recruiting is on FIRE! just like the rest of LA oooo you messy |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 9, 2020 15:53:51 GMT -5
Unlike "some" schools, UW doesn't offer scholies that they don't have to give, on the premise that they can "clear" a slot later.  |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Sept 9, 2020 16:51:06 GMT -5
What an interesting recruiting class. I see maybe 5 or 6 impact players left on the board (future improvement notwithstanding) and I still find it SHOCKING that THREE of the top 5 2018 recruiting classes (Penn State, Washington, Oregon) have only one commitment each. If Hoffman, Powell, Grote, and Crenshaw all come back, and Mikkelson or Wilson is on scholie, UW would be up against the 12-scholie limit. A scholie-expansion is approved for 2021, but not for 2022. Cook could be holding onto some offers or offering grayshirts. Unlike "some" schools, UW doesn't offer scholies that they don't have to give, on the premise that they can "clear" a slot later. 2022: Srs: Hoffman (OH), Powell (S), Grote (Sr), Crenshaw (Sr) Jrs: Cole (OPP), Houghton* (L) Sos: Endsley (OH/OPP), Summers (MB), Wilmes (OH), Bush (OPP/MB), Bays (L), Mikkelson* (S), Wilson* (S), Griffin* (L) Frs: Hani (MB/OPP) * Walk-ons? Elise Hani (MB/OPP) looks like she could be another under-the-radar PNW recruit (haven't seen her mentioned in this thread - other than in the previous post, which I hadn't seen). If we are talking specifically of Washington situation, given the recruiting attention to a variety of 2022 players I've heard about, I highly doubt that Cook PLANS/PLANNED on giving one or two schollies in 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Sept 9, 2020 18:05:54 GMT -5
What an interesting recruiting class. I see maybe 5 or 6 impact players left on the board (future improvement notwithstanding) and I still find it SHOCKING that THREE of the top 5 2018 recruiting classes (Penn State, Washington, Oregon) have only one commitment each. If Hoffman, Powell, Grote, and Crenshaw all come back, and Mikkelson or Wilson is on scholie, UW would be up against the 12-scholie limit. A scholie-expansion is approved for 2021, but not for 2022. Cook could be holding onto some offers or offering grayshirts. Unlike "some" schools, UW doesn't offer scholies that they don't have to give, on the premise that they can "clear" a slot later. 2022: Srs: Hoffman (OH), Powell (S), Grote (Sr), Crenshaw (Sr) Jrs: Cole (OPP), Houghton* (L) Sos: Endsley (OH/OPP), Summers (MB), Wilmes (OH), Bush (OPP/MB), Bays (L), Mikkelson* (S), Wilson* (S), Griffin* (L) Frs: Hani (MB/OPP) * Walk-ons? Elise Hani (MB/OPP) looks like she could be another under-the-radar PNW recruit (haven't seen her mentioned in this thread - other than in the previous post, which I hadn't seen). What is a Grayshirt? |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 9, 2020 18:10:19 GMT -5
If Hoffman, Powell, Grote, and Crenshaw all come back, and Mikkelson or Wilson is on scholie, UW would be up against the 12-scholie limit. A scholie-expansion is approved for 2021, but not for 2022. Cook could be holding onto some offers or offering grayshirts. Unlike "some" schools, UW doesn't offer scholies that they don't have to give, on the premise that they can "clear" a slot later. 2022: Srs: Hoffman (OH), Powell (S), Grote (Sr), Crenshaw (Sr) Jrs: Cole (OPP), Houghton* (L) Sos: Endsley (OH/OPP), Summers (MB), Wilmes (OH), Bush (OPP/MB), Bays (L), Mikkelson* (S), Wilson* (S), Griffin* (L) Frs: Hani (MB/OPP) * Walk-ons? Elise Hani (MB/OPP) looks like she could be another under-the-radar PNW recruit (haven't seen her mentioned in this thread - other than in the previous post, which I hadn't seen). If we are talking specifically of Washington situation, given the recruiting attention to a variety of 2022 players I've heard about, I highly doubt that Cook PLANS/PLANNED on giving one or two schollies in 2022. As long as the NCAA hasn't expanded the 2022 scholarship limit, he's only got one to give (Hani), assuming either Mikkelson or Wilson will be on scholarship. Easier to recruit for 2023, with three starting spots open (S, OH, MB), than for 2022, with none. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 9, 2020 18:12:35 GMT -5
Unlike "some" schools, UW doesn't offer scholies that they don't have to give, on the premise that they can "clear" a slot later. Shady, but not historically true about UW. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 9, 2020 18:19:32 GMT -5
If Hoffman, Powell, Grote, and Crenshaw all come back, and Mikkelson or Wilson is on scholie, UW would be up against the 12-scholie limit. A scholie-expansion is approved for 2021, but not for 2022. Cook could be holding onto some offers or offering grayshirts. Unlike "some" schools, UW doesn't offer scholies that they don't have to give, on the premise that they can "clear" a slot later. 2022: Srs: Hoffman (OH), Powell (S), Grote (Sr), Crenshaw (Sr) Jrs: Cole (OPP), Houghton* (L) Sos: Endsley (OH/OPP), Summers (MB), Wilmes (OH), Bush (OPP/MB), Bays (L), Mikkelson* (S), Wilson* (S), Griffin* (L) Frs: Hani (MB/OPP) * Walk-ons? Elise Hani (MB/OPP) looks like she could be another under-the-radar PNW recruit (haven't seen her mentioned in this thread - other than in the previous post, which I hadn't seen). What is a Grayshirt? Delay enrolling until spring, so you count against the next recruiting class. Kaleigh Nelson was a greyshirt. A whiteshirt enrolls early, so they can participate in spring practice, counting against the previous class. |
|
) I could name about 100 factors that would be more meaningful when choosing a college than the ranking of a previous recruiting class.
