|
Post by aardvark on Jan 15, 2020 9:10:30 GMT -5
Gibbyb1: Let's review our little pissing contest here...
This thread is for Pitt, who despite their disappointing early exit in the NCAA tourney, had a great year last year. Truly their best ever in this sport. Fans of the school created this thread to talk with excitement about the school's future. Hammer, a long-time ACC-hating troll chose to jump in and add negativity, because that's what trolls do. He said the ACC had a down year, almost embarrassingly so. Well, guess what, the actual numbers show that according to RPI, the ACC finished fifth this year, just like they did the year before. There is some sign the "level of fifth" softened a bit. This tailing off in numbers was very modest and might be fully attributable to random luck in scheduling. It certainly wasn't sufficient to be characterized as "embarrassing". However, Hammer is a known troll, and it's clear he was just taking another childish shot at the ACC which even he realizes has gotten stronger since he started his obnoxious crusade years ago.
I replied to him, and you jumped into the conversation. You said 5th best means worst of the Power 5 conferences. You said the ACC "stunk" and said that 9 teams from the conference were "fairly well" below the 100 RPI level. OK. I know Hammer, but I don't know you. So I gave a mild response, that ignored your primary assertion that the ACC "stunk". I pointed out that only 8 ACC teams were below 100 RPI, and went ahead and listed them and their final RPI numbers so any of our collective audience could judge for themselves how bad the bottom half of the ACC was. Not liking RPI as a quality measuring stick, I referred to your 100 RPI plateau judgment criteria as "artificial", which it is.
You could have let it go at that point, but you unwisely indicated that your argument was still valid even if you got the numbers slightly wrong. So I gave a lengthy reply that did aim at your main argument. You claim the ACC stinks (your label, your terminology) because they finished last out of five specific conferences, ignoring the other 16 that finished further behind. This is selective measurement. You ignore the non-power 5 conferences because considering them mars your attempt to portray the ACC as having "stunk". You make *zero* effort to quantify how much the ACC trailed those other Power 5 conferences to make your case. I bring up this line of argument in comparing Syracuse to BC to hint how the measuring stick of RPI in of itself is a poor one for judging power. You just seem to think the last-of-five finish alone warrants your label. Unlike my previous posting, this response of mine does have some nastiness to it. I start by calling your argument lame (which it is) and end by saying I am beating you in this debate. However, by this time, I have equated you with Hammer. You are disrespectfully arguing that the ACC stinks in a thread dedicated to fans of a specific ACC school. Your threadbare argument is short on facts because its central assertion is pretty much preposterous. This makes you out to be a jerk, just like Hammer, which causes my responses to get significantly more snarky at this point.
Amazingly, you persist. You do moderate your characterization of ACC from "stunk" to "wasn't very good", but instead of introducing new supporting information, you just repeat yourself saying the ACC finished last of the Power 5. You apparently think justifies all that you've said before. Let me be clear... it does not. You seem to think just saying that is enough to prove your point. You are out of your depth here and I advise you to quickly crawl back under whatever rock you came out from.
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Jan 15, 2020 9:27:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by volleynerdmw on Jan 15, 2020 10:22:49 GMT -5
I'll feel bad when Fisher leaves for USC.
|
|
|
Post by volleynerdmw on Jan 15, 2020 12:09:47 GMT -5
Soboleski Transfers out... not surprising. Probably got a Scholly with the So. Alabama setter transferring to Louisville.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jan 15, 2020 12:20:31 GMT -5
Soboleski Transfers out... not surprising. Probably got a Scholly with the So. Alabama setter transferring to Louisville. Makes sense. She's low on the depth chart at Pitt. Levers fills the same role as her but much better. Big change of location for a local recruit though.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Jan 15, 2020 12:56:52 GMT -5
Gibbyb1: Let's review our little pissing contest here... This thread is for Pitt, who despite their disappointing early exit in the NCAA tourney, had a great year last year. Truly their best ever in this sport. Fans of the school created this thread to talk with excitement about the school's future. Hammer, a long-time ACC-hating troll chose to jump in and add negativity, because that's what trolls do. He said the ACC had a down year, almost embarrassingly so. Well, guess what, the actual numbers show that according to RPI, the ACC finished fifth this year, just like they did the year before. There is some sign the "level of fifth" softened a bit. This tailing off in numbers was very modest and might be fully attributable to random luck in scheduling. It certainly wasn't sufficient to be characterized as "embarrassing". However, Hammer is a known troll, and it's clear he was just taking another childish shot at the ACC which even he realizes has gotten stronger since he started his obnoxious crusade years ago. I replied to him, and you jumped into the conversation. You said 5th best means worst of the Power 5 conferences. You said the ACC "stunk" and said that 9 teams from the conference were "fairly well" below the 100 RPI level. OK. I know Hammer, but I don't know you. So I gave a mild response, that ignored your primary assertion that the ACC "stunk". I pointed out that only 8 ACC teams were below 100 RPI, and went ahead and listed them and their final RPI numbers so any of our collective audience could judge for themselves how bad the bottom half of the ACC was. Not liking RPI as a quality measuring stick, I referred to your 100 RPI plateau judgment criteria as "artificial", which it is. You could have let it go at that point, but you unwisely indicated that your argument was still valid even if you got the numbers slightly wrong. So I gave a lengthy reply that did aim at your main argument. You claim the ACC stinks (your label, your terminology) because they finished last out of five specific conferences, ignoring the other 16 that finished further behind. This is selective measurement. You ignore the non-power 5 conferences because considering them mars your attempt to portray the ACC as having "stunk". You make *zero* effort to quantify how much the ACC trailed those other Power 5 conferences to make your case. I bring up this line of argument in comparing Syracuse to BC to hint how the measuring stick of RPI in of itself is a poor one for judging power. You just seem to think the last-of-five finish alone warrants your label. Unlike my previous posting, this response of mine does have some nastiness to it. I start by calling your argument lame (which it is) and end by saying I am beating you in this debate. However, by this time, I have equated you with Hammer. You are disrespectfully arguing that the ACC stinks in a thread dedicated to fans of a specific ACC school. Your threadbare argument is short on facts because its central assertion is pretty much preposterous. This makes you out to be a jerk, just like Hammer, which causes my responses to get significantly more snarky at this point. Amazingly, you persist. You do moderate your characterization of ACC from "stunk" to "wasn't very good", but instead of introducing new supporting information, you just repeat yourself saying the ACC finished last of the Power 5. You apparently think justifies all that you've said before. Let me be clear... it does not. You seem to think just saying that is enough to prove your point. You are out of your depth here and I advise you to quickly crawl back under whatever rock you came out from. That’s a lot to review, I made a two sentence observation on ACC as it relates to Pitt. You wrote a novel. Moving on.
|
|
|
Pitt 2020
Jan 15, 2020 12:58:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gibbyb1 on Jan 15, 2020 12:58:03 GMT -5
I'll feel bad when Fisher leaves for USC. They’d have to pay him triple what the could have two years ago when they passed on him. USC athletic department is a mess.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jan 24, 2020 18:36:03 GMT -5
National JuCo POY comes from Houston via Navarro. 3.97 KPS, 0.267, 2.29 DPS. Didn't put up a ton of reps or good stats at houston but seems to have improved in the past year.
Anyone know eligibility rules for JuCo? She didn't redshirt at Houston. Is she an NCAA sophomore or junior next year?
|
|
|
Post by chatchu-off moksri on Jan 24, 2020 19:22:24 GMT -5
National JuCo POY comes from Houston via Navarro. 3.97 KPS, 0.267, 2.29 DPS. Didn't put up a ton of reps or good stats at houston but seems to have improved in the past year. Anyone know eligibility rules for JuCo? She didn't redshirt at Houston. Is she an NCAA sophomore or junior next year? I'm guessing she will be a junior since she spent one year at Houston and 1 year at a JuCo? Has anyone seen her play? Will she bring some good competition to that second outside hitter spot behind Lund? I'm guessing Faki and her will battle it out? Are there any other good freshman recruits that could challenge for playing time? IMHO, I feel like an issue with last year's team was the fact that they were balanced, but they were almost too balanced at times? Yes, any of the hitters could step up but on the flip side, I felt like there were certain moments when none of the hitters stepped up. Hopefully this transfer helps bring some added competition to the gym and this off season helps Ndee and/or Lund much more reliable players that could take over a match consistently. I really want Pitt to make the Sweet 16 and I feel like they are gonna need to do it next year when Lund and Ndee are seniors, since I'm not really sure how the team is going to look after that. I really want to see some new blood in the national conversation! #H2P
|
|
|
Post by finalthoughts on Jan 24, 2020 19:53:36 GMT -5
National JuCo POY comes from Houston via Navarro. But can she cheer?
|
|
|
Pitt 2020
Jan 25, 2020 11:03:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by odinaka on Jan 25, 2020 11:03:19 GMT -5
National JuCo POY comes from Houston via Navarro. 3.97 KPS, 0.267, 2.29 DPS. Didn't put up a ton of reps or good stats at houston but seems to have improved in the past year. Anyone know eligibility rules for JuCo? She didn't redshirt at Houston. Is she an NCAA sophomore or junior next year? I hear coaches and players are really pumped about Jordan. As a fan I’m super excited Pitt is gaining recruiting strength in Texas, and especially in H Town!
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Jan 28, 2020 9:08:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ilikecorn on Apr 20, 2020 19:29:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Pitt 2020
Apr 21, 2020 9:04:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 21, 2020 9:04:40 GMT -5
My positional breakdown: S - I would guess a 6-2 with Levers and Akeo. That was the plan last year before Levers got injured and I'm not sure if Akeo has improved enough (or grown taller) to stay in the 5-1 from last year. Soboleski is an afterthought, as Levers is the same height and a better setter in the same role. This is probably the strongest position, no matter what offense we run. OH - Lund will continue to hammer the ball, as usual. Williams is a loss at the net but was a huge liability passing, with the most receiving errors and lowest pass % on the team. Faki should be considered her replacement, as she often subbed in when Williams had a bad game. Faki improves on defense but loses some offense from Williams. Gomez and Dick impressed my friend who went to the spring scrimmage and they looked OK when they played in warmups. Haven't seen HS tape from them. Flood is a top 150 Senior Ace but I haven't seen tape on her either. No issues here, just interested to see who grabs OH2. RS - Should be Ndee at the net, subbing in for a DS or L on the back row. Might move to MB if we can't find anyone to replace LVB. Don't expect anyone else to match the blocking and hitting power Ndee brings to the table. Depth is fine as a lot of our OH's can play both sides. No worries at RS. MB - Starks should be M1. She was top 10 in blocks/set in the nation and has massively improved on offense in one season starting. She was even working a mediocre slide by the end of the year, which should be coordinated better with the focus on her as the main offensive option out of the middle. Nwokolo is pretty good, but was raw last year. Went off in some games, barely played in others. I expect her at M2. Russ is tall but lacks coordination, as is typical of tall girls out of HS. This is a young position and lacks depth unless Ndee moves back over. Starks only really has 1 season of experience despite being a junior. DS/L - Starting competition will be very interesting. I think Browske is the better defensive player but she has a pretty bad serve from the few she took last year (can be fixed with gym time). Perosa is more experienced and a better server but may lack the talent that Browske brings to the table. Again, I don't know what recruits are coming but I wouldn't be surprised if a freshman or transfer comes in and also competes for floor time. Probably the weakest position on the team, and way down vs past years after the loss of Seman's experience last season and Hillegas's great play this year. 6-2 while an option, was definitely not the plan
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 21, 2020 10:35:37 GMT -5
My positional breakdown: S - I would guess a 6-2 with Levers and Akeo. That was the plan last year before Levers got injured and I'm not sure if Akeo has improved enough (or grown taller) to stay in the 5-1 from last year. Soboleski is an afterthought, as Levers is the same height and a better setter in the same role. This is probably the strongest position, no matter what offense we run. OH - Lund will continue to hammer the ball, as usual. Williams is a loss at the net but was a huge liability passing, with the most receiving errors and lowest pass % on the team. Faki should be considered her replacement, as she often subbed in when Williams had a bad game. Faki improves on defense but loses some offense from Williams. Gomez and Dick impressed my friend who went to the spring scrimmage and they looked OK when they played in warmups. Haven't seen HS tape from them. Flood is a top 150 Senior Ace but I haven't seen tape on her either. No issues here, just interested to see who grabs OH2. RS - Should be Ndee at the net, subbing in for a DS or L on the back row. Might move to MB if we can't find anyone to replace LVB. Don't expect anyone else to match the blocking and hitting power Ndee brings to the table. Depth is fine as a lot of our OH's can play both sides. No worries at RS. MB - Starks should be M1. She was top 10 in blocks/set in the nation and has massively improved on offense in one season starting. She was even working a mediocre slide by the end of the year, which should be coordinated better with the focus on her as the main offensive option out of the middle. Nwokolo is pretty good, but was raw last year. Went off in some games, barely played in others. I expect her at M2. Russ is tall but lacks coordination, as is typical of tall girls out of HS. This is a young position and lacks depth unless Ndee moves back over. Starks only really has 1 season of experience despite being a junior. DS/L - Starting competition will be very interesting. I think Browske is the better defensive player but she has a pretty bad serve from the few she took last year (can be fixed with gym time). Perosa is more experienced and a better server but may lack the talent that Browske brings to the table. Again, I don't know what recruits are coming but I wouldn't be surprised if a freshman or transfer comes in and also competes for floor time. Probably the weakest position on the team, and way down vs past years after the loss of Seman's experience last season and Hillegas's great play this year. 6-2 while an option, was definitely not the plan You said this earlier in the thread. I think there was some article in the PG or PSN where Fisher said there was a choice between that and 5-1 with Levers before her injury. Not sure how the choice weighed before the injury.
|
|