Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 10:38:48 GMT -5
I think it's worth noting that Texas has almost always (like we're talking since at least 2007) had quicker / stronger / more athletic middles than 99% of their opponents, but have never before been able to utilize them to their full extent. Outside of the 2009 team, Texas has never had good ball control, but this 2020-21 version of the Longhorns has incredible ball control. This team minus O'Brien is an entirely different, one-dimensional team. Absolutely. Texas arms w/ball control & good setting is dangerous. Championship formula. Kentucky will finish second but had a great season and have built a great program. except Kentucky has better ball control and better setting. The arms Texas has a slight advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by rampageripster on Apr 23, 2021 10:46:50 GMT -5
There has been no formal invitation from the Big Ten to Texas. There may have been talks by powerful people behind closed doors, but nothing was ever concrete beyond blogger speculation. Think you are confusing it with the Pac-12 who got into far more advanced talks that included bringing a handful of B12 teams but fell apart cause of Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. No, I'm not confused. There was no public invitation. But, there was an invitation extended (not sure how formal or informal). But, Texas wanted to bring Texas Tech with it, which caused some hesitance by the B1G. There was even an email exchange from a B1G official titled "We have a Tech problem" (or something of the like). Plenty of stuff out there on the internet about it. Make no mistake, the B1G wants in the Texas TV market and/or the Virginia/North Carolina TV markets. But, ACC's granting of rights are further from expiring than those of the Big 12.
That was never reported in any meaningful way. It's the stuff of "insiders", bloggers, and leaked internal emails without context. At no point was an invitation actually put out there. Sure the B1G would have loved to bring in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas (I think that was the play) but that snag was discovered early on and the B1G never actually pout forward an invitation. Your original post indicated that the B1G invited Texas and the longhorns turned it down. Reality is that the B1G explored the idea of adding Texas and actually had conversations with the university about it, but it never materialized in the end. You are posting a ton of speculation as fact here. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Apr 23, 2021 10:54:55 GMT -5
No, I'm not confused. There was no public invitation. But, there was an invitation extended (not sure how formal or informal). But, Texas wanted to bring Texas Tech with it, which caused some hesitance by the B1G. There was even an email exchange from a B1G official titled "We have a Tech problem" (or something of the like). Plenty of stuff out there on the internet about it. Make no mistake, the B1G wants in the Texas TV market and/or the Virginia/North Carolina TV markets. But, ACC's granting of rights are further from expiring than those of the Big 12.
That was never reported in any meaningful way. It's the stuff of "insiders", bloggers, and leaked internal emails without context. At no point was an invitation actually put out there. Sure the B1G would have loved to bring in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas (I think that was the play) but that snag was discovered early on and the B1G never actually pout forward an invitation. Your original post indicated that the B1G invited Texas and the longhorns turned it down. Reality is that the B1G explored the idea of adding Texas and actually had conversations with the university about it, but it never materialized in the end. You are posting a ton of speculation as fact here.I stated that no public invitation was extended. And, no, I'm not posting a "ton" of speculation. Doesn't matter now. Your "facts" are no more proven than my "facts" unless you were part of the actual discussions.
The "leaked" email was a fact; Ohio State AD even declined to comment on it when directly questioned about it.
Again, it's all water under the bridge. I do think if the B1G comes calling again with any interest, Texas will give it serious consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by dokterrudi on Apr 23, 2021 10:56:10 GMT -5
Barnes is good, may need to reel it in a little I think she wore herself out.
|
|
|
|
Post by diggerdive on Apr 23, 2021 11:00:23 GMT -5
Ooohhh. The moon ball critique! We haven’t seen that since Hurricane Sandy and Lance Armstrong was disgraced. Lol It's not meant to be a critique at all. You should absolutely run the system best suited to your players and it's hard to deny that system best suits Texas's players. If anything, I think teams that run offenses heavily dependent on talented setters (Minnesota in the SSS era) are often more prone to being upset in the tournament. It takes a lot to get that to work and you're more susceptible to bad things happening if anything is a little bit off. Nebraska, Stanford also run pretty safe offenses. Why do anything fancy when they can't stop your simple stuff? Texas isn’t moonballing - it’s very fast. The space between Kentucky and Texas setting is negligible. The UT serve receive is dimes - Texas doesn’t have one very good libero - they have three. If Gabriel digs and can’t set there’s two others that put up a nicely tempod ball. The hitters are ALL terminating at a high level with efficiency. Texas was down by four or five points in that first set, but did not get rattled - this is one of the few times I’ve seen the team fight back with focus and no fear (reminiscent of that BYU match). The service pressure Texas is giving teams also speaks to their psychological readiness and prowess. I admit I had some concerns in that first game - but the team looks really mentally ready and synchronized. Kentucky, here’s what you should do - target Logan with serves and be over confident about being “fast” and hitting over Gabriel, good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 23, 2021 11:04:24 GMT -5
It's not meant to be a critique at all. You should absolutely run the system best suited to your players and it's hard to deny that system best suits Texas's players. If anything, I think teams that run offenses heavily dependent on talented setters (Minnesota in the SSS era) are often more prone to being upset in the tournament. It takes a lot to get that to work and you're more susceptible to bad things happening if anything is a little bit off. Nebraska, Stanford also run pretty safe offenses. Why do anything fancy when they can't stop your simple stuff? The space between Kentucky and Texas setting is negligible. HAHAHAHAHAHA I normally ignore homers who clearly haven't watched teams other than their own, but this was too good. |
|
|
|
Post by Longhorn20 on Apr 23, 2021 11:04:39 GMT -5
It's not meant to be a critique at all. You should absolutely run the system best suited to your players and it's hard to deny that system best suits Texas's players. If anything, I think teams that run offenses heavily dependent on talented setters (Minnesota in the SSS era) are often more prone to being upset in the tournament. It takes a lot to get that to work and you're more susceptible to bad things happening if anything is a little bit off. Nebraska, Stanford also run pretty safe offenses. Why do anything fancy when they can't stop your simple stuff? Texas isn’t moonballing - it’s very fast. The space between Kentucky and Texas setting is negligible. The UT serve receive is dimes - Texas doesn’t have one very good libero - they have three. If Gabriel digs and can’t set there’s two others that put up a nicely tempod ball. The hitters are ALL terminating at a high level with efficiency. Texas was down by four or five points in that first set, but did not get rattled - this is one of the few times I’ve seen the team fight back with focus and no fear (reminiscent of that BYU match). The service pressure Texas is giving teams also speaks to their psychological readiness and prowess. I admit I had some concerns in that first game - but the team looks really mentally ready and synchronized. Kentucky, here’s what you should do - target Logan with serves and be over confident about being “fast” and hitting over Gabriel, good luck. So a lot of stats are not as valuable this year because of no interconference matches, but I think one thing you can say just from the eye test is that the difference in setting between these teams is not negligible. I love Jhenna and she has made VAST improvements in her game the past couple of years, but the difference between her and Lilley is astronomical. |
|
|
|
Post by diggerdive on Apr 23, 2021 11:07:37 GMT -5
Texas isn’t moonballing - it’s very fast. The space between Kentucky and Texas setting is negligible. The UT serve receive is dimes - Texas doesn’t have one very good libero - they have three. If Gabriel digs and can’t set there’s two others that put up a nicely tempod ball. The hitters are ALL terminating at a high level with efficiency. Texas was down by four or five points in that first set, but did not get rattled - this is one of the few times I’ve seen the team fight back with focus and no fear (reminiscent of that BYU match). The service pressure Texas is giving teams also speaks to their psychological readiness and prowess. I admit I had some concerns in that first game - but the team looks really mentally ready and synchronized. Kentucky, here’s what you should do - target Logan with serves and be over confident about being “fast” and hitting over Gabriel, good luck. So a lot of stats are not as valuable this year because of no interconference matches, but I think one thing you can say just from the eye test is that the difference in setting between these teams is not negligible. I love Jhenna and she has made VAST improvements in her game the past couple of years, but the difference between her and Lilley is astronomical. The difference in setting between the two teams -on whole- is, and will be - negligible. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 23, 2021 11:07:44 GMT -5
When's the last time the team with the best "pure" setter won? Lilley would be the first since.. Glass in 09?
|
|
|
|
Post by Longhorn20 on Apr 23, 2021 11:10:48 GMT -5
When's the last time the team with the best "pure" setter won? Lilley would be the first since.. Glass? Best as in the country or in the matchup? I’d argue Hunter in 2015 and 2017 was the best pure setter in those matchups, but I don’t think she was the best pure setter in the country if that’s the point you’re trying to make. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 23, 2021 11:11:17 GMT -5
When's the last time the team with the best "pure" setter won? Lilley would be the first since.. Glass in 09? In the entire country? Or just in the match-up? Edit: oops jinx. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 23, 2021 11:13:13 GMT -5
When's the last time the team with the best "pure" setter won? Lilley would be the first since.. Glass? Best as in the country or in the matchup? I’d argue Hunter in 2015 and 2017 was the best pure setter in those matchups, but I don’t think she was the best pure setter in the country if that’s the point you’re trying to make. In the country. Hunter overlapped with Carlini and Poulter, so she never got that title. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 23, 2021 11:15:24 GMT -5
Then yeah, Glass probably.
Some would argue Gray. Not me, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Longhorn20 on Apr 23, 2021 11:15:28 GMT -5
Best as in the country or in the matchup? I’d argue Hunter in 2015 and 2017 was the best pure setter in those matchups, but I don’t think she was the best pure setter in the country if that’s the point you’re trying to make. In the country. Hunter overlapped with Carlini and Poulter, so she never got that title. Then yeah I completely agree that Glass in 2009 was probably the last |
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Apr 23, 2021 11:16:09 GMT -5
When's the last time the team with the best "pure" setter won? Lilley would be the first since.. Glass in 09? Didn't Micah Hancock win a couple? |
|
