|
|
Post by VolleyballMag on Jul 22, 2021 15:21:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by longhorn9214 on Jul 22, 2021 15:25:19 GMT -5
How does Texas have an HM with one good transfer and a local high prospect MB? |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 22, 2021 15:38:13 GMT -5
How does Texas have an HM with one good transfer and a local high prospect MB? The real question is who was the idiot that didn't give Nebraska the top spot? Including transfers seems weird to me. Prtichard and Rollins will be there for a year - they shouldn't count toward the class of 2021 who have a minimum 4 years of eligibility. And if you ARE considering transfers (which apparently they are) the fact that Kentucky is ahead of Baylor makes absolutely zero sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2021 16:37:39 GMT -5
Can we see a list of voters? My goodness. This voting must be a direct reflection of Covid.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jul 22, 2021 17:25:32 GMT -5
Can we see a list of voters? My goodness. This voting must be a direct reflection of Covid. I don't have the list, but I do have a pic of one extinguished voter ...  |
|
|
|
Post by volleyaudience on Aug 3, 2021 12:52:02 GMT -5
How does Texas have an HM with one good transfer and a local high prospect MB? The real question is who was the idiot that didn't give Nebraska the top spot? Including transfers seems weird to me. Prtichard and Rollins will be there for a year - they shouldn't count toward the class of 2021 who have a minimum 4 years of eligibility. And if you ARE considering transfers (which apparently they are) the fact that Kentucky is ahead of Baylor makes absolutely zero sense. Good points. It's almost like two separate evaluations: How did the coaches do bringing in talent in the class of 2021 and How did they do bringing in combined talent for next year. I think I would have preferred giving an extra year only to the senior class. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Aug 3, 2021 13:56:17 GMT -5
The real question is who was the idiot that didn't give Nebraska the top spot? Including transfers seems weird to me. Prtichard and Rollins will be there for a year - they shouldn't count toward the class of 2021 who have a minimum 4 years of eligibility. And if you ARE considering transfers (which apparently they are) the fact that Kentucky is ahead of Baylor makes absolutely zero sense. I think I would have preferred giving an extra year only to the senior class. Most definitely! |
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Aug 3, 2021 14:13:08 GMT -5
I think I would have preferred giving an extra year only to the senior class. Most definitely! Then a lot of last year's freshmen, sophomores, and juniors + any of the players at schools who didn't play at all would have "redshirted" and we still would've been in pretty much the same spot. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Aug 3, 2021 14:21:10 GMT -5
Then a lot of last year's freshmen, sophomores, and juniors + any of the players at schools who didn't play at all would have "redshirted" and we still would've been in pretty much the same spot. Can you claim redshirt status if you play the season? There were a lot of schools that went forward with their season so I don't think those girls would have been able to redshirt. |
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Aug 3, 2021 14:25:50 GMT -5
Then a lot of last year's freshmen, sophomores, and juniors + any of the players at schools who didn't play at all would have "redshirted" and we still would've been in pretty much the same spot. Can you claim redshirt status if you play the season? There were a lot of schools that went forward with their season so I don't think those girls would have been able to redshirt. I think many of those players only opted to play their season because the NCAA declared that they wouldn't use up a season of eligibility. Many players would have opted out of using up a season of eligibility for, in some cases, such a heavily-reduced schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 3, 2021 14:33:01 GMT -5
Can you claim redshirt status if you play the season? There were a lot of schools that went forward with their season so I don't think those girls would have been able to redshirt. I think many of those players only opted to play their season because the NCAA declared that they wouldn't use up a season of eligibility. Many players would have opted out of using up a season of eligibility for, in some cases, such a heavily-reduced schedule. Agree. I think this was quite likely to happen in volleyball when most schools elected to play in the spring and the high level of COVID when the season started. One thing the NCAA might do is to easa scholarship limits beyond the 21-22 season. From the number of returning seniors, it appears many schools were willing to fund extra ships so that may be good compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Aug 3, 2021 14:39:07 GMT -5
I think many of those players only opted to play their season because the NCAA declared that they wouldn't use up a season of eligibility. Many players would have opted out of using up a season of eligibility for, in some cases, such a heavily-reduced schedule. Agree. I think this was quite likely to happen in volleyball when most schools elected to play in the spring and the high level of COVID when the season started. Hindsight is always 20/20. I thought the best course of action was to start the season in the fall, especially after football decided they would. Having a regular season didn't seem to hurt Texas or Kentucky. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 3, 2021 14:41:28 GMT -5
Agree. I think this was quite likely to happen in volleyball when most schools elected to play in the spring and the high level of COVID when the season started. Hindsight is always 20/20. I thought the best course of action was to start the season in the fall, especially after football decided they would. Having a regular season didn't seem to hurt Texas or Kentucky. In hindsight, I think that would have been the right call though it might have been dicey for the tournament as that is the period of time when COVID started spiking. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Aug 3, 2021 14:41:35 GMT -5
I think many of those players only opted to play their season because the NCAA declared that they wouldn't use up a season of eligibility. Many players would have opted out of using up a season of eligibility for, in some cases, such a heavily-reduced schedule. One thing the NCAA might do is to easa scholarship limits beyond the 21-22 season. From the number of returning seniors, it appears many schools were willing to fund extra ships so that may be good compromise. For me that's not the issue. Giving everyone a "free" year created a recruiting bottleneck that directly affected HS girls who graduate in 22. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Aug 3, 2021 14:44:21 GMT -5
One thing the NCAA might do is to easa scholarship limits beyond the 21-22 season. From the number of returning seniors, it appears many schools were willing to fund extra ships so that may be good compromise. For me that's not the issue. Giving everyone a "free" year created a recruiting bottleneck that directly affected HS girls who graduate in 22. That's why I made the suggestion of easing the scholarship limits to reduce the conflict between keeping a senior vs. bringing in a recruit. |
|
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/W34E6WUZKNAYPJECX7XWMXTMRM.JPG)
