|
|
Post by burbank55 on Jul 19, 2024 20:14:48 GMT -5
Not many recruits left on the compiled list of elites for the class of 2026. Again, apologies to any worthy recruits not listed here. 1) Sarah Wood 2) Simone Roslon (Stanford indoor) 3) Anabelle Redaelli
- Long Beach St 4) Lily Sprague - Washington 5) Keira Faragalla - Utah Top Vote getters (alphabetical order by last name) Allyn Brewer - LSU Emma Champagne - USC Audrey Flanagan - indoor to Wisconsin Sara Moynihan - UCLA Olga Nikolaeva - Stanford Simone Roslon - indoor to Stanford Jordyn Scribner - USC Sarah Wood Remaining Elite: Julia Anisimova, 5-9 - Cal Blaire Bowers - UCLA Ruby Cochrane - Stanford Addison Conner - CalPoly Clara Evans - TCU Keira Faragalla - Utah Kloe Fulenwider, 5-10 - Boise St.
Ella Grimes, 5-10 - Texas
Sarah Gyepes, 5-11 - Cal
Ciela Hendrickson, 5-10 - Tulane Brynn Hughbanks, 5-10 - FSU Ella Hughes, 5-8 - Hawaii Avery Junk - FSU Addison Junk - FSU Cora Loomer, 6-1 - UCLA
Macy Ludwig, 5-8 - CalPoly Shayla Martinez - Washington Izzy Masten - Pittsburg indoor Kara Namimatsu, 5-9 - USC Kaitlyn Nguyen - indoor? Layli Ostovar, 5’11” - USC Anabelle Redaelli
- Long Beach St Estelle Reese, 5-8 - Stanford
Bella Scherfenberg, 5-8 - Texas Elizabeth Selinger
- Tulane Lily Sprague, 5-9 - Washington Brielle Taylor - TCU Britain Taylor, 5-6 - TCU Eliana Urzua - indoor to UCLA Haylee Wright, 5-8 - still playing? http://instagram.com/p/C9nRVQZPPpY
|
|
|
|
Post by barnesnclark on Jul 20, 2024 1:29:49 GMT -5
burbank55 Simone Rolson is headed to Stanford indoor. Here are some results from national tournaments this year where the list above won some hardware: P14402nd Jordyn Scribner USC (Playing up in 18's) 3rd Junks FSU (18's) 2nd Macy Ludwig CP/ Shayla Martinez UW(16's) BVCA Pairs1st Junks FSU (16's) 3rd Julia Anisimova Cal (16's) JO's2nd Sara Moynihan UCLA (18's) 3rd Blair Bowers UCLA/ Olga Niolaeva Stanford (18's) 1st Bella Scherfenberg UT/ Jordyn Scribner USC (16's) 2nd Emma Champagne USC/ Shayla Martinez UW (16's) AAU Nationals2nd Junks FSU (16's) 3rd Julia Anisimova Cal/ Sara Moynihan UCLA (16's) USAV Nationals1st Izzy Masten Pitt Indoor(18's) 3rd Clara Evans TCU (16's)
|
|
|
|
Post by burbank55 on Jul 22, 2024 16:02:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by burbank55 on Jul 28, 2024 20:07:14 GMT -5
Great final point! Kelly and Sara both played well, but have plenty of room for improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by hbmb10k on Jul 29, 2024 0:04:21 GMT -5
Heard Molly Phillips is not coming back. Appeal was denied. Bettenhorst supposedly is playing beach as well as indoor. Don't know if that has been announced?
|
|
|
|
Post by beachnut94 on Jul 29, 2024 10:39:56 GMT -5
New scholarship limits will be a huge help to SC. Basically the entire roster can be on scholarship now. Lots of the historical missed recruits were due to available $$. SC has always been at a disadvantage being about 3-4x the cost of UCLA.
The question is, will the AD find the money to fully fund it.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachnut94 on Jul 29, 2024 10:45:16 GMT -5
Heard Molly Phillips is not coming back. Appeal was denied. Bettenhorst supposedly is playing beach as well as indoor. Don't know if that has been announced? Not that I’m an expert but I went and read the rules and I can’t figure out why people think you would get an additional year. |
|
|
|
Post by burbank55 on Jul 29, 2024 12:23:57 GMT -5
Heard Molly Phillips is not coming back. Appeal was denied. Bettenhorst supposedly is playing beach as well as indoor. Don't know if that has been announced? Not that I’m an expert but I went and read the rules and I can’t figure out why people think you would get an additional year. Below is what I put earlier in this thread… It hinges on having a fifth year if you have a second sport with remaining eligibility. Think Delaynie Maple playing indoor at Indiana this year after four years playing Beach at USC. In Molly’s case, the appeal was denied I’m guessing because the Covid rules seemingly didn’t align to fully negate the 2020 year. ”As I recall, she transferred after 4.5 years and 4+ indoor seasons at Texas (2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023). She then was at USC for half a year, Spring 2024. As explained by others on this board, she should have up to five years to complete her eligibility if all sports. However, 2020 should be a Covid bonus year. She still has eligibility in beach volleyball because Texas didn’t start their beach program until Spring 2023 so only 2 beach campaigns for Molly.” |
|
|
|
Post by beachnut94 on Aug 11, 2024 13:07:44 GMT -5
What’s the popular opinion on funding in 25/26, will SC fully fund the 18 scholarships that appear to now be allowed? Thinking out loud this will end up making SC more dominant as the $ is an issue now for many players that wouldn’t consider SC.
|
|
|
|
Post by burbank55 on Aug 13, 2024 15:49:02 GMT -5
What’s the popular opinion on funding in 25/26, will SC fully fund the 18 scholarships that appear to now be allowed? Thinking out loud this will end up making SC more dominant as the $ is an issue now for many players that wouldn’t consider SC. I agree with your thoughts, if indeed USC fully funds the 19 allowable scholarships. Reasons why USC would increase from 6 to 19 scholarships: 1) Dain has been pushing for more scholarships for years, probably Anna before that. 2) Beach VB is currently the most successful USC athletic program in terms of hardware. (WBB is an emerging powerhouse) If any program has earned a bump in budget, it is Beach. 3) There are hints that USC will invest in a facility upgrade for Beach VB. If this is true, then investing another million a year for the extra scholarships seems more reasonable. Reasons why USC would not fully fund the maximum 19 scholarships: 1) Football is the major revenue generator and Trojan football currently has the possibility of a poor upcoming season. (I don’t think it will) If Football tanks, then the Athletics revenue/donations will be significantly lower. 2) While successful, Beach VB brings in essentially no revenue. 3) Does the current/incoming roster include some players who do not deserve a full scholarship because they will never play? It’s quite possible that the players with true starting potential get full scholarships and the never going to start players do not. Stats trivia: USC Beach Roster sizes through the years. As you can see, managing a roster limit of 19 players is very doable. 2024 - 21 players 2023 - 20 2022 - 24 2021 - 19 2020 - 18 2019 - 16 2018 - 14-15 2017 - 16 2016 - 16 2015 - 17 2014 - 18 Belated congrats on the 2024 Beach squad for earning its fifth straight AVCA Team Academic Award. http://instagram.com/p/C-D-cZ4SUyj
|
|
|
|
Post by beachnut94 on Aug 14, 2024 11:59:34 GMT -5
What’s the popular opinion on funding in 25/26, will SC fully fund the 18 scholarships that appear to now be allowed? Thinking out loud this will end up making SC more dominant as the $ is an issue now for many players that wouldn’t consider SC. I agree with your thoughts, if indeed USC fully funds the 19 allowable scholarships. Reasons why USC would increase from 6 to 19 scholarships: 1) Dain has been pushing for more scholarships for years, probably Anna before that. 2) Beach VB is currently the most successful USC athletic program in terms of hardware. (WBB is an emerging powerhouse) If any program has earned a bump in budget, it is Beach. 3) There are hints that USC will invest in a facility upgrade for Beach VB. If this is true, then investing another million a year for the extra scholarships seems more reasonable. Reasons why USC would not fully fund the maximum 19 scholarships: 1) Football is the major revenue generator and Trojan football currently has the possibility of a poor upcoming season. (I don’t think it will) If Football tanks, then the Athletics revenue/donations will be significantly lower. 2) While successful, Beach VB brings in essentially no revenue. 3) Does the current/incoming roster include some players who do not deserve a full scholarship because they will never play? It’s quite possible that the players with true starting potential get full scholarships and the never going to start players do not. Stats trivia: USC Beach Roster sizes through the years. As you can see, managing a roster limit of 19 players is very doable. 2024 - 21 players 2023 - 20 2022 - 24 2021 - 19 2020 - 18 2019 - 16 2018 - 14-15 2017 - 16 2016 - 16 2015 - 17 2014 - 18 Belated congrats on the 2024 Beach squad for earning its fifth straight AVCA Team Academic Award. http://instagram.com/p/C-D-cZ4SUyj
I think for sure there will be people on the roster that will never play, and thats probablly true for every team in every sport. I've already heard a few schools had donors step up to provide some funding to at least increase scolarships. Some schools had it previously in the form of team NIL money to help, but thats just another area SC has done a poor job for a school that should excel here. I also think some that have played the last 2 years might not see the sand in real matches again. I'm sure the bulk of the money from the Big10 is gauranteed and performance doesnt matter. Even if they are 500 this year they could still get a bowl game. I think the confrence splits some of the bowl money anyway. I dont think money for the football team is an issue even with the scolarship increases. On the roster sizes always assume you potientially have 1-2 financial aid players and that doesn't combine/count. And the big roster sizes were partially do to players either Anna recruited in her last year that didnt meet Dains "style or skills" and or covid players that took a 6th year. I dont see 24 happening again. 20-22 seems resonable if you have some redshirts and or transfers. I dont even think the max full scolarships even 50-75% makes SC a way way better option. USC 95k annually (Obviously higher every year at a faster clip than publics) UCLA 35k annually If I was a player or parent and the money doesnt happen I'd strongly consider a transfer. There is no ROI on 95k less a 20-25% scolarship (hearing thats thge high side for many) vs free on other good schools that will find the money |
|
|
|
Post by burbank55 on Aug 14, 2024 17:47:58 GMT -5
I think for sure there will be people on the roster that will never play, and thats probablly true for every team in every sport. I've already heard a few schools had donors step up to provide some funding to at least increase scolarships. Some schools had it previously in the form of team NIL money to help, but thats just another area SC has done a poor job for a school that should excel here. I also think some that have played the last 2 years might not see the sand in real matches again. I'm sure the bulk of the money from the Big10 is gauranteed and performance doesnt matter. Even if they are 500 this year they could still get a bowl game. I think the confrence splits some of the bowl money anyway. I dont think money for the football team is an issue even with the scolarship increases. On the roster sizes always assume you potientially have 1-2 financial aid players and that doesn't combine/count. And the big roster sizes were partially do to players either Anna recruited in her last year that didnt meet Dains "style or skills" and or covid players that took a 6th year. I dont see 24 happening again. 20-22 seems resonable if you have some redshirts and or transfers. I dont even think the max full scolarships even 50-75% makes SC a way way better option. USC 95k annually (Obviously higher every year at a faster clip than publics) UCLA 35k annually If I was a player or parent and the money doesnt happen I'd strongly consider a transfer. There is no ROI on 95k less a 20-25% scolarship (hearing thats thge high side for many) vs free on other good schools that will find the money Yeah, as I said, I agree with you. Just want to clarify a couple things since this is all new and I don’t think fully official yet. The proposal is that teams will have roster limits and there will no longer be any scholarship restrictions if schools agree to the revenue sharing. Collegiate Beach VB will have a maximum 19 players per team. Schools do not have to fund all scholarships. sports.yahoo.com/sources-ncaa-to-increase-scholarships-for-sports-with-football-getting-roster-limit-of-105-players-164300598.htmlI agree that media rights revenue is set regardless of performance and that is a huge chunk of the athletics revenue, but USC found out that football’s success during Pete Carroll’s era floated all boats because overall donations to the university increased dramatically during that time. We’re talking the successful $6 billion campaign. People are also more willing to buy tickets and merchandise when the team is doing well. UCLA and Cal have had huge athletics deficits in the past few years. Have you seen how few people attended games at the Rose Bowl during the Chip Kelly era? The media money will help a lot. We still have to see how much schools are willing to increase their spending. LA Times said that UCLA’s athletics deficit in 2023 was $36.6 million. $167.7 million in total debt since the 2019 fiscal year. |
|
|
|
Post by beachnut94 on Aug 14, 2024 21:09:14 GMT -5
Cal has a whole different set of issues as the average Bay Area resident isn’t as likely a Cal fan. The draw to attend is a good amount lower unless you fit a very narrow personality type and that type is also less of a sports fan. Not trying to be political it’s just different. And that different comes will way less donations to the athletic department.
UCLA has the draw I believe however the fan draw is still lower and they are a California public school and that comes with a whole different set of issues that USC will never face.
This will make Texas rise faster and help the likes of TCU even more. Stein looks a little smarter today.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleycoach2310 on Aug 14, 2024 23:37:59 GMT -5
Cal has a whole different set of issues as the average Bay Area resident isn’t as likely a Cal fan. The draw to attend is a good amount lower unless you fit a very narrow personality type and that type is also less of a sports fan. Not trying to be political it’s just different. And that different comes will way less donations to the athletic department. UCLA has the draw I believe however the fan draw is still lower and they are a California public school and that comes with a whole different set of issues that USC will never face. This will make Texas rise faster and help the likes of TCU even more. Stein looks a little smarter today. Yes Texas seems to have money dripping from their pores. Football is $$ there…Wondering if LSU, FSU, UCLA (public) and TCU & USC (private) get full funding…and will public/private make any difference? |
|
|
|
Post by burbank55 on Aug 15, 2024 9:59:46 GMT -5
I remembered that one of the local colleges posted the fall collegiate beach schedule and I found it on Pepperdine’s site. Hope to see you at the SoCal Fall Challenge at Manhattan Beach. The weather was amazing when I went last year. Got the rare sunny morning at the beach. Will add as I discover any additional dates. Pepperdine’s fall schedule: Oct 11-12 - Cal Poly Fall Tournament (San Luis Obispo) Oct 18-20 - SoCal Fall Challenge (Manhattan Beach) Oct 26 - Pepperdine vs CS Bakersfield (Malibu) Nov 9 - Pepperdine Annual 4-Man Fundraiser (Malibu) Nov 15-17 - AVCA Fall Pairs Championship (Huntsville, Alabama www.avca.org/event/2024-avca-beach-national-championships/AVCA Fall Pairs Championship has the following qualifiers. These are generally for lower ranked schools to earn additional spots. Qualifiers We are excited to offer 6 qualifying events this year where bids can be earned to the AVCA Fall Collegiate Beach Championships. Date Location Region Contact 10/12-10/13 Cartersville, GA East Charlie Olson 10/12-10/13 Spokane Valley, WA West Chan Esperas 10/18-10/20 Manhattan Beach, CA West Mark Paaluhi 10/26-10/27 Houston, TX Central Kimberlee DeMarco 11/1-11/3 Huntsville, AL Central Charlie Olson 11/1-11/3 Tavares, FL East Mark Paaluhi |
|
