|
|
Post by nellynel on Dec 15, 2021 15:15:47 GMT -5
This whole thread is  Not really, it’s just the one I can see the least. I could see the argument against Butler not being 1st team and I’m a Longhorn homer. That’s all. My argument is if you took those attributes and put them on Pitt, Louisville player I don’t think they make 3rd team AA. It’s a beauty pageant which is why I generally don’t care just like I don’t watch the oscars or glue myself to recruit rankings. The numbers just don’t jive in my head so I have my opinion. And now I’m done. |
|
|
|
Post by nellynel on Dec 15, 2021 15:17:07 GMT -5
But congratulations to Kubic and everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Dec 15, 2021 15:18:00 GMT -5
Not really, it’s just the one I can see the least. I could see the argument against Butler not being 1st team and I’m a Longhorn homer. That’s all. My argument is if you took those attributes and put them on Pitt, Louisville player I don’t think they make 3rd team AA. It’s a beauty pageant which is why I generally don’t care just like I don’t watch the oscars or glue myself to recruit rankings. The numbers just don’t jive in my head so I have my opinion. And now I’m done. I'm not even referring to Rodriguez being first team. Every year it's the same. And every year there are justifiable arguments for being upset that Player A was left off the team. It's the nature of these things. And this is coming from the guy whose schtick is "this is an outrage" after every VT poll is released.  |
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Dec 15, 2021 15:18:51 GMT -5
All I have to say is, Congratulations AVCA on a job... DONE! SMH
|
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Dec 15, 2021 15:20:45 GMT -5
There is a reason why there are eligibility requirements based on sets played. Per set contributions are great, but part of a player's overall value to their team is their availability for all of the team's matches/sets. Obviously no one blames players for being injured, but when it comes to that, should a player who played in just less than 2/3 of their team's (regular season) sets push out players who played all year long? So true. Your first and greatest ability is your availability. Two hypotheticals, for you or anyone else that wants to play along. What if Stivrins was good to go 2 weeks earlier? What if Cook convinced her to give it an extra two weeks of rest because he wanted to make sure that she would be able to play through the entire postseason without any set-backs. It's possible she was available, but was told to wait it out because the team didn't need her in those matches? Does that affect the discussion regarding availability? What if Cook had started her in every set the first weekend of play, but then subbed her out after the first point? Technically she'd be eligible then. He easily could have done that if he wanted to make sure she was eligible for these awards. Maybe he wasn't willing to do that because he didn't want to send the message that individual awards are important enough to waste a sub, but another coach might be. I suppose the fact that I can't come up with any instance of this actually happening means it's not much of a concern. |
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Dec 15, 2021 15:21:51 GMT -5
Maybe your opinion on Roddy is ridiculous? lol. It’s funny that NOBODY but Nebraska homers have disagreed with me there and my comment sure got a good amount of likes by knowledgeable posters. Doesn’t seem to be that ridiculous Almost as ridiculous as measuring worth by internet likes… |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2021 15:21:53 GMT -5
So true. Your first and greatest ability is your availability. Two hypotheticals, for you or anyone else that wants to play along. What if Stivrins was good to go 2 weeks earlier? What if Cook convinced her to give it an extra two weeks of rest because he wanted to make sure that she would be able to play through the entire postseason without any set-backs. It's possible she was available, but was told to wait it out because the team didn't need her in those matches? Does that affect the discussion regarding availability? What if Cook had started her in every set the first weekend of play, but then subbed her out after the first point? Technically she'd be eligible then. He easily could have done that if he wanted to make sure she was eligible for these awards. Maybe he wasn't willing to do that because he didn't want to send the message that individual awards are important enough to waste a sub, but another coach might be. I suppose the fact that I can't come up with any instance of this actually happening means it's not much of a concern. in the second scenario there’s no way she would have stats to warrant the award so it doesn’t really matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Dec 15, 2021 15:23:28 GMT -5
Another blind resume: Player A (OPP in P5, team made Elite 8): 3.10 kills/set, .292 hit %, 0.18 aces/set, 1.06 digs/set, 1.10 blocks/set Player B (OPP in P5, team in Final 4): 3.05 kills/set, .285 hit %, does not serve, 0.28 digs/set, 0.80 blocks/set Player C (OPP in P5, team in Final 4): 2.19 kills/set, .252 hit %, 0.34 aces/set, 0.89 digs/set, 1.15 blocks/set
Player A - Grace Cleveland, OPP, Purdue (HM)
Player B - Chinaza Ndee, OPP, Pittsburgh (3rd Team)
Player C - Aiko Jones, OPP, Louisville (N/A)
does it have to be these 3? jk jk i would go A, B, C, in that order. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Dec 15, 2021 15:25:02 GMT -5
Last blind resume - Player A (OH in P5, team made Sweet 16): 3.75 kills/set, .306 hit %, 0.39 aces/set, 2.05 digs/set, 0.46 blocks/set Player B (OH in P5, team made Sweet 16): 3.51 kills/set, .286 hit %, 0.16 aces/set, 2.52 digs/set, 0.58 blocks/set Player C (OH in P5, team made 2nd round): 3.60 kills/set, .254 hit %, 0.25 aces/set, 2.24 digs/set, 0.45 blocks/set
Player A - Claire Hoffman, OH, Washington (3rd Team)
Player B - Avery Skinner, OH, Baylor (HM)
Player C - Alli Stumler, OH, Kentucky (2nd Team)
this one's close - B, A, C |
|
|
|
Post by vballfan17 on Dec 15, 2021 15:27:02 GMT -5
Last blind resume - Player A (OH in P5, team made Sweet 16): 3.75 kills/set, .306 hit %, 0.39 aces/set, 2.05 digs/set, 0.46 blocks/set Player B (OH in P5, team made Sweet 16): 3.51 kills/set, .286 hit %, 0.16 aces/set, 2.52 digs/set, 0.58 blocks/set Player C (OH in P5, team made 2nd round): 3.60 kills/set, .254 hit %, 0.25 aces/set, 2.24 digs/set, 0.45 blocks/set
Player A - Claire Hoffman, OH, Washington (3rd Team)
Player B - Avery Skinner, OH, Baylor (HM)
Player C - Alli Stumler, OH, Kentucky (2nd Team)
this one's close - B, A, C Hope you clicked the spoiler on this one |
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Dec 15, 2021 15:27:16 GMT -5
in the second scenario there’s no way she would have stats to warrant the award so it doesn’t really matter. If the awards were solely based on stats, that would be a decent argument. As we see today, that is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Dec 15, 2021 15:29:30 GMT -5
Not sure if people complaining about team success playing a role in individual awards have never seen individual awards in any team sport before. You can’t name a single individual award for a team sport where the teams success didn’t play a strong role. The Heisman is usually the best player on the best team. There’s only ever 5 players in the history of the MLB to win MVP on a team with a losing record. Only once has Super Bowl and once World Series MVP come from the losing team. It’s not a travesty that team success influences these awards. It’s the way these awards are built.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Dec 15, 2021 15:34:38 GMT -5
Not sure if people complaining about team success playing a role in individual awards have never seen individual awards in any team sport before. You can’t name a single individual award for a team sport where the teams success didn’t play a strong role. The Heisman is usually the best player on the best team. There’s only ever 5 players in the history of the MLB to win MVP on a team with a losing record. Only once has Super Bowl and once World Series MVP come from the losing team. It’s not a travesty that team success influences these awards. It’s the way these awards are built. I think the bigger complaint is using a single-elimination tournament to primarily measure "team success." |
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Dec 15, 2021 15:37:11 GMT -5
in the second scenario there’s no way she would have stats to warrant the award so it doesn’t really matter. If the awards were solely based on stats, that would be a decent argument. As we see today, that is not the case. No, because if she started say 8 sets in beginning of season and was subbed out after 1st point her stats would then reflect 8 more sets played with really no stats so all her per set stats would go down to levels below AA consideration levels probably. It's unfortunate because she is the key to Nebraska's season shifting from good/very good to great once she entered the line up as an everyday player. She may not have been the stat leader, but once she was on the court she gave everyone else on the team the confidence that they now could compete for titles whether B1G or NCAA. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 15, 2021 15:42:42 GMT -5
lol. It’s funny that NOBODY but Nebraska homers have disagreed with me there and my comment sure got a good amount of likes by knowledgeable posters. Doesn’t seem to be that ridiculous Almost as ridiculous as measuring worth by internet likes… I almost "liked" this, but I didn't think anybody would get the joke. |
|
%20ii%201967-2011-Seal.jpg)
