|
|
Post by robtearle on May 8, 2022 19:20:26 GMT -5
But that is the point with regard to the importance of coaching and the 'tweaks' they must make! Wisconsin did NOT "avoid the injury bug". Very much the opposite! They had their preferred lineup on the floor for exactly one weekend, and it was in August. Danielle Hart missed all but about a month, and her being gone necessitated much of the lineup experimentation; they had to move an All-American opposite away from playing opposite; at one point or another, they started at least four different players at opposite; Orzol missed about a month; Smrek missed about a month, Civita missed maybe two months in two different stretches. I'll say it once more: without the experimentation that Sheffield had to undertake and the 'answer' he finally came up with, Wisconsin does not win the national championship. The original premise that kicked off this whole thing was 'coaches are over-rated', and having had a close-up view of Wisconsin's 2021 season, I *completely* disagree with that statement. Again we're probably splitting hairs but I don't consider major lineup replacements as tweaks. Hart being gone meant that someone had to step into her role. For that matter I would say that Nebraska did more "tweaking" trying to figure out whether to go with veterans or first years in certain spots. Orzol, Smrek, and Civita missed time but they all played in the tournament didn't they? Orzol from what I heard (maybe from you?) played in the tournament hurt/injured. So, I would revise the statement to: avoiding the injury bug at the right time. AGAIN I will 100% agree with you that coaches are not over-rated, especially when you consider that they drive the recruiting bus. They're the ones who have to determine which players to entice to their program. Their hands are in almost every aspect of their program if not every aspect. No disrespect meant to coaches whatsoever! And Nebraska's tweaking throughout the year was very much instrumental in getting them to playing the quality of VB they played at tournament time. Another example of the importance of the coaches and the effect they have. "Hart being gone meant that someone had to step into her role." Again, goes right to the point. It wasn't simply, "OK, Smrek, go play middle. That takes care of that." (That was, if fact, the first try, in the Maryland match that was a loss. Not the reason for the loss, but a good part of it.) It took multiple lineup changes and combinations across more than two months of season to arrive at the combination the world saw in the tournament. Coaches and coaching. The disrespect to the coaches came from the guy who posted "Coaching is overrated". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2022 22:49:35 GMT -5
Overrrrrated.
Especially by you.
And I prefer her/she
|
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on May 8, 2022 23:32:00 GMT -5
That and some amazingly talented Super Seniors. Those amazingly talented super-seniors were the #4 seed in the tournament. There was nothing 'inevitable' about their winning. Agree with the second sentence. As for the first, is that per RPI? In that case, well, it's RPI. Per Pablo, Wisconsin was a smidgen behind Louisville (10 points) and well ahead of the other FF participants. Wisconsin winning it all was not as much of a surprise as the #4 seed would suggest. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on May 8, 2022 23:45:37 GMT -5
Those amazingly talented super-seniors were the #4 seed in the tournament. There was nothing 'inevitable' about their winning. Agree with the second sentence. As for the first, is that per RPI? In that case, well, it's RPI. Per Pablo, Wisconsin was a smidgen behind Louisville (10 points) and well ahead of the other FF participants. Wisconsin winning it all was not as much of a surprise as the #4 seed would suggest. ?? It was per the seeds in the tournament as the NCAA committee set up the bracket. Louisville was the #1 seed, Texas was #2, Pitt was #3, Wisconsin #4, Baylor #5, etc etc. |
|
|
|
Post by rjaege on May 9, 2022 7:41:52 GMT -5
Overrrrrated. Especially by you. And I prefer her/she With respect to coaches being overrated: apparently not by the AD'S writing their contracts. With respect to prefer he/she: not "ze". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2022 22:49:02 GMT -5
From a pure talent perspective, here is my ranking… Minnesota Nebraska Wisconsin Ohio State Penn State Purdue Illinois Northwestern Michigan Maryland Michigan State Indiana Iowa Rutgers You still see Indiana that high? |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on May 9, 2022 23:57:20 GMT -5
From a pure talent perspective, here is my ranking… Minnesota Nebraska Wisconsin Ohio State Penn State Purdue Illinois Northwestern Michigan Maryland Michigan State Indiana Iowa Rutgers You still see Indiana that high? Why shouldn't he/she? Coaches don't make much difference. :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 7:24:42 GMT -5
Haha.
Coaches make a difference.
Coaching is overrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kearney Kingston on May 10, 2022 8:39:58 GMT -5
How many B1G teams will be ranked in the top five in the initial AVCA poll? And who?
|
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on May 10, 2022 8:48:55 GMT -5
How many B1G teams will be ranked in the top five in the initial AVCA poll? And who? I'd be curious what they'll do with Wisconsin. Returning champ usually gets a high ranking but they lost a *ton*. I'd say Nebraska is going to come in at either 1 or 2. Wisconsin maybe 3 or 4. That's it. Probably something like: 1. Nebraska 2. Texas 3. Louisville 4. Wisconsin 5. Pittsburgh Minnesota/Ohio State in the 6-10 range. |
|
|
|
Post by greatlakesvballer on May 10, 2022 11:54:14 GMT -5
How many B1G teams will be ranked in the top five in the initial AVCA poll? And who? I'd be curious what they'll do with Wisconsin. Returning champ usually gets a high ranking but they lost a *ton*. I'd say Nebraska is going to come in at either 1 or 2. Wisconsin maybe 3 or 4. That's it. Probably something like: 1. Nebraska 2. Texas 3. Louisville 4. Wisconsin 5. Pittsburgh Minnesota/Ohio State in the 6-10 range. That sounds right to me, but, in reality, they may want to flip Wisconsin for Minnesota. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 10, 2022 12:23:46 GMT -5
How many B1G teams will be ranked in the top five in the initial AVCA poll? And who? I'd be curious what they'll do with Wisconsin. Returning champ usually gets a high ranking but they lost a *ton*. I'd say Nebraska is going to come in at either 1 or 2. Wisconsin maybe 3 or 4. That's it. Probably something like: 1. Nebraska 2. Texas 3. Louisville 4. Wisconsin 5. Pittsburgh Minnesota/Ohio State in the 6-10 range. Stanford was still ranked in the top 3 in the preseason poll for spring 2021, so I'm confident Wisconsin will be top five preseason. |
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on May 10, 2022 12:35:13 GMT -5
How many B1G teams will be ranked in the top five in the initial AVCA poll? And who? I'd be curious what they'll do with Wisconsin. Returning champ usually gets a high ranking but they lost a *ton*. I'd say Nebraska is going to come in at either 1 or 2. Wisconsin maybe 3 or 4. That's it. Probably something like: 1. Nebraska 2. Texas 3. Louisville 4. Wisconsin 5. Pittsburgh Minnesota/Ohio State in the 6-10 range. This is very reasonable. I could see Louisville at 2 and Texas around 3 or 4. Also wouldn’t be surprised if wisco is up a spot at 3. Those top 4 are definitely right but I could see 2-4 being flipped in all possibilities between Texas, Louisville, and wisco. |
|
|
|
Post by Kearney Kingston on May 10, 2022 12:43:32 GMT -5
Louisville lost their two most valuable players. They are not a top five team in ‘22.
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on May 10, 2022 13:23:30 GMT -5
Historically, they always rank the champion really high in that initial poll. It's never clear what the initial poll is intended to represent. A lot of the time there is this blind legacy component to the vote.
I agree that, if the poll were meant as a prediction of initial quality entering the season, UW should be in the 5-10 range. I'd put them in top 5 for the end of season prediction though.
|
|
