|
Post by BigDigEnergy on Jul 9, 2023 21:16:25 GMT -5
I assume they are referring to Kelly Kinney. did nebraska offer her? or were they waiting to see what happens with spears I remember seeing someone with very strong NE tie said that Kelly was pretty high in John Cook’s list and they really like her.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jul 9, 2023 21:27:49 GMT -5
The talk of tier one vs tier two schools for recruiting makes me chuckle… what makes NCAA volleyball so much fun to follow lately is top talent spreading out to other schools. There are a lot of great programs out there with great coaches and the potential to win it all and every recruit just wants what feels like the best school for them. Personally, I’m hoping the rest of the top names go to “second tier” or even -gasp- “third tier” schools… Spears to LSU sounds like a great choice to me Do people get the sense, with the increase in popularity of the game, that there is less obvious separation between "elite" recruits and everyone else? I get the impression that there is a fair amount of disagreement among rankings. That could be because there is no consensus ranking, as there was in the Tawa PV days, but even he said it was getting increasingly hard to do the rankings toward the end. I imagine a more competitive recruiting pool could flatten the recruiting hierarchy a bit.
|
|
|
Post by austinhorn21 on Jul 9, 2023 21:37:55 GMT -5
did nebraska offer her? or were they waiting to see what happens with spears I remember seeing someone with very strong NE tie said that Kelly was pretty high in John Cook’s list and they really like her. They can really like a player and not offer her at the same time. From my understanding in this situation that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 9, 2023 22:31:28 GMT -5
I remember seeing someone with very strong NE tie said that Kelly was pretty high in John Cook’s list and they really like her. They can really like a player and not offer her at the same time. From my understanding in this situation that is the case. Correct. Nebraska didn't offer Kinney. They did evaluate her rigorously and really liked her potential, but they chose to offer Sigler instead. Both schools should be happy. They're both very talented and great young women.
|
|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Jul 9, 2023 22:50:19 GMT -5
do coaches have restrictions on going overseas to scout?
The U17 Euros start this week... I think that would be 25'ers.
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Jul 10, 2023 1:11:37 GMT -5
do coaches have restrictions on going overseas to scout? The U17 Euros start this week... I think that would be 25'ers. Only restriction is their budget.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 10, 2023 2:43:32 GMT -5
The talk of tier one vs tier two schools for recruiting makes me chuckle… what makes NCAA volleyball so much fun to follow lately is top talent spreading out to other schools. There are a lot of great programs out there with great coaches and the potential to win it all and every recruit just wants what feels like the best school for them. Personally, I’m hoping the rest of the top names go to “second tier” or even -gasp- “third tier” schools… Spears to LSU sounds like a great choice to me 100% agree. Top talent riding the bench at a handful of schools doesn’t make the game any better.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jul 10, 2023 3:06:05 GMT -5
Has someone Stanford really really wanted ever not qualified?
Like don’t athletes kinda get “front”’of the line treatment and Stanford usually only recruit people they know that at least have a shot at getting in?
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jul 10, 2023 7:23:47 GMT -5
The talk of tier one vs tier two schools for recruiting makes me chuckle… what makes NCAA volleyball so much fun to follow lately is top talent spreading out to other schools. There are a lot of great programs out there with great coaches and the potential to win it all and every recruit just wants what feels like the best school for them. Personally, I’m hoping the rest of the top names go to “second tier” or even -gasp- “third tier” schools… Spears to LSU sounds like a great choice to me 100% agree. Top talent riding the bench at a handful of schools doesn’t make the game any better. It’s a natural extension of giving players freedom of choice. Either you have a system that dictates to some degree where players can and can’t enroll, or you have a system where talent tends to collect at a few places. It doesn’t have to be static that the few places remain the same year after year, although it will tend to. But a different level of investment, a change in coaches, a different level of success can move a program up or down the ladder. But there’s always going to be a ladder. Unless we suddenly have rules that forbid top players from going to top programs depending on the talent already amassed. Which is entirely unrealistic. I don’t blame people for being frustrated to some degree, but this isn’t new. This is college athletics. I like it that kids have a choice where they want to go, and I like it even more that Texas tends to have some competitive advantages when it comes to talent acquisition. In all sports. To change that would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. To me the real solution is for more programs to make themselves even more appealing. Which I do think is happening to some degree.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jul 10, 2023 7:29:52 GMT -5
Has someone Stanford really really wanted ever not qualified? Like don’t athletes kinda get “front”’of the line treatment and Stanford usually only recruit people they know that at least have a shot at getting in? It’s more of a case of the process winnows down who they can target in the first place. Both parties - Stanford and the student athlete - aren’t going to invest the time and energy to get them to campus unless it’s pretty much a sure thing. But the uncertainty means a few players who are on the bubble in one respect or another simply never go through the process, whether by their choice or by Stanford’s. That uncertainty is a competitive burden that Stanford gladly takes on because they have other priorities than simply being able to go after the best talent. Every university has to make their own choice in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by notvballdad on Jul 10, 2023 7:36:32 GMT -5
The talk of tier one vs tier two schools for recruiting makes me chuckle… what makes NCAA volleyball so much fun to follow lately is top talent spreading out to other schools. There are a lot of great programs out there with great coaches and the potential to win it all and every recruit just wants what feels like the best school for them. Personally, I’m hoping the rest of the top names go to “second tier” or even -gasp- “third tier” schools… Spears to LSU sounds like a great choice to me Do people get the sense, with the increase in popularity of the game, that there is less obvious separation between "elite" recruits and everyone else? I get the impression that there is a fair amount of disagreement among rankings. That could be because there is no consensus ranking, as there was in the Tawa PV days, but even he said it was getting increasingly hard to do the rankings toward the end. I imagine a more competitive recruiting pool could flatten the recruiting hierarchy a bit. Having gone through this process very recently here's my $.02 as parent and strictly from what some coaches conveyed during the process. There definitely is a top tier. There is a handful of girls that are world killers or game changers. We've had the pleasure of playing with some and there definitely are kids that, even at the highest level, separate themselves physically (mostly) but also just in raw talent, athleticism or IQ that make them difference makers. The number of these per class varies but I would put it at 5-10 players. To have all the bases covered, let's say there's 20 of those. Once you get past that, its gets a lot mushier in terms of difference. The difference between 21 and 201 is a lot less than it used to be in their eyes. While the ceiling has gone up for sure due to better coaching, resources and players, the floor has come way up where the difference between the top of this range and bottom is much less noticeable. That lessening of range brings a lot of other factors into play in recruiting where things like personality, regionality, etc. become deciding factors. In my opinion, its made it much harder for "really, really good players" to find homes. You may have spent an entire club career positioning yourself and be better than this kid or that kid but in the coaches eyes, that difference isn't really that big of a deal and they'll take a kid that is closer to them that they've seen more vs. an out of state kid that they've only seen a couple of times because the chances of the local kid leaving from being homesick are lower. Or they just know the kid better because of growing up coming to camp. Anecdotally, I played men's club in college. Our starting middle on our women's team was 5'10 and all conference multiple times. Great athlete and had an awesome career. Her measurables are no where near what most of the #21 to 201 kids are now. 6'0 or 6'1 OHs are a dime a dozen now and the difference is quite small so standing out, even with a 10'+ attack touch is tough and there are a lot more factors at play in finding a home. It's great for the game because you are seeing more and more programs being able to compete at high levels year over year so the product overall is getting really great and seeing some mid majors become perennial powers from really wise recruiting is awesome. The gorillas are still the gorillas and will continue to be with the physical difference they bring to the table. But on any given night, with ball control a little off and the IQ/talent on some of these other teams, anything can happen and its great for the game. Tough for recruiting but great for the game.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Jul 10, 2023 7:46:57 GMT -5
Has someone Stanford really really wanted ever not qualified? Like don’t athletes kinda get “front”’of the line treatment and Stanford usually only recruit people they know that at least have a shot at getting in? Yes
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jul 10, 2023 7:53:55 GMT -5
Has someone Stanford really really wanted ever not qualified? Like don’t athletes kinda get “front”’of the line treatment and Stanford usually only recruit people they know that at least have a shot at getting in? Yes It doesn't happen very often but yes it does. Top players who haven't committed late in the process and are rumored to be going to Stanford. Then they all of a sudden commit to another school.
|
|
|
Post by volleynerdmw on Jul 10, 2023 7:58:14 GMT -5
Do people get the sense, with the increase in popularity of the game, that there is less obvious separation between "elite" recruits and everyone else? I get the impression that there is a fair amount of disagreement among rankings. That could be because there is no consensus ranking, as there was in the Tawa PV days, but even he said it was getting increasingly hard to do the rankings toward the end. I imagine a more competitive recruiting pool could flatten the recruiting hierarchy a bit. Having gone through this process very recently here's my $.02 as parent and strictly from what some coaches conveyed during the process. There definitely is a top tier. There is a handful of girls that are world killers or game changers. We've had the pleasure of playing with some and there definitely are kids that, even at the highest level, separate themselves physically (mostly) but also just in raw talent, athleticism or IQ that make them difference makers. The number of these per class varies but I would put it at 5-10 players. To have all the bases covered, let's say there's 20 of those. Once you get past that, its gets a lot mushier in terms of difference. The difference between 21 and 201 is a lot less than it used to be in their eyes. While the ceiling has gone up for sure due to better coaching, resources and players, the floor has come way up where the difference between the top of this range and bottom is much less noticeable. That lessening of range brings a lot of other factors into play in recruiting where things like personality, regionality, etc. become deciding factors. In my opinion, its made it much harder for "really, really good players" to find homes. You may have spent an entire club career positioning yourself and be better than this kid or that kid but in the coaches eyes, that difference isn't really that big of a deal and they'll take a kid that is closer to them that they've seen more vs. an out of state kid that they've only seen a couple of times because the chances of the local kid leaving from being homesick are lower. Or they just know the kid better because of growing up coming to camp. Anecdotally, I played men's club in college. Our starting middle on our women's team was 5'10 and all conference multiple times. Great athlete and had an awesome career. Her measurables are no where near what most of the #21 to 201 kids are now. 6'0 or 6'1 OHs are a dime a dozen now and the difference is quite small so standing out, even with a 10'+ attack touch is tough and there are a lot more factors at play in finding a home. It's great for the game because you are seeing more and more programs being able to compete at high levels year over year so the product overall is getting really great and seeing some mid majors become perennial powers from really wise recruiting is awesome. The gorillas are still the gorillas and will continue to be with the physical difference they bring to the table. But on any given night, with ball control a little off and the IQ/talent on some of these other teams, anything can happen and its great for the game. Tough for recruiting but great for the game. Couldn't agree more on the 21-201 comment. With how much these girls train and play the gap continues to grow smaller from the girls on all the lists to the girls that aren't.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jul 10, 2023 8:30:13 GMT -5
Having gone through this process very recently here's my $.02 as parent and strictly from what some coaches conveyed during the process. There definitely is a top tier. There is a handful of girls that are world killers or game changers. We've had the pleasure of playing with some and there definitely are kids that, even at the highest level, separate themselves physically (mostly) but also just in raw talent, athleticism or IQ that make them difference makers. The number of these per class varies but I would put it at 5-10 players. To have all the bases covered, let's say there's 20 of those. Once you get past that, its gets a lot mushier in terms of difference. The difference between 21 and 201 is a lot less than it used to be in their eyes. While the ceiling has gone up for sure due to better coaching, resources and players, the floor has come way up where the difference between the top of this range and bottom is much less noticeable. That lessening of range brings a lot of other factors into play in recruiting where things like personality, regionality, etc. become deciding factors. In my opinion, its made it much harder for "really, really good players" to find homes. You may have spent an entire club career positioning yourself and be better than this kid or that kid but in the coaches eyes, that difference isn't really that big of a deal and they'll take a kid that is closer to them that they've seen more vs. an out of state kid that they've only seen a couple of times because the chances of the local kid leaving from being homesick are lower. Or they just know the kid better because of growing up coming to camp. Anecdotally, I played men's club in college. Our starting middle on our women's team was 5'10 and all conference multiple times. Great athlete and had an awesome career. Her measurables are no where near what most of the #21 to 201 kids are now. 6'0 or 6'1 OHs are a dime a dozen now and the difference is quite small so standing out, even with a 10'+ attack touch is tough and there are a lot more factors at play in finding a home. It's great for the game because you are seeing more and more programs being able to compete at high levels year over year so the product overall is getting really great and seeing some mid majors become perennial powers from really wise recruiting is awesome. The gorillas are still the gorillas and will continue to be with the physical difference they bring to the table. But on any given night, with ball control a little off and the IQ/talent on some of these other teams, anything can happen and its great for the game. Tough for recruiting but great for the game. Couldn't agree more on the 21-201 comment. With how much these girls train and play the gap continues to grow smaller from the girls on all the lists to the girls that aren't. There’s also the fact that volleyball is more competitive in terms of appeal compared to other sports. Women’s basketball in particular, which emphasizes many of the same physical characteristics. Volleyball continues to be a bigger and more compelling draw. That’s going to continue to raise the bar in terms of overall talent available.
|
|