Search results

Teams they should have beaten but lose to = bad losses But, like I said, they aren't really bad losses if we just admit the team isn't a top 16 team. They aren't.

I'd consider the USC loss a bad one. Extenuating circumstances, but still. Baylor and TCU were also bad losses, but Wisconsin and Texas wins balance those out. Purdue at home was also not great.

Louisville over Pitt. You just can't make it up. Man, there are a lot of weak teams in the B1G this year.

My concern is that OSU controlled the outcome of this match -- by playing well and then by absolutely stinking up the joint. I wish this team had the ability to dominate from start to finish against their peers, but I really don't think they do. USC and Purdue (not to mention Baylor and TCU)...

Hanson was great, but that may have been KT's best match as a Gopher. (And Gray's for that matter.)

SMU's loss to Stanford today is a perfect example. They were swept, but outscored by only 7 points -- and last set was 35-33. All losses are not the same.

This data, at Rich Kern, is more useful. https://www.richkern.com/vb/rankings/indexsub.asp?Div=DI&VBYear=2024

Even worse, it doesn't differentiate between 3-0 sweeps and 3-2 wins (or losses). Nor does it care if you lose sets by 2 points. It is a seriously flawed metric to use for something as important as NCAA tournament seeding. (And, yes, I know it supposedly isn't the ONLY thing they use.)

1) They need to win that match (hardly a lock) and 2) Rutgers will cancel out whatever they gained. Maybe more than cancel out. RPI stinks, but no point in pretending it doesn't work the way it does. Diet Coke, even with Auburn, plus the Green Bay tournament seems to have torpedoed their chances...

I wouldn't give Shaffmaster an A. Her setting deficiencies are more than balanced by her defense (blocking and floor defense) and her own offense, but enough for an A? Solid B, imo. I'd give the team a B- at this point.

Rutgers will hurt their RPI, win or lose. And that's the point, their RPI is toast. MAYBE if they win the rest of their matches they could squeak by, but for every Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin, there's a Rutgers, Northwestern, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Ohio State even. It has...

Diet Coke and Green Bay tournaments pretty much insured they won't be hosting.

889 attendance. Just never ceases to amaze me how little support volleyball gets in SoCal.

Broadcast was fine, but I have no idea how they missed the fact Julia left the match due to illness. Their camera sure didn't miss it. I'm not sure I like Grote on the left. Unless Crowl can start hitting the ball, what are they gaining? There were times last night where it seemed like they had...

More like one forward and one back. Story of the season.

I'm not sure Olivia and Sydney will be be here next year. They could easily opt to transfer somewhere where they will play more.

I think Thibault, by far, has been their best passer, and Pilabyik has been fine (except for the Stanford match). The problems -- passing and defense -- are elsewhere. They are a #20-30 team, at best. We may as well face it and support their efforts to improve. It's too bad, given how...

I take back my take back. They just have too many weaknesses and they are trying too many things that just do not work. Unfortunately I don't see how it can be fixed. They could burn Stella's redshirt I guess but I'm not sure if that's going to help.

Well, I take it back. Most of it anyhow. Not the serving specialist part or the need to take better swings. But they passed great against Texas, except for g4. Great bounce back for both Z and Wookie. Intentionally posting in this thread.

Very disappointing. Stanford was not good and the Gophers still found a way to lose. And I am so tired of serving specialists who cannot serve in, let alone well. I would guess serving will get much better. I don't know about passing. And MW needs to swing away like Julia. If not, I'm not sure...