2017 Volleyball

Donate To GopherHole
MRJ, can you answer my questions of post #475, then? Thank you! Would love to have an answer from an experienced vball fan.
 

MRJ said:
Agreed. Minnesota is one of the best women's volleyball coaching jobs in the country for a number of reasons. Folks who don't know much about the program probably don't realize that since they equate the job in terms like the football and men's hoops jobs, where fans are constantly worried about coaches leaving.

Minnesota women's volleyball isn't even close to being in the same boat. If McCutcheon did decide to leave, there would be plenty of top-notch coaches that would want the job. But the point is moot for now since Hugh himself said something to the effect that he's not looking to leave just within the last few weeks. He probably could have gone last year when Dunning retired, but that job instead went to Tim Hambly, who I have a feeling wasn't Stanford's top choice. I get the impression that Hugh essentially said "no thanks," although it is pure speculation on my part.

In other words, Hugh seems very happy in Minnesota and dead set on staying here, at least for now. And even if he did leave, the program would have no problem attracting attention from very high level candidates to take over.
Click to expand...

I assume that Minnesota is one of the top paying women's indoor vball jobs in the nation, as well.

There might be a few higher, but as was said, they have their coaches and they aren't leaving. Only thing would be as national team coach, and Hugh has been there done that.


So if you're getting paid near the tops, and you can realistically reach out to any area of the country to snag a high school/club first team All-American .... literally convince a top player in the country from Florida to move to frozen Minnesota .... then I just don't see how this isn't one of the best places in the country.
 

MnplsGopher

The rotation 'thing' is the way the game is played. Given that, there need to be two middles so that one is in the front row at all times. The rotation sequence you described for middle blockers is almost the way it is done. The only difference is that when, in your example, Pittman replaces the libero in the front row, the other middle blocker (Lohman) serves. After the opponents side out Lohman's serving, the libero returns in her place. Samedy and SSS played all 6 rotations all year long - except for those cases when Hugh would substitute an extra blocker for SSS. So using this year's team as an example:

- The middles were subbed as described
- Hart would serve and then be replaced in the back row by Goehner.
- The L2 (Martin, Klineman, or McLean) would be replaced by Barnes on the service line. Barnes would play the three rotations in the back row.
- SSS and Samedy played all 6 rotations.
 

https://volleyballmag.com/haley-121617/

In other news, USC lets Mick Haley go:

USC got to the NCAA Tournament round of eight before losing in five sets in the regional final, exceeding all expectations anyone had of the Trojans this season.

But it wasn’t enough for 74-year-old coach Mick Haley to keep his job.

Haley was told by USC his 17th season in Troy was his last.

“It seems obvious that they knew this from last spring,” Haley said. “I went to the athletic director last spring and asked for an extension. He said ‘I’ll get back to you’ and never got back to me.

“I took it from there that he wanted to see how we did this fall.”

Haley believes he is being discriminated against because of his age and he has hired an attorney, Chris Ludmer.

“He believes he was terminated not only because of his age, but in retaliation for him filing an age-discrimination complaint with USC, which he did before they fired him,” Ludmer said.

What’s more, Ludmer said USC canceled Haley’s current contract, which ran through June 2018.

Haley said he’s had a contentious relationship with USC senior associate athletic director and senior women’s administrator Donna Heinel
 

Ignatius L Hoops said:
https://volleyballmag.com/haley-121617/

In other news, USC lets Mick Haley go:

USC got to the NCAA Tournament round of eight before losing in five sets in the regional final, exceeding all expectations anyone had of the Trojans this season.

But it wasn’t enough for 74-year-old coach Mick Haley to keep his job.

Haley was told by USC his 17th season in Troy was his last.

“It seems obvious that they knew this from last spring,” Haley said. “I went to the athletic director last spring and asked for an extension. He said ‘I’ll get back to you’ and never got back to me.

“I took it from there that he wanted to see how we did this fall.”

Haley believes he is being discriminated against because of his age and he has hired an attorney, Chris Ludmer.

“He believes he was terminated not only because of his age, but in retaliation for him filing an age-discrimination complaint with USC, which he did before they fired him,” Ludmer said.

What’s more, Ludmer said USC canceled Haley’s current contract, which ran through June 2018.

Haley said he’s had a contentious relationship with USC senior associate athletic director and senior women’s administrator Donna Heinel
Click to expand...
Yikes. Ugly situation for sure.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 




If he didn't take the Stanford job, I don't think he is going to USC
 

Calif is extremely expensive place to live, with LA probably even worse than San Fran for housing costs ... which is unbelievable.
 



Gopher68 said:
MnplsGopher

The rotation 'thing' is the way the game is played. Given that, there need to be two middles so that one is in the front row at all times. The rotation sequence you described for middle blockers is almost the way it is done. The only difference is that when, in your example, Pittman replaces the libero in the front row, the other middle blocker (Lohman) serves. After the opponents side out Lohman's serving, the libero returns in her place. Samedy and SSS played all 6 rotations all year long - except for those cases when Hugh would substitute an extra blocker for SSS. So using this year's team as an example:

- The middles were subbed as described
- Hart would serve and then be replaced in the back row by Goehner.
- The L2 (Martin, Klineman, or McLean) would be replaced by Barnes on the service line. Barnes would play the three rotations in the back row.
- SSS and Samedy played all 6 rotations.
Click to expand...

No. I wasn't at all asking about how the rotation worked this year. The discussion was about the need for a second middle for next year.

I asked a valid question which has so far gone unanswered. You own response above seems to indicate that you can in fact have only a single middle and libero pair, the whole game. You just stopped short of saying as much.


And I think it was pretty clear from what I wrote that I was not suggesting that anyone is even talking about doing away with rotating in volleyball. What I did say is that volleyball has, in its past, undergone what I would consider equally extreme changes -- going from side-out scoring to rally scoring, as a way to prevent long, drawn-out matches.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I asked a valid question which has so far gone unanswered. You own response above seems to indicate that you can in fact have only a single middle and libero pair, the whole game. You just stopped short of saying as much.
Click to expand...
Not true. I stated that because of the rotational rules, there needs to be two middle blockers. At least, that's what I tried to say. Let me try again. When M1 is in the front row M2 is on the bench replaced by the libero. So, M1 is in the front for three rotations. When the libero is supposed to rotate to the front row, she is replaced by M2. M1 can not just return to the front row instead of the libero. Each player must remain in the same rotational position for the entire set. In your scenario, M1 would be in two different rotational positions. Her original rotation position as M1 and the rotation position for M2. That is contrary to the rules of the game. I hope I explained it better this time.
 

Gopher68 said:
Not true. I stated that because of the rotational rules, there needs to be two middle blockers. At least, that's what I tried to say. Let me try again. When M1 is in the front row M2 is on the bench replaced by the libero. So, M1 is in the front for three rotations. When the libero is supposed to rotate to the front row, she is replaced by M2. M1 can not just return to the front row instead of the libero. Each player must remain in the same rotational position for the entire set. In your scenario, M1 would be in two different rotational positions. Her original rotation position as M1 and the rotation position for M2. That is contrary to the rules of the game. I hope I explained it better this time.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very clear this time. Though I still question why the MB that starts the set at position 3 can't directly substitute for the libero that started the set at position 6, between the second and third rotation.

Isn't that exactly what happens with the libero that started at 6, who then directly substitutes for the MB that started at 3 and rotated into the back zone?

Is that not the exact point of having substitutions?


PS - I hope my posts aren't coming off disrespectful. I'm a bit frustrated with the complexity of the rules for this game, which seem to provide absolutely no apparent benefit to the game itself or to the spectators of the game. Again ... similar to how the scoring system was changed in the past ...
 




MnplsGopher said:
Yes, it's very clear this time. Though I still question why the MB that starts the set at position 3 can't directly substitute for the libero that started the set at position 6, between the second and third rotation.

Isn't that exactly what happens with the libero that started at 6, who then directly substitutes for the MB that started at 3 and rotated into the back zone?

Is that not the exact point of having substitutions?


PS - I hope my posts aren't coming off disrespectful. I'm a bit frustrated with the complexity of the rules for this game, which seem to provide absolutely no apparent benefit to the game itself or to the spectators of the game. Again ... similar to how the scoring system was changed in the past ...
Click to expand...

No problem. I am by no means an expert on the rules. They are very precise and it takes a while to even get some of the basics figured out.

As you have pointed out regarding the evolution of the game, the libero position was added not too long ago. When the libero position was originally created, the libero was not allowed to serve. Still, there are some special considerations for the libero position. The libero substitution is not counted against the number of allowed substitutions in a set - essentially a 'free' sub. And as before, you are very close to correct on the libero's rotations. When the libero rotates to the front, she can not immediately return to the back right position. Otherwise, she would have two turns at serving in a single round of rotations. So, she sits out until the middle blocker's service has been sided out. Then, the libero can replace the middle at the back right position.
 

So essentially, the correct understanding and answer to all my questions/challenges can simply be summed up as: the rules do not allow such a thing as a direct substitution, from one position to another.

That seems to be what it boils down to.


Again, that does not seem to provide a single benefit to the game itself or the spectators of the game. It seems to me that all it ultimately does it force superior players to leave the court for a rally (or even worse, until serve changes side??), before coming right back on to the position that they're specialized to excel at.

That's just stupid, to me.
 

MRJ said:
Replacing Paige Tapp was always going to be difficult for this season. I really felt like Molly was a little inconsistent at key times during the season. One match, she'd have double-digit blocks and the next she'd completely disappear blocking wise. I think Pittman is going to be fine as a primary middle next year. The key, as you mentioned, is finding a second option.

I really like Taylor Morgan's athleticism, but I don't know if her size is good enough for a middle. Somebody else brought up Martin moving to the middle since we're going to loaded down with outsides next year. At 6-3, she could probably do it, but it'd be a big adjustment for her I would think. Otherwise, there might be a transfer out there to be had.

Honestly, the only spot I'm really worried about for next year is middle blocker. McGraw is very good already imo and I'd have no problem playing her alongside Barnes for next season in the back row. If they can sort out things alongside Pittman up front and McGraw can settle in defensively, the team is going to be very good again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your knowledgeable comments (helps me to understand). I always hesitate to post on here, because I know so little about VB. It seems to me, however, that what's really needed is a player who's 1) very tall, 2) has lighting-quick reflexes, and 3) can not just jump but explode. Obviously such players don't grow on trees. But in my very, very HO, that's what Hugh needs most of all. The best offense is often a great defense.
 

Hrothgar said:
Thanks for your knowledgeable comments (helps me to understand). I always hesitate to post on here, because I know so little about VB. It seems to me, however, that what's really needed is a player who's 1) very tall, 2) has lighting-quick reflexes, and 3) can not just jump but explode. Obviously such players don't grow on trees. But in my very, very HO, that's what Hugh needs most of all. The best offense is often a great defense.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The biggest thing for the second MB is good lateral quickness and an explosive jump. There are other things to it as well (combining on a double and then closing the block), but being able to get in position is, of course, the first factor. Could also see Buford up front as well, although she has seen less time than Morgan. We'll just have to see what transpires next season.

As an aside, it sure would be nice to have Shea Rubright coming this year instead of next. But, that's life! [emoji4]

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

MRJ said:
Agreed. The biggest thing for the second MB is good lateral quickness and an explosive jump. There are other things to it as well (combining on a double and then closing the block), but being able to get in position is, of course, the first factor. Could also see Buford up front as well, although she has seen less time than Morgan. We'll just have to see what transpires next season.

As an aside, it sure would be nice to have Shea Rubright coming this year instead of next. But, that's life! [emoji4]

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What I (think I) see is that Gopher teams, like football, MBB, WBB, and Volleyball, get a good number of those explosive players you speak of, but not enough of them. I hope Hugh can keep up the recruiting job in VB. The Gophers need still more and even better players in the future. I find it hard to understand how a place like Nebraska, in the middle of nowhere, can get better VB players than MN. But, as you say, that's life! In the end, it must all boil down to recruiting skills. :)
 

Hrothgar said:
What I (think I) see is that Gopher teams, like football, MBB, WBB, and Volleyball, get a good number of those explosive players you speak of, but not enough of them. I hope Hugh can keep up the recruiting job in VB. The Gophers need still more and even better players in the future. I find it hard to understand how a place like Nebraska, in the middle of nowhere, can get better VB players than MN. But, as you say, that's life! In the end, it must all boil down to recruiting skills. :)
Click to expand...
Well, we do have Rubright in the pipeline for 2019 as a MB. She's 6-4 and is considered a big timer. Then you have Shaffmaster and Landfair coming in the next year, who are almost certainly top 10 (if not top 5) recruits for 2020. Put those three in amongst the top level recruits we've already brought in the last few years and any program, including the aforementioned Cornhuskers, would be highly impressed. Trust me, there isn't any lack of big time recruits either interested or already committed to the program. The only question, at least in my eyes, if all that talent will eventually lead to a possible national title.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

MRJ said:
Well, we do have Rubright in the pipeline for 2019 as a MB. She's 6-4 and is considered a big timer. Then you have Shaffmaster and Landfair coming in the next year, who are almost certainly top 10 (if not top 5) recruits for 2020. Put those three in amongst the top level recruits we've already brought in the last few years and any program, including the aforementioned Cornhuskers, would be highly impressed. Trust me, there isn't any lack of big time recruits either interested or already committed to the program. The only question, at least in my eyes, if all that talent will eventually lead to a possible national title.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah, the national title is all that really interests me. MN is as deserving of it as anyone else. It's reassuring that Hugh has won big before. I sort of think that when something that big happens for the first time, it may well come unexpected--- a lucky break, a big upset, etc. After that the pressure's off.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom