Hi, volleyball fans, and welcome back to Volley
Talk, the podcast created for volleyball lovers
who want to dig deep into what is going on in
NCAA and international volleyball. I'm your host,
Sarah Pavan. I'm an Olympian, beach volleyball
world champion, former Nebraska Cornhusker, and
longtime pro, both indoor and on the beach. And
I'm Adam Schultz, former indoor player, international
volleyball coach, and the show's resident stat
guy. Another week, another chance to dissect
some volleyball. I don't want to say it was a
wild week, but there were definitely some eyebrow
-raising moments that happened on the NCAA side.
The NCAA committee announced their top 16. Still
confused why they bothered to do that, but we
will dive into that. Something to talk about.
Something for the announcers to go over. We had
some thoughts. Okay. Adams also got a game. He's
back in action with his game. I like this one,
too. I think it's going to be fun. I don't know
what I'm getting into, as always, so we'll see
what happens. But be sure to stick around at
the end of the episode because we have an interview
with an absolute legend in the American volleyball
landscape and current chairperson of the Love
Foundation, Kathy DeBoer. So it was a pleasure
to get to talk to her and we learned a lot. So
we are very excited for this episode. Let's get
started. So weekly highlights, happenings, you
know the deal. We're always a little behind on
things, but we do them anyway. Things stayed
pretty consistent. There were only a few jumps,
I guess, worth mentioning. Miami and Minnesota
traded spots. Miami went from 18 to 14. Minnesota
went from 14 to 18. It's still shocking to me
that they're in the top 26, 25. I don't know
how they're in the top 25. Obviously, Miami's
ranking is going to drop after their loss. which
we will talk about in a second. Baylor dropped
to 20 from 16. And UCLA made a reappearance in
the top 25 at 23. So those were the worthy jumps.
We also obviously go over our unexpected results
from the week. So Tennessee got upset by Florida
in five. Florida doesn't get enough credit. It's
just like a little inconsistent. They have potential.
They are good. But it's like they can't string
it together for an extended period. But I definitely
think they're better than some teams in the top
25. Yeah. Inconsistent like the rest of the NCAA.
Yeah. Outside the top two. Yeah. I would say
it's pretty inconsistent. But I think they should
be in the top 25. They're definitely better than
some teams that are there. We watched that game.
It was fun to watch. Tennessee, I haven't watched
enough of them, but I enjoyed watching them too.
After watching them, I thought, here's a team
that's really well -rounded. They looked well
-coached. Their execution was good. They're like
a lot of teams. They don't have a stud, and they
don't have somebody to lean on. But watching
them, I thought, this is good volleyball. I'm
curious to watch more of them. They left me wanting
to watch them play again, which I will do this
week. Cal got their first ranked win since...
February 2021 beating Miami in five. And I'm
sorry. You've got to not be that team. You've
got to not be that team. But you also need to
not be Miami beating Pitt and then completely
making it seem like a fluke by dropping to Cal.
And they lost to SMU. And SMU is a good team.
SMU is a good team. So, like, I'm not blanking
at that one. But it's completely invalidated
that win against Pitt by losing to Cal. Yes.
You guys, come on. It's unfathomable. I don't
even know what to say about that. Should not
happen. Because they hammered them the first
two sets. Do you just forget how to play volleyball
for three sets after that? Or you're already
ready to go home? No, but I watched the first
three sets of that match. Cal is not good. No.
Okay. You have to try to lose to them. Yeah,
that was eyebrow raising, to say the least. Another
one. No offense to Cal. But kind of me. Another
one. Pitt went five with Notre Dame. But again,
I'm going to come back to this. I said this would
happen. I said this would happen. If Babcock
is not scoring a thousand points for you and
nobody else is doing anything, it's an issue.
No, she did though. She scored over 30 points.
Yeah, I'm being a little facetious here. You
can't. One man show. Yeah. We'll talk about this
later because we highlight this in the Louisville
section. The rest of Pitt needs to remember that
they're on the team. And they need to be included
in what's going on. It's not only their fault.
The team needs to be a team plus Babcock instead
of just the Babcock show. Washington beat Penn
State in five. Oregon beat Minnesota in four,
which brings back the question, how the heck
is Minnesota still in the top 25? They've been
decimated, as we talked about last week, decimated
by injuries. They're not getting like noteworthy
wins here, anybody. Here's my question to you.
Do you think those injuries should be taken in?
to account right when they happen? Or should
you have to lose? Like, we all know... No, you
shouldn't have to lose, but they are. It's backwards
to me. I look at Minnesota and go, okay, they've
lost three or four of their best players. They're
not going to be very good. They should no longer
be ranked. No, you can't be predictive in the
ranking. You have to go... I think you have to
go based on performance. Right now, I don't think
Minnesota's performing at a level that... Because
they lost to UCLA last weekend, who was unranked.
Now they lost to Oregon, who is unranked. Fair,
but they should drop faster. You're not dropping
fast enough, so take notes. But we know that
their season's a bit of a write -off due to injury.
It's nobody's fault, but that's just the reality
of the situation. They're not going to make a
miraculous comeback. If they're still in the
top 25 by the end of conference play, I quit.
I won't quit, but you know what I mean. And then
we had USC beating Wisconsin in four. I feel
like we're not allowed to say anything about
Wisconsin because there's always somebody mad
when we do. We ripped them a new one last week,
so I'm just going to leave that there. Period.
They lost in 40 USC. Let's move on. I didn't
get a chance to watch that one, and I haven't
looked at the stats, but I'm curious. How many
of me call your plate? We'll let the people do
the talking on the YouTube comments. So that's
the rundown of some noteworthy matches. We are
going to highlight Louisville's weekend. They
had two big matches against SM and Pitt, so we
are going to dive into that whole situation here
in a little bit. But that's the NCAA. Another
thing that I think is worth mentioning this week.
Is Corneliano's Italian title streak was brought
to an end this weekend. Milano beat them in the
Supercopa final. Corneliano has won 18 Italian
titles in a row. That is dynasty material, everybody.
And it just got snapped. My heart is broken because
I love a dynasty. I love excellence. Throw the
underdogs away. I don't like an underdog win
at all. But, yeah. I mean, Milano's not exactly
an underdog. They're not an underdog, but I feel
like everybody's an underdog against Corneliano.
I am meaning it from that perspective. If any
team was going to do it, I'm glad it was Milano
because they've been the most consistent aside
from Corneliano in recent years. But I felt like
that was worth mentioning because that is huge.
We'll see if they can get their own streak going
now from here on out. I wouldn't count on it,
but it was cool nonetheless. So, you know, the
typical rundown, ranking update, noteworthy match
update, a little extra sprinkled in. But that
is what we had for our highlights this week.
All right. Let's dive into the NCAA's top 16
feel. Do you want to go 1 to 16 or 16? Let's
go 1 to 16 because I feel like there's going
to be a little more movement of opinion at the
top. Number one, Nebraska, followed by Texas,
then Pitt, then Kentucky. I mean, yes. Pitt is
my question mark. I would put Kentucky ahead
of Pitt, but then I'm fine with Pitt being at
four for now. I don't know who I would put ahead
of them. What about Stanford? I mean, Stanford
lost to Louisville. Again, you could. It lost
to Miami. Yes. Babcock's playing really well.
I don't love where Pitt is going. I think they've
had a tougher schedule up until this point. Would
I argue if they would have put Stanford ahead
of Pitt? No. That's not a deal breaker to me.
I have no arguments with Nebraska, Texas, or
Kentucky, though. No, not at all. I think those
are, I mean, Nebraska and Texas, in my opinion,
have separated themselves. I think Kentucky's
a close third. Yeah, I agree with that. Okay,
five through eight. Okay, so we have SMU at five,
Louisville at six, Arizona State at seven, and
Purdue at eight. What's your thought? What have
any of these teams done? You can't just say that.
Okay, okay, okay. Who would you put? SMU has
a number five team. Are you kidding me right
now? Granted, they beat Louisville. Fine. Yes.
The thing to remember, though, this is relatively
formulaic, I think. RPI, KPI. No, they look at
all that. I don't know how much of it is computer
driven or like statistically driven. They like
consider all those factors. Let's go. Who do
you think is better? Take strength of schedule.
This is hard because like once Nebraska and Texas
are out of the mix, falling off a cliff here.
The drop off is steep. This is the thing that
I've come to realize over the last couple of
weeks is that consistency is a huge issue right
now. It's not really about which team is better.
It's about who can put somewhat close to their
full potential on the floor for a whole match.
Okay, so at this point, we've watched Purdue
play a couple times recently, SMU a couple times.
Do you think that SMU and Louisville are ahead
of Purdue? I do. Do you think they're better?
I do. I think they have more weapons. I think
Purdue is a better team. I don't think they have
the weapons to compete with those two teams.
Like they don't have. I've watched Arizona State.
No, no. I would put Purdue ahead of Arizona State.
Arizona State is getting the nod because of their
record and the conference they're in. They're
not that good to me. So would you put Purdue
ahead of them? Yeah. I would probably put TCU
ahead of Arizona State as well. But they're in
the same conference. That's the issue. We have
to wait and see. I don't think they've played
that match. But if I had to pick right now, I'd
like TCU. They haven't beaten anybody good since
August when they beat the number two Penn State.
Which everybody was beating Penn State. Exactly.
They would have lost to an ATU club team at that
point. Penn State lost to TCU with a full roster.
Yes. So I think that's the only reason they're
getting that level. I mean, they've beaten the
ranked opponents in their conference. So I think
they beat Utah, they beat Colorado, they beat
BYU, who are all ranked. But also... Not particularly
good. Do I think Arizona State is better than
Purdue? No. Do I think they're better than Wisconsin?
Probably not. Better than Stanford? Also no.
Better than Creighton? Probably also no. That
one seems like a nod to a conference leader.
More than deserved. The SMU Louisville discussion,
fine. I'm just not used to being in SMU. It's
the top five. That's an issue. The top eight,
fine. We can handle it. But the biggest eyebrow
raise is Arizona State. Correct. I think they
belong in the top 16, but maybe 14, 15, 16. 9
through 12, we've got TCU, Creighton, Stanford,
Wisconsin. This is where things get dicey for
me. I think Stanford should be in the top 10.
Yes. These probably should be. Seven. You think
that they are not as good as SMU? I understand
they lost to Louisville. I get it. I'm curious
to see what happens when they play. I think that
game is going to be very good. I think as of
right now, based on who SMU has beaten, they
have earned a spot higher than Stanford. Do I
think that that's necessarily going to be the
case come the end of conference play? No, I predicted
Stanford to win the conference. I'm going to
stick with that. But I understand why that ranking
is what it is, and I can get behind the logic
of that. I think they need to be way higher.
I would have put them in five or six. Wisconsin,
they lost an unfortunate match to UCLA and now
to USC. I think that they are better than several
of the teams that were ranked ahead of them,
though. You have to remember, set or hurt, probably
not going to be out for that long. Coming back,
I agree. They're probably better than Arizona
State. I might have Wisconsin at 10. Has Wisconsin
played Purdue yet? I don't believe so. And that's
going to be, I'll have that game circled on my
calendar. I think that'll be very telling. Stanford,
Wisconsin, those are red flags to me. I understand
they're taking into account RPI, KPI, all these
metrics, blah, blah, blah. Come on. Where would
you put TCU ahead of Wisconsin at this point?
No. You're looking SMU, Louisville, Stanford,
Wisconsin, Purdue. Would that be better in your
mind? I would do even like an SMU, Stanford,
Wisconsin, Louisville. Okay. Just leave it to
me. I will just take care of it. I'm wondering
if they're also considering matchups in this
potential top 16 or if they're just straight
up ranking these teams top 16 or if they're like.
Oh, but we have to make sure that we have enough
Big Ten versus ACC versus blah, blah, blah. Totally.
They have to knock each other out. There's always
political back -channeling happening. Now, this
means absolutely nothing, right? They're going
to redo this. This is not set in stone. It means
nothing, but it's interesting to discuss. Correct.
So give me the rest because I believe that there
are some teams on this list that should not be
here. So 13. Through 16 is Texas A &M, Indiana,
Penn State, Minnesota. So Penn State and Minnesota
for me should not be on this list. Indiana, Penn
State, Minnesota, what are you doing here? I
feel like Indiana is getting a nod for a decent
performance so far. Best ranking that they've
had in their history. You know what? I'm happy
for you. Congratulations. Do you need to be in
a top 16 list? I don't think so. Two questions.
One, who's getting the snub that should be on
there? And then... Creighton, to me, is always
the interesting question because their conference
play is a yawn fest. They don't play any matches.
It doesn't mean anything. They always win. But
where do they rank against the good teams? I
mean, that's the question. You have to strictly
go based off of their preseason, which they had
some losses in preseason. That is going to carry
them through to a top 10 ranking? I don't know.
I don't know. Who's missing? If you're replacing
Indiana, Minnesota, and Penn State, who are you
replacing them with? So some teams that I'm going
to throw out here that could be potentials to
replace them, maybe a Tennessee. Okay, I would
go Tennessee over Indiana. Maybe a Miami. I know
they lost to Cal. Okay, fine. But Miami, again,
if we're discrediting like a couple losses and
saying, hey, you know, whatever. But yeah, do
I think Miami is better than Minnesota and Penn
State? Yes. The big thing, though, is they have
one person who scores all their points. But guess
what? So does Pitt. So does Penn State. So does
Wisconsin. So it's like, who cares? I think that
they get a nod there. I don't know who else I
would put in. Maybe Kansas. Maybe Kansas. I just
think the Big 12 is significantly weaker than
the other Power 4 conferences. So I understand
you want to diversify. You want to diversify
for the sake of the NCAA. But at the same time,
we're looking for the top team. So who would
I replace them with potentially in Miami or Tennessee,
but I don't know how Minnesota is hanging around.
I don't even know how Minnesota is hanging around
the top 25, let alone making this list. I agree.
Okay. And Penn state. Yes, they got it together
versus Wisconsin, but show me a little more.
That's it. Like it's literally been, do you know
who I think has an outside chance of making the
top 16 USC? I, I like a lot of their pieces.
They're inexperienced. I think that they might
crawl their way up there. We'll wait and see.
I think that's a stretch. It might be. But if
I'm looking at a team that has potential, that
I think there's a lot of room for improvement,
where they have the physical assets to be good,
they come to mind. I put them in there over...
Minnesota. Minnesota, like, okay, say what you
want about Indiana. I know I was harsh. Minnesota,
Penn State, you're literally, you've been going
on a downward spiral since August. How are you
even in this discussion? I mean, Penn State has
leveled out a little bit, but Minnesota is -
Leveled out, they won one game in the last however
long. True. Top eight, I can get behind, minus
Arizona State, rearrange a few things. Nine to
16, I'm like - Tough. How did you come up with
this? Yeah. And who approved that to be published?
And I want to know what the criteria was. Did
you have to include X number from Big 12? Did
you have to... Did you have to make sure the
matchups would line up? Blah, blah, blah. I'm
curious what goes into that. But if we're just
looking at have you earned it and who's better?
Eh, not a fan. Not a fan. So we didn't address
these two matches in the weekly highlights, but
they were somewhat unexpected results. I don't
know if I would like... They were completely
unexpected. We expected these to be good matches.
Both of these matches were on our list of matches
to watch. We are just going to talk about Louisville
in general because they were involved in both.
The matches being Louisville versus SMU and Louisville
versus it. Louisville was at home for both and
they lost both in five. Let's start with the
SMU game. Let's look at the set scores real quick.
So they lose the first set 22 -25. They win the
next two 25 -19, 26 -24, lose the fourth 21 -25,
and then lose the fifth 17 -19. And this is against
SMU. This is against SMU. What were your initial
thoughts on that match? I didn't love the match,
period. I thought it was super messy. I thought
it was incredibly... inconsistent from both sides.
Just huge swings of not only swings of points,
but just hitting percentages were all over the
place. It was not a fun match to watch for me.
Well, I think this has been something Louisville
has been dealing with is scoring points when
Cressy's in the front row. giving up points when
she's in the back row. But I don't even know
if that's the case anymore. These last two matches
weren't, but I'm saying there has been consistency
issues in that regard. I don't think they're
surrounding Cressy anymore, but they're still
having consistency issues. Let's look at Louisville's
hitting percentages. Set one, they hit 163. Not
great. Which they lost. They lost that set. Set
two, they go 438. They won. Set three, they hit
209, and they win a squeaker, 26 -24. Because
SMU's hitting percentage was way worse. 122.
Set four, they hit negative 028. And set five,
they hit 138. To me, it didn't seem like it was
anything SMU did. It was self -inflicted. In
what way? It was a lack of execution. It was...
hitting airs the thing about not having a stud
in my opinion is that you can die by a thousand
cuts well some people would argue that Cressy
is a stud she's a very good middle but she's
not a stud studs hit they have 30 kills they
have 25 kills she's a very good player it's really
hard to have a stud in the middle I know they're
trying and I actually really like that for them
but you can't it doesn't work we're trying I'm
gonna go back to what I said before when you
were like They have runs of points when Cressy's
in the front and the back, but in opposite ways,
they're not setting her as much anymore. And
she's not nearly as effective when she is getting
set as she was at the beginning of the season.
Teams are shutting her down. Right. But I think
this is part of the game plan long -term. So
she's not scoring as much, but she's still got
30 sets in that match. Okay. Which is the one
thing I will say for Louisville, which I really
like, is that they run a pretty balanced offense.
in terms of their set distribution. So if we
look at that, Blackshear played really well against
SMU, got 50 sets. She's been getting better and
better as the season's gone. We'll talk about
her after. Peterson, 47 sets. Chacoin, 36. Cressy,
30. And the setter is an offensive weapon. We
had a question which we can talk about later
in terms of, if you have a really good player,
why not just set them in tight matches? Like,
why would you... distribute the ball around your,
around your team. And I think this is why running
a balanced offense will pay off in the end. I
firmly believe that. I think Dan Maskey came
out at the beginning of the season saying, we
are going to set Kara Cressy every opportunity
we get. She is going to be our top attacker.
And I'm okay with that. Well, it's not happening
anymore. Yeah, but she's still, the opponent
needs to focus on her or she will score. She's
getting a lot of attention from outside blockers,
from game plans, and it's freeing up some of
the outside hitters. They need to keep her as
a threat. She may not be as effective as she
was before, but they still need to keep setting
her for them to be successful. I'm not denying
that. Everybody knows how I feel about running
the middle. Everybody knows how I feel about
setting the middle, even if they're not scoring.
I am just saying she has taken a dip. Since the
beginning of the season, makes sense. Teams are
now aware that she is getting the ball when they
can get it. I get it. Everything here makes sense.
I'm just saying, I don't think they're setting
her quite as frequently as they were. Like, it
was obscene at the beginning of the season. Things
have pulled back. Things have come back down
to earth. And teams have prepared for her, which,
as I said, makes sense. The crazy thing is they
lost both those matches in five. And I actually
like them better after watching those two matches.
Really? I do. Why? I think. I don't know. I'm
having a hard time liking them. I know you are.
But here's why you're having a hard time liking
them. And I came to this realization watching
them because you and I generally think the same.
Blackshear is a little unorthodox. She's got
a weird approach. She loads her elbow, but not
her hand. She has a weird arm swing. It's not
pretty, but she's effective. She's long. When
she gets the ball, she scores, she makes good
decisions, and she's been improving all season
long. You have to give her credit for that. What
does that have to do with me not liking them?
What they're doing is it's not pretty to watch
because it's not all technically sound, but they're
employing a lot of good principles in my mind.
Blackshear's getting better. She's big. I like
what she's doing. She's finding ways to score,
and I like how competitive she is. So I think
that's a positive. We were very critical of Chacoin
at the beginning of the season. My opinion has
shifted slightly. I generally look at left sides
or players in terms of what I think their professional
career or potential would be. And she doesn't
have any. It's not going to happen for her. It
won't be a medium PVF player problem. Okay, I'm
thinking like going to Europe, next level national
team, right? That's not in the cards for her.
However... Watching her play at this level against
good teams, she's very smart. She mixes up her
shots. She finds holes. When she doesn't have
a double block, a .k .a. when teams are focused
on Cressy, she finds ways to score. That is a
massive caveat, everybody. When she doesn't have
a double block, she's fine. But you know what?
It's working for them because they're running
a balanced offense. They are finding ways. to
make the most of the players they have. I like
it. I like it for them. Here's the thing. Chloe
Chacoin tips way too often against every single
team I've seen her play against except Pitt.
She tips the ball all the time. Finally, against
Pitt, she was just being aggressive and swinging,
and she was literally unconscious. I don't know
if it was like an underdog mentality or what,
or if she felt... Like she had something to prove
against a quote unquote better team or better
player in Olivia Babcock. But she was finally
swinging and it worked for her. Great. But like,
why the heck are you tipping every single ball
that isn't absolutely perfect every other time
I watch you? If she continues to swing, what's
your opinion of her? It'll probably change. Okay.
I like what they're doing with Jaquan. I also
really like their setter. I really like her.
She's a little inconsistent currently. Setting
the back ball. setting the back ball on good
passes. She sets it better from the attack line
than she does from at the net because at the
net, it flares off. There's a little bit of a
tendency to do that on the left side as well,
but she's super aggressive. I think she went
10 for 10 against Pitt on her dumping choice,
so she's a threat, which they also need, which
balances out the offense and holds the blockers.
I just think fundamentally, Louisville's doing
a lot of things that will translate down the
season. as teams are trying to prepare for them.
I said this at the beginning of the season, and
I stick by it. Your combo of Chacoin and Peterson
is not it. Okay. And people, they're always like,
Peterson's the top attacker, top point scorer
for Louisville. That's a problem for me. I don't
know. For some reason, I am not a fan. I'm not
saying they're going to make the Final Four.
I'm saying I think they're doing a good job of
maximizing the pieces that they do have. And
I like the fact that they're running a balanced
offense. Now I have a couple things. I think
they're missing a huge way of balancing the pieces
or utilizing the pieces. They don't run a back
row ball. Well, so this is. At all. This is my.
Like you're missing a huge opportunity here.
And an announcer in the game said Dan Meske has
a love -hate relationship with the pipe. He thinks
his outsides are too small to run it. You guys.
In NCAA volleyball, you aren't seeing a triple
block against any pipe. You're barely seeing
a double block at this point against a pipe.
Especially with the middles that you have. Even
with an undersized left side combo, which you
have, they can probably figure it out against
a one man block. And with an aggressive setter.
To me, that opinion. will be the downfall of
the team. You need to run one. If they add in
a medium quick back row ball with both Jacoyne
and Peterson as a legitimate option, that jumps
them above a whole bunch of teams. If they don't
do it, they will struggle. If they add it, look
out. I think they could be very, very good. I
mean, I want to be clear. I didn't love their
games that they played. They can't keep going
up 2 -1 and then losing the fourth and the fifth
set. They're not a fifth set team. They lost
every fifth set game they've played. And they've
been up 2 -1 in every single five setter they've
played. They don't have a stud, and studs really
help in the fifth set. So they need to win in
four. If they go to a fifth set, the percent
chance they're going to win is very small. So
far, it's zero. And that will continue, in my
opinion. So they need to find a way to be a little
more consistent with what they're doing, just
based off the makeup of their team. Because they
don't have, I think they played Pitt, Babcock
scored eight points. You're not going to match
that. It comes down to consistent execution for
them, given their roster makeup. Can they do
it? I'm not sure. Blackshear's still young. She's
getting better. I actually thought their second
middle, Sherman. has played better in the last
two matches. I think this weekend was, she had
a good weekend this weekend. And I think that
that's really positive for them. Cressy needs
to be better. She hit 067 against SMU. As a middle.
As a middle, that's unacceptable. As an outside,
that's atrocious. As a middle, that's like, where
did you go? So she does need to find a way to
do that. I think Cabello as a setter, I like
what's there. She's a little inconsistent. So
she needs, again, Louisville dies by a thousand
little cuts because they don't have a star. It's,
you know, one setting error, one missed hit on
the left side, one error from Blackshear that
kind of grouped themselves together. And in the
grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal.
But when those pile up, it's really hard when
your best outlet is the middle. So those are
the kind of things that they're going to have
to clean up. But I think that those are the kind
of things that get better as the season moves
on. And I think that's why I'm a little higher
on them than maybe you are. I have one more thing
I want to talk about that I don't like that they
do. Sure. You know what it is? I mean, I can
think of a couple. It is when Blackshear and
Cressy are in the front row together. I think
it's rotation five and they run Cressy on the
slide because apparently she can't run in front
of the setter off of two feet. She can only run
a slide and they bring Blackshear in front for
like the meter ball. The only time I saw, the
only time I saw it work. was late in the match
against Pitt like Blackshear scored a couple
of them but I'm like if you're gonna run that
then set Cressy because I they set Blackshear
on it all the time the percentage that it has
been working in all the matches I've watched
very small with the exception of the end of Pitt
that's a perfect opportunity to run a pipe over
top of that you're clearly running that play
because you want to set Cressy up to run the
slide set her the slide then yeah You know what
I mean? Or you know what would be great? If your
middle in Cressy can't run off of two feet, either
run her on a quick right behind the setter, keep
Blackshear out there, push a pipe in between
the middle and the setter and the outside. Or
if you really want to, run her on the side, bring
Blackshear on a meter ball behind the setter
and run a pipe. But I don't like that play. Stop
doing it. No, it's for whatever reason. They're
stuck in that, and they think it's a good play,
and it 100 % is not. Absolutely not. Okay, so
back to the SMU game. They also had a great opportunity
because Jaden Livingston went down with an injury.
What was that, the fourth set? Second set. Second
set? Yes. Who was leading them in kills? I think
she had 10 kills at the point that she went out.
Now, in fairness, SMU's Malaya Jones stepped
up and played really well. Who was also sick
for that moment. I sometimes think you play better
when you're sick. I'm just throwing it out there.
Yeah. Anyway, that's a conversation for another
time. But you have to adjust your game plan.
There's no way she should have scored that many
points because SMU, you lost their best hitter.
You need to recalibrate your priorities and make
sure you're defending the person who's scoring
points. She should not have scored as much as
she did. Well, I was going to say I didn't like
the adjustments. I didn't see any adjustments.
Well, I'm sorry. They clearly massive red flag
is like their block defense against a right side
attack because we saw Malaya Jones go off. And
then we saw Olivia Babcock completely go off
for 41 goals. And don't get me wrong. Babcock
is good, but she shouldn't be that good. 41 kills
hitting over 400. That is literally. You're doing
nothing. Whoa. You're doing nothing. Wow. I don't
love some of the. tactical decisions that are
being made there so I think not having the pipe
hurts them a lot I'm looking at Babcock's stat
line watching that game going okay you have a
6 -4 player in the front row in Blackshear you're
not afraid to run her out of the middle move
her over when you're serving and put her in front
of Babcock give her a different look I'm sorry
Babcock Chacoin That's not a great matchup. Okay,
well, that's how it started. Babcock, Chacoin,
both in the front row together. Okay, Louisville
tried to make an adjustment. They completely
flipped their rotation. But Peterson isn't the
answer either. Exactly. But then it was like
Chacoin blocking Babcock when she was in the
back row, which was also a dumpster fire. So
I agree with you. The number of times, like as
a 6 '5 right side for myself, that I had to go
block on the left side. Yes. I can't even tell
you the number of times. It's a legitimate strategy.
As a right side, I had to block on the left side
to block the other team's right side. But instead
of doing that, they took a flyer in the fifth
set, and they brought in Reese Robbins, who hadn't
played all set. Hey, go in and block Babcock
for one rotation, because that's the answer.
Yeah, I'm not sure why they wouldn't do that.
I'm watching offensively going, okay. I see where
Louisville is trying to go. I think it can be
successful. I like what they're doing. And then
I watch them defensively and go, what? I know
they get digs, but it doesn't seem like there's
a concerted strategy around specific players
who you need to stop. And I also don't love their
serving strategy. And Adam's like, I like Louisville
so much better now. No, but listen, I think they
have potential if they fix a few things. I can't
buy into that yet. I'm telling you, I like the
fundamentals they're trying to put in place.
I think they're stuck in a mentality defensively,
and they need a little more creativity. They
need to be able to try a few more things. If
they can figure that part out, I think they can
be really tough to beat. A big if. But I will
tell you, the biggest disrespect I saw happened
in the pit match, okay? Oh, this is great. Sherman
was in the front row as the middle. And then
on Pitt's side, they had Mosher, the setter,
and Bree Kelly. And, I mean, a left side, either
one. They put Mosher, who I will say is not a
good blocker. Mosher is good at serving. He's
a very good server, very consistent. Yeah. They
had Mosher in the middle, and they put Bree Kelly
on the right side. To me, that is saying we failed.
Do not think that you are a threat at all. If
that happens, they should have run Sherman every
ball. We're going to put our worst blocker in
front of you. We are going to sacrifice Brie
Kelly being able to block all three hitters just
because we are telling you we know where you're
setting the ball. It was like cold. Yeah. Disrespect.
Dang, okay. But let's look at the Louisville
Pitt. It's the same thing, but I want to highlight
it in terms of their hitting stats across the
different sets. I will say, and I'll say it again,
because I feel like I've been pretty harsh this
segment so far. Alicia Coyne stepped up against
Pitt. She hit the last two balls out to finish
the match against SMU. She turned it around,
and she offensively was very good against Pitt.
I'll say that. So hit 300 in the first set. They
did lose that one because Pitt hit 325. I think
Babcock was outrageous in the first set. Babcock
was just outrageous, period. Right. But then
in the second set, they hit 394. Third set, they
hit 379. They win both those sets, and then they
hit 167 and zero. In the fourth and the fifth.
And you just can't do that. Like even if you
can't stop Olivia Babcock. You're going to make
her life miserable. Even if you're not stopping
her. You have an opportunity to side out. Like
get a first ball side out. It's like you can
play a side out game here. I like their offensive
distribution. You know Chacon got 46. Blackstreet
got 32. Peterson 25. They ran a decent amount
of middle. So again I like those fundamentals.
And I think that's going to serve them well.
If they could have stopped Babcock. One out of
ten times. Even something. Or made her hit more
balls. She hit a ton of balls, but continue a
few rallies. Get a couple block touches. She
scored too many clean kills. And they needed
to find a way to extend rallies against her and
get a few stops. And that was just a lack of...
The thing is, she was just hitting high line
seam the whole game. She did not have to hit
angle at all. And against the Louisville Middles,
who are good blockers, yeah. It makes sense that
she's going to challenge the outsides first,
but nobody was stopping her. No adjustments.
You know what? She is absolutely annihilating
your left side block. The touches weren't just
neutral. They were real bad into the stands.
Okay, the block's not working. Let's slide it
over. Let's double up down the line with the
libero and position six, because if she wasn't
scoring down the line, if she wasn't tooling
the block to an undiggable tool, She was hitting
down the line or line seam. Let's wide everybody
over. Let's shift the whole defense. But that
didn't happen. No, no adjustments. We need to
see them be better in that regard. I think personally,
those were both winnable matches for them that
they threw away. They had opportunities at home.
Again, I'm going to say I'm going to give them
a little more chance because I like the fundamentals
and what I'm seeing. But can they put some decent
defensive? strategies in place to slow down big
hitters. They need to be able to do that. This
might be the most savage comment yet. Dan Maskey
needs to spend less time filming his practices
and putting them on Instagram and come up with
a list of adjustments and how to counteract teams
during matches because he does what he does and
doesn't change. And I'm sorry, you need to have
like contingency plans for if teams shut you
down. There are some very good right sides in
the NCAA. And you have a very small left side
core. This is a foreseeable problem that needs
a solution. Just a quick thing on Pitt, though.
How sustainable do you think what they're doing
is? It's not. It's not. Olivia ended with like
70 something sets and the next person had like
27. What? 27 sets. Like you guys. You can't.
We're over two times the number of sets. She
hit like 150 balls this weekend. And here's the
other thing I'm going to say about Pitt is the
rest of their players are riding Olivia Babcock's
coattails at this point. They know she's getting
the ball. Here's what I'm seeing. Middles are
not even going up to hit balls to be an option
anymore. I watched Bree Kelly. slide into a few
31s as a token play. Didn't even get off the
ground. They're not taking care of free balls.
There were two opportunities where got a really
good touch on Cressy. Bayless is in six. She
throws a free ball up behind the attack line.
We know you're going to set Babcock, so it doesn't
matter. And it doesn't matter where you set her
from. She's going to score. Ryla Jones came off
the net, had a free ball, passed it straight
up in the air at the attack line. I'm sorry.
You have to take care of the details. Babcock
is your... golden goose but the rest of you still
have to do something and part of that is they
need to get set they need to feel a part of the
game and they're not the setter's not doing it
I don't like what she's doing I don't like the
offense that she runs she's not engaging the
middles they have two very good middles in Bree
Kelly and Ryla Jones they need to be getting
the ball I don't love their outsides especially
with the injury Bayless hasn't been playing very
well for me you need to at least have the middles
going you need to set other people they to me
are not a team right now They are watching Babcock
be great. She is. And she is. But it's not going
to be enough. We're clearly on one today, everybody.
We're passionate. We have some feelings. We needed
to share them. Okay? We got a question about
Louisville. I'm curious if, A, you agree with
the question, period. Okay. And then, B, what
your thoughts are. Okay, so here's the question
that was sent in. From a player slash coach's
perspective, do you think the confusing way Louisville
plays, i .e. seeming to always be out of system,
confusing or just bad passing, is intentional,
and that's Dan Meske's game plan, or do you think
because they play six on six so much in practice,
they feel more comfortable being in these situations?
Do you think their ability to find unorthodox
ways to score is because, of a result of that?
And do you think that this throws teams off so
they can't get into a rhythm? So I can't speak
to what they do at practice. Well, he posts about
it on Instagram. Got it. I think they find unorthodox
ways to score because they have unorthodox players.
Blackshear is not, I actually really like what
I'm seeing from her, minus her arm swing, but
it's a little funky. And they do offensively
some weird things. The Blackshear -Cressy movement
is weird. The no pipe ball is a little weird.
I think that the setter... Do you think they're
out of system that much? I don't think they're
out of system that much, but I think when they're
in system, they still don't look... Cabello sets
a few, like, when she misses, she misses. Like,
she sets left side balls that need to be set
over from the ref's stand. There are definitely
times, and especially in transition, like, some
of their players... Can't put up hittable balls.
Like when Blackshear has to set, that's trouble.
I understand the feeling. It's not clean. And
I think this is one of the reasons you don't
love them is because it's a little bit messy.
High technical ability. Yeah. I don't think it's
intentional from an offensive standpoint. I think
it's just what they have. The other piece of
that is their setter is very aggressive, which.
can kill kind of the flow and the momentum of
that offensive rhythm. But it's a good thing
because you keep the other team guessing. It
does kind of kill that rhythm and what you're
expecting. I like it for them. I think it works
for the most part. Again, there's just some consistency.
Everybody has to make one less mistake in those
situations. Cabela is young. She hasn't played
a 5 -1. I think she'll get better. I think Blackshear
will continue to get better. We're seeing the
other middle. find a little more rhythm and consistency
on the floor. Chacoin is elevating her game.
I think Cabello's connecting a little bit better
with Chacoin. Now they're finding a little more
rhythm. I would expect it to look a little cleaner
as we get toward the end of conference play.
So things got a little bit messier in the ACC
this week. As we mentioned earlier, Miami dropping
that match to Cal. Wowzers. Louisville dropping.
Two huge matches at home. Pitt going five with
Notre Dame. We have a lot of mix -ups. Do you
know what that means? Adam? My prediction of
Stanford winning the ACC is still alive, baby.
Everybody thought he was crazy, but here we are.
There's still a chance. Okay, it is game time.
Now, for those of you who are new to the podcast
or... Don't always tune into these segments.
The way the games work is that I come up with
something to do and I ask Sarah and she has no
idea what's going on. So the answers that you
get are off the cuff. Unprepared. Unprepared.
And I try to answer as quickly as possible. Yes.
So that's why this is usually my favorite segment
because I like being prepared and I like putting
her feet to the fire. So we will see what happens.
This game is called Pretender or Contender. I
am going to list a couple programs, and I want
you to tell me whether you think they're a legitimate
contender or if they're a pretender. Now, good
question. Okay. So for the purpose of this game,
we are contending for third place. We're going
to take Nebraska and Texas out because I just
think they're head and shoulders. But when we
start looking at some of these other programs.
Do you think they would have what it takes to
win? Watch like neither team even make the final,
which is not unheard of. No. Because every year
it's like a team is dominating and then they
just get, they disappear. And that happens. But
the reality of it is that doesn't mean they're
not better than the other teams. Yeah, I know.
Last year Pitt and Nebraska were way better than
everybody. This year Nebraska and Texas are way
better than everybody. Okay. And then I want
you to give me like one or two points as to why
you think they're a pretender or a contender.
We're pretending that those two are gone. Okay.
Program number one. Let's start with Pit. Yeah,
I think I will say Contender. Simply because
their middles are competent. They can score when
they're used. They're not used enough, in my
opinion. But I think Olivia Babcock is good enough
that if she is on, she can carry them there.
Mine's thing for Pit is Pretender. And that's
nothing against... Olivia Babcock I just don't
think their setter knows how to run an offense
or get the middles involved look at Adam getting
spicy I you know what side of him I have kept
watching them thinking i'm going to give them
the benefit of the doubt that they are going
to start mixing it up or doing different things
you don't have to mix it up and you can't mix
it up but you need to set olivia babcock but
they also yeah they need to run the middles too
they need something else because when i mean
i don't disagree with you but i think she is
good enough to get them there i'm calling pretender
on this one let's go with kentucky contender
their outside duo is the top scoring left side
pair in the country. Honestly, I do like their
middles. They do a pretty good job with Carr
and Baltimore. I like the change they made putting
Daly predominantly on the right side. They're
pretty, they're solid. Yeah, for those reasons,
I think you outlined it very well. I think they're
a contender as well. Here's one where I'm pretty
sure we're going to disagree. Louisville. I mean,
I'm not a fan. I'm going to say Pretender. For
all the reasons that we outlined in the previous
segment. I'm going to say Contender. I like the
offensive distribution. I think they're getting
everybody going. I think as they continue to
work on that, they're going to be harder and
harder to stop. I don't see many teams trying
to make adjustments when they're one trick teams.
So I think with a little more practice. Well,
they're not making adjustments either. Well,
and I was going to say a little less Instagram.
We might be onto something. Okay, we have three
more here. And these are all a little more gray,
I would say. SMU. I don't know, man. I just think
that the options out there are so limited. I
think that they are a better end of, like, my
non -favorite option. I'll say, I don't know.
I'll say, I don't know. When I compare them to
Kentucky and Pitt, I'm like, no. Do you think
the injury? The livings? Yes. That will hurt
them. Yeah. But they have two freshmen who come
in to replace her. Okay, fine. I'm going to say
Pretender just because I, compared to the two
that I said were contenders, I don't think they're
as good. I'm going to say Pretender, but for
a different reason. Okay. I think that you need
to build culture and you need to go through hard
things as a team to win big events and to win.
You can see it. I know they came up with a win
against Louisville in five, but I think for me
that has been the exception rather than what
we come to expect from them. And with the injury,
I think they have a lot of good pieces, but I
don't think they're in a place to win yet. If
they were going to have all of those athletes
come back next year, different story. I don't
think so. All right, two more. Wisconsin. I'm
going to get eaten alive for these. Because if
I call Louisville and SMU pretenders, then they
would reason that I should call Wisconsin a pretender.
Which, okay, fine. I'm going to. Because they
rely so heavily on Mimi Collier, but Mimi Collier
is not Olivia Babcock. That's all I have to say.
I'm going to go contender here. Because that
is true, but I think they also have middles.
They're bigger. I like Furbringer as a setter.
I think that Quest has come in and done a good
job. I understand that they've lost a few matches
without Furbringer being there. I don't think
you can rely on Mimi Collier the same way you
rely on Babcock. We've seen that. But I do think
that Furbringer runs a better offense. I think
she understands she has to distribute the ball.
If you're looking at them down the stretch in
the tournament, I would pick them probably over
SMU. And I'd give them the 60 -40 edge over Louisville
probably. Well, I would say all of... SMU Louisville
and Wisconsin, we have seen in real time their
lack of ability to adjust. Correct. But that's
a coaching thing. Well, they're all part of the
same team. Yeah, fair. I think they're a little
bigger. I think they have a little more room
for that, and I like their setter. And the last
one is Miami. I mean, I have my two contenders.
All the rest are pretenders to me. You have a
distinct 1A, 1B, and everybody else. I've clearly
identified my 1Bs, and then there's everybody
else. I think the discrepancy in, you know, I
like Rodriguez as a setter. I like at idea Cologne.
I think she's doing a really good job, but there's
just like something missing with them. Their
right side. Like I couldn't even tell you her
name. Like, I don't know who's playing right
side for them. And Dahlia Wilson does a pretty
good job in the middle for them, but no, I've
identified my, my contenders and the rest. I'm
just like, you're just not. As good as those
two teams for me. And I understand those teams
have lost matches. Whatever everybody does. But
if I'm just looking at what I've seen. I'm pretender
as well. I like a couple of their pieces. But
they play too much on emotion for me. And their
emotion is not consistent. They're flat. They
show up. They make errors. Something needs to
happen to fire them up. And get them going as
a team. I just don't think the way they play
is sustainable. And while Cologne can be electric
to watch, she can also make a ton of mistakes.
They're not quite there yet for me, even though
I think they have some good pieces. All right.
Well, I hope you guys liked that one. I thought
that was fun. Halfway through conference play
or a little less than halfway. See who we think
could be there. But that was contenders and pretenders.
All right, everybody. It is time for listener
questions. Question one. Bit of a we've been
called out. Okay, I was wondering why you mentioned
multiple times that international players like
Adriano aren't used to how fast the NCAA sets
are. But at the same time, you also said the
recent grads are not used to how fast Poulter
sets, which seems to imply she sets faster than
NCAA. You also mentioned that Sage Kahane Torres'
setting was too college style. So does that mean
her sets are too slow or too fast? What is the
actual difference in setting styles between like
a Bergen -Riley, a Poulter, a Sage, NCAA versus
international, et cetera? Fair question. It's
a great question. And I would say the answer
is nuanced, as always. Fabulous. You have some
college programs who are trying to push the tempo
very, very, very fast. Yes. And the balls are
spraying everywhere. This is the issue. If you
have the pieces, running fast is a very good
idea. The U .S. national team runs the 31, which
is the shoot in the middle, and the left side
ball over top of it better than anybody else,
at least in the last cycle. And it's virtually
unstoppable because the middle can hit it and
the left side can hit it. And the middle is deciding
whether I'm going to take it based off who's
in front of me or I'm going to leave it. It's
incredibly effective. Same with the BIC over
top of the middle. College players are not international
players. They don't have the same level of experience.
You can see this with Miami as a great example.
Rodriguez tries to run some very, very fast balls
out to the left side. And sometimes her hitters
are standing on the ground and they're volleying
balls over because they are rocketing outside
the antenna. There's a consistency piece for
a lot of setters in college. If their coach wants
to run very fast, a lot of the balls are unhittable.
The tempo is not always the same. They're just
inconsistent because they don't have the experience.
When you have very, very good setters internationally,
they can vary the heights based on the hitters
and keep the tempo fast, which is a very elite
level skill that not a lot of college setters
can do it. And I think that's where the disconnect
comes. I would also say like a lot of the international
players who are coming over have played like
A2 or B. They're not playing like the top, top,
top teams of their country. So combining the
setters in the NCAA struggling to set with speed
and height for bigger players and the level professionally
that these international players are playing,
I think there's that. But as far as the Poulter
-Sage discussion, the hitters have come from
college. So Poulter is like running a lightning
speed offense. It's flat across the net. So fast.
And she's big. That's an adjustment piece. The
reason that I have said that Sage sets a college
style and while it's bad, she does set slower,
but it allows, and the connection between the
hitters might be better right now, but it's so
easy for the block defense of the international
teams to get set up, which makes it hard to score.
So while it might not always be like an execution
thing of the set, it's like. what the hitters
are able to do against their competition is taken
into account as well. The one other thing that
I will notice is that it seems that college programs
who want to run very fast, run very fast from
everywhere. There's not a ton of situational
awareness. When you watch good international
teams, you know, they'll run fast from passes
inside the attack line or around the attack line
because everybody's on the same page. They understand
what's coming and then they'll run out of system
afterwards. I find a lot of times in the college
game, especially with balls that are moving across
the net, like you'll get really close to position
four and then set a lightning fast ball to position
four. And that needs a little more loop on it
because the distance isn't as much. And so just
some of those situational experience things when
you're trying to run super fast can go sideways
very quickly. There you go. That probably made
it more confusing, but. We tried. Okay, question
two for Sarah. As a player, what's your favorite
style of uniform? Long sleeve, tank top with
compression sleeves, short sleeve, spandex leggings.
How many of those were actually options for you
back in the day? We were never given options.
It was just like, here are the uniforms, wear
them. But I will say I've worn a variety in my
professional career. I prefer long sleeve with
spandex or like a short sleeve. with just nothing.
Leave the arms bare with spandex. I have never
understood the point of the sleeves. Like, I
have very sweaty forearms when I play, but I
just never understood the point of the sleeves.
They look cool. Yeah, I'm like, why not just
wear a long -sleeve shirt? Yeah, I don't know.
Anyway, somebody tell me. I'm sure there's somebody
out there who will tell me why they are a good
idea. But long sleeves with shorts or, like,
short -sleeve with... question three I remember
when Nicklin Hames was the freshman starting
setter at Nebraska and every commentator kept
saying how she's the first freshman to start
setting ever at Nebraska but wasn't Rachel Holloway
in 2006 a freshman setter I know she left the
program after two seasons so because she left
the program does no one acknowledge or recognize
that she was a fantastic starting freshman my
only explanation for that is Rachel was a redshirt
freshman in 2006 She was brought to Nebraska
a year early and redshirted that 2005 season
and then was obviously a freshman in 2006. So
that would be my only explanation as to why they
say that. But yes, you are correct. She was a
freshman starting setter. Question four. Sometimes
a commentator says, oh, outside hitter X was
expecting a faster ball. Is a setter supposed
to know what ball a hitter wants to hit or is
that discussed before a play? Also, if the setter
gives instructions which offense to run but the
ball doesn't go down the first time, how do the
hitters know what to run in transition if it
comes to that? Do you want to take it or do you
want me to answer? I mean, I can tell you what
I've seen and then you can tell me your experience.
I think it's pretty common across the board.
Yeah, I mean, on serve -receive, the setter will
have a play that they want to run in system and
out of system and everybody's on the same page.
Once you get into transition... I find a lot
of times the hitters will call the play unless
there's specific game plans against certain players,
but that usually only happens in the middle.
So it might be, hey, against this middle blocker,
we want to run a 31. We want to run a 51. The
setter and middle may communicate that during
transition, but the outside hitters are generally
calling their set. Yep. The setter tells everybody
what to run before the serve happens. There's
a general understanding how to adjust if the
play breaks down or if it's a bad pass. But yeah,
hitters call what they want in transition. Question
five. If you had to coach a program next season
besides Nebraska, which team would you want to
coach? Purely taking the team into consideration?
Or like geography? No, the team. The team. I
was like, I would go to Hawaii. Thank you so
much. Stanford. Ooh, baby. I, my initial instinct
without thinking like in depth was Indiana. Cause
I think of similar reason to why you would coach
Stanford is they are stacked with freshmen and
it would be cool to take that group and like
build something. There's nothing more satisfying
as a coach as to molding players and teams and
finding success as a group. And I think those
programs, your pick is very good as well. No,
Stanford is a solid pick. Is set up for that
to happen. Okay, question six. I'm wondering
what you think about Rebecca Alec and Andy Jackson
right now. Jackson got so much attention in the
preseason but has struggled a bit, and Alec is
doing great. Does this matter for Jackson in
the long run, or is she still one of the middles
in the country with a lot of potential? I will
say it is so hard after a breakout season to
come back and replicate that because everybody
is prepared for you. Everybody sets up their
block defense to stop you. It is so hard to do
that year after year after year. And I think
maybe this is what we're seeing with Andy Jackson.
I'm not worried about her, though. No, she's
so, so good. Yeah, she has the physical tools
to play at the next level. I think offensively,
she's fantastic. I like that she can go behind.
She can attack in front. Not worried. She's going
to be great come tournament time. And I give
all the props in the world to Rebecca Alec. I
love that story. She came in as, you know, really
focused on the block and being strong. And she
put so much work in to be available. She works
hard to be an option in transition all the time.
You can just tell she wanted to elevate her game
and she put the work in. And I have so much respect
for that. But I also think it's worth saying
like. One person's success, even at the same
position, doesn't take away from somebody else's.
The fact that they are both threats and they're
both really good and both part of the discussion
now, I think is incredible. Absolutely. One question
that I got, I was talking with a couple people
online, was for these programs who are riding
one player, do these matches matter in terms
of should you just set them to win? Or do you
need to be developing your offense for tournament
time? What is that balance? And what should coaches
be doing? And I love this question. I think it
is a discussion of like, do you want to win now
or do you want to beat? The best of the best.
If you want to win now, sure, set one player
every ball. You're going to win. But once you
get to, like, a Final Four situation, those teams
are prepared. Those teams have the pieces to
shut someone down. And, like, a Kennedy Martin,
a Babcock, a Lednicki, like, they are outstanding
players. Am I saying that they can't take down
a top team? No, they might be able to. But in
the chance that they can't, in the chance that
those teams dial in their block defense, you
need to have the other players have confidence
and a good connection in pressure moments. I
totally agree. Nobody cares what you do in conference
play. No. Nobody remembers. It's about making
the tournament and making noise at the tournament.
And in order to do that, your team has to feel
like they matter. You don't want to play for
Lednicki's team. You don't want to play for Babcock's
team. You want to be a part of the success. And
I firmly believe that the mandate from those
coaches with those great players should be, we're
going to distribute the ball. We're going to
run a balanced offense. And when we need a point,
everybody knows the ball's going to Babcock,
and that's fine. But everybody else needs to
be a part of it because it seeps into their serving.
It seeps into their defense. It seeps into their
awareness and their discipline on game plans.
I wholeheartedly believe that these teams with
top players should be working on a balanced offense
to have success at tournament time. All right.
Those are all of our questions this week. Love
them. Love receiving them. Love answering them.
So yeah, favorite segment as always. All right.
I'm finishing this off solo again. You know why?
Because baby only has a limited amount of patience,
which is understandable. So looking forward.
For games to watch this week. On Wednesday at
7 p .m. Eastern, we've got TCU versus Kansas.
On Thursday at 8 p .m. Eastern, we've got BYU
versus Baylor. Friday at 6 p .m. Eastern, Minnesota
versus Indiana. Both of those teams have no business
in the top 16. You know what I mean, okay? And
Saturday at 2 p .m. Eastern, we've got TCU versus
BYU. So a big week for both BYU and TCU. Check
those out. We have not done a ton of Big 12 stuff,
so that might be worth checking out. And I think
the other ones are going to be fun. As we talked
about at the start of the episode, we would love
if you would stick around for a little bit to
watch our interview with Kathy DeBoer. She has
some incredible insights. She has literally done
it all in the sport. And spoiler alert, she was
the driving force behind why NCAA beach volleyball
is a championship sport now. So here we go. Here's
our interview with Kathy DeBoer. All right, we
have a very special guest today, Kathy DeBoer.
If you are not familiar with everything she has
done, A, you need to educate yourself, but B,
here is a brief rundown, and I for sure missed
something. Probably very impressive. But Kathy
played volleyball and basketball at Michigan
State. She coached at Ferris State and Kentucky
and then moved into athletics administration
with Kentucky for nine years. She has devoted
much of her life to grow the sport of volleyball.
So starting in 2006, she became the executive
director of the AVCA and held that position for
17 years. Kathy is passionate about creating
opportunities for players and coaches. And under
her leadership, within the AVCA, volleyball became
the top team sport for high school girls in the
U .S. We saw exponential growth in boys volleyball.
There were more than 55 partnerships developed
with state volleyball coaches associations and
regions of USA Volleyball. The AVC convention
grew to the huge event that it is today, and
she helped beach volleyball become an NCAA championship
sport. Is that the first time you guys met? Yes.
Well, we met at some ABCA All -American banquets.
2006 is when she started. That's when I won National
Player of the Year, and I believe that you gave
me that award. So we kind of started there. Then
we met on the beach. There was a beach volleyball
championship that Jordan Larson and I played
in. So you were there. Sarah never likes to talk
about herself, so I will step in. You are the
first NCAA beach volleyball champion. Is that
correct? I mean, if you want to count that, then
yeah, sure. I think some of the schools would
put up a fight with that. But hang tight. I'm
not done yet. In 2023, Kathy was inducted into
the AVCA Hall of Fame. And her motto has always
been make volleyball matter. And I think it's
fair to say that she has definitely accomplished
that, particularly in North America. She continues
to make volleyball matter today in her role as
chairwoman of the Love Foundation. So we are
so excited to have a conversation. And thank
you so much for joining us. It's great to be
with you guys. And I'm looking forward to it.
So I have... a question right off the hop for
you. Yeah. So you played both volleyball and
basketball in college, and then you played basketball
professionally for a little while. That's a fun
fact, everybody. Okay. Played basketball professionally,
but then you went back to coach volleyball. So
can you walk us through kind of that transition
into going from a two -sport athlete to playing
basketball and then switching sports as a coach?
Like, what was that like? Well, I have to start
with the fact that I talk like a dork. So I have
to let your audience know I haven't moved to
another country and picked up a foreign accent.
I'm still recovering from a stroke land incident
that I had three years ago. So I will try and
talk. like a mini -dork. To start out, Sarah
and Adam, it's not a complex story. When I played
professional basketball, it was a long time ago,
from 1978 to 1980. There was no money in it.
And when I finished my two years, I was broke.
Not the typical professional experience. I was
flat broke. I was intending, I wanted to go to
law school. Oh. You can't go to the law school
with no money. It's a little expensive. Yeah,
yeah. So I had to get a job. I have a degree
in humanities, another thing you can't get a
job with. And so I looked around and I thought,
maybe I can get a coaching job. And Title IX
had created so many opportunities for women in
the U .S. Everybody was on a body hunt for women
to coach. So I applied for both volleyball and
basketball coaching jobs. I thought I would get
calls for basketball. The phone did not ring.
Ferris State University, I was from Michigan,
Grand Rapids, and Ferris State was... the first
college in the United States that was building
a building specifically for volleyball. They
were adding a Division I hockey team, ice hockey
team. They were Division II, and so they needed
a counterweight to hockey. They wanted to hire
this big -time coach. They interviewed Sue Gazansky,
Rosie Wegbridge, who had won championships and
were big shots in women's volleyball at the time.
And the AD wanted to hire a women's female coach.
Big Rapids is a great town, but it is in BFE,
Michigan. Northern Michigan. Small town with
a highway through it. You're talking to two Canadians
who grew up in somewhere similar, so we understand
what we're talking about here. The AD interviewed
Sue and Rosie, and they said they were both in
Southern California. Well, that's a big change.
And they said, no, you have a cute little town,
and you have big plans. No thanks. It was August
of the season that was ready to start, and he
was striking out. So the girls were starting
school soon. Yeah, two weeks was starting preseason.
I interviewed, and I said to him, I promise you
I'm awake. your team better than they were, and
then I want to go to law school and you can hire
your big -time coach next year. He got stuck
with me. And the first year, we were 5 -25. So
I completely failed in my promise to him. Well,
what was their record the year before? Or they
hadn't had a... It was a brand -new program.
It was a brand -new program. No, no, they were
bad. The year before, too. There you go. But
I thought I was a great coach. I proved otherwise.
So we have Ferris State to thank for your prolific
career in volleyball and everything that you've
done for the sport. Well, yeah. And thank you,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, for being such a small
town. Yeah, yeah. I didn't get into law school.
I found coaching to... be more than I thought
it was going to be. I was terrible, I have to
say that, but I stayed for three more years at
Ferris State. So you couldn't have been that
terrible. Well, we did better. Exactly. I think
that is the mark of a good coach is that you
keep seeing the improvement. Yeah. So the fact
that you're interested, that you wanted to go
to law school, it kind of... to me, makes sense
how you ended up in administration. But I'm very
curious at that time, because female sports are
at the forefront right now. And it is still a
struggle for women to get equal pay. and things
like that. So I'm curious what your experience
was like as a female athlete and coach. I know
Title IX, you mentioned, helped you get that
role. Were you made to feel inferior in any way,
or was it a struggle? No, at Ferris, I was a
big shot because they had prioritized volleyball
and hockey. So I had more money than scholarship
money than most of the other sports. including
men's sports and women's sports. They were pouring
money into hockey, and they had to put money
into volleyball. The only reason I got a job
coaching was because there was no social media.
There was no Internet. The people who were interviewing
me couldn't Google my name and see that I had
sued Michigan State for Title IX violations in
1978. Oh, you did? Yes. Yeah. The lawsuit, I
graduated and the lawsuit had the name of Carol
Hutchins v. Michigan State University on it.
You had to read the transcript of the trial to
know that I was involved. And I just failed to
mention that on my interview. Well, if they don't
ask, you don't have to tell. Yeah, yeah. That's
like not telling somebody. By the way, I have
six children at home, and I'm a single parent.
If they don't ask, don't tell. I like that philosophy.
Yeah, I love that. I credit my whole career in
athletics and sports now to the single fact that
I got a job coaching and administrating because
nobody knew that I had sued the university. I
was at Michigan State two weeks ago for a 50
-year anniversary. 50 years! Was that hard to
believe? Of the team that I had played on in
the 1975, they called it the Kathy DeBoer Invitational.
And I think I'm the only one in the U .S., maybe
Canada too, who has a tournament named after
them at a school that they sued. I was like,
they must not have any hard feelings. So they
have forgotten? Or forgiven. Or both. Or both.
That's a very interesting story in how you got
into coaching. So you went on to have a great
coaching career at Kentucky. And I believe you
coached there for nine years. I love coaching
as well. It's my passion. And I couldn't imagine
transitioning into administrative work. So I
know you have a love for the sport and you have
a love for athletes. How do you make that jump
from a coach to working in administration? What
parts of coaching did you miss, and then what
did you like about your new role? Well, Adam,
I had aspirations. Instead of law school, I got
an MBA. I had aspirations of being a major college
athletics director. And C .N. Newton was the
A .D. at Kentucky and a great mentor to me. And
he said, if you're going to go into administration,
you have to learn to fundraise and you have to
learn to work with power coaches. He first said,
Kathy, I don't know if the SEC is ready for a
female athletics director. And he had asked me.
I had a job offer on the table, and he had asked
me, what will make your stay? And I said, I have
aspirations beyond coaching. And so he said,
how can I help you? And I told him, you asked
me, and I told you. I don't want to hear that
the SEC isn't ready. I don't care. You asked,
and so he said, I will help you. Wow. So when
a job opened up in the department that was fundraising
external affairs, marketing and fundraising and
traveling with the men's football and basketball
teams, he offered it to me, and that's why I
loved coaching. But your question, what did I
miss? I can tell you what I didn't miss. I didn't
miss three things. Recruiting, camps, and losing.
My first year, maybe my second year. Out of coaching,
I went to a match. It was an important SEC match.
It was Cedar Day. They won the first two sets
easily. All the parents, they are high -fiving
all the kids. And they lost set three. They lost
set four. And they lost set five. All the...
kids are crying the parents are mad and throwing
their flowers for senior day in the trash and
i walked out of the building and got into my
car and said oh i don't wish this at all I can
go home and have a beer and watch football or
whatever I want. And Fran Flory, the coach, is
going to be in this building till midnight going
over this loss. I don't miss that. Fair enough.
And the recruiting, too. That's the reason that
I haven't gotten into coaching. It's just like
you travel all season, and then when the season's
over, you travel again. to recruit, and it's
just the never -ending cycle. Well, players like
you were at your level have to talk to kids that
are never going to be as good as you were and
possibly still are, and you have to beg them,
oh, I can help you with your dreams. And you
look at them and, oh. You're not going to make
a sweetheart. Anyway, so that's the hard part
when you are really an elite athlete about recruiting,
in my mind. You know what? I'm just going to
say to our listeners, you guys always tell me
that I am too honest. We need to have Kathy on
here more often because she's my vibe 100%, okay?
I like the honesty. Well, I'm retired. I can
be honest now. I'm retired too, technically,
right? Honesty is the best. Let's transition
into your time at the ABCA. Okay. When you got
there, what were your goals stepping into that
role? I saw that girls' and women's volleyball
was growing, and there were not enough scholarships
to accommodate the growth. So that's the reason
I went in very quickly with the idea of trying
to make beach volleyball a college sport. So
that was an idea for you right away? Right away.
I saw the sport needed more opportunities for
college -level play, and I knew that would translate
into high school -level play also. I wanted to
grow. Opportunities for kids lead to opportunities
for coaches. It doesn't come the other way around.
Kids need coaches. They are playing. They need
coaching. And so I thought that would be the
way to grow our community of coaches also. And
how did you come up with your motto or your slogan?
Was that something that developed or did you
just... have that as you went into the job and
said, this is... No. Yeah. That developed over
time, Adam. I was just so frustrated at the fact
that volleyball still is ignored by the mainstream
media outlets. We're right here. Yeah. What do
you mean? We're mainstream. Yeah. I'm just kidding.
You're getting there. Even the women's sports
-focused organizations ignored volleyball. It's
the only sport to become mainstream with women
and girls as the primary athletes. I thought
we would be celebrated by the Women's Sports
Foundation and the Center for Women in Sports
in the media. all those groups, and they ignored
volleyball just like the mainstream media. Why
do you think that is? I really think it's because
we don't have the Title IX bludgeon. And I used
that bludgeon. I told you, I sued the university
that I went to, that I love. It's a lot harder.
to have to stand on your own feet, on your own
merits as a women's sport or a minor men's sport.
That's why I'm so excited about the pro leagues.
I'm excited about the success Beach is having
producing Olympians in the college ranks. I'm
excited about love and major league volleyball.
Also, Athletes Unlimited, because volleyball
is finally being recognized as a mainstream sport.
on its own merits. That is not to say that I
didn't spend a lot of time working on growth
for boys and men because my experience of Title
IX, they say turnabout is fair play. When I saw
the lack of opportunities for boys and men in
the U .S., I was all in on it. growing that part
of the sport also. And I think that that's so
important to reiterate is that we're speaking
about Title IX, which gave women an equal opportunity.
But you didn't discriminate. Your love for volleyball
as a sport, you wanted to include men, which
women have been fighting for that equality for
so long. And you were like... But in volleyball,
men are being left behind. Yes. And the fact
that you chose to work to elevate them as well,
I think, really speaks to your character. Well,
it speaks to my leaning into opportunity. Opportunity,
where we don't have it. I'm leaning into opportunity.
And I saw, I did a Title IX interview with NCAA.
And this was years ago, maybe like 20 years ago
now. And I said to them, will we have another
Karch Karai? You need to grow the men's game
for that to happen. What's going to happen in
this country if we lose opportunities for boys
and men? It's all wound together. But I grew
into, to your question, I grew into the make
volleyball manner. Well, you definitely have.
Well, I certainly, Adam, didn't do it by myself.
I had so many, many people helping me, like Sarah.
And you're willing to fly out to California in
the middle of the winter. I know it was hard.
I had to escape Nebraska. To leave Nebraska.
Give up one of your playing dates for the whole
team. You and Jordan Larson, 2007, played in
the ABCA's first beach event, and that planted
the seeds. And the fact that John let you go,
and you were willing to go, Stanford, Penn State.
Everybody sent teams to the first event. That's
what I mean. Coaches could have said, no way,
Kathy, this is crazy. You're crazy. And coaches
went along with leaning into this opportunity.
Yeah, because in case the listeners aren't aware,
in the spring season, you have limited... days
that you can actually compete and you have limited
days that you can train. So these programs and
these coaches sacrificed a day of competition
in their spring season to send only two athletes
a piece. to San Diego to compete in this event.
So I think, you know, shout out to, you know,
John Cook, Russ Rose, John Dunning, all those
coaches who saw the future of beach volleyball
and allowed us to play in that. Well, and let's
not, I mean, all of those coaches you mentioned
are uber competitive and they wanted their program
to win the first. Let's not pretend that it was
all. So you. touched on the professional leagues
that are happening in the U .S. What is your
take on the current landscape of these professional
leagues? I'm curious your thoughts on the fact
that there are three of them. Do you think that's
a good thing? Do you think that is taking away
from the bigger picture? No, I think that's a
great thing. So if you go to professional leagues,
starting up in any sport. There are multiple
iterations. Everybody thinks they have the best
idea, they have the best business plan, and the
fact that three different organizations with
funders outside of the sport of volleyball. Traditionally,
volleyball leagues have been started with a dad
who had a daughter. who had a lot of money, whose
daughter wanted to play. And the daughter probably
wasn't very good. Well, they were okay, but when
they aged out... Then it died. It died. The fact
that Athletes Unlimited, Major League Volleyball,
and Love have all invested, people outside of
volleyball have seen this sport. and have gotten
excited about this sport and are offering pro
athlete opportunities. It's just great. That
brings more sponsorship, that brings more ticket
sales, more casual fans to the table. Every sport
competes into a sport with itself. more than
it competes with the other sports who are really
the enemy, and sports and entertainment broadly.
So it's not unusual to have the leagues competing
with each other. Right now, this is good, because
if it was only one, they would have an instantaneous
monopoly. Monopolies are by definition inefficient.
They don't compete well. They don't control their
costs. That's a very interesting take because
my thought process as I've seen these leagues
pop up and develop was the opposite. I was always
thinking, you know, if these leagues could work
together, like maybe they could create something
amazing. But you bring up very interesting points.
They were, I'm sure that they will not all survive.
I'm positive of that. But I hope one of them
does. Eventually, like the ABA and the NBA, like
the AFCA and the NFL combined, soccer is still
in the process of absorbing the quality franchises.
Lower leagues. Well, we recently saw this in
women's hockey, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The two
leagues just merged. Just merged. Three leagues
now, I guess, now I'm thinking about what you're
saying, is like they can learn from each other
and make improvements based on what the other
ones are doing. Well, and let's look at sport.
Competition for a spot on the floor makes you
better. Well, yes. Competition with another organization
makes you better. It drives innovation. It drives
you to be. on top of it to compete with somebody.
So I think that that's a good thing. That's a
good thing. And investor fatigue, all of them
are going to have to deal with that over time.
The WNBA, look at them. They've been in business
for 30 years, and they're still reliant on the
NBA for funding. I think it will be quicker.
In volleyball, I threw my hat in with the love
model because we don't have a male counterpart,
a pro male counterpart to feed us money. Like
the NBA is doing for the W. And like the MLS
is doing for soccer. And like professional hockey
is doing for women's hockey. Major League Baseball
is doing for softball, unlimited. Athletes, unlimited.
Pro softball. We don't have that. What sustains
the interest of your investors to stay engaged
over time? By definition, pro sport loses millions
for years. By definition. And so the League One
model of using the economies of scale in the
youth marketplace to build revenues to drive
income through the model. They're not using the
kids to fund the pros, but they're like Ford,
using the trucks to fund the EV development.
That's the model. Love is... their investors
are excited about the growth of the Ford truck
division, about the growth of the club division,
and the possibilities for merchandise, for events.
So why do you think it took so long for this
type of model to develop in women's sport? Because
all the other women's pro leagues had... So they
didn't need to. Yeah, had a male counterpart.
So they didn't need to develop an entirely new
model. And I've heard significant criticisms
from people within the volleyball community.
This is not the traditional model. This is not
the... ownership model that people are used to.
That's the reason it won't work. I say that's
the reason it has a chance. A lot of people have
questions, but there hasn't been ways to necessarily
find answers. So the way that you have presented
this, like it makes a lot of sense. And I know
a lot of our listeners have had similar questions
about it because without the information. It's
easy to make assumptions. No, yes. If you don't
know, you make it up. I have done that for years.
So what do you think the Love and the other American
pro leagues need to do to be able to enter the
conversation of being the premier pro league?
The Italian league, the Turkish league, they
are considered the cream of the crop right now.
So what do you think these leagues and Love need
to do? to kind of enter that conversation? Well,
we need more fans, more non -volleyball fans.
We can't just do it with volleyball people. The
infrastructure or the universe is way too small.
Love and the other leagues are getting more television
deals. They're getting more sponsorship deals.
And what I like about It is the fact that women's
products and services, providers, are starting
to lean into volleyball. So that's a differentiator.
If all we can sell is more pizza, beer, and fast
food, insurance, I buy all those things. I don't
have anything against them. For women's sports
to succeed in the marketplace, we have to start
drawing many, many more women's eyeballs and
girls' eyeballs. And when we can do that, we
can go into skims, hair care products, makeup,
groceries, diapers. General sporting, no, not
general products that women buy regularly. I
think that's the key to the success of women's
pro sports in the U .S. is not to just go back
to the same wells. So you talk about getting
more fans into the game. And I think one of the
difficult things about volleyball as a sport
is you can't just pick up a ball and play, right?
You can pick up a basketball, you can go to a
park. You can pick up a soccer ball, you can
go to a park. Volleyball is an incredibly technical
sport. You can't pick it up at four years old.
You can do certain things, but you need a lot
of people to play. And so... I would say volleyball
is probably a high barrier entry sport. Like
it takes a little bit of time to get into it.
It's expensive to play. You can't just go kick
a ball, you know, in your backyard with your
friends in general. And I know you have partnered
with Love to work on making the sport more accessible.
How are you guys approaching that? And how are
you growing the game from the grassroots level
to make it available to everybody? Yeah. Well,
first, Adam. I disagree fundamentally with you
on volleyball being more barrier to entry than
other sports. As much as I have spent my career
in volleyball, we have done a piss -poor job
of adapting the sport for kids. Look at soccer.
You can pass a ball to yourself and to your sister
and balloons. That's how I got started. Keep
the balloon off the floor. Shout out to my dad.
Good for him. Baseball, t -ball, coach pitch.
I don't like all that adult interaction, but
we can adapt volleyball for children. We can
lower the nets. We can make the balls lighter.
We can allow them to catch the first ball. And
other countries, and your country being one of
them. Canada does that. Yeah. have done a much
better job than the U .S. of adapting volleyball
for young kids. Well, our kids come down to play
in American tournaments, and we have a tiered
net system, so I don't think girls start playing
on the... full women's height net until they're
15 maybe or 16 yeah in canada so like our 12
you girls come down to the states to play and
it's just a shock to their systems because they're
like whoa this is really high yeah it's the beauty
and the disaster of the u .s system there is
a benefit to some extent you're right but uh
the u .s there's no volleyball czar like uh Canada
has, like the other sports. In Brazil, what Bruno
Dinho says is the law. Facts. Yeah. He can say,
we are going to play one catch. All the way up
to the pro leagues, and they do it. That is accurate.
I played for him professionally. It's true. Yeah.
Well, there's no czar in the U .S. USA Volleyball,
just as a guideline organization, and the NCAA.
is an educational -based organization that is
more worried about participation. The club model
is small businesses that are not government -subsidized,
government -funded. They have to make it based
on numbers, based on what money you eat, what
you kill in this system. So all the incentives.
are unaligned for youth development. But having
said that, the love model and the other clubs
not in love are really working hard on getting
three - and four -year -olds, five - and six
-year -olds. And John Sparrow has made this a
priority of development in the U .S. What is
the Love Foundation's role in all of this? Yeah.
I'm the volunteer chair of the board of the Love
Foundation, and our goal is to provide access
to opportunities. There we go again. And you're
doing that through camps and clinics? Yeah, we
are doing that primarily through fundraising,
and the clubs are doing most of the fundraising.
Last year, we gave out about... $950 ,000. That's
double what we gave the year before, and that
was double what we gave out the first year. $800
,000 of that was raised directly by the clubs
through fundraising events, gifts in kind, working
other events. just kids coaching kids to pay
off their dues. Our goal for this year is $2
million. The foundation's main fundraising is
directed at providing opportunities for kids
that can't even think about volleyball now. Because
volleyball is very expensive to play. Not kids
that are already in clubs and just hanging on.
They are important, too. And we funded 500 kids
through need -based aid to the clubs. But we
also introduced 500 kids to volleyball. Iowa
Impact did a camp in Des Moines for $100. Middle
school kids. One of the kids that helped with
the camp was a high school player. She wound
up coming to their trials. Her name is Jumi,
and she made their 16 -1 team. She's 6 '2". I
have goosebumps. Yeah, full -knee kid, and she
will make Jumi's life. will be better because
of volleyball, and Iowa Impact will be better
because of Jimmy. So how do people access this
if there are kids who are need -based, if there
are clubs out there who are listening who want
to help and get access to some of the fundraising
or help with that? What is the best way for clubs
who are not currently attached to love and kids
who aren't to get access to this or to help out
or to go to the game alongside you guys? Love
through Lindsay Rosenthal and Paige Furlock has
a partnership with Submittable, and they can
go online and fill out an application. It's all
need -based. It's not pay -for -play. It's need
-based aid, and you can fill out an application.
For people who are listening who want to help,
we need money. So what's the best way for people
to donate? Contact the foundation. It's all on
our website, lovefoundation .org, and you can
find it through love .com. Contact the foundation,
and there's... Multiple ways to give. You can
give cash. You can give stock. You can give your
inheritance. You can give your firstborn. No,
no, no. Check that. Sarah's firstborn. You'll
take her, though, right? Yeah. A lot of the clubs
will take you guys as first and second and third.
get going they'll be tall that's a guarantee
get going well we've got one on the way so we'll
see how that goes on the way or here wow he's
used to saying on the way yeah surprise she's
brand new um donations that people give will
those go towards the need -based kids or we are
donor -centered so if you say um kathy i want
my Donations to go to Des Moines area. We will
keep your donations local. Most of the giving
is local. The fundraising is national, but most
of the giving is to your local area or local
club. Yeah. I love that. Well, I know our listeners,
like Adam said, a lot of club coaches, a lot
of... athletes a lot of club directors so for
all of you listening so many of you have built
your careers or have been impacted by volleyball
in some way even knowing the impact that the
sport has had on on all of our lives just having
giving access to kids to be able to learn the
game get their start as a springboard to potentially
start a club career or you know for athletes
that really want to play and haven't been able
to for financial need reasons highly encourage
you to head to lovefoundation .org to donate
and yeah who know we might have the next jumi
who gets to play on our club team and then that
will lead to potentially an ncaa career she'll
get an education like haley washington was a
need -based aid kid when she was a colorado juniors
logan eggleston was a neat bass kid lindsey rosenthal
was a neat bass kid and i have goosebumps again
because these are women that so many volleyball
athletes look up to and they want to be like
them and we've got an olympic gold medalist we've
got a pro athlete with love austin who has a
chance to compete in la 2028 like volleyball
should be accessible to everyone because it is
such a beautiful game. And I think the work that
you guys are doing is absolutely incredible.
Well, not many of us have the talent to be pro
athletes like you were, like I was 100 years
ago. But everybody has an opportunity. to benefit
from their participation in sport. And most of
us are going to go into coaching or administration
or club directing or working for love, working
in community management for a pro team. All of
those jobs are possible through this infrastructure.
through the opportunities we are providing through
the Love Foundation. I think that's so beautiful,
and you're right. Not everybody will be a professional
athlete, but the lessons you learn in sport,
playing a team sport such as volleyball and having
access to that, the benefits are countless. Thank
you for sharing about the Love Foundation, and
I encourage everybody to donate, try to get involved
in any way you can. And to close, I have one
last question. Okay. When you look back on your
involvement in sport, what is the thing you are
most proud of? Well, this is a non -standard
answer. We love a non -standard answer. I was
always a rebel. And it was not always a good
thing. I was impossible to coach. Chuck Arbery
would tell you that, and all my coaches would
tell you that, because I was quick -fused. I
was quick to anger. But young people today, I
challenge you to... Lean into the things that
you want from life. All change starts from not
people my age. We are trying to preserve the
things that we created. It starts from people
your age and young people protesting on campuses.
Whatever it is, Title IX or I grew up just post
-Vietnam War. Lean into the country that you
want to live in and lean into the things that
you value. I didn't know at the time how history
would judge me when I sued Michigan State. When
I... implemented beach volleyball. Now everybody
thinks it's a great idea. At the time, the number
of people that were saying, Kathy, you are crazy,
buck down, quit on this ridiculous thing. And
the ABCA has just gotten all involved with boys
volleyball. Who cares? We started as a girl organization,
and we should stay there. You have to be a rebel,
and you have to push for things that you want.
And you don't know whether you will be successful
or not, but do it. That's the best answer. I
like teared up hearing that answer. You said
it was non -conventional, but I think that it
was absolutely perfect. I love that so much.
We're out of time, but thank you so, so much
for joining us. This was such a special opportunity.
I saw you earlier this week, and I was like,
I remembered you. I was wondering if you remembered
me, too. I gave you a lot of awards, so I definitely
remembered you. Well, to be able to speak with
you and talk about your career and now the work
you're doing with the Love Foundation, thank
you so much for spending time with us. Thanks,
you guys. That concludes this week's episode
of Volley Talk. There's always something shaking
in the volleyball world and we hope you enjoyed
this little fix. Be sure to follow the show so
you don't miss any updates and we'd be so grateful
if you'd leave us a five -star review. You can
also find us on Instagram at volleytalk underscore
podcast. If you have a topic you'd like us to
discuss, you can reach out to us on Instagram
or at info at sarahpavin .com. Thanks so much
for joining us and we'll be back next week.