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. There were a couple key matchups this week
yes there were that we are going to talk about
and something that came up last week sparked
a lot of conversation online so we are going
to do a segment devoted to that the hint is it
started with some comments on bergen -reilly
and evolved from there we have some happenings
and news that happened outside of the NCAA world
that have got people buzzing so we're going to
touch on that as well. We are very excited so
let's get started. All right for the NCAA rankings
for last week Seeds 1 through 19 held their spot.
I think that's virtually unheard of. We also
had no new teams enter the top 25. Which means
Penn State is still hanging around. Penn State
is still hanging around. They were 24. Somehow
I think they're going to go up in the rankings
even though they lost this week. This makes no
sense. Somebody actually asked, why does Penn
State have the NCAA tournament on their schedule?
Does this mean they think they're going to make
it? I mean, their RPI puts them in a good place,
but it's just a baffling situation. They have
the tournament on their schedule 100 % because
they expect to be in the tournament. And in fairness.
And they should. They're the only team that's
played in all of them. Yeah. I mean, we joke
about it, but they're going. I can't, guys. I
don't agree with it, but they're going to go.
There's no way. Yeah. They have this tournament
on their schedule because they're fully expecting
to be there. And I bet whoever created that web
page did it at the beginning of the season. Which
would have been a fair assumption. But the fact
that they're still in the top 25. This is actually
outrageous. They better not be next week. They
actually beat Ohio State in five. But Ohio State's
been baggled all season. Yippee. Ohio State's
not on the top 25. Anyway, yeah, that's what
the rankings. were doing last week. Not a ton
of unexpected results this week, but guess what
conference handed us the most? The Big 12. Ding,
ding, ding. All right. Kansas State beat Baylor
in four. We kind of watched that game. I don't
even know what to say anymore. There's just the
highs are good. The lows are not good. And whichever
team can serve the ball consistently tough seems
to win those matches. TCU lost both of their
games to Colorado in five and Iowa State in four.
I've stopped being surprised. I take everything
back that I said a couple weeks ago about TCU
finishing second in the Big 12. Let's move them
down to sixth. I just don't understand how you
can become a tire fire so quickly. They looked
so good at the beginning of the season. For like
over half the season. And then literally. But
I think they've hit a wall. They've changed their
setter now. They're trying to slow the offense
down. They don't know what to do. They're lost
in the desert at this point, and it's not coming
back. Yeah. Utah, BYU in five. We got a question
about BYU, which we'll probably address maybe
next week. But they also just can't seem to finish.
And Utah's not a bad team. Again, all of those
teams are, they can win on any given night depending
on how they play. And the lack of consistency,
especially when you're trying, like it's tournament
time. Like the Big 12, I'm like, I roll over
here at this point. Okay, you guys just figure
it out and just send us a few teams for the tournament.
Thank you. It's not even about playing well at
this point. It's about just being marginally
consistent to win matches. And they're not great
to watch. I mean, from like an execution standpoint,
no. Is it entertaining in the sense that you
never know what's going to happen? Well, sure.
Again, that comment was purely about the level
of volleyball. It's play really well for half
a set or a set, and then they can't get a serve
in, and it's just all over the map. Watching
it with a critical eye is a little aggravating
at times. Yeah. The only other upset was Oregon
took down Purdue in five. That's it for the Big
12. That's it. Oregon beat Purdue in five. Again,
I'm not surprised any time Oregon wins a match.
Except they're like 12th or 13th in the Big 10
right now, which shocks me. I was a little shocked
to see that as well. But they're capable of playing
good volleyball. They've got some really dynamic
players. Alana Clemente. I really like her. I
think she's in the running for freshman of the
year. Big 10 freshman of the year. Yes, but I
think she'll be in the conversation. I don't
think she's going to beat out Spears. For National
Freshman of the Year. For National Freshman of
the Year. But I think she will be in the conversation.
Like if it's a vote, she's getting some votes
for top three, I think. Oh, she's so good. New
program, new coach, all new players. There's
definitely inconsistency there. Purdue, you're
like second in the Big Ten right now. See, the
caveat with Purdue is they're consistent, but
they're not particularly big. So if they make
you beat them. But if you come out to beat them,
they're beatable. They're just incredibly disciplined.
I didn't get a chance to watch that game. I think
I might try either Monday or Tuesday because
I'm curious to see that. But I personally really
like Oregon. Last one, ACC, SMU beats Stanford
in four. I am just going to say, I feel like
people are not going to. like a lot of what I
have to say this episode I feel like SMU is getting
the sloppy seconds from Pitt for a lot of matches
this year Miami comes in beats Pitt and then
SMU plays them like the next day or two days
later and Miami can't beat them same thing happens
to Stanford Stanford goes all out against Pitt
huge win down to the wire and then SMU swoops
in two days later for like the come down after
those huge upsets you know what i mean like i
don't want to call it like a stanford pit thing
is like a huge upset but you you get the idea
it's a big win though but it's like these teams
can prepare for pit all week long and then like
smu is like the second match like the turnover
match that you have one day in between to prepare
for and then they like do you know what i'm saying
it's a bit of a trap game because you played
pit who's a very good team Always go to the Final
Four for first in the ACC. You both have the
best records. You come out and win. That's an
emotional win. That's a long game. You pulled
it out. Yeah, you're right. And then you've got
to come back and you've got to play SMU, who
is a good team in their own right. It's a tough
back -to -back. SMU has come and swooped in after
huge upsets that teams have against Pitt. Granted,
I think it was the opposite against Louisville.
I think SMU played Louisville first, but still.
And then there's Stanford. I'm not sure. Their
setter went out in the second set. Yeah. Concussions
and that whole thing, which is serious. She took
it off the forehead. Right. But I don't know
if she came back or not. I didn't finish watching
that match. So that's definitely a piece of it.
But you've got to take care of that match. That
would have locked them in to first in the ACC.
Only playing Louisville at the very end. But
now there's three teams tied with two losses.
SMU and the next teams are there with three losses.
It is tight, and it's going to be down to the
wire. That's my issue with a lot of these teams
this year. Stanford could have locked it up and
let it go. How many opportunities? These teams
come off huge wins and then can't string it together
two nights in a row. Come on. Let's get it going
here. You have a chance to lock it up, and Adam's
upset because his prediction might not come true
now. That's fair. If they can beat Louisville,
they have the head -to -head with Pitt, I believe.
But we'll see. I have to look into the tie -break
procedures. They made their life more difficult
than it needed to be, that's for sure. Story
of the season for everybody, I would say. Well,
that's it. Those are the unexpected results of
the week. Okay, big news. Not great news. Out
of the beach world, which bridges the indoor
world, bridges the Nebraska world, Allie Batenhorst
has tested positive for a banned substance. And
so she is suspended. So we've gotten a bunch
of questions about how this all works and different
scenarios and comparisons. So let's spend just
a minute or two kind of going through how testing
works internationally and how it's different
than college. So, I mean, if you're part of a
national team program, your country's governing
body can test you. So in the U .S., it's called
USADA, U .S. Anti -Doping Agency. Canada has
one. Every country has one. That is for internal
athlete testing. And as we've seen, those results
are not binding. We won't dive into that one
too deep. But in Canada, they are. Well, I bring
that up because there was a direct comparison.
Somebody asked and brought up the Alex Kleinman
situation from last Olympics saying, you know,
she tested positive going into the cycle and
she was allowed to continue to compete. Do you
think this will happen with Batenhorst? Now there's
a very large difference in the positive test
results. So Alex Kleinman was tested by the USA.
governing body and tested positive. Now they
have the choice of handling those situations
in whatever regard they would like. As you said,
those results are not binding. And she was, I
believe she was tested out of competition. So
technically, I guess you could say that the country's
test to potentially cut off any potential issues
when the international bodies test. Correct.
Canada's not so nice. Yeah. Canada is not the
same way, but the U .S. has operated in that
regard in a bunch of different cases. The difference
here is that bait and horse tested positive with
a governing, a global governing body test. Yeah.
So at the Newport beach tournament, the FIVB
hired an agency to conduct tests on their behalf
is my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So when the international governing body decides
to do these tests, it's out of the US's control.
It goes international. That is the big difference
here. Because Alex Kleinman, when she tested
positive indoor, I believe that was an international
body and she was suspended for that one. Correct.
It's not looking great for Batenhorst. Her agent
has said that it's a prescription and they just
haven't filed the paperwork. But in general...
The global governing body. They said they filed
the paperwork now. Yeah. The question is, did
they file? Because you can have what's called
a therapeutic use exemption. And so if you get
notification from a doctor that you need a certain
medication, you fill out this paperwork and then
it's a therapeutic use exemption. If you are
tested with that in your system, it is fine.
But it has to be approved. I'm not sure you can
do it retroactively. And I don't know if she
filled out the TUE before she was tested. And
we've seen this happen before. There have been
other athletes who have missed the Olympics,
specifically in beach volleyball, for using specific
creams that had banned substances. And there
was no exemption for the Italian player. I think
it also happened to a Czech player at one point,
if I am not mistaken. This is a big deal. And
there's no guarantee that it's going to go away.
It will be interesting to see how this plays
out. I think it all depends on what the prescription
is, when the timeline for filing the TUE happened.
But I don't know. I can only speak from a Canadian
perspective and the way that Canada handles anti
-doping education, anti -doping infractions,
etc. is incredibly strict. So I only have my
experience from that. So I don't know how this
is going to play out, but that might be the shortest
beach volleyball career in history. Yeah. We'll
keep you updated if we hear anything, but these
things don't get resolved quickly in general.
And so this could be an ongoing saga. So another
thing in what is normal, I think, is if you are
under investigation, you are not allowed to train.
With your partner, you can't train in a USA environment
at all. So she has to completely remove herself
from all USA volleyball affiliations. She cannot
legally train with Sarah Hughes, with her coach,
have any interaction with USA people. That is
how it goes. Because it's beach volleyball and
they train out in their own court on the beach,
will they get around it? Maybe. I don't know.
Typically, the framework is that you have to
remove yourself completely while under investigation.
That's a super unfortunate situation and we'll
see what happens. On the pro side of things,
it has been announced that the Orlando Valkyries
are going to be competing in the Club World Championships
happening in Sao Paulo, Brazil from December
9th to 14th. For those interested in the men's,
that is happening December 16th to 21st in Belém,
Brazil. Basically how this came about is three
Asian teams declined the offer to go, leaving
a spot available. And the Orlando Valkyries are
going. So for Club World Championships, we've
got Corneliano. That game will be close. Scandici.
Also close. We've got Osasco, Praia Clube from
Brazil. We've got a team from Egypt, a team from
Kazakhstan. And I'm probably, oh, a team from
Peru, which I think Kira Van Rijk actually signed
with that Peruvian team to play Club World Championships.
And then she's going to go play China after that
is what I read. Somebody confirm that for me.
We've gotten so many people reach out about this
development. Questions ranging from why not love?
Like, why did they pick an MLV team instead of
love? Does this propel MLV as being more prestigious
than love? How do you think love will respond?
Then a lot of cheeky comments like... Well, those
games are going to be close. So what are your
thoughts? I don't know who was approached. I
don't know what the... I have heard that Love...
This is through a third party, one of my sources,
you know, love my sources. Love has said that
they were offered a spot and they said no because
of prior contractual agreements they have in
place. Not sure what contractual agreement would
ever make it so that your team can't play in
Club World Championships, but... The baby is
sucking on her hand if you hear a sound. I don't
think any of the North American teams are at
a point where they will be competitive with the
best teams at Club Worlds. Do you remember when
I went to Club Worlds and they sent that team
from Iowa? Yes. That was a disaster, you guys.
First of all, every team there was like, who
is this team? Secondly. Those games were destructions.
I think that there is a... Why is Adam trying
to be nice here? That's not what we do here.
What's going on? My initial instinct is that
if you're trying to create a league that you're
branding as one of the best in the world, you
can't go get hammered by the best teams in the
world. Are you talking about love? Yes. We all
know... And Turkey's not even sending a team.
I think you're going to be competitive with the
team from Egypt, potentially the team from Peru,
but maybe not depending on if they've stacked
their roster with players like Kira van Rijk.
You have a team from Kazakhstan coming, probably
be competitive with there. But we're talking
about going up and playing against Scandici,
Osasco, Conegliano. You can't go out and score
12 points and seem like you're competitive. I
completely understand. the decision not to go
given where they are in their growth as a league
compared to these other teams. It's, it's not
quote unquote fair. They're not competing on
even ground. So I understand why they don't want
to go. Do you think if you're going to put yourself
out there and continually say we're one of the
best leagues in the world, do you think that
that's fair to just not show up? Like, I feel
like you need to back up what you're saying.
I understand why they're not going, but I'm saying
if you're going to put it out there, put your
money where your mouth is. But you're putting
it out there to your local markets who don't
understand how good international volleyball
is. This is what we've been saying now. Do you
think this makes the MLV seem more prestigious
than love? For the two weeks until they play,
maybe, but not really. Honestly, I don't think
anyone cares. There are certain markets that
definitely care about club worlds. Here. Like
in the U .S. Oh, you don't think it matters in
the U .S.? I don't think it matters in the U
.S. Oh, yes. Don't get me wrong. Winning Club
World Championships is prestigious. There are
teams who definitely want to do that. Well, let's
be honest. No love team and no PVF team or MLV
team or whatever they are is going to make the
final four of that tournament. And those games
won't be close. You get to go. You get to compete.
I think it's a cool feather in the cap for MLV
to say we went and competed at Club Worlds. In
the grand scheme of things, I don't think anyone
in the U .S. cares. And I don't think it really
materially means anything. If anything, it would
hurt you more than it would help you by going.
Be sure to tune in. Those games are going to
be on VBTV, I believe. And those start December
9th. So we'll give you a heads up when those
are coming. But that was the big news. I can't
even tell you the number of messages we got on
Instagram about this. I don't think it's going
to go too well. This to me is a definition of
a lose -lose situation. There's nothing to gain
and you're only going to not be competitive.
So those are kind of the happenings of this week.
We had a couple non -NCAA things, big things.
Big things. Big things. So let us know your thoughts.
I'm sure there are lots of opinions out there
about what is going on. So be sure to hit us
up. So last week we were specifically talking
about... bergen -reilly and her international
potential and that sparked a little bit of a
bigger conversation uh online about what do we
look for for international players for people
who we think have potential to make it to the
next level and there were lots of comments about
bergen -reilly already playing on the national
team a couple other players already playing on
the national team and so i wanted to clarify
our position on this in terms of how we look
at this. And then we had some great questions
on position by position, what would we look for
and things like that. So we're going to have
a conversation now about college potential and
moving to the next level and just how the two
of us view it and how that might be a little
different from how the casual college fan might
think about it. Let's make one thing straight
here too. B team, U23 team, Pan Am Cup team.
We do not consider that national team. National
team, we consider you're on a VNL roster, you're
on the Olympic roster, World Champs roster. We'll
even extend that to the wide roster for those
teams. Burke and Riley was not on any of those.
So the only current college players who were
on the national team in our eyes. Or Olivia Babcock
and Logan Litnicki. I think the frame of reference
is important. Age group is a great accomplishment.
But a lot of times the people who play age group
don't go on to actually play national team. Or
Pan Am Cup roster. That's the B team. Yes. I
personally don't consider that the national team.
No, me either. And so when we talk about international
experience, we don't count that. For all of those
kind of comments that we got, we understand that
she's played with the national team. But we're
talking about making that jump to the U .S. national
team and having your number called when it matters.
That's kind of our definition. And don't get
me wrong, Bergen -Riley and lots of the players
we talk about can play pro. They can play love.
They can play in a bunch of different leagues
and have that experience. But we're talking about
moving to the top of the top. So I wanted to
make sure we were all on the same page. Playing
pro. Playing pro. You know, like you're in a
Champions League, going the distance in Champions
League. You're playing, putting yourself forward
as a national team contender because of the teams
and level you're playing at pro. And then there's
like people who play pro to say they played pro.
Yeah. The next piece of that is you have to consider
like the number of athletes who get to play college
sports is a fraction of the population. The number
of players who get to go on to play for the national
team is infinitesimally small. It's crazy. And
the other thing you have to consider, and I'm
going to use Bergen Riley as an example because
we've talked about her. She is probably one of
the best college setters currently playing the
game, and you will not get an argument from the
two of us about that. I would argue, and we've
had questions about this. She is, this season,
I would say the best setter in the NCAA. People
have asked about her versus Alexis Stuckey. I
would say pre -injury, Alexis Stuckey had really
high potential. Her physicality, I would have
argued that she could be national team potential.
I'm not sure that she has come back from this
injury in a way that can... make her part of
that conversation anymore I would have put Izzy
Stark on that level I still think she is on that
level no clue if she's coming back or what her
future plans for the sport are Stucky and Stark
I would say have that it factor for national
team I just wanted to highlight because people
have brought up the Alexis Stucky Bergen Riley
conversation in numerous questions. Totally fair.
And we can build on that a bit more later. So
the other thing we need to think about is nobody
ages out of the national team. You have to either
take a step back where you're not good enough
to play anymore, but if you're good enough, you
can stay. Or make different life decisions. Yeah,
totally. You can stay and play forever. So you
don't have that same filtering through of athletes.
It's not to say that Bergen -Riley's class gets
a setter on the national team. It may skip. whole
generation because somebody is just that good
and I put it in context of think about Jordan
Larson she played on the national team for 15
to 20 years and nobody didn't matter where how
good you were you weren't taking the p2 spot
away from you so there was 15 years where it
didn't matter how good you were you weren't taking
that spot from her because you weren't better
than Jordan because you weren't better than Jordan
there's no guaranteed window for national team.
And that's what makes it so hard to play. I liken
it to thinking like Sarah and Jordan, if they
played for Nebraska for 15 years, you would never
have needed another left side or a right side.
Just nobody would ever got that opportunity.
And that's what makes it so difficult to play
in those teams. People don't leave. You have
to beat them out. And that, I think that that's,
we've talked about this at length. I think that
this year in the NCAA, It's not good. It's not
a good year for talent and skill level. And I
know people are going to be like, we're crazy.
No, trust me. The number of athletes from this
generation that you are going to see play on
the national team, I think is very small. I think
the generation from like 05 to 08 was a special.
where you had so many athletes from that group
go and have really long, really successful professional
and national team careers. We're talking the
Jordan Larsons, the Megan Hodges, Nicole Fawcett,
Krista Harmato, Feluka Akinradowo, me. A bunch
of setters. Alicia Glass. You had that generation
of athlete was... They were built different.
It was just a special time in NCAA volleyball
where those players made really long and successful
pro careers. You're not seeing that. You're not
seeing that same number of athletes coming through
the NCAA at the same time and staying with the
national team. So when people are like, how can
you say Bergen -Riley won't be? Is she better
than Jordan Poulter? Is she better than Micah
Hancock? No, she's not. And so this is where
you get into the conversation of, okay, how do
you make a national team? And somebody asked
like position by position, what do you guys look
at for this? Which I think is a great question.
If you look at the setters who have played for
the US in the near past, let's think about them.
You as an athlete, you need to find a way to
differentiate yourself. Everybody is a good setter.
Everybody can locate the ball. Everybody can
do. all of the things, but you need something
that makes you special or sets you apart. And
I think that's where, at least for me, when I
look at Bergen -Riley, I'm not sure what that
is. She's great for Nebraska because she's so
consistent. She sets the ball. She works hard.
She's good defensively, not great. She's pretty
good defensively. Okay, but who's the best U
.S. defending setter, would you say? Harlini,
probably. Okay. She's not. She's done with national
team. I know that. But that's the level of defense
we're talking about. And can Bergen -Riley get
there? Maybe. But I haven't seen that yet. You
know, you look at Jordan Poulter. Super fast
offense. Very physical. Really good blocker.
6 '2". You know, Micah Hancock. Serve. Serve
sets her apart. Like for me, for Bergen Riley
to make that jump and for any player from college,
you need to have something special that sets
you apart from those athletes. And I'm not sure
I can pick what that would be. Well, and I'm
going to go back to the Nebraska UCLA discussion
and what I have been saying about Bergen Riley
since last year, her out of system setting is
inconsistent and her back setting is inconsistent.
Because you are going to have to set. Big right
sides who are physical in tempo. And she has
struggled with that with Adriano. And with the
personnel that the U .S. national team currently
has on the left side, the passing is their biggest
issue. We've talked about this all VNL season.
Again, I don't know if Kelsey Cook is going to
come back after her pregnancy. I don't know if
Justine is going to come back after her pregnancy,
which were the two remaining top ball control
players for the U .S. Do I want Bergen -Riley
setting the passes that Logan Eggleston and Sarah
Franklin are putting up? No, I don't because
I don't love how she sets out a system. You might
love her, but there's no predictor. Just like
there's no predictor how a top high school recruit
is going to make the transition to the college
game, it is even harder to predict. how a top
college player is going to translate to the international
game because, and we've talked about this so
many times, the NCAA sets it up so that their
athletes can have success with the substitutions,
with this, with that, with the rules that they
have. So you can't predict. Look at all the draft
picks in the NFL, in the NBA, et cetera, who
were expected to be huge assets in the pros who
just didn't cut it or were underwhelming. in
their performance. It's the same thing with volleyball.
You can't necessarily predict. And maybe five
years from now, you're all going to be like,
you guys are so stupid. You were wrong. Maybe.
And Bergen -Riley definitely has a chance to
separate herself. We're not saying she can't
do that, but she's going to have to go find her
niche, which she hasn't had to do at Nebraska.
That's the thing. There's no indicator right
now for me looking at her that goes, that's what
sets her apart. That's what's going to make her
wanted on the national team. Okay, the Izzy Stark
discussion. When I think about Bergen -Riley,
do I think that Bergen -Riley could have taken
the Penn State team from last year and won a
national championship with them? I don't, honestly.
So Izzy Stark, why did she help propel Penn State
to the top? The Penn State was not a good passing
team. The way that she was able to pinpoint her
set location and keep her hitters in rhythm from
all... over the floor was so impressive. Not
to mention, she's 6 '1". She put up a decent
-sized block. Her defense was actually pretty
good, and her offensive ability was much better.
I don't see that same thing from Bergen -Riley.
That's kind of the setting position. Let's move
on and say you're evaluating left sides. What
are you looking at from a left -side point of
view to go, okay, there's national team potential.
good international potential and well you go
first and then I can I'll throw in my piece well
I think you have to be a six rotation player
at minimum there's no getting around that minimum
like you can't be one of those left sides that's
just like subbed out of the back row you need
to be able to pass you need to be able to play
defense you need to be able to hit a faster ball
in system and hit a decent high ball is the high
ball a necessity no if you have a good right
side The U .S. currently doesn't. There's an
example, though, of something that can be a differentiator.
If you become a really good out -of -system highball
hitter as a left side, you become more valuable.
Your currency increases. So it's about finding
those areas because everybody can pass. Some
people better than others, but, you know, marginally.
Play defense. All of those things. If you can
pass an attack, that's step one. If you can pass
an attack and hit a highball, bonus. But you
need, again. If you're going to play P1, you
need to be physical. You need to be able to score.
You need to have all of the shots. If you're
going to be a P2, your ball control, your defense,
your out -of -system setting, all of that has
to be better than everybody else's. And that's
why we see a player like Kim Hill who didn't
play at a great program. She played at Pepperdine.
Not in the conversation for national championships.
She was able to make a great national team in
pro career. Why? Because she played on both sides
of the ball. She could pass. She played defense.
She was really big. So she could hit at the net,
but she could hit out of system as well. She
could do it all. And it wasn't about maybe she
didn't fit into the mold or didn't come into
her own in high school to be recruited to a top
program. Maybe she didn't want to go to a top
program. I don't know what the reasoning was
for her to go to Pepperdine. But the fact that
she was able to develop all of her skills as
a six rotation player. Gave her a great pro career.
Finally. I mean, I think the opposite is pretty
straightforward. You got to be big. You got to
be physical. You got to score. You got to have
a good score. Just like score points. You need
to hit in system. You need to be good at hitting
out of system, which I am forever going to be
shocked at how people don't train their hitters
to hit out of system anymore. Hello. Just. Do
it. And you can't be an absolute liability on
defense. You need to put up a good block. You
need to have an aggressive serve. And don't be
a black hole on defense. We're not asking for
spectacular. You can be a gray hole, but you
can't be a black hole. You can be gray. Okay?
But don't be like Stiszak from Poland and be
a literal black hole where the ball will hit
you and you don't dig it. And then in the middle.
We're on one today. Yeah. Well, but it's, it's
a fascinating conversation. And I've spent a
lot of time thinking about this this week because
I've loved the questions that have come up. In
the middle, everybody can block. So you've got
to have. No, I think, but you see in the NCAA,
you usually have one blocker, one middle who's
a good blocker and one middle who's a good attacker.
You don't often see. True. Middles that can do
both. There are exceptions. I'm not, this is
like generally speaking. Yeah. But at the bare
minimum. You need to be a good blocker. And you
need to be able to hit something. You need a
differentiator offensively. So why we like Annie
Jackson, she's super dynamic on the slide. So
you can plug her into that offense and you know
it's going to work well. And she does that incredibly
well. For me personally, if I find a middle who
can run in front very effectively, that sets
you apart because not a ton of middles are really
good at that. Obviously, you have some middles
who are just exceptional blockers. and they're
not great offensively, you can have one of those
on your team, but then you need... You can't
have two. No, you need an offensive threat. But
even at the top levels, I would say internationally,
your middle, who might not be as good offensively,
needs to be competent enough to hold a block
defense. True. Yeah, and again, that's the baseline.
Last one, just for argument's sake. What about
Libero? Well, you know what I'm going to say.
You need to know how to set. set the ball period
know how to set obviously if you're a libero
on the national team you should be able to pass
you shouldn't be able to play defense well you
have to be you have to pass a ton of court and
you have to be consistent okay yeah defense especially
if you're on the u .s national team be comfortable
passing close to half the court yeah to cover
for those front row left sides maybe not on a
spin serve but defensively defensively you're
covering Like you're not looking around. You're
able to cover from zone three attack line. So
the attack line in zone three down to the back
corner in zone five. I would often even say five,
six seam. For those who are exceptional. Yeah.
And set the ball. Lots of conversations about
making national teams, different levels of national
teams, what kind of potential there is. And again,
predicting somebody's potential is not a science.
You look at it. Can I add something? Go ahead.
For hitters, when we're talking about being able
to hit, I mean hit against a solid, well -formed
block. Anybody can score in a one -on -one. Anybody
can score with a truckload of seam. When we're
talking about you can hit, I mean you can hit
with four hands in your face. Consistently. Yes.
In system and out of system. Very good point.
It's hard to understand. If you don't watch a
lot of international volleyball, you maybe don't
understand the level or the jump or just how
small the opportunity is. And I heard a lot of
comments that were to the point of, well, this
person got invited to the gym. 70 or 80 athletes
get invited to the gym in the summer. And if
you have a decent college career, you get an
invite. You get to come. They want bodies there.
You're looking at all of them. They want to see
their potential. Being selected for rosters,
that's what kind of sets you apart. And so that's
what we look at and kind of think about. Yeah,
it was a lot of questions and a very interesting
dialogue that I saw this week online. And so
I thought it was worth kind of discussing and
talking about. And I will give a shout out. I
had somebody do a statistical analysis that compared
Bergen -Riley and Poulter college careers. And
I found that... And Bergen -Riley was better
in a bunch of the categories. It's easy to be
better when you're in system and when you have
just everybody can score on your team. True.
That's a luxury in college. It is. And I will
say. You guys are going to think I hate Bergen
-Riley. And I'm not doing anything to make you
change that thought process. I'm aware. I do
think she is good. But this is the thing. She
is very consistent. She's like all of the other
Nebraska players. She's very consistent. She
doesn't make a ton of errors. She's well -skilled
around all of the skills, but she doesn't have
anything that sets her apart, and she will need
to be put into a situation where she is required
to elevate, and it will be interesting to see
if she can do that. Well, and here's the thing.
I think Bergen -Riley has potential in Player
of the Year. Oh, yeah. 100%. Again, she's an
incredible NCAA athlete. There are certain players
that could play for any program and be outstanding.
There are just players who are built different.
There are players who fit well into a system.
And they are excellent, outstanding players within
a certain framework. I want to see Bergen -Riley
outside of the Nebraska framework. And see what
she would do. Going back to the statistical analysis,
I don't think collegiate success is the best
indicator of professional success. There's too
many variables. There's coaching style. There's
playing time. There's teammates. There's all
of these different things that you can't really
compare one person's situation to another person's
depending on. you know, what conference they
play in, who their teammates are at any given
time. Those direct comparisons I don't think
are good future predictors of international potential
or success. It's an interesting thing to do and
to talk about, but I don't think it's super relevant
in this conversation. All right, so we had a
couple big matches this week, namely the battle
for first in the ACC. and Nebraska losing their
first set in 48 sets, I think, or something crazy
like that. So we watched both of those matches.
We're going to dive into those and just spend
a little time talking about what we saw. So do
you want to start with Pitt versus Stanford game
or the Nebraska -UCLA game? Let's do Pitt -Stanford.
Give me your initial impression of that match.
Okay, full disclosure. I was calling a game.
when this match was happening. I only saw the
last three sets, but you watched the whole thing.
I watched the whole thing. I actually don't think
Stanford should have won that match. Based on
what I saw, which Pitt was up 14 -11 in the fifth,
no. The same thing happened in the first set.
Pitt was up 24 -20, lost 26 -24. Two of the three
sets that Stanford won, they went on six and
five point runs and with nothing, with no response
from Pitt. Okay, what happened in the first time
that happened? Error after bad passing. You know,
Stanford made a couple plays. Good serving. I
will say in the first two sets, Stanford served
really, really well. And they managed to keep
Pitt off the net. They knew where the ball was
going to go. And they were able to force really
good blocks on Babcock. They got a lot of block
touch slowdowns, which turned into transition
opportunities. They did that very well in the
first two sets. Well, and you also messaged me.
And you said Logan Parks is really good. And
you said Elliot Rubin is really good. Elliot
Rubin, I thought, was really good at the beginning
of the match. And then I actually thought Blashov
played really well down the stretch. Somebody
correct me. She wasn't playing at the beginning
of the season, was she? I think E. Park Kurt
was in there for a while. Yeah. But I don't,
I've seen Stanford play a few times and I. Unless
I blacked out, which has been known to happen.
I don't recall her playing, but she was like
unstoppable. She went 20 for 43 and hit 394 or
349. Sorry. She was. She was very good. Stanford's
outside core played really, really well. Harvey
also. Their middles did play well. More on the
defensive side of the ball. They scored, but
they didn't get set a ton. Every time I saw Lizzie
Andrews swing, she scored. I think she had maybe
seven or eight points. I think she got 15 or
16 sets. Okay. But she had like seven blocks.
Yeah. In the fourth set, they posted that stat.
She was a factor for sure. To me, Stanford ran
the middle enough to keep Pitt honest, and Stanford's
outside scored. The other thing I will say, and
we had this discussion a couple weeks ago, Stanford
ran the pipe a whole bunch in that match. which
is not something that they have done super well
this season, in my opinion. I know that we've
been critical of that before. Here's the one
thing I really like about Stanford. A, you know
their athletes are smart because they got into
Stanford. They have to actually get accepted
on their own merit, not just because they're
athletes. Yes. And historically, Hambly does
a really good job of building towards the tournament.
So I wouldn't be surprised if this was running
the pipe was always on his roadmap. But with
a bunch of young players like, hey, we can't
we're not going to add this yet. We're going
to add this moving into so that we have another
weapon come tournament time. I think he does
a really good job of progressing through the
season and his teams always get better. To see
them running the pipe, I thought, man, this is
a really good addition for them on top of what
they had already been done. Their middles are
a threat. Their outsides are starting to play
better. Again, I think Parks is a fantastic setter.
I really liked what she did. Pitt should have
won because Babcock was just so good. Stanford
doesn't give up. They're disciplined. They get
lots of really good block touches. In the sets
where Stanford did a good job, they applied really
good service pressure. Now they missed a whole
ton of serves. And in sets one and two, Pitt
was off the net quite a bit, which eliminated
their middles. They kept with that service pressure
over the whole match. And even if they were missing,
they kept going at it. And I think that mentality
stands them in really good stead. We actually
got a question recently about Logan Parks. Okay.
She can set and hit maybe like a Campbell -Flinton
situation like we see at Nebraska. In her prep
days, did both. The question, its essence basically
is, what do you do when you have an athlete who
can play multiple positions? What is the thought
process in making them, or not making them, but
having them specialize in one? You put them where
their skill set most values the team. So if she's
setting this year because they don't have a better
option, great. But in the back of your mind,
when you're doing your recruiting, you know that
if you get a blue chip setter, you can keep her
on the court and move her to swing. So it just,
it gives you flexibility as a coach, A, in terms
of your recruiting, but B, in terms of maximizing
potential and putting pieces where you need them.
And I, like right now, setting is where she brings
the most value to the team. Maybe when Elia Rubin
leaves, that's not the case. I had a similar
experience, albeit not at the same level. So
I set. My club team ran a 6 -2 forever. Like
I was a setter and a hitter. I did both for our
national team programs as well. And then in my
junior year of high school, it was like, okay,
yeah, we need you to hit way more than we need
you to set. And so I became exclusively a right
side hitter and the rest is history. The exact
same thing as you just described as like the
thought process of what to do when players can
do both happened to me. It's totally situational
dependent. And there might be nights where if
your left side goes down and you need her to
play left side, you put another setter in. It's
just it's a security blanket to have a player
who can do multiple things. And she's just an
incredible athlete. On to Pitt, because let me
tell you, you're out 14 -11 in the fifth. They
rolled in set three and four. Like they found
their rhythm. Well, they started passing. And
Babcock was unstoppable. Yes. Bayless came on
hot, too. Bayless stunk in the first two sets
and then got much better, and they started getting
Brie Kelly the ball. Complete turnaround. Yes.
Okay. We were looking at a potential reverse
sweep, and it should have been a reverse sweep.
We get to 14. What? No, it should have been a
reverse sweep, but it should have been over on
four. If they had gone their act together in
the beginning. Okay, fair. Yeah, yeah. You have
your go -to hitter who had been virtually unstoppable
in the sets three and four. In the front row,
okay, at 14 -11. I will give Ilya Rubin credit.
She went back to serve at 14 -12 because Stanford
sided out. Ice in the veins. Nailed her serve.
I'm not just talking like, oh, let's keep them
in. She targeted the French girl, whose name
eludes me at the moment. Faders to the sideline.
Oh. Like, we're not talking like, oh, let's keep
it in. We're not talking like, oh, just make
this person pass. We're talking make this person
pass and go to the ground. And she nailed it.
Every ball. That might have been the most impressive
part of that whole match was just her ability
to keep Pitt under pressure in that moment. But
here's the thing. Pitt gets a free ball back.
At 14 -12. And their libero passes it too tight.
I knew this was coming. I wanted to punch the
TV. You're the libero on one of the top teams
in the country, and you are not going to execute
a free ball pass at match point? Do your job.
Single -handedly, I'm like, it's your fault you
lost. Quite frankly, that ball should have gone.
to Babcock, and it should have been game over
15 -12. We're talking the most basic skill here.
Free ball passing. Focus in. Pass the ball. It's
your job. Okay, putting that aside. French girl
can't pass. I repeat, you have your go -to hitter
in the front row. She's a right side. If you
are unable to get a high ball to the right side,
front row, what are you even doing? That is how
bad the passing was. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but I don't think she got a swing. She got one
that was set by the libero behind the attack
line. Roll shot. She couldn't do anything. I
want to say two players just completely melted
down. Girl. Get the ball high in the middle of
the court. You've got the best player in the
country in the front row. Just give her a high
ball. The game will be over. We're not looking
for a three pass here. Get it high in the middle
of the court. Outrageous. These are the kinds
of things that can happen in pressure situations.
You have to give Stanford credit. They didn't
give up. They kept their foot on the gas in both
those sets where they were down. But man, you've
got to close that out. That's got to be. And
that's for Stanford. Here's what Adam's going
to call back what his. previous comment was.
No. Stanford plays SMU on Sunday. They need to
win that game to wrap up the ACC. So we're clearly
recording this before that happens. Correct.
You're playing to host to the Final Four. Yeah.
A regional. And you can't close on two occasions.
And one of those is a free ball. Yeah. That is
not a good headspace to be in. You give up five
match points. You give five points in a row.
Yes. Gross. I didn't know, I don't know what
to say. I kind of laughed on the first set. Like
it happens and you're like, okay, Stanford came
back. Way to not give up. Pitt's going to roll
here. Then they lose again. Then they play incredibly
well. And then you cough up another lead. Like
that is, it's concerning, quite frankly. And
this is what we've talked about. They're a one
trick team if they can't run the middle and run
the left side. Blair Bayless played really well,
sets three, four, and five. Bree Kelly played
well when they passed the ball. They're very
hard to stop. When they're clicking like that.
This is what we've been talking about all season.
Not only could they not get anybody else a ball,
they couldn't even get Olivia Babcock the ball.
This is the exact scenario we have been talking
about. And when we talked about it in the past,
it was like, okay, well, if Olivia Babcock isn't
on, then what? Well, guess what? She was on.
She was on. And you couldn't get her the ball.
Now, I did think that Brooke Mosher set a good
game. I really like her serve. I thought. She
played well when she had the ability to run the
offense. So that's a good combination with both
her and Babcock hitting pretty good serves. They
can put some teams in trouble. You just can't
melt down at the end of sets. So I'm curious
to see. And a good job by Stanford for sticking
with it. And I'll say it again, Ilya Rubin, those
serves at the end could not have been better.
Stanford did an incredible job playing defense.
They were prepared. They didn't give... Babcock's
going to score. they did a really good job on
getting slowdowns and touches and taking care
of their transition opportunities when they had
them. To me, that's the game plan against Pitt.
You serve really well, try and take out the middle.
Again, Bayless struggled in the first two sets.
She found her own way, good for her, but you're
making life difficult for Babcock or trying to
take her out with kudos to them. They have a
really good chance of finishing first in the
ACC, which is good for them. And good for Adam
because he was the only one. in our Power 4 forecast
episode that picked Stanford to win the ACC.
I'm not going to lie. Being right is pretty fun.
That's actually why he wanted to talk about this
match, but whatever. Nebraska comes to the West
Coast. Everybody comes to the West Coast hoping
for sun, warmth, and escape from winter. They
arrived in the middle of an atmospheric river
event. It's cold. It's raining. Which I love.
I'm all about that. Yeah, but we live here. We
get the sun. I love it when it rains. The Nebraska
fans turned up in LA. But some of the Nebraska
players stayed home. What were your thoughts
on that game? As you mentioned, they dropped
their first set in a couple months. So that pressure's
off. I actually think that's a positive. I agree.
I think it's a positive. It just looked like
an uninspired performance to me. Well, they kicked
the snot out of them in the first set. UCLA hits
zero. For all intents and purposes, they should
have kept that rolling. Yes. They started and
they looked like Nebraska. They just didn't continue
that. No. Some of the players looked disengaged
to me, looked disinterested. To UCLA's credit,
their outsides did really well. And I call some
UCLA games, so I've seen them play a bunch. Maggie
Lee played the best game she's played all season.
I think that was the team's best game I've seen.
Lola Schumacher holds it down for them all the
time. She's incredible. Singletary is near the
top of the Big Ten in blocks per set. She blocks
really well. Their outsides played an outstanding,
fearless match. Singletary blocked really well.
Their right side still does nothing. Non -factor.
But Nebraska, I'll say it again, uninspired.
And I'm probably going to get crucified for this,
but I did not like... Bergen -Riley setting.
I thought it was all over the place. I thought
Nebraska was out of system more than they usually
are. And her out of system sets, which I was
critical of last season, came back and were spraying
all over the place. I just, I don't think she
set a great match. I'm going to put a small caveat
on what you said. I thought she set the middles
well. I thought she ran the middle of the court
well. So their middles were their best players.
They had 28 kills on the match. And I thought
her choice of running the pipe was also good.
She ran Alec really well, like nine or 10 feet
off the net, pushed the middle in that way, connected
with Jackson. But I agree, her sets to the outside,
specifically the right side, but out of system
on the left side as well. Or the distance off
the net was not good. But inconsistent too. Like
it wasn't the same type of error. It was way
too far off the net, then tight, then way too
far off the net, then tight. And then the outside
ball way too far off the net, then too wide.
Well, this is not good. This is something I've
talked to other coaches about. You can't fix
the error you just made. You have to make the
right play afterwards. And that's kind of what
I saw where she would yin -yang mistakes. So
she would set one here and then she would overcorrect.
Or yo -yo. Either way. Yeah, that's kind of what
I was looking for. Well, and she got pulled in
the third set, too. Which is another big respect
move I have for Danny Bostrom. Like, she does
not mess around. Do you think she pulled the
right side because she wasn't playing well or
to give... Jack a chance? Yeah. I don't think
she cares if anybody gets a chance. Okay. But
did you think that Adriano played poorly in the
first set? Yeah. Okay. Well, there you go. I
don't think she hit well, but I also don't think
she was put in a great position to score. But
we've seen her being inconsistent all season.
But then she put her back in in set four. Yo,
I didn't think Sheck was very good either. I
think Sheck started out well in set two and then
was just like neutral for me. Well, in set three,
Nebraska hit 190, which might be their worst
team hitting percentage on the season maybe.
Here's something else that was interesting that
I noticed as well. I actually think Nebraska
is the perfect matchup for UCLA in the way they
run their team. I think that their staff is incredibly
well prepared. for opponents. I don't think,
and I've said this before, that they make very
good in -game adjustments. Now, when you play
the best team, they don't make adjustments because
they make you beat them at what they're good
at, and they know that they're probably going
to win. Our good is better than your good, so
try to stop us. 100%. And so you started to see...
He clearly told Maggie Lee to swing down the
line at the outside hand. And she did that really
well. Nebraska didn't really make an adjustment.
They clearly had game plan that Bergen Riley
loves to run the middle from nine or 10 feet
off the net. The number of times I saw Singletary
commit block on those passes was almost automatic.
It was definitely the game plan. And so UCLA
was prepared for their tendencies. And they didn't
change them. And so they were able to get success
and get some touches and make some transition.
I thought Lola Schumacher was unbelievable. Some
of the digs that she made. She has honestly been
the reason UCLA is in any conversation this whole
season, I think. She's their MVP. 100%. Hands
down. I think the fact that they could prepare
for Nebraska. And Alfie Reft, he's been part
of the U .S. national program. He's seen how
Karch prepares game plans. They were ready. They
had done their homework. They're just not as
good as Nebraska. And that's the issue. If a
better team had implemented that game plan against
Nebraska, I'm not sure they would have won that
match. But their middles saved them, quite frankly.
Oh, their middles saved them for sure. I didn't
think Harper Murray did much either. I'm sure
people aren't going to like to hear that either.
Well, defensively, she had some hip bends or
some bends at the waist for some token dig. Yeah,
the balls were coming seam and I saw like baby
giraffe move, like keep your legs straight, just
bend at the waist. Oh, too bad I didn't dig it.
Like, what are you doing? Where's the effort
here? I kind of think they, after the first set,
they figured they were just going to roll them
and that they were going to go away. Well, I
don't care what your thought process was. You
lost the third set because of that. I would say,
what, three, at least three of her kills came
from overpasses. created by other players like
offensively she didn't really do a lot for me
either i thought land fair land fair did great
and i think she blocked really really well particularly
the first couple sets she just owned pk kong
it looked a little uninspired by a couple nebraska
athletes but i agree with you their middles scored
more points than everybody else combined What
is your thought process on, I mean, they come
to the West Coast. It's obviously much later
back home. You know, they're playing at 11, 12
o 'clock local time. Is that a factor? Does that
matter? Well, what are you going to do at a national
championship where you have to wait until the
match before you end? Like, if the match before
you goes five sets, you're playing late at night.
They've played late at night before. For me,
that's just a bad excuse. Fair enough. We have
gotten a question, though, about Bergen -Riley.
I'm curious about your thoughts. Okay. This question
was, do you think Bergen -Riley repeats to a
hitter after an error too often to the point
that it's become too predictable? And do you
think that that will be a problem against better
teams later on? I have a couple thoughts about
this. So basically what this question means is,
like, if a hitter goes up and gets blocked, Bergen
-Riley tends to set that player again. Or if
a hitter goes up and hits the ball out, she will
set that player again right away. So this is
an interesting, I'm going to call it a tendency
in air quotes for a second. As a hitter, I love
this. 100%. For me, if somebody blocked me and
then I saw their reaction, I'm like, F this.
Give me the ball again. I'm going to shut these
people up. Correct. Let's be honest. We are occasionally
critical of some of Nebraska's hitters, but they're
very good. Like the chance of their hitters making
two errors in a row statistically is very small.
It just, it doesn't happen. So getting them back
into the game and getting them set again, I think
is in general a good strategy. Two, statistically,
this is very hard to track in terms of seeing
how many times it happens. And it's also one
of those things that once you see it sticks in
your brain. So I don't have the numbers. I haven't
run them. I would actually be surprised. what
the numbers are like if it's statistically relevant
or not or if she's looking at it now you'll see
it and you'll think oh there it is there it is
there it is but you won't pay attention to the
times when it doesn't happen so I'm not saying
it's not statistically happening because she
I've noticed that as well but it may not be quite
as significant as the eye test passes for that
one what are your thoughts well I think it just
speaks to how much confidence she has in her
hitters abilities And they are, I agree with
you, they're good enough that will they be stopped
twice in a row? I'd be surprised. Do I think
it will hurt them later? I think she has a good
enough feel for the game that I don't think it'll
be an issue. But you'll also notice when she
does it, it's earlier in matches. I don't think
she does it after 20. I think after 20, she's
running her offense. You can also take that and
toy with the opponent. If they commit on one
ball, then you're like, okay, they know this
is a tendency. You keep that in your back pocket
and you use it again after. It's in her favor
regardless. For UCLA, I've seen them play some
weaker teams and they just completely tank. And
then I see them play Nebraska and they're a different
team. Like for me, you need to take care of the
games you're supposed to take care of. Nobody
out there expects you to beat Nebraska, but then
you show up and then you go 18 -16 in the fifth
with Northwestern. That is the problem for me
with those mid -range teams. Take care of the
games you quote unquote should take care of and
then take care of the other matches too. Like
prepare for every game the same. Go into every
match with the same attitude. That's the frustrating
part for me watching this UCLA performance and
then watching some of their other ones. What
did you think of... The World Series winning
celebration after the third set. It was embarrassing.
I agree. Okay, you win the third set. You beat
Nebraska in a set for the first time in Big Ten
play. The way you're celebrating, I was cringing
watching it because it's like so clear to me
that you had no expectation of winning. Which,
yeah. The thing for me, it's... realistic that
you don't have an expectation of beating nebraska
i understand that they've won 40 respect yourselves
enough to play it cool that's the like you're
showing nebraska that they're out of your league
a hundred percent you can be happy you won but
you go over the games not over you didn't accomplish
anything that's a mentality piece and we've talked
about ucla's mentality that's a mentality piece
that is totally unacceptable To the point where
as a coach, I may have benched all of those players
and put my bench on and been like, that's unacceptable.
You can't do that. That's not how we roll. You
wouldn't have done that. I know. I'm being facetious,
but that's a fundamental issue to me. I was,
I almost wanted to turn the TV off when I saw
that. I was like, this is not cool. We were sitting
there watching the game. I was like, they are
going to get absolutely thumped in the next set
because Nebraska is going to be pissed and you're
just happy you took a set. Yeah, you guys are
just happy to be there. Like, P .S., you need
to win three sets to be happy about anything.
And they got kicked. Yeah, it was not good. Here's
another thing I want to address. Go ahead. This
has been bothering me. So Nebraska is leading
the country in attendance at home. And the second
highest attendance in the country is Nebraska
on the road. I think that's great. They have
built themselves a following, a reputation. You
know, they are. growing the sport as a team,
the way Caitlin Clark kind of did on the basketball
side. That's great. The thing that bothers me
is that we've got these programs being like,
hey, help us sell out or like set our attendance
record when Nebraska comes to town. Stop riding
the coattails of a team that has figured it out.
And how about you work on building your own fan
base and your own program instead of relying
on Nebraska? How about, hey, let's sell out and
set a record when we play USC. Our hometown rivals.
Every team is doing this. Nebraska's coming on
X date. Let's set a record then. Stop it. And
our record includes more than half Nebraska fans.
It's not even a home game for UCLA. I heard more.
go big red cheers than anything else. Yeah. It's
honestly, it's kind of embarrassing. You're setting
an attendance record, but the whole crowd is
wearing red. Like you should be ashamed of that.
I'm sorry. Like let's put an asterisk next to
that attendance. So how about every program starts
to do what needs to be done to grow the sport
of volleyball, to garner interest in their own
backyard, instead of relying on Nebraska, who
has it figured out to come to your program and
do it for you. I'll get off my soapbox now. Fair
point. I do think that Nebraska losing a set
is good. I think it takes the pressure off them
to have an immaculate season. Oh, this will serve
them all for sure. They needed to get that monkey
off their back. The media is always like, oh,
blah, blah, blah, having lost a set. And then
it's constantly being put in your face. And especially
at that age, like they're young women. It just
like weighs on you. So I think it's good that
that's done with and they can just go back to
playing. And that was a prediction we were both.
Right on. I'm really happy about that. I posted
on Instagram. I was like, we might have to take
this back, but now we don't. I actually think
it would be good for them to lose a match before
they go into the tournament, but I don't think
that's going to happen. I don't think that's
going to happen. Anyway, they have USC tomorrow,
so we'll see what Nebraska shows up and if they're
a little more focused. Okay. Let's dive into
some listener questions. Well, first of all.
We put out the notice for questions for teams
other than Nebraska and people showed up. So
thank you for that. We appreciate it. And we're
looking forward to getting some of those answers.
Yeah, you guys heeded the call. And in my selections
for questions this week, I tried to hit several
different teams because you guys, as Adam said,
stepped up. And then we've got some general ones.
So if you did submit a question about your team.
It will be addressed in the coming weeks. Don't
worry. Question one. My question has been nagging
me since watching so many games where NCAA Division
I volleyball teams rely on maybe one or two players
to get the majority of the points. Does this
not increase the chance of long -term damage
to those athletes that are swinging 50 to 70
times a match? I would think the wear and tear
on that limited number of players would increase
the chance for injury now and affect their future.
always an issue, but I'm not sure if you're a
go -to player, you're taking a ton of swings,
whether you take 38 swings or whether you take
50 swings, there's not a huge difference. I think
it's more about your preparation for how you
take care of yourself, how you warm up your day
-to -day routine. Cause you have to remember,
fine, you're taking 50 swings in a match, but
what are you doing during the week? A lot of
those players don't take as many swings. you
know, Monday and Tuesday and then ramp up again.
So there's ways to manage that. I don't think
that sheer number in match is the biggest contributing
factor to long -term injury. I think it determines
how they're being used in practice. And if they
are, if their coaching staff is being mindful
of the swings that they're taking during the
week, taking that many swings twice a week for
match day. Yeah, it's all a balance. And I mean,
again, there's other things to think about, right?
Is your technique good? If you're swinging on
50 balls and you don't have great technique,
you're going to apply more pressure to your shoulder.
I mean, I look at Sarah. She was a go -to hitter
for two decades indoor. When you played in the
Asian leagues, you were swinging on 60, 70 balls
a night, and you were shoulder -wise injury -free
or injury -free for most of your career. So there
are ways to do it. Genetics plays a part. Recovery
plays a part, all of those things. So that in
and of itself, I don't think is the biggest indicator
of future injury. Question two, several of the
elite players like Mimi Collier, Olivia Babcock,
Kennedy Martin, keep getting honored for the
number of kills they get each match. Considering
that they're being set 85 % plus of the time
and are sometimes playing four and five sets
per match. Is that fair to athletes? In this
case, they mentioned Harper Murray. who's only
being set about 50 % of the time and playing
three sets per match. Who cares who wins athlete
of the week? No, I honestly think it's also a
question of kills per set, which I think is definitely
more of an indicator than just straight kills
and hitting percentage. So hitting percentage
doesn't really have anything to do with the number
of sets you're getting. And Harper Murray's hitting
percentage is not as high as some of those athletes.
I'm sure somebody is going to go digging and
try to tell me I'm wrong. Maybe I am. I don't
know. It is so impressive when you are one of
the players on a team that is getting the majority
of sets and you're still able to score at that
kind of clip. I think that what Kennedy Martin's
doing and Mimi Collier at their programs where
they're more limited in the hitters surrounding
them is much more impressive than what Harper
Murray is doing. Yeah, at the end of the day,
whoever wins player of the week, it's not a big
deal in my opinion. This is a byproduct of playing
for Nebraska. You play on a team that has a chance
to win a national championship every year. You're
always in the conversation. You know you're going
to be surrounded by other great athletes. You're
not going to get... the individual accolades
that some of these other athletes are going to
get at the program. That's part of playing for
Nebraska, and you need to be okay with it. And
again, do you want to have five athlete of the
weeks, or do you want to have a national championship?
Take your pick. You can't always have both, and
it doesn't matter. Nobody remembers who was athlete
of the week October 10th. Adam's clearly passionate
about it. Look, this is the sassiest we've ever
heard Adam get, and it's about player of the
week. It's about winning championships, period.
I think there's too many random awards that are
handed out in everything, not only NCAA volleyball.
I think I need to make a segment about this because
like the number of awards that they now give
out on a weekly baseless, like, I'm sorry, you're
giving out a freshman of the week. You're giving
out a setter of the week. You know what? Back
in my day, and yes, I'm using back in my day,
there was like player of the week, period. No,
they're Instagram awards. Now it's just like,
let's give an award to literally everybody for
everything. And then like the all regional awards.
Like where did that come from? Instagram. Okay.
You know what? Player of the year. When did defensive
player of the year become a thing? I'm okay with
that one. I'm not. Well, defensive players will
rarely win conference player of the year. So
fine. Whatever. Setter of the year. You guys.
Player of the year, period. I think this is a
generational thing where everybody needs a trophy
for participating. But anyway, we digress. This
is a household where participation medals will
end up in the garbage. He's not wrong. Okay,
question three. I hear the same thing about players
transferring to new programs again and again.
They lost the love for the game. This person
uses Merritt Beeson and Taylor Landfair as an
example. Do you think going from Minnesota or
Florida, which were mid -ranked teams at the
time, to a top three team changed their love
for the game? Or do you think it's the fact that
they just couldn't be an X factor to push their
first school to the top? This is a really tough
question because everybody has different motivations.
Don't get me wrong. There are situations where
you don't like your teammates and you don't get
along and you're leaving because... Looking at
player X's face every day drives you crazy. I
get that. That's definitely a thing. If you're
losing and you're not winning a national championship,
would that make you lose the love for the game?
Well, no, I think that's an excuse for I want
to win. I'm going to go somewhere else. You can't
come out and say that. It's not good for your
image. But I think the question, like when you're
recruited to a program like that, you're well
aware of what their status is. So I think the
underlying thing here is like, do you think players
like this? We're not talking about these two
players in particular. That was just an example
for the question. Do you think there are certain
players out there that get recruited to programs
like that, that are really good, but not like
cream of the crop? Think that they're good enough
to be the difference maker when they get there,
realize they're not able to like push them to
that level. And it's just, I lost the love for
the game. I need to leave. Yeah, I definitely
think so. What does love for the game mean? Do
you like training? Do you like winning? Why are
you there in the first place? And maybe you weren't
good enough to go to that top tier program and
you needed to play a year or two where maybe
you thought you'd make a difference. There's
just so many reasons and I've lost my love for
the game is the default excuse because nobody
can argue with you. Nobody's going to say anything.
You're like, oh, I didn't love it here. I'm going
to go somewhere else. That's way easier for people
to swallow than to say. well, I don't think we're
going to win. I'm going to go somewhere where
I can win. But I think this also ties into the
question we just answered too. It's like you
can go to a program and be the show and be the
franchise player, but your team might not win.
Or you can go to a team that has a chance to
win legit year after year, maybe not shine as
brightly, maybe even be on the bench, but have
a chance to win a championship. It all depends
on your priorities. What you want out of the
game. And I think that those moods also, people's
ability to deal with uncomfortable situations
has shortened. Like I don't want to sit on the
bench or I don't want to do this. I have an easy
out. I'm going to go try somewhere else. Like
that wasn't the case 10 years ago when you were
playing collegiate sport. Like you stuck out
a year. Oh, he's being generous. 10 years. Thank
you. So I think there's all kinds of reasons
and I definitely think that this is one. People
are very good these days at saying things that
nobody can argue with. I'll leave it there. Question
four. What do you think about Northwestern's
use of one libero for a middle and outsides and
a DS for the other middle? What is the advantage
of this? Okay, you see this with a bunch of teams.
Often you'll see the DS go for an outside, but
I would say, and then you see the libero go for
both middles. An advantage to doing this is because
the libero can only serve for one person on the
court. So if you have the libero going for both
middles, one of those middles has to serve. If
both of your middles are not good servers, that's
why you'll use your DS for the other middle so
that the DS can serve for the middle. Does that
make sense? Well answered. Honestly, you see
both middles and typically one outside be subbed
out of the back row. So the reason that they've
kind of mixed it up is, I would assume, to be
a serving strategy. You're trying to keep your
two worst servers from touching the ball at the
baseline. I called that game, by the way. And
the person who wrote this question knew that.
So thanks. for watching question five back in
your junior days like playing club volleyball
what was the turning point for you when you became
the ice princess when did you stop overthinking
and just started curve stopping your opponents
with no remorse what did your coaches do or provide
you with to allow you to become your most confident
version as a teen okay first of all i will say
i don't i must have mentioned it If the ice princess
is being referenced, I must have mentioned it
because I was called that in Korea when I played
in Korea. And I didn't know because obviously
I can't understand Korean, but my translator
was like, are you aware that they call you that?
I was like, no, but I love it. Thank you. Just
for everybody to know, when Sarah was playing
club volleyball, her nickname was the franchise.
That's what everybody called her. This is a good
question. I will say I've received a lot of criticism
over my career for that ice princess persona.
And having no remorse and no mercy. I will say
I was incredibly competitive from toddlerhood.
Like I would cry losing board games. I had to
win literally everything. Which got dicey because
her dad's the same way. So when they would play
games when she was a child, there's sometimes
some fireworks. That's a nice way to put it.
So I would say that a large majority of that
persona you saw in a competitive environment
is innate. But I grew up in an environment where
my examples of athletes and competitors were
men. So my dad was still playing basketball and
volleyball and stuff when I was born. So I would
go with him to a lot of his games. And my dad
was coaching boys. and men at the university
and high school level. So I would go and I was
in the gym every day and I would travel to tournaments
with them, like as a five, six year old, stuff
like that. And so my example of what it meant
to compete and fight on the court for wins was
watching boys. So I thought that that was normal.
And then to my, my dad was my club coach. To
my dad's credit, he never tried to make me a
nice girl and never tried to be like, well, this
is how girls act. Like you're not acting appropriately.
It was very much you be yourself and you don't
have to make other people comfortable. You just
be you. It's a combination of nature and nurture
there in the sense that it is very innate to
be a true competitor when it all costs. And I
was never forced to be a quote unquote nice girl.
My parents and I received a lot of criticism
as a young athlete for being just so cutthroat
and fierce on the court. But the people that
mattered to me and who knew me didn't want me
to change. And they accepted me for who I am.
And that included my teammates. Question six.
As a Vanderbilt grad, I'm so excited that we
now have a women's volleyball team. Congrats.
I've been impressed by the strategic decisions
they've made to start and develop a program,
such as hiring a young coach from an established
program, get an older setter to establish the
offense, etc. If you're an athletic director
or coach, how would you develop a new program?
How would you rank your priorities? First and
foremost, you have to build a culture and you
have to create. Create expectations for where
you are currently with the athletes that you
have and where you want to go. And I think the
question is one of their priorities was they
hired a young coach from an established program
who was he was coaching at Kentucky for a long
time. Yeah. And then. And to me, that's about
understanding how to create a winning culture
and expectations. OK, because I was like I was
thinking like a culture is determined once you
have certain pieces in place. But continue, continue.
That's. Definitely true. But bringing in somebody
who knows how to win and say, again, you don't
know what athletes you're going to get. It's
a first time program. You're not going to have
a ton of, you're not going to win a lot. But
like what type of athlete would you go for first?
I would probably bring in, because you're not
going to be able to recruit really good athletes.
Nobody's going to go there and take a flyer.
So for me, I would go out and look at really
physical, maybe a little rough around the edges
technically. but attitudes that are going to
work hard. And then it's from there, you're going
to hone them because you have to create a place
where people want to come and play. And if you
can take a couple really physical athletes and
teach them the game or help them become better
and noticeable, people will take note of that
and then will want to come. So maybe it's an
athlete that started playing volleyball in high
school or started a little bit later. or multi
-sport athlete who decided late they wanted to
play volleyball. I would look for those types
of athletes, and I would look for people who
were competitive by nature. Losing is tough,
and if you lose a lot, that becomes who you are.
So you need... some of those personalities to
be able to build into winning and still work
hard while maybe you're not getting the results
that you have. So that's what I would, that's
how I would approach it. I think starting with
a more experienced setter, if possible, is a
good idea because they're going to touch the
ball more than anybody. Yeah. Starting with that,
you know, if you've got a good outside who can
pass the ball, like if you can. This is a perfect.
six rotation skilled player but not like the
monster attacker this that's the perfect situation
for those six rotation skilled players that might
be overlooked by the biggest programs but are
good totally then you're at least competitive
you may not be winning but you're you could pass
and you set it looks put together you have you
know a little bit of skill even if you don't
have the size so maybe mixing that with a couple
projects is your best kind of mix for starting
that program Question seven. Do you think if
Mary Wise hadn't retired that the Gators would
have been a top contender this season? Her departure
likely led to the Kennedy Martin transfer to
Penn State, as well as Heredia Colon rescinding
her transfer from Miami. These are the exact
two pieces missing from this team, in my opinion.
Two six rotation players in a dominant right
side and solid ball control scoring outside to
go along with Jordan Bird and Madkin. What are
your thoughts? If those two players are there,
that program is totally different. I think Mary
Wise leaving is the reason. I think Mary Wise
leaving and Dave Booz not being given the head
coaching job led to the Kennedy -Martin departure.
And I think the Kennedy -Martin departure led
to the Heredia -Cologne departure. I think it
was a domino effect. I agree. Again, I think
if you have those two players there and a healthy
Stucky, that program is fighting for top of the
conference and they're much better than they
are currently. Can you imagine those two on the
same team? They're both scoring like 40 points
a night by themselves. If they were together,
you literally don't need anybody else to score.
Get the middle going, blocking, set them a few
times. These two can score with a double block
anyways. Our typical discourse of get the middle
going to open things up. Certain hitters are
fine hitting against a double block. These two
are some of them. So just have somebody who can
pass the ball. Basically. Yeah. It would have
been a totally different season in Florida if
those two players were there and agreed, I think,
if Mary Wise had stayed, Florida would be in
the conversation this year, quite frankly. Or
even if Florida had hired Dave Booz, who was
the associate head coach under Mary Wise, if
they had hired him, I think it would have been
a different story. And let me tell you, Dave
Booz recruited me when he was at Minnesota under
Mike Hebert when I was getting recruited. Loved
him. He was the best. I can understand why Kennedy
Martin wanted him to be the head coach because
like when he recruited me, I thought he was amazing.
Question eight. What are three areas of opportunities
for improvement for Pitt that you see before
the postseason? We just destroyed Pitt a little
bit in the Stanford segment. So here we go. Adam.
Passing. You have to be able to pass the ball.
Here's the thing that I love about as seasons
go on. Your weaknesses get exposed. At the beginning
of the season, it's rainbows and butterflies
for everybody. And as more film comes up and
weaknesses are exposed and the season drags on
and the book is out on you, it gets harder and
harder. Pitt has to be able to pass the ball,
number one. They've had games where they do pass,
but the games that they don't. Everybody watch
out. We need some consistency here. But even
in that Stanford game alone, they passed well
in sets three and four, and they were untouchable.
When Bayless can score and Kelly can score, and
then you have Babcock as a release for whenever,
those are three really good pieces, and you don't
need much more than that, but you need the ball
in front of the attack line. So that would be
the first thing. The second thing is they need
a little more serving pressure. You're getting
it from Mosher and Babcock. Yes, but the other
ones tend to be really safe. If they could dial
it up 10 more percent, maybe be a little more
strategic with their serving or take away a couple
options, it will allow their block defense to
play. into the strategy a little bit more because
teams won't just be running at them with all
of their options so that's the next one defensively
I don't love them I don't think that's their
strength but for me the serving and the defense
go hand in hand like they score points when Mosher's
serving right the block comes into play they
have some good blockers but passing yeah passing
like passing one two and three and then like
some serving which will help the defense all
right question nine What are your thoughts on
current college players having absolutely zero
clue about players or programs that come before
them? I've seen so many videos of players being
asked who has won the most championships in volleyball
and there will be answers like Illinois. Why
aren't more players students of the game and
knowledgeable about the players coaches programs
that paved the way for them now? This is a byproduct
of youth. I have to admit I was a hundred percent.
this way myself as an athlete, you have so much
going on in your own life. It's just people.
Yeah. And you're just, you're focused on what
you're doing. And I don't think it's until you
get into those programs and you understand the
history, your world's just not big enough to
care about what somebody did before you. I think
this is totally normal. Well, I mean, just a
case in point, like I, Adam and I went to watch
like Ontario provincials. My dad and his mom
run two of the bigger clubs in Ontario. So we
go to support our parents and what they do. So
we went to Ontario Provincials this year. Adam
told me this after the fact. But I walked into
the gym. I was trying to find a friend. And a
person that we both know, I walked past them
or whatever. And a few parents were there. And
the man turned to those parents and he was like,
oh, do you realize one of... Canada's best volleyball
players just walked past here and the parents
looked at him he's like well of course everybody
wants to come watch this I think That perfectly
sums up like just people's attitudes in general.
Does everybody want to go watch like 15U Girls
Club Volleyball? I'm sorry to tell you, no. No,
it is not a hot ticket item for many people.
But I think that that just like is case in point.
You're so wrapped up in your own little world
and what you're doing that you just... have blinders
on and I just think it's an unfortunate part
of human nature well and you and you don't know
what you don't know right it's the college is
the next step of life and when you get there
then you start to understand you know people
who have gone before you and all of those things
but I think it is each program's responsibility
to educate their own athletes of what has been
done so that they can have what they currently
have yeah and that happens after you get there
though yeah Sarah, I know you have strong opinions
about Minnesota in general. However, with this
team down four starters to injuries, what is
your take on the freshmen that have stepped up
to keep us sort of competitive in the middle
of the Big Ten and still somehow ranked in the
top 25? Okay, we were pretty critical early when
all these injuries happened. We watched Minnesota.
We were like, ooh, this is rough. Sorry, baby
girls got a lot to say for this question. It's
our last one. They have gotten so much better.
And I think they are going to be good in the
next few years. And they're turning an unfortunate
situation into something that can probably springboard
them forward for the next few years. So it is
definitely a silver lining. I really like the
one left side. I'm not going to lie. I don't
know all their names. The one left side is doing
a great job. Their right side, the setter, they're
doing good things. I just hope they stay. This
is always the issue. There's a good young core
there. I hope that they were able to create an
environment where those kids want to come back
because I think they've done a really good job.
Like we said, created an atmosphere where they're
being successful given the situation that they
were in and these young kids are stepping up.
So if they all stay, I think the future is bright
for Minnesota. I like the pieces they have and
I think that the coaching staff has done a really
good job with them. I just hope they have like
longer term vision. Like they're able to see,
hey, we're all really young. We can do this together.
Yeah. Because I think that they could make some
serious moves in the future for sure. Yeah. So
I think the future is bright in Minnesota. All
right. As always, we're going to give you the
matches of the week to look forward to. Things
that we have on our calendars that we'll be watching.
So this week, Thursday at 8 p .m. Eastern, Purdue
versus Wisconsin. This is a big one. Purdue just
lost to Oregon. They're battling for second place
in the Big Ten. It will be a really good game.
Hopefully. Yeah, hopefully. Kind of a test of
styles, in my opinion. They play differently.
I think this is going to be a really interesting
game. And quite frankly, I have no idea what
the outcome is. I wouldn't be surprised. Either
way. And or like a kicking one way 3 -0 or a
five setter. So for the intrigue alone, I think
this match will be worth it. Friday at 8 p .m.,
we have Kansas versus BYU. Again, we're in the
Big 12 slop of who's going to finish where. So
those are always interesting. Big 12 keeps messing
us up week after week. Oh, it's wild what's happening
in the Big 12. And then Saturday, 6 p .m. Eastern,
Nebraska versus Indiana. And Sunday at 1 p .m.,
we have North Carolina versus Miami. And North
Carolina has been coming on. And Miami. One trick
pony, but. It's a good pony. Good pony. Those
are the matches that we think will be worth watching
this week. So we hope you tune in. 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.