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 beat. And
I'm Adam Schultz, former indoor player, international
volleyball coach, and the show's resident stat
guy. It is the greatest time of year. Agreed.
If you're an NCAA volleyball fan. This week delivered.
Some surprises, some wild stuff. Some bracket
busters. You think you understand what's going
on, and then the universe says, no, you don't.
Very exciting time. Lots of messages. Adam's
bracket is up and running. We got the whole works.
People are engaged. You'll love to see it. Obviously,
the next few weeks are going to be focused on
the NCAA volleyball tournament. And because people
have been asking, the winter will be more focused
on men's NCAA and professional volleyball with
a bit more Europe mixed in because we have had
a lot of requests for European pro volleyball.
So a lot of stuff coming down the pipeline. Until
Christmas, we got to see the NCAA season out.
We are very excited to talk about what has been
going on this week. So let's get started. There
wasn't much to talk about in the weekly highlights.
So we are jumping right in to... the conference
awards that were announced this week we are going
to talk about the power four conferences because
that is predominantly what we watch and predominantly
what we focus on do you have any thoughts right
off the bat i do have thoughts right off the
bat i'm confused when they say conference team
awards a team generally denoting six people seven
if you include libero and our award lists are
double digits it's outrageous there shouldn't
be 15 first team 25 first team in my opinion
it diminishes the quality of the award you should
give out seven period first team make it meaningful
ladies and gentlemen keep in mind adam is new
ncaa volleyball all american lists have never
even been six players we can break this down
conference by conference my point stands is that
there's too many people getting awards it waters
down i don't disagree with you there are too
many people getting awards period like i said
a couple weeks ago this setter of the year defensive
player of the year you know we don't need that
just give me player of the year give me freshman
of the year and let's call it a campaign. We
don't need to break it down by position. You're
either the best player in the conference, the
best newcomer in a conference, or you're not.
And after that, like, we don't need to give an
award for everybody, okay? First team, sometimes
it gets a little wacky. I think, you know, more
than seven makes sense to me. Like, I don't think
it just needs to be capped at seven, but we can
disagree on that. We'll start with the ACC. Let's
see how many awards they gave out. First team,
15, due to a tie in voting. Outrageous. So I'm
guessing they typically give 14, which is the
number of first -team All -Americans there are.
I can get behind this number. Here's how I would
do it if I were to pick. I would go one person
of each position. You have to pick one outside,
one center, one middle, one libero, one opposite,
so that you get positions represented. So you
get five. And then you can pick the next five
best players to put on the list. 10 max. Because
there's a lot of teams. There's a lot of conferences.
I get it. But 10 max. Any more than that just
seems wild to me. Let me just run through the
names real fast. We don't need to dive super
deep into this. Just let me know any surprises,
any question marks. Okay. First team All -ACC.
Nialis Cabello, Chloe Chacon, Kira Cressy. Louisville.
Heredia Colon and Rodriguez, Miami. Safi Hampton,
North Carolina. Morgan Girt. No idea if that's
how you say it. Notre Dame. Babcock, Bree Kelly,
Brooke Mosher from Pitt. Avery Carlson and Malaya
Jones from SMU. Lizzie Andrews, Spencer Etzler,
and Elia Rubin from Stanford. I think there's
three setters on that list. I think there's four
setters on that list. Cabello, Rodriguez, Mosher,
Carlson. Okay, four setters. My question is,
if you're going to pick a Stanford freshman to
put on the first team, why the heck are you picking
Etzler? Erica Sayre did really well. Logan Parks
did really well. I understand Parks is also a
setter, so maybe that is what pushed her to second
team. Who the heck knows? But of all of... You're
picking the libero of all the Stanford freshmen
you could pick. I just look at this and I think...
Babcock is in an air of her own. She shouldn't
be included in this list. This is how Adam gets
around the 15 person limit. Just take her off
the list. Does Safi Hampton, does she belong
on the list with Olivia Babcock? I have no idea.
I don't know. That's my point. Do any of these
people belong on the list with Olivia Babcock?
No. So what is it? Just a one person award now?
No, I get that. But my point is, I think this
is a little watered down. Who do you think were
the best two setters on that list? I would probably
say Cabello and Carlson. Yeah, that's fair. That's
who I would agree with. I don't know how they
pick these. But I'm like, what makes you pick
Chloe Chacon over Peyton Peterson when Peterson
was the highest scorer on the team for Louisville
all season? Yeah, those are the things. We're
going name recognition here at this point because
Chloe Chacon, to me, didn't have a better season
than Brooke Mosher. Should she be on it? I don't
think so. I don't think so either. Everybody
else, I think you could make a case. I think
I could get behind everybody else. That's how
we see it, okay? I think the best two players
who had outstanding seasons for me, though, would
be Heredia Colon and Olivia Babcock. I think
those were the two standout seasons. Excellent
seasons. Ruben had a great season. Yeah, that's
fair. Malia Jones had a great season. You know
what? I can get behind all these people. My question
marks are Chacoin. I don't know enough about
Hampton. Don't know enough about Gert and Etzler.
Those are my question marks from that list. Sure.
Okay, major awards for the ACC. Player of the
Year, Olivia Babcock. Yes. Defensive Player of
the Year, Bree Kelly. Setter of the Year, Avery
Carlson. Freshman of the Year, Kalissa Blackshear
from Louisville. And Coach of the Year, Kevin
Hambly from Stanford. Olivia Babcock, yes. Coach
of the Year, yes. Freshman of the Year, I'm a
little surprised she got it. to be honest. Well,
my thing is you have a freshman on the first
team ACC in Edsler. Blackshear's not on the first
team. So if you're going to give a freshman first
team, how is she not freshman of the year? How
do they pick these? Is this a vote from the coaches
in the ACC? And do the teams have to nominate
who can be eligible? I don't know. I don't know
how that part works. If somebody knows, tell
me, because some of this feels political to me.
I feel like, Coaches put certain players forward.
So that would explain. And then they are voted
upon. But don't quote me on that. I really have
no idea. Well, because if that's the case, then
that's why you get a Chacon over a Peterson.
My question mark, freshman of the year. She should
be a first. There shouldn't be a freshman on
the first team all ACC list if you're going to
give it to her. I'm obviously player of the year.
Yes, I can get behind the setter of the year.
I can get coach of the year 100%. He had like
freshmen. Everybody thought that they were going
to tank. I'm fine with all of these except my
question mark as freshman of the year. I don't
know who else I would give defensive player to
the year. Bree Kelly's a good blocker. Maybe
Cressy, but... I mean, Louisville was like leading
the country almost in blocks per set. Yeah. So
that would be the other person that I would say
maybe should have gotten a nod there. I don't
think any of the Liberos were standout in that
division. No, the only Libero that made the first
team list is the Sanford one. Yeah. No. Brie
Kelly or Cressy. That's fair. Yeah. I could have
taken it either way, but yeah, I only have one
question mark with this one too. Okay. Let's
move on to the big tent. I'm boycotting this
out of principle because there are 25 first team
all conference, whatever they're calling them.
That's ridiculous. Like it's basically like if
you start for your team, congratulations, you're
going to get a first team honor at the end of
the season. That's four full teams. That's ridiculous.
You were mad about 15 people. It doesn't mean
anything. 25 people. 25 on the first team, 17
on the second team, and then they give out sportsmanship
awards. What does that mean? I don't even know
who these people are. You step on the court,
you get an award. This has become a participation
award. If you're on the team, congratulations,
we will find an award for you. Unbelievable.
How many were there when you played? It was too
long ago. Nobody can remember, me included. Maybe
12? I don't remember because I was always on
the list. Not 25, let me tell you. You know what?
I don't even want to go through this list. No,
no, we won't go. It's ridiculous. Give me, off
the top of your head, your top 7 to 10 players
in the Big Ten. Oh, yikes. Kennedy Martin. Yeah.
Mimi Collier. Yeah. Bergen Riley. Andy Jackson.
You're going to put Waller on that list? Yeah,
she did a good job. Kenna Wallard. Are you putting
Harper Murray on the list? She probably should
be on the list. Charlie Furbringer. Julia Hansen.
Julia Hansen did a good job this year. Honestly,
I liked Alana Clemente. I don't know if she's
in that conversation yet. She's who I would have
given freshman of the year to, which I think
she did win. I mean, Rebecca Alec had a great
season. Okay, that's enough. Let's keep it at
that. First team, there. Done. Simple, easy peasy.
I'm not even going to go through, like I said,
I'm not going through this list because it's
just basically taking attendance at an elementary
school. Big 10 postseason honors, the major ones.
Player of the Year, Bergen Riley. Setter of the
Year, Bergen Riley. Libero, Jillian Grimes from
Penn State. Freshman of the Year, Alana Clemente
from Oregon. And Coach of the Year, Danny Busboom
Kelly. I don't have any issues with any of that.
I have an issue with the Libero of the Year.
This is another case that is like name recognition.
Lola Schumacher crushed the digs per set statistical
category in the Big Ten. Nobody was even close
to Lola Schumacher defensively in the Big Ten,
and I think you're just giving it to Jillian
Grimes because... Because nobody paid attention
to what UCLA was doing? Maybe. Yeah, I mean,
Penn State finished one place above UCLA. With
a tied record. I don't agree with that one, but
the rest of them... Yes, I think going undefeated
from a coaching standpoint needs to be recognized.
I think we've talked about this before. I think
it could have gone to a few people. Dave Shundell
and Steve Aird. I can get behind the rest. To
keep your team motivated and the way that they
went about not even dropping sets, Danny had
that team humming. It's impressive. I can get
behind that. Yeah, I mean, you go undefeated,
you have to recognize it. That is the Big Ten.
Okay, let's dive into the SEC. More reasonable
than the Big Ten. Similar to ACC. 16 players
on the first team. Do you want to go over them
all? Almost seems like they gave one to each
team. Texas A &M got more than anybody. Texas
only got two, and Kentucky only got three. I'm
confused. Yeah, I don't understand. You're giving
first team... To Kari Spears. Let me ask you
this. Give me your top six in this conference.
Eva Hudson, Brooklyn Delay, Tori Stafford. Agreed
on all three of those. Honestly, I would say
Kendall Storrs, Afena Kosakpala, and Jayla Auguste.
I wouldn't even give it to Lednicki. There's
a hot take for you. Come at me. And again, I
think like Kari Spears started really well, but
I don't think she finished well enough down the
stretch. to be included in that. I mean, again,
she was impressive at the beginning. Totally
agree, but she kind of fell off. I don't, I'm
not loving these lists that we're seeing today.
They seem like they don't want to offend anybody.
Lauren Dreeves, Auburn, Jayla Gust, Florida,
Brianna Monecki, Georgia, Delay Hudson, O 'Brien,
Kentucky, Journey Robinson from LSU, Alexis Shelton,
Oklahoma, Caroline Kerr and Hayden Kubik from
Tennessee. Kari Spears, Tori Stafford from Texas,
Kossak Paula, Lednicki, Stowers, and Wack from
Texas A &M. I would give it to Vanderwall over
Spears for Texas. I would too, down the stretch.
I don't think I would keep Wack on there. She
led the country in assists per set, so that probably
helped her a lot. I just don't love how they
go about doing this. It doesn't make any... sense
to me if you're gonna put some comparison of
positions or how are you picking who who is it
who has the most impact is it who has the most
stats did you why did you get four from a and
m like they finished the regular season second
and then lost in the semis how do you justify
four players from that team Two from Kentucky
and Texas. No, three from Kentucky. That doesn't
add up to me. Yeah. All right. Well, the SEC
mixes things up a little bit here. I kind of
like this actually. With their big awards. So,
Player of the Year, Eva Hudson. Fair. Earned.
Libero of the Year, Maya Sands from Missouri.
What do you think about that? I feel like the
SEC probably has the best liberos out of any
conference. Agreed. I think Molly Tuzzo plays
good defense. We all know what I think about
her setting. And I think Emma Halter had a pretty
good year as well. She did. Better than last
year. I didn't watch Missouri play a ton. She
was good last year. Those three would be fighting
for that spot for me. But then we've also got
a newcomer of the year in Eva Hudson. Shocker.
Freshman of the year. Cassie O 'Brien from Kentucky.
Fair. A scholar athlete of the year. Jackie Moore
from Vanderbilt. And coach of the year was Craig
Skinner from Kentucky. I agree with that as well.
His team is playing well. Why do we need a newcomer?
I mean, in this case, it's Eva gets both. I don't
mind having the newcomer. I kind of like that.
If you come to the conference, if it's with all
the transfer portals, if you come and make an
impact, I'm okay with that. I will say for Cassie
O 'Brien. No setter of the year in this conference.
They do have a libero though. I was going to
say, I thought Cassie. struggled at the beginning
of the year she was a kind of a one -trick pony
and just setting the left sides but to her credit
and to the credit of Craig Skinner and their
staff she has run a much more balanced offense
leading into the tournament which is good to
see I think she's improved a ton so I can get
behind that I have no issues with any of these
picks. Okay, let's wrap this up with the Big
12. Their first team had 18 people on it. Big
12 main awards. Player of the Year, Noemi Glover
from Arizona State. I thought she was outstanding
this year. She was fun to watch. She performed.
A little adversity with injury at the beginning
of the season. No, she was good. And Arizona
State was pretty dominant. I agree with that.
So I'm fine with this. Libero of the Year, Rachel
Van Gorp, Iowa State. Setter of the Year, Morgan
Brandt. Iowa State. Freshman of the year, Suli
Davis from BYU. Coach of the year, J .J. Van
Neal from Arizona State. And scholar athlete
of the year, Ava Armour, Central Florida. You
know what? I like that as academic institutions,
in air quotes for sports, that they're still
giving out a scholar award. That's nice. They
don't even talk about the majors of these athletes
anymore. I don't think they have any. I watched
Iowa State play in the tournament. A couple of
their matches. Other than that, I didn't see
them play much during the season, but I liked
a couple of their pieces. I can get behind. I
thought the setter did a decent job. I thought
the libero played well in a couple of their matches.
I mean, they only played two that I watched,
but if you asked me who was the best setter in
that conference, I'm not sure anybody. I can
get behind player of the year, freshman of the
year, coach of the year. If you look at the first
team list for the four conferences and you were
to put a roster together. For each conference,
who do you think would win? Dropping this question?
I'm dropping it. I was thinking about it. I was
looking at these lists. I think Big 12 would
be at the bottom. Yeah, Big 12 is at the bottom.
Because like Big 10, you've got like a Bergen
-Riley, Kennedy -Martin, Mimi Collier, Andy Jackson,
and Rebecca Al - Big 10 could be solid. ACC would
be Avery Carlson, Olivia Babcock. Brie Kelly.
Brie Kelly, Keira Cressy. And then the left sides
would be... That's where they would struggle.
Elia Rubin. They would not struggle with Elia.
Dude, these would be good. And then... SEC would
be... Well, you'd have... Like Cassie O 'Brien
with... The left sides in the SEC, who do you
pick? Tori Stafford and Eva Hudson? Yeah. Delay
is your third option. And then you'd have a good
libero in the SEC. But you wouldn't have a right
side. Lednicki, who I took off of the first team
list. Goodbye. The middles, Kossak, Paula, and...
Jayla Auguste? Yeah. Dude, let's put a conference
match together. Just take the Big 12 out of it.
Yeah, that would be, I think that would be interesting.
I'm curious what other people think. I think
this is an interesting exercise. Post your lists
on YouTube. I'm curious to see. We're just kind
of throwing this out here without much thought.
Adam just completely caught me unaware with that
question. I was just thinking about it. It's
an interesting question. Catch yourself on the
back for that one. Anyway, let us know what you
think. Okay, those are the major awards. For
the Power 4 conferences. Honestly, though, I
said what I said. Player of the Year, Freshman
of the Year, Coach of the Year. Let's cap it
at that. I don't need all the other stuff. 10
to 12 athletes max, first team. 10 to 12 max,
please. Nobody wants to make a hard decision.
Make the hard decision. Make it worth something.
These awards should mean something. You know
what? If you're giving it out to everybody, who
cares? You fielded six teams in the Big Ten.
Half. Half of the people got awards. Yeah, stop
it. Outrageous. Just stop it. So, yeah, let us
know what you think. People are probably going
to be like, stop it. There should be 50 people
on the list. I don't know. I think people are
going to agree with us. I don't think you should
hand it cheapens the awards. I think it for sure
cheapens the award. It means nothing. Anyway,
let us know what you think. Do you agree with
us? Do you disagree with us? We know you guys
aren't shy of letting us know. Okay, let's dive
in to rounds one and two of the NCAA tournament.
Obviously, there's a ton of matches. Yeah, we
are going to hit the highlights, the bracket
busters, the things people want to talk about.
I want to say over 300 people joined Adam's bracket
challenge that he built. I'm pretty excited about
it. It's fun. I apologize that the results aren't
updated in real time. So for everybody who was
refreshing their bracket after matches finished
and it didn't work, my apologies. It was me.
That was me. We'll build that in for next time
along with one suggestion of a chat option so
we can trash talk each other, which I'll get
behind. I am like begging. The set modifier is
really... Oh, it's fun. It's got me just hoping
that teams just squeak out a set. A team will
roll the first two sets and I'm like, no, they
have to win in four. This team better get it
together. Like the North Carolina -Wisconsin
game. I'm like, you guys, come on, get it together.
They almost did. But anyway, great job, Adam.
Great job to everybody who signed up. Appreciate
all the feedback that I got about that. So thank
you. And if anybody has any other ideas, hit
us up. I'm happy to incorporate them for next
time. So let's go through round one. The marquee
match that messed everybody up was Tennessee
getting upset by Utah State. I don't think a
lot of people saw that coming. Although I sure
didn't. I thought Tennessee had. Plenty of opportunities
to put that game away, and they just couldn't
make it happen. It was super frustrating to watch.
I was upset. Utah State played great defense
in that match, and they kept the rallies going.
Utah State had won like 21 matches in a row leading
into that. So my bad, not doing my research on
that team, but I would have picked Tennessee
anyway. No, I did. I went back and looked at...
all of the team's records before I made my picks.
And yeah, they beat a ton of teams, but they
didn't have a ton of wins of note, which is why
I thought Tennessee having better competition
leading into the tournament would be able to
pull it out. Now, Utah had a couple athletes
who were pretty long who played well. That girl
running that slide had a fast arm. Very fast
arm. Utah had some good players. They were pretty
fundamentally sound. I thought their setter did
a good job delivering the ball. They surprised
me. And obviously, they surprised Tennessee.
And I think they surprised every single person
in our bracket. They pushed Arizona State in
the second round. Well, no. After day one, not
one person in our challenge had a perfect bracket
anymore. I think that match messed up everybody.
You know what messed me up real bad and I'm not
over it? BYU Cal Poly. Because you know what?
I said in our preview episode, hey, I think BYU
could potentially lose to Cal Poly. They lost
to Loyola Chicago last year. I second -guessed
myself. I said that, and I second -guessed myself,
and I was like, you know what? There's no way.
There's no way they're going to do this twice
in a row. So I picked them to beat Cal Poly,
and I am not over that. I'm not over it. Do you
think that's a fireable offense? 100%. That's
two years in a row. There is no reason this team
should be losing first -round NCAA tournament
two years in a row. Especially when they have
the personnel. And one of the BYU fans sent us
that question a couple weeks ago being like,
something's wrong with this team. Like, why do
they not win when they're so good? They don't.
Their fundamentals are awful. They don't set
each other well out of system. They make a ton
of errors. They're inconsistent from the baseline.
But then they have matches that they're so good.
They literally looked like they could not play
volleyball in that match. It's a preparation
and mentality thing for me, I think. When they
think they should win matches versus when they
don't think they have a chance. And just executing
skills at a base level. You called games in the
Big West. You saw Cal Poly play. Well, that's
why I didn't think you would lose to them. And
granted, they played well. And they had a good
winning stretch coming in. They were feeling
good about themselves. No pressure. All of that.
But BYU, if I was the AD there after those two
years and those two performances with the athletes
they have. Bye. Bye. Gone. I think so. You know
what else I can't let slide? They're little.
Going down with that injury. Crying on the floor.
Gets carried off the floor. Yeah. You get carried.
Notches off the floor, out of the arena. You
go back to the locker room, NHL style. Gets stitched
up. I thought she was done for good. I thought
it was like career -ending injury. You're okay?
No. This girl comes back literally two plays
later. And is jumping. That was wild. That's
all right. You're on the ground sobbing. You
get carried off the court and then you're back
jumping two plays later. I can't get over that
either. But that to me is a microcosm of how
the team functions. Adam, searching for deeper
meanings. But really, this happens. It's the
end of the world. It's all over. Oh, wait. No,
I'm okay. We can keep going. That's what it looks
like. Sometimes there's an out -of -system set
and the person who's setting the ball looks surprised
that that's their job. Or that's what they're
doing. Yeah, it looked very disorganized. And
she should be the one setting the tone for that
team. Things are not looking good at BYU. That's
two in a row. You know what other first -round
match messed me up? I should have had Faith and
Marquette. I thought Western Kentucky was going
to be sneaky because they're usually pretty sneaky.
You don't hear much about them. They fly under
the radar, but they're usually good to get a
win in the tournament. So I was like, you know
what? They're going to do it. That pick. Put
me ahead of you. That pick is going to be the
one that comes back to bite me. That one in BYU,
if I had gone with like, A, if I hadn't tried
to be so sneaky with Western Kentucky, that's
one thing. But if I had gone with my gut on BYU,
those two are going to be the end of me. Marquette
played really well in the tournament too. Yes,
they're actually really good. They're a very
good team. They played a pretty heavy preseason
schedule, which is why I ended up picking them.
in terms of who they competed with. I liked watching
them play. I thought their fundamentals were
actually very good when I watched them. They
don't have the horses, per se, as the other teams,
but from a pure volleyball standpoint, I was
very impressed. Big mistake by me. Do you know
who had me sweating the most? Which game killed
me? It was my favorite team, UCLA, going five
with Georgia Tech. I picked five. In that one.
Because UCLA, classic example. They really excel
against teams that they're not supposed to beat,
a .k .a. pushing Kentucky to four. 30 -28 in
two sets. And going five with Georgia Tech. They
do not show up against teams that they quote
unquote should beat. I was like, classic. So
that was a sweating one, but it got me that point
modifier. So I was happy about that. And I think
the other one that people struggled with was
the UNI Utah game. I actually, I had picked Utah
on that one. Well, and Creighton going five with
Northern Colorado. Are you kidding me? Oh, yeah.
I didn't watch that one, but I saw the numbers
after. I was like, oof, that would have hurt
me because I had Creighton playing Arizona State.
Yes. I have Creighton beating Arizona State.
And after these two matches that they just played,
I'm like, that was probably an error of judgment
on my part. I think everything else in the first
round was relatively straightforward. Definitely
a couple matches that a lot of people were on
the fence about and picked both ways. Well, when
it's the eight seed, because technically that's
like an 8 -9, like those ones can kind of go
either way. So those ones are tricky. What's
interesting watching those teams, some of them
stack their preseason so early so that their
record is just ridiculous. Like they don't lose
because they beat everybody. And then some of
those teams actually work to play legitimate
teams and legitimate matches. Like BYU's preseason?
I found it interesting doing a little research
on how coaches structured their... Again, I had
this pointed out. It's not preseason. It's pre
-conference play. Tomato, tomato, everyone. Yeah.
Okay. You know what I mean. Round two. I had
faith in Miami. So did I. I thought they were
going to ride that one player. Well, that was.
Till Nebraska. That was my mentality as well.
Kansas doesn't have a horse. And I thought that.
I was like, this one player. in Heredia Cologne
can totally beat Kansas. No, it could not. Kansas
had an outstanding game plan to slow her down.
They took her to the ground. They took her to
the ground. Which no team had been successful
at so far this season that we have seen. And
they blocked her. I mean, they stuck with the
game plan that we talked about for Babcock where
we're just going to send two blockers out in
her face all the time. And, I mean, she was swinging
and swinging, and they were getting touches.
To her credit, she just kept going. She knew
that if the team was going to win, she needed
to just keep swinging, and she could not let
up. She got blocked very aggressively many times.
Kansas was disciplined with their strategy, with
their serving, with their blocking. I was impressed.
Watching that match, I was like, man, they were
very prepared. I was impressed with their serving.
Yes. And how they were able to just completely
take her to the ground and take her out of some
options. And I'm disappointed that Miami didn't
see this coming and that they didn't have an
alternative or an alternate strategy to shift
to at least try and throw Kansas off. Miami didn't
make any changes. They just kept setting her
the ball over and over and over again and were
hoping for a different result. Well, we tuned
in. Well, I tuned in after Miami was down 0 -2.
Heredia Colon did not start well. Well, and I
don't think their right side or left side started
well either because by the time I started watching,
I was like, these players haven't played all
season. Yeah, it was not great for Miami. I thought
they should have. With a player like that, you
should have been able to win, I think. You had
one player that you were relying on the whole
season. Kansas has more pieces. They needed to
take the Kentucky approach where they, yes, you
have those players, but we're working to get
everybody else. But let's work on everybody else.
Yeah. So that one messed me up. I was worried
that Texas A &M was not going to pull it out
against TCU because I had them going relatively
far. And I will give TCU credit. They played
better than I had seen them play in the second
half of the season. Their setter's still... and
set some real bad balls that were head scratches.
If you are a scorekeeper at one of their games,
watch out. I actually, I didn't think that Texas
A &M and TCU match was a good volleyball game.
There were. Lednicki wasn't. No, she was swinging
straight, but just free balls, bad tips, bad,
the number of sets that went over the net on
both sides, out of system, miss serves. It was.
Net violations. It was messy. It just wasn't
a good game. Texas A &M pulled it out, but yeah,
it was ugly. I didn't enjoy watching that game
from a volleyball standpoint. No, not great.
What were your thoughts on Marquette -Louisville?
I thought they served really well. I thought
Louisville struggled to pass, which again, Cressy
couldn't get the ball. I didn't think Cressy
started very well. Marquette was... They had
a good game plan. Finally stopped Blackshear
on that meter ball in the middle. She did score
on one, though. She scored on one, but finally
she got blocked on one. I was like, thank you.
Somebody finally paid attention. But to her credit,
and I know she's taken some shrapnel from us,
Chloe Chacon played really, really well. And
Marquette could not. They were so focused on
Cressy. seam in the middle and she was taking
it and moving the ball around well she was the
reason they won I didn't think Cressy had a great
match they didn't start blocking very well and
then they started to to find a rhythm and build
back in but they were they were in danger they
managed the fifth set well but Marquette gave
them a match and again I was impressed with Marquette's
volleyball skill with how they handled the match
how they served what their game plan was, very
well coached, very disciplined. Marquette was
good, and I think Louisville, they weren't lucky,
but that was maybe the best match I've seen Chacoin
play, and they were lucky that she had that match
against this team. Well, now we've got two teams
that are not looking great, in my opinion, playing
each other, Louisville and Texas A &M. I'm curious
what that match is going to be like. I think
I picked Texas A &M to win that one. No, did
I? No, we'll see. Another team that wasn't looking
as crisp as I was hoping, because I have them
going pretty far, was Stanford. And they were
playing at home. And I think it's worth mentioning
Logan Parks did not dress for either match. I
hope she's okay. They need her. Save my bracket
and come back next week, please. I hope she'll
be back. Because I had them beating Wisconsin
as well. So we will see what happens with that.
I think they'll be fine. They've got a couple
freshmen. They were missing parks. They got a
little bit of experience. I think they'll be
okay. I think they're going to play well against
Wisconsin. That's one of the matches I think
is going to be very entertaining next week. I
hope so. But I'm worried that Stanford's not
going to step up. I trust Hanley to have that
team ready to go. This is the thing about...
The first round. There's so much volleyball going
on. It's very exciting, but you don't see a lot
of these teams. And anytime you have teams with
expectations of beating teams that aren't in
the power for conferences, and then you have
teams that are good but have no expectations
and they're just playing free. Like a Marquette
versus Louisville situation. Totally. They're
a good team. They know how to play volleyball,
but do they fully expect to beat Louisville?
Probably not. Those are very dangerous games.
Very dangerous games. So you definitely see some
of that top teams having to work through the
expectation of winning, maybe not being as familiar
with those teams as you have before. I watched
Utah and they had a couple athletes. I was like,
man, that's a really good player. What are they
doing at Utah? Do you know what I mean? No, that's
a good point. It's kind of counterintuitive.
And I've spoken about this before of how hard
it is to play just random teams. The volleyball,
while on paper the matches next week should be
more difficult, I think in a sense they are easier
because the teams are all of a similar ranking
-ish, similar like. on paper skill set. And it's
the type of preparation and you've seen each
other play before that it's not a shock to the
system. Totally. So while it's harder, it's also
easier. It should be a higher level and a cleaner
volleyball because the preparation and expectation
will be in line with what they're used to. Can
we just talk about the last match for me that
was just a jaw dropper? I have two on my slate,
but go ahead. Cal Poly USC. Oh, boy. Oh, dear.
Oh, dear. Cal Poly had the weekend of their lives.
And they, again, to their credit, they played
incredibly well. Watching Cal Poly, it was like
old school college, you know? It looked like...
They were all so excited. They were a team. They
were just playing for each other. No NIL money.
No. Yeah. They were playing for each other for
the joy of the sport. It was just like the olden
day pure NCAA volleyball from their attitude
and demeanor and stuff like that, which I thought
was great. What was your take on USC's performance?
Well, I think both BYU and USC underestimated
them. And both teams looked like they thought
they were going to roll through them. I agree.
And this is what we talk about all the time.
It's like you need to treat every opponent the
exact same with the same amount of respect. You
need to prepare the exact same. Your conversations
need to be like the same as far as, you know,
how you speak about them and like how good they
are. That is something I'm always so curious
about what the staff was like leading into those
matches. Because the staff talk, right? You talk
about the opponents. You do this. And the athletes
know. They can tell what you're saying. They
understand and read your body language. I'm just
always so fascinated about how the staffs approach
them. Do they know? Were they happy that BYU
lost? And you have to remember they're both from
California. Guaranteed USC looks at Cal Poly
as like the little sister or the secondary California
division. Like that is built into how they would
have looked at that match. And yeah, you gotta,
you cannot do that. USC blew a golden opportunity
to get great experience for their young players
and their young team. They're going to kick themselves
for that one. They were not good. it almost looked
like when the mistakes happened, they were just
like shaking them off as in they were too cool
for this match. That's kind of the vibe. When
the match ended, I expected more shock and emotion
from them. They just walked off the court. They
just walked off the court. Yeah. I was like stunned.
Yeah. The last thing that popped into my head
or that I thought was worth mentioning was that
Creighton, I was expecting more from and they
did not look good. I didn't think they looked
good either. If they show up, Next week and play
the way they did Arizona State, who is very consistent,
very strategic, very steady, is going to kick
them in the teeth. So I'm curious to see. And
I mean, we've talked about this personally. I
think this is a huge byproduct of having zero
competition in conference. I mean, Marquette's
in their conference. Great. You get one. You
get one good match, right? Again. I think Creighton
is good enough to compete in one of those top
four conferences. Unfortunately, they don't get
to, but I think it's so hard to stay focused
and sharp when you're just winning. Well, and
now they're playing out of Omaha. Correct. Like
you're not going to have your massive fan base,
like kind of boosting you along next weekend.
Yeah. I'm very curious to see what product they
put on the floor. So those were the, highlights
from where we're sitting and the matches that
really busted up our brackets. I'm upset. There's
a couple that I'm just not going to get over.
It's tough stuff. But yeah, those are the ones.
We watched a ton of volleyball this weekend.
I was a little annoyed that on Saturday all of
the games were kind of at the same time. Yeah,
what are you doing? We were flipping. I wanted
to start watching volleyball at 9 a .m. and finish
watching at 8 p .m. That was my goal. Like, give
Adam what he wants, okay? Come on. But no, lots
of games overlapped, which was unfortunate. Another
reason that Stanford should have hosted in the
Pacific time zone would have made that a little
easier. Right? You could have just moved across
the country. Okay. One thing I wanted to do really
quickly is obviously we have a bunch of matches
coming up. I wanted to run over one thing, kind
of the key insight for each team if they were
to win their next round. Next round or make the
final four? No, no, their next round. Okay, got
it. So, you know, Nebraska has to do this to
beat Kansas. Kansas has to do this to beat Nebraska.
Just one thing, one highlight of if that would
happen. Now, the Nebraska -Kansas example might
be a bad one. I don't think Kansas is going to
win. But for some of the other ones, what would
be your kind of key focus if they're going to
come out on top? So let's start with the Nebraska
-Kansas match. What do you think Nebraska has
to do to beat Kansas? pass well to run the middle.
I would agree. I was going to say show up, but...
That too. What do you think Kansas would have
to do to upset Nebraska? They will have to execute
a serving strategy the way they did against Miami.
Looking at Texas A &M and Louisville, what is
the key for Texas A &M? Lednicki's going to have
to score some points. I think for Louisville...
They're going to have to get Cressy the ball,
and she is going to have to be a focal point.
I think the chances of Chacoin having a night
the way she did is probably unlikely, and Blackshear
needs to score some points as well. Okay, what
about for SMU? I think for SMU, they have to
limit their errors. Purdue is a team that makes
you beat them. I think SMU is much more physical.
They have to score and keep their errors low,
in my opinion. And then I think for Purdue, they
need to extend rallies. They want to make...
the hitters for SMU frustrated, keep them going,
force them into making shots they're uncomfortable
with. And I think, again, they're trying to force
SMU into making mistakes. What do you think for
Minnesota against Pitt? Pitt's block causes people
a lot of problems, especially when teams are
forced to set the left side. So they're going
to have to run a balanced offense and put their
setter in a position to set three hitters. And
then for Pitt, I mean, Olivia Babcock can take
over matches by herself, but if the going gets
tough, we're going to have to see Bayless and
Pazell limit their errors and be efficient. Looking
at the Cal Poly and Kentucky match, I think Kentucky
just needs to pass and run the middle at least
a little bit. And for Cal Poly... They're going
to need to try and take out either that front
court left side or the pipe ball so that they
can focus their block in on one of those two
major hitters. You want to try and make the middles
and right sides beat you for Cal Poly. What do
you think about Arizona State and Creighton?
I think Arizona State needs to do their best
to neutralize Ava Martin and make somebody else
score. What do you think about for Creighton?
For Creighton, I think they need to apply service
pressure. Arizona State is generally a pretty
balanced team. If they can keep them out of system,
I think they have a good chance. Two matches
left. What is your analysis of the Wisconsin
-Stanford match? For Stanford, I think Logan
Parks needs to be back, but somebody did bring
up having your first NCAA tournament match as
a freshman be in the Sweet 16 against Wisconsin
is a big ask. how that will go period yeah but
regardless that would be my answer is just have
Logan Parks back so they can get back to the
rhythm they've been in all season yeah I think
these two teams are actually quite even I I'm
going to say I think it's going to come down
to who sets a better match between the two setters
because they all they both have weapons and who
serves better those are I think those are going
to be keys. I think, honestly, I think Wisconsin
will win the setting battle. Stanford serves
super aggressive. They miss a ton of serves.
Will the pressure they're putting on Wisconsin
outweigh the errors they make, though? Yeah.
And then Texas -Indiana, I think that Texas needs
to have solid blocks up on the Indiana hitters.
They run speed, and they try and create holes
in the block. The blockers need to be disciplined.
They need to have a plan for if they don't get
closed and how that defense works together against
the hitters in that regard. I think that'll be
the key for Texas. And then I think Indiana needs
to pass, and they need to be in system. If they're
not controlling the ball, they don't have a chance
because they're not as physical as Texas. So
they're going to have to have good ball control
and rely on their fast offense. So those are
the things that we think will need to happen
for those different teams to win. Something to
think about and we'll see if any of those come
true. Okay, we are going to be following the
brackets as always. I think I refresh my page
after every game and I'm like, Adam, why isn't
this updating? Get up there and fix it. But it's
been so much fun to follow along, engage with
you guys on YouTube, on Instagram about what's
happening. So let us know the matches that surprised
you the most and the ones that you're most looking
forward to this coming week because regionals
weekend is the best. I think this might be my
favorite weekend of the whole tournament. You've
got lots of games still going on. Lots of people
fighting to get to the final four. The volleyball
should be at a really high level in general.
Teams that are there expect to be there. I'm
pumped. Regional. This might be a hot take, but
regionals weekend in some senses is more exciting
than final four weekend because there's just
like something so magical about like making that
push to the final four. You know what I mean?
Yes. And so these teams like a lot of. teams,
the final four is like the pinnacle. And I mean,
there are obviously teams who are like, no, it's
national championship or bust. I totally get
it. But it's just like the herd overcoming the
hurdle of making the final four is like such
a benchmark that the regional weekend is just
like so charged. You know what I mean? Yeah.
To go from, if you go into the final four, Your
program is legit. It's an amazing season. And
then everybody in the Final Four, unless you
win, is just kind of meh. There's so much excitement
to qualify for the Final Four that there's two
rounds. You're working through it. Everybody
still has a chance. When you get to the Final
Four, I almost feel like there's a relief. that
comes from making it because it's such a big
goal. It's such a standard for so many programs.
And again, I know we'll talk about Nebraska,
you know, win or bust. And then your four teams
get there and one team wins. Like it doesn't
matter if you make it to the final four unless
you win. But making it to the final four is a
huge accomplishment for the program. That's kind
of what I was trying to articulate. Loved having
you guys in on the bracket. Like Sarah said,
we loved all the comments and following along.
Keep sending us messages. We're watching tons
of volleyball. And we'll do a little bracket
update for the users next week once we've got
all the results in. But I think currently I'm
sitting at 15 and Sarah's at 21. So we'll make
a push here. I'm telling you, it's at Western
Kentucky. A massive error by me. And it's not
trusting myself with BYU. I'm never going to
forget this. If you had gotten those two matches
right, I think you'd be in the lead. I would
100 % be in the lead. Because you know what?
I nailed a bunch of set scores too. Gotta get
those modifiers. I mean, I can't catch up. I'm
upset. Question one. I believe we have had a
question very similar to this in the past. But
I've had a couple more people ask me this in
recent weeks. So let's just address it. again
and if we haven't addressed it then I'm just
wrong but basically the question is why is it
that the setter is faces the left side of the
court they're asking do you think it's because
the majority of hitters are right -handed and
that's just like how things developed and there
aren't a ton of left -handed setters so they're
like offensively it's not super conducive to
success by putting the setter on the right side
of the court? And would it even be feasible to
put the setter on the left side of the court
facing the right? Yeah, I mean, I can't speak
to how the game developed. I'm assuming it has
mostly to do with keeping as many right -handed
hitters in front of the setter as possible, probably
specifically the middle. right having to having
a left -handed middle and having to push the
set when you're running quicks and other things
make it more challenging um that would be my
guess you have the odd left -handed player so
perfectly then you have an opposite somebody
who's also hand is closer to the setter and everything
was developed for right -handed people at that
point in time anyway so it just made sense that
your attackers were in front of you and close
right -handedness to the location of the setter.
That's, that's my guess. I don't know about for
sure. I will say in college, a few times we had,
if a team had a really big left side hitter and
our setter was in the front row, the odd time
we would have her block on the left side and
run the offense from the left side of the court.
Yeah, it's, it's definitely possible. There's
nothing that says you can't do it. It's just
vision wise from the hitters. it makes more sense
with the majority of people being right -handed.
But really, whatever gives you the advantage.
All right, question two. Although DBK is the
Big Ten Coach of the Year, many people continue
to say that she's just riding John Cook's coattails.
Can you explain why that's bullshit? In other
words, what does she do differently? I mean,
yes, the athletes that are in the program were
recruited by John Cook. But John didn't have
a... Perfect season last year. John never had
a perfect season with this group. I mean, the
same could have been said about him into the
year 2000 when he went undefeated and won the
national championship. What does she do differently?
I mean, we're not there in the day to day, but
given observing the athletes, I think a, she
can relate to them on an athlete level. She's
been there. She's done that. She is female. I
think. seeing the interactions and stuff it seems
a lot more I don't know just they're not on an
even even playing field but there's a little
but it's closer yes I would I would agree with
that I think the way she's able to relate to
her players is different for the reasons I just
said I also she subs more players in and out
I think she's done a really good job and again
this is observational analysis, but I think she's
done a good job of creating accountability for
the most part with the team in terms of there's
people that can come in and out. She's obviously
willing to do that. She sat Bergen Riley, you
know, albeit briefly, but when she wasn't playing
well, the athletes look prepared to compete for
the majority of the time against all opponents.
So I think her preparation. Is probably different
than John's not good or bad, just different.
And the athletes are responding like they've
been ready to go for every match all year. You
can't take that away from her. And I would say.
Managing a program like Nebraska where you have
so many top athletes that could be starters at
other programs is very difficult. And year after
year, we do see players from Nebraska enter the
portal. I am curious if we will see any players
enter the portal this year or if she has done
a good enough job at making everybody feel important
in their role and happy. Yeah, it'll be interesting.
So we'll see what happens there. Okay, question
three. How do you feel about having co -champions
in conferences? And an example that was given
was the D2GNAC conference had... Four co -champions
this year. I mean, it's what you get if you don't
have a conference tournament at the end of the
season. No, I see. I disagree with that. Sometimes
it is the case. But what if you play twice and
you split? And what if you go the same sets?
You know what I mean? There are instances where
there is a tie. Fine, but you can put in three
or four tie -break procedures that matter. Four
is extreme. Yes. That statistically you are probably
never going to hit. So for me, I like the tie
break procedure because it forces you to be ready
to go and to play all the time. It's not just
wins and losses. It's about how you compete.
It's about how you win. It's about if you're
having an off day, can you take a set? I personally
think it should be one, two, three, four, all
the way down. I don't like ties. I want to see
a winner. No, I don't like ties either, and I
don't want my previous statement to be interpreted
as like, yeah, great idea. No. Do I want to share
a title with somebody? Absolutely not. Do I want
to share it with three other teams? Extra no.
I think four co -champions is ludicrous. It's
outrageous. It's like 25 first -team All -Americans
or whatever we're doing here. It's all ridiculous.
Yeah, and I agree. If you go far enough down
the list, you will. hit a tiebreaker that works
yes I don't love co -champions but I also don't
really love the end of season conference championship
too because the number of teams I get screwed
over by that like have such a great season and
then happen to drop a match to some team and
I'll use the big west as an example UC Davis
was crushing the big west all season okay I think
They maybe dropped one game in conference all
season. They were number one. Then they have
to play the Big West tournament, and Cal Poly
beats them. And now UC Davis has to sit here
and watch Cal Poly go to the Sweet 16 when they
literally dominated their conference all season.
I know you guys could tell me, yeah, well, they
should have shown up. If they were that good,
they should have shown up. They're saying something
to be consistent over like 18 to 20 matches in
a season. Yeah, I agree. I like the consistency.
I like when the regular season matters. It's
not just top six and flip the coin. I think that
consistency for me personally should be rewarded.
I like how they do it in soccer. It's very similar.
It's like the champion. They have a little bit
of a playoff at some point, but you winning the
regular season is generally. What soccer are
you talking about? I'm like, do you even watch
soccer? I don't watch a ton of soccer, but if
I'm not mistaken, like winning the league and
having the best league record. What league? The
NCAA? No, like Champions League. Oh my gosh.
I'm like this man. I've never seen him watch
a soccer game in my life. You know what soccer
we watch? Welcome to Wrexham. That's about it.
I mean, that's English soccer. But my point was,
I think the consistency in winning regular season
should matter. And I agree. I think. The conference
champions should be based off the regular season
record. All right. Question four. What are your
thoughts on small conference teams that make
the tournament but get crushed in round one?
Well, what do we want to put them against each
other and let them make the sweet 16? Like, that
would be ridiculous, too. So we like it sucks.
I feel bad for them. But like, if you go to a
mid, like some, a mid -major or small conference,
I feel like making the tournament is such a huge
accomplishment. Like they're under no illusion
of what's going to happen here. But I think so
like their benchmark, like if you're in a power
four, your benchmark and your goal is to win
a national championship or make a final four.
Like if you go to a small conference school,
your national championship equivalent is qualifying
for the NCAA tournament. And you can tell by
how they react when the selection show comes
on. Yeah. And again, every once in a while, one
of those teams gets an upset and gets to go.
Like there's always a chance. Look at Cal Poly.
I know that's not a small, small school. But
a mid -major. But a mid -major who's going to
the Sweet 16. It can happen and everybody is
playing college sport and you should get a shot
to compete whether you're going to be competitive
or not. And I don't have any issue with that
personally. I think it adds to bringing everybody
together, volleyball players from across the
country. And like, yeah, what's the alternative?
Let them win a game? Like, that's not really...
upholding the integrity of sport either yeah
well i mean look at all look at the olympics
right you have teams that get to go that are
some people are happy to be at the olympics and
some people are there to win and that's just
the way sport works yeah i feel bad for them
but what are you gonna do Question five. Do you
think teams would benefit from having non -conference
games in the middle of the season similar to
NCAA basketball? I know UConn plays Tennessee,
South Carolina around the middle of the season.
When it comes to determining how a bracket shakes
out, I think it could give a better picture for
the postseason. I mean, you do see non -conference
matchups midway through the season. Just like,
for example, you saw Colorado play Northern Colorado.
Yeah. Mid -season. It's not the same. Those are
rivalry games, right? That they have penciled
in every year. And like when I, back when I was
in college, we would play Creighton in the middle
of the season. Creighton was no good back then.
And I know it's not like, hey, middle of the
season, Nebraska plays Texas. I think it's really
hard to do. I think there's a ton of games already.
I think there's a couple cases where it would
be beneficial. Like right now, Creighton. would
benefit from being able to play a couple really
good teams. Marquette. Marquette. There's a couple
teams where they should be a quote -unquote power
four team, but their school's not in that conference.
Or maybe if you're like a bubble team for RPI,
you have a chance to play a higher -ranked team
to try to boost your RPI and give yourself a
chance to get an at -large bid or something.
Yeah, I think there would be some sort of mini,
I don't want to call it a plan, but if you're
ranked... 55 to 70, you get two matches against
like a top 15 team, not necessarily a top 10
or something along the lines. It could be interesting.
I don't think it will ever happen. I just don't
know how it happened because they're traveling
so much and playing so much. And like, when do
they go to school? And the conferences have gotten
so large. Like if you're in the big 10, you're
traveling across the country. Like you're playing
professional sports at this point. But I do think
it's an interesting concept, and I think if they
could pull it off in a meaningful way, it would
be interesting and valuable and beneficial for
those teams. All right, question six. Given how
Penn State's season has ended, I wanted to bring
up the topic of Kennedy Martin again regarding
transferring. Do you think if Izzy Stark were
to go to Texas that Martin may go as well, provided
that their relationship is okay? Could we potentially
see a Texas lineup with Stark? Kennedy Martin,
Kari Spears and Tori Stafford on the outside,
Gary at Libero, and then Ames and Harvey in the
middle. I don't think Kennedy Martin is going
to go to Texas if she were to transfer. Something
just tells me no. I've been surprised before,
though. I can't speak for Kennedy Martin, but
for me, if I came to a school thinking we were
going to be competitive and my teammate did that,
I would be a little sour. I probably wouldn't
follow her anywhere. Yeah, I'm not sure I'm following
her anywhere. So I don't think this is a realistic
scenario. Okay, let's say it is. How do you think
this team would do? Well, I have one other thought
about this. I don't think Spears takes Vanderwall's
spot on the left side. I was thinking that when
I read this question. I'm like, do we think Spears
would beat out Vanderwall on the left side? I'm
not sure. I mean, this team would still be very
good, but you're still hosed in the middle. Yeah,
the middle. Like, Harvey might be, she's young,
she might be getting better. But, like, Ames
is not doing what I thought she would do in college,
honestly. Yeah. But, I mean, they would be good.
Can you imagine Tori Stafford, Izzy Stark, and
Kennedy Martin on the same team? That would be
pretty sick, though. There's a lot of firepower
there. All right, question seven. Could you explain
how it's possible to get drafted in the MLV if
you are a love student athlete? And you have
no intention of playing. Sometimes MLV might
be uncertain if an athlete will play for them.
And in those cases, like for example, an Eva
Hudson case or a Koss Akpala case this year,
there is a chance that a love team will pick
them up, but they are drafted by MLV teams. So
the team gets their rights. So should those athletes
decide not to play love, not go overseas and
want to play MLV, they have the rights to those
players. So they can't compete against them.
Do those rights exist in perpetuity? I think
it's for two years. Okay. I know an example that
was shared with me was for two, they have the
rights for two years. Okay. So that's why you
often see the love student athletes. get drafted
by mlv so they're not you're not sure as a viewer
where they're going to end up things are tied
the loose ends are tied up no matter where they
choose to go and it's not a bad strategy especially
for athletes on the fringe because love is continually
bringing in international athletes to try and
improve the level so there might not be a spot
from them even if you're a sponsored love athlete
i mean take that nil money if you want like for
sure take that nil money and then if they don't
want you Go play MLB if you got drafted. But
I'm pretty sure that's how it works. That makes
sense. Okay, last question of the day. I'm curious
about the role of coach versus assistant coach
versus other key coaching staff roles. What are
the typical work responsibilities for each role
and what are the different relationships that
a player can expect with each staff member they
interface with? The comments made about Dan Meske's
transition made me interested about this. Yeah,
I mean, I can speak to my personal experience.
It probably is a little bit different in the
NCAA, so you can correct me if your experience
is different. I think the head coach is responsible
generally for setting the expectations and the
direction of the team, so they would meet with
their position coaches, which are generally the
assistant coaches. This is what we need to work
on. you know, what is your plan for the week,
how all of that works. They're also pulling together
the stats guys and generally doing the main game
plan for the different matches that they're playing
so that they're ready and prepared. So they're
kind of guiding the other players and it depends
on what the relationship with the assistant is.
Some of them, they're probably mentoring. Some
of them are there to actually run practice and
be like. If you were a middle and you're a head
coach, you probably bring in a setter coach or
a passing coach because that's not your area
of expertise. So you see the best coaches try
and surround themselves with people of expertise
in things that maybe they're not the best at.
And then you have a recruiting coach as well
who kind of brings up all of the potential people
for the program. Was that how it was for you?
Yeah. So the head coach is usually responsible
for... All key decisions made in match or otherwise
they're responsible for they're the face of the
program. So any media responsibilities, if you're
a mid -major, they tend to have to do the fundraising.
If you don't have a director of operations, they
do the travel and all the admin stuff. As you
get to the bigger programs, there are director
of operations that kind of take care of that
for you. But like being the face of the program,
it's like. You are doing media, you're making
all the big decisions, and you are like closing
the deals from a recruiting perspective. Assistants
typically have closer relationships with the
players, I would say. They tend to be more a
closer level with the players, more fun, whereas
the head coach tends to be more business. The
assistants, yeah, definitely. All the coaches
on my staff, associate head coach, head coach
assistants, took different positions based on
their expertise and trained them that way. Yeah,
you typically see the assistants nowadays, at
least, being the ones that are up and more vocal
during matches. Maybe it's because the head coaches
are sometimes older. And they take on more of
the traveling roles for recruiting. You see the
assistants kind of like... Make the initial identifications
and then it kind of goes up the ladder that way.
So and then graduate assistants or managers are
usually not consulted about anything. They are
just there and it's just like be an arm at practice.
You are going to be this player and then you
just play. So. Yeah, I would say the head coach
often has a more impersonal relationship with
the players. Assistant coach are closer on a
personal level and then graduate assistants and
stuff because they're around the same age are
closer. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if I
answer the question, but obviously the matches
to watch this week are everything NCAA. And there's
Club World Championships for women. Club World
Championships this week as well. You can catch
that on VBTV. I believe the schedule was posted
there as well. Check out the Orlando Valkyries
for North America. We've got the usual suspects,
Corneliano. We've got some Brazilian teams, China.
And for all of those of you who are asking about
if we're covering pro, I'll say it again. I said
it at the top of the show. Pro and Europe and
all of that. We'll be coming after NCAA. Regionals
week, baby. It's going to be a good one. 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 there's a topic you'd like us to discuss,
you can reach out on Instagram or at info at
sarahpavin .com. Thanks so much for joining us.
We'll see you next week.