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. Three more seasons that we've been following
have come to an end. Italian men, NCAA men, and
MLB. These leagues, they're all dropping like
flies over here because the volleyball world
is getting ready for international season. We've
only got one league left to wrap up that we've
been following before we make that transition
ourselves. So we actually have a lot to discuss
this week. We do. Some big stuff, some championships
to go over. We are very excited. We hope you
are too. So let's get started. Even though we're
obviously going to dive into the NCAA men's final
four and the MLB championship, we had some, you
know, highlights and happenings going on in those
leagues that we wanted to discuss a little bit.
Maybe a little controversy. Maybe. A bunch of
people got back to us after our question last
week about what the heck happened in the UC Irvine
-Penn State game. The consensus was that in the
fifth set, UC Irvine -Penn State, the setter
from UC Irvine got a bloody nose, ricochet into
his face or something. Bloody nose. Okay, protocol
typically is a medical timeout, which... is usually
like maximum five minutes. The setter goes to
get it checked out. Five minutes passes, six
minutes passes. Apparently, the Penn State coach,
who this is his final season, so this potentially
could have been his last match, offered a timeout
to David Niffen. He's like, I will call one of
my timeouts so that you don't overuse your medical.
Niffen thankfully said no because that would
have been absolutely outrageous if he's like,
you know what, thank you so much. But like classy
move by the Penn State coach didn't have to do
that. No need, however, because this medical
timeout lasted eight minutes. But guess who the
NCAA rep at the site was? None other than the
setter's dad. John Costi, the head coach of Stanford.
This is where this should never have been a situation.
I'm fine with him taking eight minutes. I'm fine
if, you know, the Penn State coach is like, hey.
Get your player together. Like, it's three more
minutes, and I guess I understand it ruins the
momentum. If both coaches agree and the refs
agree, I'm fine with the overall premise of what
happens here. But you can't have the setter's
dad making the call. That is the definition of
conflict of interest. I want to know. What was
the NCAA thinking sending him to that match?
It's outrageous. How did the NCAA ever be like,
you know what? John, why don't you head down
to LA? Because this isn't a conflict of interest
at all that your son is going for the final four.
I don't know. It's ridiculous. It's unbelievably
short -sighted. It makes zero sense to the integrity
of the match, of the sport. This wouldn't be
a thing if he wasn't there. Like if they had
both agreed for him to have a bloody nose, the
coaches were obviously both cool with it because
the Penn State coach offered to call a time.
Like there was no controversy around what happened
other than it's his dad. And as his dad, he should
have had the stopwatch off and been like, sub,
you got to go. Like, where's your integrity?
No, I'm sorry. This is the most fired up you'll
ever see, Adam. Everybody take note. No, but
things like this really bother me. No, it really
bothers me, too. And you're being gracious, being
like, eight minutes, if everybody agrees, it's
fine. I'm like, no, five minutes, hard stop.
Like, get out of here. The stopwatch, go. Because
my experience with situations like this, like,
it happens all the time in beach volleyball.
And as soon as the five minutes is up, it's like
you either need to get it together or you're
done. Sorry. And P .S., there's no subs in beach.
You have a whole roster sitting on the bench
and indoor. And those medical, those medical
timeouts in beach is usually because somebody's
sucking wind. You're not wrong, but sucking wind
or just sucking period. They're like, man, we
use our time out. What else can we do? So wine,
whatever. But anyway, that was outrageous. Completely
killed Penn state's momentum. So UC Irvine squeaked
by that one. And then we come to that infamous
UCLA touch call, which UCLA has apparently appealed
that call. to the NCAA being like there was not
sufficient evidence to make a definitive call
that there was a touch. And we talked about this
in the Ball State match against Pepperdine, how
that ref in that match had so many slash calls,
which was kind of annoying. But if you don't
see it, you don't see it. So and I just keep
going back because I called so many Long Beach
State women's games this past season. That ref
and I'm like creating a conspiracy theory here,
but that ref who made the call that there was
a touch is a big West ref because he was at literally
every game that I called for Long Beach State.
So I'm just like, how is this happening? The
NCAA needs to publish the video and the look
of what overturned the call. Yes. It's a bad
look. Show us the video that overturned it. Because
every single, and I understand they do have some
different angles and stuff. When it's a broadcast,
even if the announcers and stuff don't have the
angles, they end up showing the replay to the
general audience anyway. We never saw that. It
stinks. I'm not saying there was or wasn't a
touch. From what I saw, it didn't look like it.
UCI played well enough. to get to that point.
I'm not trying to take anything away, but they're
just with video replay. It shouldn't be a controversy.
Like this should not be a thing. You either saw
it and you can show everybody and it's fine.
Or you didn't see it and you can't call it. And
it just, it shouldn't have been a thing. I'm
just like, this is smelling fishy to me also.
Cause he is a big West ref. I don't know. Anyway,
I understand this stuff is said and done, but
I just wanted to revisit it because we did have
a bunch of people like write in and tell us some
details and whatnot. That is the juice from the
NCAA men's side. In MLV, as one listener wrote
to me, MLV gave out participation trophies this
year. I laughed when I read that message. Okay,
here are the awards. Let me know your thoughts.
The MVP. Of the league was Mia Tuoniga. And she
also got setter of the year. Do you want me to
just tell you everything first? Okay, I don't
know any of this. So this is happening. We are
seeing Adam's blind reaction. You want me to
tell you all of them before you say anything?
Okay. Outside hitter of the year, Mimi Collier.
Middle blocker of the year, Lydia Martin. Libero,
Elena Scott. Opposite, Azani Teeler. Rising star
award, Kiera Reinhart from Omaha. inspirational
athlete of the year, Iko Jones, the opposite
for Atlanta, and coach of the year was Indy Lauren
Bertolacci. Basically, let's just give it to
the Indy starting lineup, who choked and didn't
even make the final. I mean, I'm not sure in
my books Mia Tueninga is the MVP. You can argue
Setter, fine. I can get behind Mimi Collier being
the outside hitter. She had a good season. Lydia
Martin. Fine. That would have been a close one.
I think the middles to me positionally were probably
they had the most skill and they were the closest
athletes. Elena Scott, I would give Libero. I
don't love Azani Teeler as an opposite. We've
talked about this. I didn't love many of the
opposites in the league. So would you have picked
anyone else over top of her? Yeah. Maybe I would
have picked Cox at Dallas. You could have given
it to Cox. You could have given it to Raina Terry.
I don't think Azani Taylor had a good season
at all. Yeah, I wouldn't have picked her either.
Libero, I think Kylie Murr had a good season.
I think Elena Ogilvie had a decent season. Yeah,
but she didn't play really. She played the whole
time, but not with the same team. Okay, yeah.
I don't know. I just... I don't love the rising
star award. Let's delete that award period. Like
what? You can have a rookie of the year. Is this
like a rookie of the year? Like why does it have
to be rising star? Yeah, but just rising star
makes it sound. If it's rookie of the year, Mimi
Collier. Hello. Yeah. I don't love that one.
And what makes somebody an inspirational? What
were the criteria for Echo Jones getting inspirational
athlete? Did we miss something? A lot of leagues
do that. I don't know who I would have picked
for that. And I probably would have given coach
of the year to. But they gave these awards. Okay.
So MVP and coach of the year were announced in
between the semis and finals. That's fine. So
Berta Lodge, she coached like they had the best
record all season. Heading into the semis, I
think it probably should have been her. Do you
think that should have changed after they lost
the semis? It's a year long award. So I'm fine
not changing it, but I think Shannon Windsor
should have won it. Indy was already an established
team. They finished second last year. Yes, she
had a good record. Yes, they were consistent.
But you had Shannon Windsor come in post second
place finish overall. You had a mishmash of players
coming in from an expansion team. Usually the
expectations for that are not very high. Did
the Vegas Knights coach get coach of the year
when they came in? I don't remember. That means
no. You're talking NHL. I don't really pay attention
to those awards, to be honest. The expectations
from Dallas to Indy, I think were very different.
I just liked Shannon Windsor. If I was picking,
I would have given Shannon Windsor the award.
Okay. I can get behind most of like the other
ones. Yeah, that's fair. But man, that's a lot
of awards. Yeah. Let's just give MVP of the league
and call it a campaign. Okay. So rumor has it
that certain players, I have not verified this
with multiple sources, but I have been told.
that players like Mimi Collier, Brooke Nunneville,
and Elena Ogilvie have been bought out by Love
to not play for MLV next year and to come over
to Love. Because Love has like three teams coming
in next year, or is it just two? They have a
lot of roster spots to fill. Rumor has it they're
paying these athletes something like a quarter
of a million dollars to just not play for MLV,
and then they're playing for Love, which apparently...
is causing dissent in love because certain athletes
have signed multi -year contracts there and they're
not getting that same opportunity to get that
money, blah, blah, blah. It's a mess. I honestly
don't have any issues with any of this. You are
trying to attract players to the best leagues.
This happens everywhere. If the MLV wants to
keep their players, match the offer. The players
are free to try and play in the best league.
There's a salary cap in MLV. Then you need to
look at that as a league and understand what
your limitations are and that you're going to
lose. Maybe Collier had a great season. If you
look at her and she has aspirations to be better,
this is what you do. You use where you are as
a stepping stone, you perform better, and then
you play somewhere that has a higher ceiling.
You do it in love to the Italian league. It just
makes sense. What would you say to the players
who signed multi -year love contracts who are
potentially miffed? These MLB players are getting
paid way more than that. Too bad. You negotiated
a contract that you agreed to. Don't sign a multi
-year contract. But this is what happens. You
sign a contract. You were clearly happy with
it at the time when you either bet on yourself
and sign single -year contracts and then get
more and more money as you play well, or you
take the safe route and you sign a multi -year
contract. That's your decision. You don't deserve
anything. I mean, yeah, I agree with you. As
somebody who regularly signed single year contracts,
I complete that is exactly right. But I can't
understand how that would be annoying. So again,
these are not substantiated. This is things that
we've been hearing. Let's assume that those three
athletes are accurate. What do you think their
future? looks like in love now we don't know
what team they're going to we don't know who's
going to be there but just looking at the caliber
and the seasons they've had and the general level
of love what are your thoughts i think collier
belongs in love the other two bench well it depends
if they can fill out their league too like who
are they bringing to fill the league are they
gonna filter players from the established teams
They're kind of like make the talent pool equal
again. Are they going to pull athletes to fill
those teams? Like they're just depending on how
they decide to do it. I don't know. But like,
yeah, based on performance alone, without knowing
anything else, Collier, I think belongs there.
The other two, I don't. That's fair. I think
I would be, I would agree with that again. Like
you said, if you looked at love as a league this
year, I think that's an accurate assessment.
And then finally, it was announced that MLV Minnesota's
first signing was Steph Samity. Question for
you. Was this a good decision or is this where
her career goes to die? A good decision for her.
I don't think it's a good decision for her. I
think she probably could have gone somewhere
else. You don't know. Maybe she doesn't know
what the roster is going to look like. She's
been playing in Japan for the last couple seasons
and has been doing pretty well. Playing in Asia
can be... difficult. I understand the maybe desire
to be in the U S and to play at the home league.
I think she's probably good enough to play elsewhere
if she wanted to. She was on the national team
roster last year. Like why didn't love pick her
up? That's what I'm saying. Like with the salary
cap, like how many dollars do you have left to
for anybody else on your roster? Yeah. Minnesota.
I think it's a great pickup for Minnesota. Absolutely.
I just, I'm not. I would be curious to know what
went into her decision because I was a little
surprised to see that announced. Yeah, she's
a love -type athlete for me. So I'm just like,
is your career done? You know what I mean? Yeah,
what are you looking to accomplish from here
on out? Okay, we're obviously going to get into
the matches for both NCAA and MLB here shortly,
but those were some news items that we had coming
out of those leagues. And then to finish up the
highlights for the week, the Italian men's league
is done. Perugia won the Scudetto three matches
to zero against Chivita Nova. We have the Caribbean
tournament happening for NCAA women. We've got
the Vegas. Thing going on with Nebraska, Texas,
TCU, UNLV. And we have another one that was announced
this week at AT &T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.
We've got Nebraska, SMU, Penn State, and Florida.
They're competing for $1 million. One night only.
There's going to be semifinals and finals the
same night. All matches are two out of three.
And the winner takes $1 million. What are your
thoughts? Honestly, I don't have an issue with
it. I think that if you can get people to come
watch these events, you're getting more eyeballs
on the sport. You're building the profile. If
people want to put these events on, I don't see
any reason not to do it. Now, with that being
said, I don't think they mean anything. So one
question I have is, does this count against your
RPI? 100%, it has to. That is one thing. If it
doesn't. Well, it's two out of three. So I'm
curious if the format makes a difference. So
if this doesn't count against your RPI, the volleyball
means nothing in terms of like who wins or whatever
else. It's not the same format. It's a publicity
stunt. It's a way, again, like I said, to grow
the sport. So I'm fine with it as long as the
coaches are able to work it into the plan of.
We can still perform. We're still getting our
training and it works with all of that. I'm fine
having these events. I think as more and more
come up and there's prize money on the line and
sponsorship on the line, coaches are going to
have to kind of have a walk the rope of what
do we need to do to train to be prepared and
what do we need to do to kind of get that prestige
and get the athletes exposure and grow the sport,
et cetera, et cetera. It just seems really gimmicky
to me. Nebraska doesn't need a million dollars.
Penn State doesn't need a million dollars. I
bet you Nebraska is being paid to go so that
they Nebraska is being paid a million to go.
And then like, I don't know. It's just, yeah.
Nebraska shows up with a Vegas thing in this
one because they know that that's, who's going
to get bodies in the seeds to pay for this prize
money. The schools that are going don't need
the money. I don't like, I just feel like what
is college sports anymore? Like this is just,
I mean, that's a different, that's a different
question, but Again, look at what the stadium
series in Nebraska did. It was on ESPN. People
are talking about it. These kind of things grow
the sport. Which is fine for a one -off. We don't
have to have a stadium in the freaking baseball
field. Now we don't have to have one at AT &T.
Why do we have to do these things outside? It
just cheapens the sport to me a little bit. We're
not playing grass. We're not playing beach. Let's
keep indoor volleyball indoor. The stadium match
was cool as a one -off. We don't need to keep
trying to replicate it. Well, that's that. That's
how Sarah sees it. That's how Adam sees it for
the week. A lot of stuff going on, but it is
time to dive into our championships that happened
this weekend. All right. Let's dive into MLV
championship weekend. Let's start with the Indy.
Actually, do you have any thoughts about the
weekend as a whole? Anything that you want to
talk about before we get started or do you want
to hop right into matches? If Omaha would have
won, I don't know what I would have done. Thankfully,
Dallas pulled it out. That's all I have to say
for now. I'm going to say overall, I think I
was a little disappointed in the level of play.
Oh, yes, that too. In the weekend. And I'm not
talking about like compared to Love or Champions
League. I think I had higher expectations. based
off the season performances. And I thought the
volleyball was pretty error filled. There were
some spectacular rallies. I think the entertainment
value was high. Like a lot of the couple of the
matches went five. It was back and forth teams
winning and losing. Like it was a fine product,
but from a purely like watching the volleyball
execution, it missed my expectations based off
what I had come to expect throughout the season.
Let's dive in. Indy Omaha. Omaha winning in five,
15 -13 in the fifth. There were some close sets
in this match. What were your overall thoughts
about this one? I'm not sure how Indy managed
to lose this one, to be honest. When they went
up after three sets, they were up two sets to
one. I thought they had it, and correct me if
I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure they had a decent
lead going into the end of set four. Maybe I
blacked out. I don't know. I honestly don't know
how they won. It was member, member meta. Where'd
you go? They dominated all season. And then to
put that product on the floor, it was just like
really disappointing. Merritt Beeson. I'm like,
you disappeared for literally two years and like,
you're able to play volleyball again. Like it
was just, I don't disagree with you. It wasn't
like fun to watch. I had a couple of things that.
I noticed watching that match. We knew going
into the match that Indy was undersized as an
outside hitting core and that we said if teams
could get solid blocks up on them consistently,
they were going to struggle. I think Omaha is
a unique team in terms of their ability to do
that. So I did a little, kind of just obviously
looked at the roster and compared the sizes of
the outside hitters for both of those teams.
So Indy's... 5 '11", 5 '8", and 5 '9", versus
Omaha's 6 '4", 6 '2", and 5 '10". There were
two things that stood out to me in terms of why
Indy didn't win this. One was I thought there
was inconsistent play on both sides. We can get
into that a little bit later. I thought Tueninga
was too predictable as who she was going to set,
even though the blocking stats on the match were
very close. So Omaha had 13 blocks and Indy had
12. soft touches that turned into really good
defensive opportunities for Omaha. Crazy in their
favor. They touched almost everything. And Tuanenga
generally runs like that lob over the middle.
The outsides are quick. They get like one and
a half blocks. That was not happening. Omaha
managed to make life miserable for the outsides
in terms of not getting clean kills, which they
were used to. And Indy's outside hitters, they
just... They didn't step up. They did not play
very well. Remember, Mena was subbed out. She
didn't play the fourth or the fifth set. DeBeer
started well. She hit 857 in the first set and
then proceeded to hit 091, negative 083, 118,
and zero. You know, you just can't do that. Teeler
was their best, most consistent hitter for that
match. Your outsides, your two left sides can't
do that, period. It just, it's not going to work.
I mean, I think we also saw a men's style serving
from an heirs perspective, not aces. So Omaha
had four aces, but 13 heirs. Indy had one ace
and 17 heirs, which is crazy. I feel like Indy
usually serves better than that. When you have
undersized blockers, as Adam mentioned, and you're...
missing so many serves, not putting as much pressure
on, it's really hard to defend. Especially with
the size mismatch and stuff, it's basically target
practice. Going back to last week and the things
that we said that Indy had to do to win, I don't
think they did it. Nobody had their whole team
playing well at one time. If you looked at some
of the stats for some of the top players for
both of the teams, the reason that Omaha won
the fifth set was because Merritt Beeson hit
600. But she hit zero in the fourth set. This
was a match of like who could manage to squeak
out being the best in a situation. It wasn't
consistent. Nobody played more than two and a
half good sets. And I didn't think Tueninga had
any rhythm with her hitters. They looked like
they were fighting it all day. Like I said, I
didn't love her decision making. Omaha was absolutely
prepared. I have to give a lot of credit to the
coach. And we asked the question like, How is
he going to do in his first kind of run as a
head coach with no experience? I think he did
really well. I don't think his team played particularly
well, but he was moving players in and out. He
made some good subs. They were clearly prepared
from a defensive standpoint. The numbers, I don't
think they should have won. Indy had a kill efficiency
as a team of 241 to Omaha's 219. Both teams made
12 hitting errors. It was 13 to 12 in blocks
for Omaha, but like I said, I thought... The
soft touch or the slowdown blocks was one of
the biggest factors in that match. That doesn't
show up on the stats. But Indy also outdug Omaha
81 -62. They just can't score at a system against
a disciplined block that's much bigger and more
physical. And that's what it came down to. They
didn't have their offensive rhythm, and they
were hitting against double blocks all night.
Well, and the Omaha middles were commit blocking
on the Indy middles. And Mia Tuniga kept setting
the middles. It's like at what point is if you
as a setter are not picking up on this commit
block from your middle, the coaching staff needs
to tell you. Obviously, they understood that
the outsides were struggling. So any opportunity
that Tuniga had to run the middle, she was going
to do it. And she just kept doing it. Well, and
Martin didn't have a great game. Again, minus
one set. So she hit 750 on eight balls in the
third set, which. Indy ended up winning 29 -27.
Other than that, she was zero in the first set.
No, but from then on, Omaha was committing with
her. Yeah, so she hit zero in the fourth set.
I thought Omaha staff outcoached the Indy staff
in that match. They definitely, I could see the
defensive adjustments that they made when they
were down two sets to one. And then, you know,
their backs were against the wall. You saw the
blocking adjustments, the serving pressure ramped
up. Like I, you could see that they made a difference,
which is what you have to do. We talk about this
all the time. Indy seemed very reactionary and
almost like we were talking about UCLA men last
week, how it was just like, okay, we're going
to figure it out. We're going to figure it out.
We're going to figure it out. It's like, no,
at some point you need to make a change. And
Omaha did, but I don't think Indy did. I listened
to the post game press conference. After this
one, because I was curious what the indie team
and coaching staff had to say. And across the
board, there was a comment of, you know, all
season we've had fun. We've been playing loose.
We've been doing that. And that just wasn't the
feeling today. It's called pressure. Curious
what your thoughts about that are. Like, I almost
want to laugh out loud at that, honestly, because
it's like. Yeah, guess what? Losing isn't fun.
It's easy to have fun when you're rolling through
a whole season. Easy peasy. You're only losing
a few matches, but you're like well in the lead.
No threat to your position whatsoever. But guess
what? When playoffs start, everybody's on even
playing ground. Everybody's even again. So everything
you did in the past when you're having fun, like
it doesn't matter. So I think that just comes
across as just like a lame, unprofessional excuse
to me. Yeah, it's the playoffs. People show up.
You need to just be better. I'm like, I'm kind
of disturbed that that was a comment. Yeah, it
was just an interesting little tidbit. And it's,
you know, clearly they practiced and they were
consistent and they had a good thing going and
all of that. But you have to understand, like,
if you don't start in your mental state, that
is good. You need to know how to get back there.
You need to know how to make adjustments. Like,
Anna DeBeer hit 857 in the first set and then
hit 091, negative 083, 118, and zero. Well, yeah,
when you're uncomfortable. Is it fun to be on
the court being uncomfortable? Not really, but
that's part of sports. That's why you're being
paid to play sports, because you need to work
through it. I'm sorry. Yeah, it's always fun
to hit 500 and not really be pushed or challenged.
But it's also really fun to be struggling and
find a way to be better and win anyway. That's
even more fun. Again, I don't think anybody...
One, that's not fair. I thought Beeson came out
and played really, really well in the fifth set.
She was the one athlete that came out and was
like, we're going to win this, to her credit.
Which is crazy to me. But that's, again... No,
good for her. I'm happy that she figured it out,
but I'm just like, where have you been? Yeah,
nobody else took the reins and she stepped up
in this regard. And I don't think anybody from
Indy had a particularly good match. So let's
talk Dallas, San Diego. That was the other semifinal.
We had one good set in this where San Diego beat
Dallas in the first set, 30 -28. And then after
that, Dallas pulled up their shoelaces, buckled
in. And won 25, 18, 17, and 10. I expected this
game to be closer, honestly. I thought that this
would be the closer semi. I agree. It was opposite
day. You watched the first set and I was like,
all right, this is going to be like a knockdown
drag out fight. Like San Diego pulled out that
first set. What a great win for them. I still
thought Dallas was going to win, but it was going
to be hard fought. But they, it was like San
Diego ran out of juice after winning the first
set. Dallas just imposed their will, especially
from a blocking standpoint. They out -blocked
San Diego 21 -8 on the match. San Diego, to their
credit, I mean, they tried to serve tough. They
had seven errors, three aces. At the end of the
day, Dallas hit 333 as a team, and San Diego
hit 108. Dallas was just the better team. I think
period, but they also had a much better night
more consistently after losing the first set.
Didn't Tristan Savage set an MLB record with
like eight blocks herself in that match? I believe
so. That's crazy. The top players for San Diego,
Lohberg hit 211 on 38, which is respectable.
That's fine, yeah. But Tabron hit 032 and Prokoczowicz
hit 167. That's not going to win. I will say
Sambuthi. Played very well. I thought she was
San Diego's best player. She hit 368 and they
got her a ton of balls. Like she hit 19 balls
in those four sets. Other than that, it just
wasn't great. Cox was unbelievable for Dallas
on that one. Hit 591. Both Maldonado Diaz and
Mimi were decent. Like Dallas was just better.
I don't know what else to say about this match.
I mean, when those are the numbers for the outside
core, like you can't even compare the two. Like
the three athletes for Dallas just dominated
San Diego's. So even if you're getting your middle
19 swings, it's not enough when the like core
trio is being outperformed like that. Yeah. You
could just see that they had a mindset of like,
we're not messing around here. We're coming like,
fine. You beat us in one set. Now do it again.
And I was, I was really impressed with their
mentality in that match. That is the last time
we will be seeing the San Diego Mojo play because,
as I'm sure a lot of you are aware, they announced
that they will not be a team anymore, which is
really sad. Well, especially because they had
such a good year. I mean, I know there's finances
and stuff involved, but I thought they were the
biggest surprise on the year. So congrats to
all those athletes, and hopefully they all find
teams elsewhere. All right. Let's talk about
the final. No, man, I was worried. I was worried
that Omaha was going to win. And I'm like, oh,
my gosh, Omaha is going to win MLB. Austin won
love. What is happening? OK, so let's let's just
put this out there for anybody who hasn't followed
along for the season. Just you need to give some
context around your dislike for Omaha. I mean,
our regular listeners know. I just think that
it's shady that. You go and just because you
have more sponsorship money and more ways to
get around a salary cap, you go handpick who
you think are the best athletes in the league,
put them all together and expect a steamroll.
And then when it doesn't work, you fire your
coach. Like, I don't know, just the whole way
that everything was gone about with that team
this year just rubbed me the wrong way. I think,
you know, even with Valentin Anderson, she was
setting for Omaha. They didn't want her because
they thought Sydney Hilly was better. Setter
of the year last year. Let's take Sydney Hilly,
get rid of Valentin Anderson. And so like the
redemption story there, I thought was a really
cool storyline that I wanted to see like her
specifically succeed. I didn't love how it all
went down. So now what were your overall thoughts
of the match? I didn't think Dallas played great.
I thought. Maldonado Diaz was very up and down,
particularly in set three. She could not like
pay to put a ball on the floor, like really struggling,
but somehow dragged herself out of it, which
is what we were just talking about, you know,
and was like on fire in sets four and five. Yeah,
it was, I would say it was very inconsistent
from everybody again. It seems to be the theme
of the weekend, just like a lot of inconsistency.
I don't love, honestly, how Dallas runs Carter
Booth as an M1. She does not run a slide, you
guys. Carter Booth is an M2. Keep her in front
of the setter. She should not be running slides.
That's an aside. I just had to say that. It wasn't
the most entertaining final ever. Yeah. Even
though it went five sets. I think that the teams
did. basically a crossing pattern. I thought
Omaha continued with their momentum that they
had after they won the semifinal. Like they came
out and all of their players played well in the
first set. None of Eller hit 500. Parsons hit
231. Beeson hit 400. Like Kiera Reinhart was
going, like they came out firing on all cylinders
and I thought they looked really good. And I
thought Dallas was slow and just. They couldn't
find what they needed to do. And then as the
match went on, that kind of shifted. Dallas settled
in. They found a little more rhythm, and Omaha
continued to struggle. I thought Mimi did not
play well whatsoever. She struggled to find it
all match. Overall, Mimi hit 0 -19 on 52 balls.
I'm shocked Dallas won with their star player
playing so poorly, quite frankly. Like you said,
Maldonado Diaz was inconsistent, but was unbelievable
down the stretch. Omaha couldn't keep it going.
And their players, when the pressure came to
actually win, where they managed it a little
bit better in the semifinal, they did not play
well in sets four and five. I specifically broke
this match down into hitting percentages based
off set because it was so inconsistent. And I
want to read the set five stats just because
they're kind of... Both four and five. In set
four, Nunneviller hit negative 125. Parsons and
Beeson both hit zero. And Kira Reinhardt hit
negative 500. Now they got crushed 25 -13. That's
hard to do. That is hard to do. And we're not
talking like on one or two balls. Like that was
on a good amount of sets. In set five. You had
Nunaviller hit negative 167. Parsons was the
only positive hitter at 250. Beeson was zero.
Kiera was zero. You just, you can't win. But
on the flip side, Cox for Dallas hit zero. Mimi
only hit 167. Maldonado Diaz hit 625. Like she
was, Maldonado Diaz was Beeson from the set before.
She was the only player who was going and scoring
points. Like it just. It shouldn't be this way
in a final. I mean, when those are the stats.
Exactly. When those are the stats, it's just
like error volleyball. Yes. Which is not fun
to watch. You want to see plays. You want to
see rallies. You want to see these top players
scoring back and forth. And just a ton of missed
serves, too, down the stretch. Yeah. It was bad
execution, quite frankly. And again, you had
some athletes play well when it mattered and
make the difference. I hope that as we get more
experience in the league goes on, the athletes
get more and more comfortable in these situations
because this was not a great volleyball product.
You had a winner. Like you said, it was five
sets. It was back and forth. It was entertaining.
But I didn't think from an athlete perspective,
the moment was managed very well. I agree. I
tend to really like MLV's product, but, and we've
been talking about this offline. It's hard to
tell like quality of play sometimes when athletes
are evenly matched skill wise. And that's what
makes MLV. I think a good league to watch is
like, it might not be the highest level, but
the athletes are similar skill level. So the
matches are entertaining. And they go along,
they go to five sets, whatever. But the errors.
If you plugged one of these teams into, I would
even say, love, it would have been annihilation.
It's just the errors were crazy. From a strictly
quality of skill, it was not the best to watch.
Yeah. Kudos to Dallas. They ended up. having
enough players kind of find the momentum. I thought
the Dallas middles played very well. They didn't
set them a ton, but they were incredibly efficient
and they held what they needed to. And I think,
you know, maybe I'm biased because I'm a coach
now and not an athlete, but I think that your
coach helped shape the mentality and how you
do those things. So I have a lot of respect for
Dallas being able to kind of. go down in that
set we like shannon everybody knows we like shannon
so but again i think part of that is international
experience and being you know part of a national
team and seeing you know top level athletes and
things like that so i think that makes a difference
and i think that it showed in even diaz plays
national team and Is it shocking that she was
able to kind of find her way through starting
poorly? Well, Valentin Anderson plays for her
national team. Yeah. So I think there is something
to be said there. And I think that that showed
up when it mattered, obviously. And Dallas is
a million dollars richer. So congrats to Dallas.
The expansion teams in MLV just keep showing
up year after year. So we expect big things from
NorCal and Minnesota. My money's on Minnesota
right now. Well, Seth Samity, she's going to
be the Jordan Thompson of MLV all season. Again,
really fun season. Fantasy League made it even
more exciting to stay involved in what was happening.
But huge congrats to Dallas for winning the title.
As we know, and as was mentioned a little bit
earlier, this weekend was the men's national
championship for NCAA. And for the first time
in 15 years, we do not have a back -to -back
national champion. That stat was wild. Crazy.
Huge congrats to Hawaii on winning the 2026 NCAA
men's volleyball championship. It was an interesting
weekend. Do you think the games were good? Let's
just start there. I mean, I think there were
parts of games that were good. This week for
me, if I had two themes that kind of ran through
the championships, it was... consistency, and
where are the true right sides. Those are my
two thoughts. Or lack of consistency. Yes. Those
are things that happened in the matches that
we watched. I thought both in MLB and NCAA. I
would agree with you on the right side. Well,
both points, except for the Hawaii opposite.
I feel like he was the only one that showed up
in MLB or NCAA. That was kind of my point. I'm
not shocked that the team with the best right
side ended up. winning because i think if you
look at a lot of the top ncaa teams if your right
side wasn't going and scoring points you were
having trouble winning matches and i don't think
a lot of the right sides currently are particularly
good or consistent yeah well let's break it down
okay first match uc irvine ball state I think
last week we had Ball State winning this because,
like, seeing them against Pepperdine, I was like,
okay, it's very evenly matched. Ball State, their
floor defense, block defense, their system is
solid. They just didn't look the same to me.
And, of course, like, you have to give UC Irvine
credit. Like, they prepared. Their preparation
was solid. They are a very good serving team,
which my assessment would just... very quick
watching is because Ball State relies so heavily
on their middles to kind of get going and open
things up because UC Irvine was serving so aggressively.
It was very obvious that the balls had to go
to the outsides and Ball State really only had
one in Pat Rogers that was producing at all.
Yeah, that was my big takeaway was I actually
thought Ball State, could have won this match
if one of their other outside hitters other than
Patrick Rogers was remotely competent. Ryan Lewis
hit 032 and Will Basilio hit 056. That's unacceptable.
Unacceptable. So that was the big storyline for
me. If one of those guys had have played even
marginally better, I think there was at least
a possibility that the outcome could have been
different. Well, and we know that Machado, the
setter, loves to force the middle. I'd be curious
to hear how many times the middles got set because
we know if it's a possibility, he's pushing it.
They ran the middle almost 20 % of the time.
The two main middles scored at over 500. Like,
I don't think there was anything else the middles
could have done. Honestly, you needed one of
those two outside guys to be better. Plain and
simple. There was one other thing from a setting
standpoint. You had mentioned Machado forced
the middle. I thought he did a great job. I like
that decision making, but I thought some of his
other set selection was a little reckless. He
definitely takes swings in weird times. He is
a lefty, which lends itself to being able to
do that. But I think, yeah, maybe a little overambitious
certain times in his decision to do that. 14
attempts he took in that match. Yeah, I mean,
Moni Nikolov, everybody. And I just think back
to the end of set three where, first of all,
Rodgers got away with a huge foot fault. Yes.
Because they were down 24 -23, I believe, or
it was 24 -all. Yeah. Something like that. He
foot faulted, and they didn't call it. Ball State
won the point. Then he foot faulted again. They
did call it. And then there were two more opportunities
that they had to sign out. Pat Rogers did not
get another ball. I'm sorry. What are you doing
setting Lewis so many times in that next rally?
It didn't make any sense to me. I felt like one
of those last two rallies, the set had to go
to Rogers and it didn't. Every set should have
gone at that point to the middle or to Rogers.
Your life is on the line and your other two outsides
are hitting. Below 100. You don't set them again.
Period. They were the ones that got set, though.
Yeah. Questionable. I wasn't cheering for one
team or another, but I would have been interesting
had one of the other players played better to
see what the outcome would have been. Because
when they lost, like 25 -19, 25 -19, that's the
difference between one of those hitters being
below 100 and even mid -200s in terms of being
able to score just a little bit. Because everything
else, like, they outblocked UCI. Their kill efficiency
wasn't good, but it was because of the other
two players. Like, their middles and Rodgers
was great. The digs, UCI was outdug them, but
not by a huge margin. Like, the games were close,
except for those kind of two glaring players.
It was also insane to me that after the first
three sets, there were no aces in the match.
That's almost unheard of in men's volleyball.
Well, I thought both teams were going after their
serves. Like UCI missed 13, Ball State missed
14. So it wasn't like they were hammering. Well,
no, and like UCI does bring it from the service
line. I think it does speak to like Ball State's,
you know, ball control and floor play for sure.
But yeah, it was not a battle of attrition from
the service line. It was like what's happening
at the net and Ball State did not own the net.
From an offensive standpoint. One of my favorite
players coming out of this weekend and somebody
who I thought had an outstanding tournament was
Clark. He had an outstanding season. His hitting
percentage was off the charts all year long.
And he continued to be great in both matches
that they played this weekend. I was so impressed.
722 on 18 sets out of the middle. And I know
like efficiencies are always higher, but he was
virtually unstoppable. I thought, and I was just
incredibly impressed with him. I'm not going
to lie. I was a little salty that UC Irvine was
even in this match. I'm like still not over it.
So I wanted both states to win. They looked like
the better team in that match, like overall.
Their left sides played really well. Brink hit
300 on 30 sets. Jokanovic hit 308 on 39 sets.
Darcy, who I have not been loving. In the NCAA
tournament so far. Had probably one of his better
matches. I think he hit 242 on 24 balls. I don't
think he was great overall. He was good enough
in this match. To help them get through. But
their young left sides. Are going to be good
for a long time. I was pretty impressed. Well
they. The left sides. Micah Goss. I'm not sure
what your Clark is. The setter. They're returning
a lot of players. They're going to be very good
and maybe favorites or up there in the favorites.
You know who's going to be the favorites? Hawaii.
Their entire lineup is coming back. Fair enough.
And they might be second. Okay, fine. We might
see a repeat. I think Ball State leaves this
match knowing they had a chance. Given the way
the third set ended and knowing that two of their
outside hitters did not have great matches. Like
literally cost them the match. I think at least
as a coaching staff, you're looking at that going,
man, if we had one more piece, we're right here.
We're one match away from playing in the finals.
It's good for that division, and it's good that
the game was competitive outside of what we talked
about. Okay, the match that everybody was excited
about was... Hawaii, Long Beach State. Hawaii
swept the regular season. Long Beach State won
the Big West final. People were very interested
to see what was going to go down here. Ultimately,
Hawaii won in four. I didn't love the match.
I didn't think it had the same competitiveness
that we saw in some of the other ones. They traded
first and second set wins at 25 -15 for Hawaii
and then 25 -18 for Long Beach. So those are
basically nothing sets. And then it was 25 -21,
25 -22. It just wasn't competitive almost. I
don't know. The problem for me was, and I'm going
to say this, I thought Varga was the only player
from Long Beach who was really firing. And again,
Gadget, the right side, was brutal. He did not
have a good match. He hit 0 -71 on 28 balls.
I just... He made errors from the service line.
I didn't think he attacked particularly well.
I was just underwhelmed, and they needed somebody
else to be able to score other than Varga, who,
again, I thought had a great tournament. I don't...
Gajek had an outstanding match in the final against
Hawaii in the Big West final. 27 kills, something
crazy. So you had to know that Hawaii was going
to be keying in on him to not let him... and
Varga go off, they knew they needed to stop one
of them. And I do think it's fair that the assumption
was they could stop a guy, a freshman over Skylar
Varga, who first team all American, you know,
international, whatever, like let Varga do what
he does. But like, if they could stop one of
them. They were probably going to be in a good
position. And let's not kid ourselves. They were
probably extra fired up because like the narrative
throughout the match was just how after the Big
West final, Gaiac went to the Hawaii crowd and
did shock us down, which was like super disrespectful.
I think Hawaii had an extra chip on their shoulder
toward that kid for sure. For me, you see a young
kid that had the match of his life the last time
he played Hawaii. He was probably trying, like
thinking he could do it again or trying to refine
that the whole match. And it's not something
that can be fixated on like that. That's what
I saw. True. The stats of the match were pretty
close other than kill efficiency. So Long Beach
made 23 hitting errors to Hawaii's 15. So that
meant Long Beach kill efficiency as a team was...
200 and Hawaii hit 337, which is a pretty big
difference. But outside of that, which is obviously
a massive stat, the other things were pretty
close. So they had Long Beach had six aces to
18 errors. Hawaii had five aces to 18 errors.
So very similar. 25 digs to 23 for Hawaii. Now
the blocking for Hawaii was massive. They had
15 blocks to Long Beach of six. And I attribute
this. I didn't think the Long Beach middles were
very good. They did run them a whole bunch, like
almost 18%, but they hit under 200 as a group,
and you can't do that. You need to have a threat
in the middle, especially when the pin blockers
are quite good in Hawaii. You need to be able
to find some seams and find some holes in the
block because they made life miserable for Gaiac
and Bloom. Varga did a good job, but the other
two struggled. I was also really confused why.
They started another kid in set three over Bloom.
Okay, Bloom wasn't lighting it up, but I didn't
think he was killing them either. It just seemed
like a really random decision to put this kid
in, and then they didn't play him again. He played
set three. He didn't do good or bad. He was just
a neutral, in my opinion, and then out he was
again. That felt weird to me. Yeah, and I don't
know. Like, I would have taken the right side
out. Like, put somebody else in there. See if
somebody can have a match. Because he, Bloom
hit 267 on the match. Yeah, it's not terrible.
And especially for a P2. Like, if he's doing
that, he's fine. Nobody really stood out to me
for Long Beach State. Again, Varga played well.
But I did really enjoy the back and forth between
the middle. Justin Todd. Came out on top, though,
let me tell you. Those middles were staring at
each other back and forth, blocking back and
forth, and just to see that happening, I love
it. Give me more, please. Justin Todd, particularly
in the set four, really turned it up a notch,
and that was cool. Set three and four, to me,
were characterized by runs of points. Hawaii
was up really big in set three. Long Beach State
came back, and then... you know, Hawaii grew
the lead again. And then in set four, I think
Long Beach State was up something like 18 -14
and managed to just lose that lead and then lose
by several points. So I just, Adam's word of
inconsistency, 100%, but just like the point
swings, we don't see that as often in men's volleyball
as we do in women's. I will shout out my boy
Cade, who came in as a serving sub in both this
match, and in the finals and their team did score
a ton of points when he was at the service line.
So he did a good job. I think it ranged from
like three to six points when he was in there
and that turns the tide of matches, especially
he would come in like in the mid teens and then
you'd get that push and then they could kind
of finish it out. From there. Adam's eyes twitching
as he says that, everybody. No, you know what?
I will give credit where credit is due. It's
not an easy job to do, and he managed to put
pressure on, and the team scored a whole bunch
of points. That can be a difference maker, and
it was. Shout out to Tread, too. He went down.
It looked like he slid on some sweat or something,
and then his stabilizer leg just like... Was
not okay. He was visibly hurting. For that match.
And I'm like okay. Adrenaline. He's warm. He
can probably make it through this game. Wasn't
sure how it was going to be in the final. Kudos
to him for sticking it out. Toughing it out.
Like did not look for one second. That he was
going to let this affect him. So I think that's
huge. Yeah Hawaii just looked better. Their outside
core all tournament. Played and put up great
numbers. And when that happens and your middles
are efficient, like Justin Todd was good, they
blocked well. Hawaii played consistently well.
I was thinking this watching. I was like, we've
often talked about how it's probably difficult
for Tread to set the middle when he has to kind
of jump set down sometimes. He has found a middle
in Jordan who he can touch 12 -4. Who finally
it looks so smooth when they run the middle because
he is higher up than Tread. So it doesn't look
so uncomfortable. And I think that the connection
that he had with his middles compared to last
year was way better. They're playing so high.
It's absurd. They were consistent in all aspects
of the game. They were gritty in terms of. keeping
rallies going. Sakunoko was wearing boxing gloves
and still found a way to hit 360. It was a good
win, but even still it was gritty when it didn't
have to be in terms of their mentality on the
floor. They weren't being beat. And shout out
to the libero who is from very close to my hometown.
Okay, the final. UC Irvine, Hawaii. This match
was not good to me. It was just like blowout
after blowout. I was worried at the beginning.
Okay. When Hawaii got absolutely slapped and
then I was watching it and I'm like, okay, there's
no way UC Irvine can keep this level up. Yeah.
And Hawaii needs to settle in to this match.
Like this cannot continue because it was brutal.
Oh, UC Irvine generally shows up. They play hard.
They've got good pieces and they came out with
a purpose. I really like their coach in terms
of how he, gets the team to play like you can
tell they were ready to go and they were outstanding
they're blocking everything they were in system
all the time they were serving machine like they
are on a mission yeah like they are prepared
they knew the assignment the block defense was
tight yes that combination of Clark and Goss
when they're both going is They block well. They
attack well. They don't set. I think they should
set Goss more than they do. They barely set him.
But I really like that combo. And I was excited
to see those two go up against Justin Todd and
Jordan. But after the first set, like it just
flip -flopped. It wasn't ever close. It was super
disappointing because I thought, now it wasn't
going to be a UCLA. Hawaii final, but I thought
there would be tons of scrappiness block touches.
I was expecting a really good match and I was
disappointed. It was very one -sided from that
point forward for sure. It like, what is there
to say? I honestly, at some points looked like
target practice. Hawaii was just in system and
just absolutely detonating balls. Like it was
ridiculous. The service pressure from Hawaii
was just relentless. I don't even know what else
to say. They had nine aces and 22 errors. And
again, Cade came in and put on serving runs in
multiple sets consistently. The hitting discrepancy
was just so black and white. I have to read you
these notes. Sakunoko hit 500 on the match. And
that's after the first, like you have to remember
the first set was awful. So Sakunoko 500. roar
and we watched this game live so i was super
impressed that he hit 323 and to trisky hit 387
like what are you gonna do with that nothing
they were unstoppable and that's that doesn't
even include what the middles were doing and
they were going after it again they've got some
fire in the middle in hawaii justin todd will
let you know what's going on i he's gonna be
on the national team crazy to me that he never
played volleyball before the end of high school
wild Wild. Like, what? What were you doing? They're
big. They're so big. Yeah, just Travelle Jordan
hit some balls that I was like, I will say I
was a little annoyed at Hawaii's attitude in
the first set. They looked so mopey. They looked
like they were feeling sorry for themselves,
especially to Trisky. He was just moping around.
And I'm like, you guys, this is not the time.
This is not the time to feel sorry for yourself
because you're going to look back if you lose
and be like, why didn't I get my head out of
my ass? I'm glad that things started falling
their way. But in the first set, I was like,
okay, I understand that this is uncanny how good
UC Irvine is right now. But pick it up. You're
in the national championship. But we talked about
this in the MLV final as well in terms of needing
to be able to find your level of play even when
things don't go well. teams have to, you have
to be able to punch back when something happens.
And they did, obviously. Right. But that's my
point, right? Like you get blasted in the first
set. And I remember actually thinking for UC
Irvine, I was like, man, I hope Hawaii makes
it closer because if they don't, they're going
to come back and smack. Like when you beat a
team that badly in the first set, it's almost
always a bad omen, quite frankly. Yeah. Well,
I just kept thinking if I was UCLA at this moment,
I would be so pissed. Like seeing UC Irvine go
and just slap Hawaii in the first set. I was
like, this has to turn around because UCLA is
probably like ready to strangle somebody. Hawaii
was just better after set one. Hands down. They
held none of Brink's. Swings were working. I
mean, UCI out -blocked Hawaii 12 -6, and this
still happened. Hawaii came out guns a -blazing.
They were swinging on everything. They out -killed
them 58 -38. Like, they were just scoring at
will and bombing serves. It was a clinic in how
to win outside of the first set. I mean, of the
final four teams, the best team won. Yes, I agreed.
Would I have liked to see UCLA in the Final Four?
100%. I'm still heartbroken that they weren't
there. But the best team won. I just need to
hit one more thing. Before you go there, and
I know where you're going, I want to ask you,
I thought Hawaii played incredibly well. Do you
think they would have beaten UCLA if they had
played like that? These numbers, and not to say
they'd be able to do this against UCLA because
their outside hitters are better blockers, I
would say. If we're taking these stats just as
they are, I think there is a very good possibility
that they would have beaten UCLA, especially
if they were serving the way they did in that
match, because that is how you have to beat UCLA,
is to just absolutely destroy your serve, and
they were doing that. So I think... If Hawaii
put that exact performance on the court, I think
it at the very, very least would have gone down
to the wire or Hawaii would have won. That would
have been such an epic match. I know. I'm like
disappointed that we didn't get to see that because
I think that that matchup, that is the matchup
that should have happened in the final. Those
were the two best teams in the country. You got
to win when it matters. Before I do my last point,
Andrew Rowan was named national player of the
year. I think well -deserved. Yes, and he is
the third player ever to be a four -time first
-team All -American, which... Kudos. Wow. Yes.
Three players in history have been four -time
first -team All -Americans. Think of the greatness
that we were able to witness. Well, you're talking
about names like Karch, Sinjin, like... So many.
They weren't. No, that's what I'm saying. That's
what I'm saying. Eric Shoji and TJ DeFalco were
the only other two four -time first -team All
-Americans. So just like think about that for
a second. That is insane. I think that that player
of the year award was very well deserved. I'm
glad they still gave it to him. Me too. Like
if you go through your career and you're one
of three to ever do that, like. Impressive. Yeah.
Anyway, congrats to him. But my last point about
this match, you guys, maybe this is petty, but
I have to say it. So after the match, somebody
has probably seen this. So hit me up. Kevin Barnett
is on court interviewing Charlie Wade, the coach
for Hawaii. And, you know, eventually gets to
a question and he's like, do you want to highlight
some of the athletes and the players who like
really put on good performances and like helps
you win this today? And he's like, oh, you know
what? Like our team is just a really deep team.
Anybody can come in at any time for anybody on
the court. Like that's one of the things that
really makes us so good. But like our serving
subs, they came in and they did an outstanding
job. But like we're just a really deep team.
So anybody can come in for anybody. Who's the
serving sub? Cade, your son. You're telling me
the only thing that you have to say to single
anybody out is the. Position that your son is
filling. What about your starting setter who
was very clearly struggling to make it through
the match and who like got it together to perform
your left side who very clearly either sprained
both of his thumbs or had something going on
who made it work after being injured in the semifinal
last year came back like that's what you have
to say. I am. I'm disturbed. I'm totally fine
with his. answer he just should never have said
anything about the serving sub like you win and
lose as a team like if you don't want to single
somebody out i'm totally fine with that like
we are a team this is what we do but our serving
there's nothing there i excellent it's a great
answer if you leave out the serving so everyone
knows your kid was the serving sub dude if you're
gonna say anything you go hey we had a bunch
of players who were hurt who showed up and continued
to play that's something you can say to acknowledge
the mindset of all of that and i'm again i'm
fine with him not giving credit to anybody because
it's a team win like you train all of those things
but just sliding that in there it's just it's
greasy it's unnecessary it just i was so happy
that hawaii won and then i heard that interview
and i immediately like turned the tv off after
it was done i was like i can't do this anymore
it's like you ruined it unbelievable anyway just
had to add that in because That's what I do.
Huge congrats to Hawaii. I'm really glad that
they pulled it out. As I said, I think the best
team at the final four won. Before we wrap this
segment up, which was your favorite match of
the weekend for the men? I like the final. I
like the final because it's all on the line.
The way it started, I'm like, how bad does Hawaii
want this? And then to see people get a little
chippy, for the refs to not get involved. Thank
you so much. Let me see what personality these
guys have got and can they handle it? So yeah,
I like that one. It is time for listener questions,
everybody. So question one, I'm interested in
your thoughts. Rachel Fairbanks has never made
it past a semifinal round, whether in the NCAA
Final Four with Pitt or in love for Atlanta.
I know her team wasn't the favorite every year.
At Pitt, they were often a one seed. But at a
certain point, it must wear on an athlete to
keep coming up short in the same round. She obviously
wasn't always the reason that they lost these
matches, but she's touching every second contact,
so she has a lot of impact on a match. How do
you think you'd handle that situation as that
player? Or if you were her teammate or coach,
would you even bring that up? First of all, consistently
making semifinals and whatever you're doing is
a huge accomplishment it's not easy I know we
all talk about winning and all that but it's
hard to do and having even that amount of consistency
I think is is pretty impressive now I know you
can speak about this from the beach side you
know you you get to a certain point and you get
stuck there until you don't I get yeah I guess
my experience with this particular situation
does come more from the beach side. You know,
you often see it. A team will reach the same
round, whether it's a quarterfinal or, you know,
semifinal or whatever. And for whatever reason
that they cannot make it past that. And in my
first, you know, season or two and on the beach,
like that was the case, like just not cracking
into the semifinals. But then honestly, it's
like, as Adam said, it's just. Once you crack
it, you don't look back. I don't know if it's
a mental thing or a mental block. Again, like
you said, it's not all her fault. There's six
people on the court. She does touch the ball
the most. But it has to be so wearing as an athlete
to like be in that place again. Know that you're
obviously good enough to be there. But then be
like, okay, am I going to make it past this time?
Am I going to make it past this time? And it
is honestly just a mental thing. It's not physical
at all. I think as a coach, what you would do,
and even as a player, because it's obviously
in a couple different arenas that this has happened
to her, is are you changing how you're playing?
So is your decision -making different than it
is in other rounds? not handling the moment or
are you doing exactly the same thing and it's
just not good enough to win like there are different
reasons why you do and don't break through those
rounds so some of that could be on her in terms
of you know does she just go to one player more
than the others is her offense different in those
situations because she's not you know she's thinking
about the moment I'm not saying she's doing this
but I'm just saying as a coach those would be
the things that you were looking at in terms
of Is your process and decision making and execution
different in those matches? And if it is, that's
what you need to work on. And if it's not, then
you just need to keep taking those cracks at
those situations and eventually you'll break
through. Or like, are you placing more value
on certain points than others? Like when you
get past 20 or is it all of a sudden like those
points are worth more to you? Or are you doing
the exact same thing pre -serve routine, pre
-reception routine, like every single time? Every
point is worth the same amount, but like the
way we respond in those situations often has
a lot to do with what the weight that we put
on it. That is not accurate. Like every point
objectively is weighted the same, but we create
that difference in our minds just based on where
we are in the set. I'm curious if that is something
that ever enters the thought process or not.
It is an interesting stat. That's a great question.
Okay, question two. Last week you were mentioning
MLV teams and hitting efficiency. Chalker, we
just talked about that a lot. And none of the
teams were hitting very well, most hitting under
250 as a team. I'm curious how MLV teams compared
to Love for hitting percentage this season, taking
it even further, comparing both of those leagues
to the top Turkish and Italian leagues. Why is
there such a disparity assuming... Higher leagues
have better efficiencies. And how do teams get
more efficient but still maintain a high level
of play? Okay, I don't have the numbers in front
of me right away, but you generally do see better
hitting percentages in those leagues, I would
say. I think you see different types. So, for
example, again, we haven't pulled the numbers
on this, and I'm sure somebody out there is going
to. Even assuming, even if we want to assume
that the numbers are similar, as you get to a
higher level, the blocking is better. The floor
defense is better. I think even if the numbers
are the same, I think the things in MLV that
are making those numbers so low is errors. Whereas
when you're at the Turkish League or Champions
League or whatever, the reason those numbers
may be similar continues. The teams are getting
more digs or blocks. You're not getting that
decrease in percentage from straight up errors
in the same way that you are in MLV because the
blocking is better. The floor defense is better.
If the numbers for the other leagues are higher.
And I think, you know, when we've looked at some
of the champions league matches, like teams were
hitting, you know, 300 and some of those sets
it's because the athletes are a little more terminal,
right? I think they. They run the middle more.
They're running the pipe more. So you have more
one on O's or one on ones with blockers. And
I think the hitters are smarter and more terminal.
You see more off the block and kills versus off
the block and continues. Those are some of the
things that could factor in on the discrepancy,
given that that is an accurate statement. And
I think to improve to for part two of this question,
how do you get more efficient? You need. Certain
players who understand that their role is to
be that terminal player and other players are
not. And I think sometimes in MLV, we see errors
from everybody. You know, there are some players
that by their makeup should have the green light
to just go for it. And other ones need to be
more selective of when they're going to keep
the ball in. Or do more of a finesse play than
just try to be terminal. And I think players
and coaches need to understand what types of
athletes they are and do that accordingly. Question
three. I was recently watching Team USA and thought
this was worth noting. A lot of the swings in
MLV were showing at 50 miles per hour max. While
I'm watching a VNL match, they're hitting 80,
for example. What causes that drastic of a change
in hitting speed where at the pro level it's
so different? For the leagues that we're watching,
if we're comparing MLV and Champions League,
for example, it's just straight physicality.
In MLV, we're seeing players who were good NCAA
players who probably would not have made a huge
career out of volleyball. Champions League, we
are seeing the best of the best in the world.
And just the sheer physicality is so much different.
Watching the final four for MLV, they were also
posting attack height, which they do in Champions
League. And so in the final for Champions League,
we were seeing hitters hitting at 10 feet, 10
-4 at their contact point. In MLV, similar sized
players, Merritt Beeson, for example, is about
6 '4". Her hitting height was 9 '7". Okay, we're
talking 6 to 12 inches difference that we're
playing above the net. So that's just sheer jumping
and reach ability. Add into the fact the power
that these women are able to generate. It's just
they're two completely different types of athletes.
I think it's also setting efficacy as well. The
way the setters at the highest levels are able
to consistently put their hitters in a good spot,
lead their hitters on the back row, you're able
to generate so much more power when you, A, know
where the ball is coming, B, you're in a great
rhythm, and C, you're led in a way that you can
maximize your jumping and power abilities. Whereas
as the levels decrease and the setting is a little
more inconsistent, you're seeing players fall
as they're hitting. You're seeing them jump backwards
and you're not able to put anything on balls
that are like that. Okay, question four. What's
your take on yet another professional volleyball
league debuting in the US? It's apparently named
the American Volleyball League. Who's going to
play for it? I was only made aware of this league
when a girl's club coach was named head coach
of the St. Louis franchise. Okay, I didn't know
anything about this. So I went on their website
and the website looks fake, you guys. It looks
like a high school kid did a project of their
computer class. Without using AI. Without using
AI. A high school kid would have used AI. This
website apparently is kicking off in less than
a month, June 3rd. There's no information. Do
you think this is fake? This is the first I'm
hearing of it. Guys, this does not look right
to me. There's no rosters. There's no way this
is happening in June. There's no way this is
happening in June. There's no rosters. I don't
even know where the teams are on this website.
They don't even say that. This cannot be real.
Okay, let's operate. Let's assume it's real.
Because apparently somebody was named a head
coach. What do I think about it? Do we need another
leak? The timing is good. Okay, summer. Yes,
it conflicts with national team, but so far we've
got AU in the fall, Love and MLV in the winter.
Summer's available. I am, if people are going
to try and do things to increase the visibility
in the sport and continue to give athletes opportunities,
go for it. There's a big push for live sports
and all of those things, specifically in women's
sports. Try it. See what happens. Somebody make
it work. Do I think that it's... going to be
easy? Do I think that the product is going to
be amazing, especially at the beginning? Probably
not. But if people are willing to try, I will
check it out at least once. Can we get some of
our listeners to sign up, please? Because there's
no draft in 2026 or seven. So when I click free
agency, it opens an email. Some of you young
listeners out there. Send the email and let us
know what happens because I'm very curious. Yes,
let's get our Volley Talk listeners out there
infiltrating, getting the info, sign up for free
agency, tell us the process. Is it real? I don't
know what to think, you guys. Question five.
Ideally, would both left sides and opposites
take out of system balls depending on where the
pass was? Do any teams actually do this? Is one
side better than the other? Could really good
teams also send out -of -system balls to the
back row, or would that not be a good choice
out -of -system? Why don't you start with this
one, because you are a very good out -of -system
hitter. Ideally, yes. Both left sides and opposites
are good out -of -system hitters. That is the
goal. You want your hitters to be good in -system,
good out -of -system. Is one side better than
the other? I would say no. A lot of the success
depends on setting quality, depends on how the
other team is setting up their block defense.
All things, just if we're starting from scratch,
no, I don't think one side is better than the
other. The only thing I will say about that is
I think it's easier to hit a ball on your dominant
hand. So if you're a right -handed right side,
you lose a little bit of vision with the high
ball coming across your body. So I think that
in and of itself makes it more difficult, but
it's still doable. Is running the back row good
out of system? I think it depends what back row
option you're looking for and where the pass
is. Running the pipe, it's tough to run a good
pipe ball out of system. I think if you are able
to reverse the flow across the court, setting
to the right side back row makes the most sense.
If the setter is being pulled off the court,
off the sideline in position one, it can often
be hard to run an effective back row ball with
such a small distance. I think a lot of it depends
on the pass location, but running the back row
is not necessarily a bad idea out of system at
all. I think it just really depends on set quality.
Okay, question six. Do you have any thoughts
on Robin Amo stepping down as the University
of Hawaii's coach? It's pretty clear she did
it for personal slash family reasons, which I
understand. But thoughts on where Hawaii goes
from here. Is it considered a top job and who
might be a fit? I mean, coaching is a very taxing
job on family life. All consuming. It's, you
know, my dad was slash is a coach. Like I've
seen like playing for so long. I've seen how
much time coaches spend with their team. or thinking
about volleyball, or preparing for matches. Even
if they are present at home, they are preparing,
or they're traveling, or whatever. So it is very
hard on family life to be a coach. So completely
understand if family is a priority there. Is
Hawaii a top job? I think Hawaii has taken a
big dip since Dave Shoji retired. kind of built
that program into the national powerhouse it
was for a long time. And when he retired, I feel
like it kind of had a progressive, steady decline.
They're moving to the Mountain West Conference,
which in volleyball is not the strongest conference
by any means. So would it be considered a top
job? You have even more travel than you do for
a normal program, so you're going to be gone
even more. than a coach on the mainland playing
for a middle of the pack conference for a team
that's not historically been doing very well.
Like I personally wouldn't consider it a top
job. It's a good volleyball market. Like it's
not a top, top job, but here's a candidate that
I think would be a good fit. If you have a young
coach who's been an assistant at a very top school
who doesn't have to move a family, they can just
go and it doesn't affect. anything else, I think
it's a really good opportunity to try and bring
a pro, uh, a university team kind of back into
its quote unquote glory. Like the men are really
good. I believe they're well -funded, you know,
if you're not worried about being away from home,
I think it's a really unique opportunity. I think
you'll get some good candidates for it, but I
think it would be tough for a family, you know,
to up and move for that job. Expect maybe a young,
not a ton of experience as a head coach, but
some really good volleyball credentials and looking
to build something is the kind of coach I would
expect to end up in that job. So part B to that
question and our last question of the day. Any
chance Charlie Wade moves over from the men's
team to the women's? He was on the Hawaii women's
staff for several years and coached the Pacific
women for a couple of years. Zero chance. I think
no. His team is really good. They're so good.
I can't see him leaving the men who are top,
top, and then going back to the women, particularly
when he has a kid on the team. Yeah. I can't
see him leaving that program. They are very good.
You might have one of his assistants step into
that head coach role. Maybe. All right. Looking
forward, we have not a ton on the schedule this
week, but Saturday at 11 a .m. Eastern. Men's
Champions League Final Four begins. We have Warsaw
versus Perugia. And we have Ankara versus Zavirce.
Sunday at 2 .30 p .m. Eastern, we have Men's
Champions League Finals. So we'll have an episode
next week all about Men's Champions League. Whee!
Yeah, not a lot happening. Like we said, VNL's
around the corner, everybody. So tune in to ChampionsLeagueEuroVolley
.tv. 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 on Instagram or at
info at sarahpavin .com. Thanks so much for joining
us, and we'll be back next week.