2010 NCAA Tournament

[flyingMoose]

FWIW, the Pablo Rankings of the teams in this sub-regional with the RPIs in parentheses:

16 Tulsa (26)
22 LSU (16)
39 Oklahoma (28 )
41 Shocks (20)

So the matches have gone according to form to this point.

[flyingMoose]

I assume Lambo went to a 6-2 because he lost a six-rotation player in Sarah? She was mostly playing all six spots late in the season, or have I already forgotten? :(

[IAmWu]

I thought I said something earlier about a 6-2 and I may have had some insight from one of the players about it before the match, so it didn't surprise me at all. But I don't know if Sarah was playing back row at the end of the year, I thought we put Waldorf in for her. Personally, I'm not sure we should have changed our formation for last night, we looked out of sync for much of the match. And they were getting kills off of tipped balls falling just short of the back row. I don't generally question Lamb, in fact, I was sitting by a few area high school coaches who said that he knew more about volleyball than anyone they had ever met, but I think throwing Jackie in there would have given us another athletic body back there along with Waldo. Also, in the first set, I believe it was 25-25, or around there and we had a kill that was in by a good foot, and the line judge called it out. Not saying that's why we lost, but it seemed like it could have taken some air out of the girls' sails.

All in all, it was a sad end to a great season. I'm excited to see what we can bring next year and I appreciate all that the girls were able to do this year. They were fantastic.

[dregn]

I assume Lambo went to a 6-2 because he lost a six-rotation player in Sarah? She was mostly playing all six spots late in the season, or have I already forgotten? :(

My guess was he did it to try and get the best game out of the middles and left. It's not secret that in practice both Andrade and Backes tended to hit better working with Chealsy and in the 6-2 Andrade was Chealsy's middle and Backes got 2 of her 3 front row rotations with her I believe. Therefore he was going with the best offense possible.

What going to the 6-2 did was it removes Church from the lineup and gives you one less back row player. The way the 5-1 worked was Sarah and Elizabeth would rotate with the Libero and Backes would sub in and out with Church. The 6-2 last night ran the right sides (Backes and Sanders) through the Libero with the setters and middles subbing.

[1972Shocker]

Just returned from OKC after spending about 4 hours at the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum. That is a 1st rate museum. Wished that I could say the same about the Volleyball venue. That simply did not have an NCAA Tournament feel to it.

I for one was very surprised that the Shocks switched back to the 6-2 at this point in time. Did it cause us to lose the match? No way of knowing for sure. What I do know is that we played poorly in our preceding match against Creighton in the 5-1.

I also know that I have pretty much established I don't have clue about what I am talking about. I'm not going to second guess Lambo. The switch tells me that the loss of Sarah was a much bigger blow than he let on in public and he was not at all confident in his team's ability to be effective in the 5-1.

As IAmWu posted there was a very bad line call made against the Shocks late in Set 1. Even the OU fans around me admitted that it was a terrible call. The Shocks probably win that set if they get that call. However, the main reason they lost that set was they simply comitted too many unforced errors. Would that have made a difference in the outcome of the match? Again, no way to know for sure but I doubt it.

I will say that Sam Sanders looked pretty good on the attack for the most part, especially considering her lack of playing time this year. She has some work to do on her overall game though.

Another very good year of Shocker VB is in the books and we'll get a fresh start again next year with a very solid foundation in place.

:wsu_posters:

[1972Shocker]

I suppose what is most disappointing to me is that this was the first time in 5 NCAA's that we lost a 1st round match and it was in a sub-regional we probably had our best shot at winning. Sometimes I don't like irony.

[1972Shocker]

OU advances to the Sweet 16 with a 5-set win over Tulsa.

25-13, 25-22, 26-28, 20-25 and 15-9.

[1972Shocker]

I'd like to see Tulsa added to our Volleyball schedule on a home-and-home basis or as part of a tournament.

I only saw Set 3 of the Tulsa-LSU match, but my jaw dropped to see that Tulsa's #7 (Tyler Henderson) had 26 kills. I thought the scoreboard must have been wrong, but I verified that in the box score. 26 kills in a 5-set match is a tremendous effort. 26 kills in a 3-set match is off-the-charts.

[WuDrWu]

That museum is cool. I was NOT looking forward to seeing it for the first time many years ago. Once I got in, I didn't want to leave.

I also share your assessment on the regional. It makes no sense to me that OU "buys" the regional, then doesn't show off. If I had the money to "buy" the regional, you can be damned sure I would make it look first rate.

OU had a horrible call go against them on the line as well. I don't remember the order, but one seemed to be a makeup.

I also wasn't a big fan of post match comments by Santiago and Brianna. To me, it lacked a little class. I will fully admit it might just be me though.

#7 for Tulsa was off the charts good against LSU. I would imagine OU won with superior middle work where Tulsa was lacking but I didn't see the match.

It was a very competitive regional. Any of the 4 teams could have won it.

I doubt we'll get that good a shot in the near (or distant) future.


I will not forget Mary Elizabeth Hooper's sadness after the match for a very, very long time.

[1972Shocker]

Creighton (or as the Minnesota announcers call them Creetin) is down 0-2 at Minnesota losing 19-25 and 28-30. Set one was very close until Minnesota pulled away late.

The BlueJays are being more than competitive with Minnesota and they are playing very hard.

Minnesota wins Set 3 by a 25-20 score to complete a sweep of the Bluejays.

[1972Shocker]

One streak the Shocks did keep alive (unfortunately) is that in each of their 5 NCAA appearances they have lost to the sub-regional winner.

This was without a doubt our best opportunity to break that streak and move into a Sweet 16.

Not sure when we will get another opportunity as favorable as this year.

[flyingMoose]

The Final Four have reached Kansas City. The semis are on ESPN2 today beginning at 6pm. Match-ups are below with the National Seed and the Pablo Ranking in parentheses. The Pablos are from the start of the tournament and were not updated before the Regionals, the last numbers I have access to.

#4 Penn State(1) v #9 Texas(7) - a rematch of last year's championship game.

#6 Southern Cal(3) v #7 California(5)

[flyingMoose]

Penn State 3-0 Texas

13, 13, 22.

The announcers were claiming this result is a bit of a surprise, noting the 19-match winning streak of Texas. But when you win the three previous matches of the tournament, matches played on your home court, by 3-1, 3-2 and 3-1 ...

[1972Shocker]

Cal sweeps USC 14, 17 and 20.

You would expect more competitive matches in the Final Four.

I'm not sure Cal can beat Penn State with a one-woman band.

[flyingMoose]

Southern Cal 0-3 California

14, 17, 20.

The proverbial "It's hard to beat a good team three times in the same year" match - and USC did not as Cal advances to play Penn State on Saturday on ESPN2 at 730p.