2025 NCAA Women's Volleyball Tournament Preview

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. Regular season of NCAA volleyball wrapped
up. This past week. It was a good week. It was
a lot of fun to watch the volleyball this week.
We had a mixture. A lot of conferences have conference
tournaments for those that was happening. Other
conferences were just wrapping up regular season,
determining their champions. And we had the NCAA
selection show. So NCAA season is coming to an
end. But we just kind of wanted to do a recap
of the week. our preview slash predictions for
what is going to go down in the NCAA tournament
so we are really excited best time of the year
for sure well there's a lot of good times of
the year for volleyball lovers I would say that's
true this is a very good one it's a good time
of the year everybody okay so we're pumped so
let's get started Rankings did not change. They
haven't changed for a couple weeks because...
It doesn't matter. At this point, people have
shown their cards, so no need for that. But there
were some interesting matches happening and some
interesting results. Let's just get this out
in the open right away. What are you talking
about? Adam's very satisfied, everyone. I wasn't
going to say anything. You were definitely going
to say something. And all of you who sent messages
on Instagram congratulating Adam. He was basking
in that glory. And if you don't know what I'm
talking about, Stanford, co -champions of the
ACC with Pitt. But for NCAA tournament purposes,
they won out in the head -to -head. So technically
finished ahead. And if you remember back to our...
Power for our preview episode. Adam was the only
one who thought Stanford was going to win the
ACC. So let's all take a moment of silence. Congratulate
Adam. Thank you. Thank you. I did take a lot
of flack for that prediction at the time. A lot
of people were up in arms. I can tell by the
look on his face that he is 10 out of 10 smug.
Satisfied. That's a fairly accurate statement.
So that being said, Louisville had a rough week.
Not the best. Pitt beat them three straight,
real smack down, and then Stanford beat them
in five. There are a couple things that concern
me about Louisville. I mean, yes, they lost two
matches, but also the way they lost them was
not great. They had leads against Pitt at 20
in both matches, and they gave up. In two sets.
Six and seven point runs, I think. I think it
was six and five. Six and five point runs at
the end of sets. You just don't want that to
be the case. Like, quite frankly, they outplayed
Pitt. That game should have at least gone to
five. They should have won those two sets. I
feel like we're broken records at this point.
Well, yes. But this is exactly what we talk about
with teams not having a go -to player. I know
for Louisville that it's Cara Cressy, but she
couldn't score. Chacon couldn't score. Peterson
couldn't score when it mattered. And Babcock
kept coming. When the chips were down, nobody
for Louisville. But not just offensively. Blocking
-wise and from the service line, just... They
had no answer. They had no answer. And they had
no one who was willing to step up and risk making
an error to score points after 20. And I'm talking
about Louisville because we saw it in spades
in this weekend for them. But this is a concern
for a lot of different teams, I think. I think
we'll talk about this in the Kentucky -Texas
match, but I saw the same thing. And so I don't
think Louisville is in a good headspace. They
lost another match in five. The record in five
has got to be, what, one in six? Something like
that. It's not good. It's not good. To build
on that point, the very end of the Stanford match,
it was neck and neck. And then Peyton Peterson
gets an out -of -system ball, and she tips it.
And that is after we saw both Elia Rubin and...
Blashov. Blashov. Her name is... The spelling
really throws me for a loop. Just go up and absolutely
unload on uncomfortable sets. Very out of system,
not ideal set location, but going up and just
being fearless and ripping on the ball and scoring.
And then Peyton Peterson gets a set that's better
than those sets that they got, I thought, and
tips it. And I'm like, this says everything to
me. Well, and it's interesting because I thought
Peterson was really good down the stretch, and
I believe it was set four. She scored three or
four points, good swings off the block. but more
or less in system. So she's taking rips there,
but when she's comfortable, she wasn't. And I
was watching the match going, okay, I'm not the
biggest Peterson fan, but I had to give her credit
for finishing that set. No, and I'm not blaming
her. I'm like, that is like the difference between
the mindset of certain athletes over others.
Well, and I thought it was interesting. They
interviewed Elia Rubin after the match, and the
only thing she said was, I hate losing. I was
going to do everything I could to win. There
are some athletes who like to win, and then there
are some athletes who hate losing. Give me an
athlete that hates losing any day of the week.
That's what I want. Well, I read Elia Rubin's
lips a few times in that match, too, and I'm
like, dang, are we the same person? Yeah, I'll
leave it there. Those were very entertaining
matches. And I was invested in the Stanford match,
so that one was a lot of fun to watch. Not a
great... outcome for Louisville. Well, they went
from top of the ACC to fourth, I think. They
dropped below SMU, who almost lost to NC State.
So that brings up, we've gotten a few questions
over the last couple months about evaluating
Dan Meske's first season as head coach. So a
bunch of people have sent in questions about
that and asking, do you think he's struggling
without Danny at the helm? Oh, it's an interesting
question. I think the reality of it is they didn't
have a lot of horses on that team. If we look
at the roster, and we talked about this watching
that game, I think Blackshear was better for
them than I believe the staff thought she would
be at the beginning of the season. So she was
the lone, not the lone, she was very much a bright
spot for Louisville. I agree. I like their center
a lot too. I agree. I like the setter and I like
Cressy, but their left sides, you can't win.
You can't have two players like that. They're
both P2s in my opinion. Totally agree. Blackshear's
a freshman. She's a little awkward. She's not
terminal terminal. She's not there yet. I do
not love her arm swing. I think she can get there,
but she's not there yet. And so when you don't
have anybody who can consistently score at the
pins out of system, you're limited. And we were
listening to the broadcast and even the announcer
was like a coin super terminal versus one block.
And it's like, well, everybody should be. I'm
sorry. That's not what you want. They have incorporated
a little more back row, I'll say just a smidge
more. They have. It's not enough. So back to
the question. This comes back to, I think at
the beginning of the year when he goes, we're
going to run middle, we're going to run middle,
we're going to run middle. He's evaluating his
team and what he believes will be their strengths.
And he's putting it out there so that everybody's
on the same page. And I like that. I think they're
prepared. I think they do a good job. You watch
them, like they outplayed Pitt for the majority
of that game. They got to 21st. They were in
control of that match. They just can't finish.
And I'm not sure that's on Metzke. Now he needs
to build his roster. He needs to find some of
those players because part of his job is roster
construction. But from a purely coaching standpoint,
I have to say, I think he got about as much out
of that team as they were capable. Of giving
him. I think he's maybe a little emotional on
the court. When he's coaching. I think some of
his challenge decisions are impulsive. Yes. While
he screwed himself this weekend. He made a couple
bad. He screwed himself against Pitt. Yes. Because
he did not have a challenge left when he needed
it. And he would have won it. And he would have
won it. And that was at the end of the match.
But I remember making comments about that with
Louisville last year too. So I think he's a little
emotional. which you can be as an assistant coach.
You get to be everybody's best friend. So I think
there's maybe a little bit of maturing in terms
of his persona as a head coach. But purely from
a coaching standpoint, I like what he did. Since
we brought up these terms, we've gotten questions
asking what is a P1 versus P2? Oh, good question.
P1 is your left side who's in the front row with
a setter. The thought process there is they need
to be able to score. with a higher level of efficiency
because they're going to have two blocks because
you're setters in the front row. There's only
two hitters in the front row, so it's less for
the block to think about, more difficult. You
usually put a strong attacker in that position.
And then your P2 is generally more of a ball
control. They'll pass more of the court. They
can obviously still score, but Chacoin is a great
example of a P2. She's fantastic in that role.
Good ball control. She's got a whippy arm. You
know, you give her a one or a one and a half
block, she's going to score, but she's not a
banger. And I think that's the difference. So,
yeah, when you hear one after, like, P1 or M1,
it is the middle or outside hitter that is in
the front row with the setter. So, there you
go. Good question. The other match we saw, SEC
Championship match between Kentucky and Texas.
Got lots of messages about this one, too. The
old... Texas blowing... The River Sweep. Oh,
dear. And I don't want to say anything, but,
you know, I do want to say something. That three,
Texas had it in the bag. Oh, they blew it. What
were they up, 23 -19? I believe so. And they
lost. Want to know who made a lot of mistakes?
My favorite player. Does her last name start
with an S? And with an E? Yes. Do you want to
go over her last five balls just for fun? No,
we don't have to. I think I have them memorized,
though. I know you do. But anyway, okay. Kentucky.
They sort of run that middle. Kentucky is going
to be a dangerous tournament team because Cassie
O 'Brien, I don't know whether Craig Skinner.
has been working on running the middle all year
and has just not implemented it. I think he has.
I think he's been aware of what their weakness
is and having just setting every ball to the
left side. I think he is well aware and they
have been working on it. Totally agree because
he said that in matches for as long as we've
watched them play. I was going to say, do you
think they've been working on it and just not
using it in games? Or do you think it's been
a constant Cassie set the middle, Cassie set
the middle, Cassie set the middle because it
worked really well. Against Texas. Both Baltimore
and... Lizzie Carlson, very good. That was a
full team effort. Even Thigpen scored points
for them. She was good. And that's their biggest
question mark is... Their biggest question mark
is Molly Kelso's setting. I'm on one again today,
guys. Watch out. Only when she jump sets. If
she keeps her feet on the floor, she's good.
When she uses her platform, her sets are fine.
But jump sets, watch out. But I watched them
and I thought... If Cassie O 'Brien can keep
her head in matches in terms of set distribution.
She's a pretty good blocker, too. Yeah, she's
big. She's got a pretty good serve. Her distribution
was really good against Texas, and it took her
a little bit of time to find her rhythm, and
Texas played really well at the beginning. If
they have distribution in the middle, Kentucky
is going to be hard to beat. Their left sides
are good. Really good deal. And the crazy thing
is like both of them are six rotation outsides.
Like how many of the top teams have two six rotation
outsides at play? I don't think any. Exactly.
This is how volleyball is supposed to be played,
people. And I think that's why I like Kentucky
is because it's truer in the international sense
of what you generally like. They have back row
options. They have front row options. Both Eva
and DeLay. pass they play defense they're just
engaged in the match it's they were fun to watch
I'm gonna throw it out there I think if Kentucky
can pass and their middles are running I think
they are the team that has a chance to take down
Nebraska well so that was a question that we
got as well like which teams going into the tournament
do you think line up with Nebraska or have a
chance to beat them and that was going to be
my answer to it The way you beat Nebraska is
to neutralize their middles. You have to be able
to do that, whether it's passing or blocking.
With Eva and DeLay and Lizzy Carr, they, if they're
disciplined, can put up a good block on that
slide. If you can make Bergen think about setting
somebody else and make the outsides beat you,
that's the way to go about it. They have some
blocking liabilities on the right side of the
court, I think. Who? Kentucky? Yeah. Oh, Thigpen?
Yeah. But Daly is good. Yeah, Daly's good. Daly's
a good blocker. So it'll be an interesting matchup.
And again, I'm not saying they will, but that
is the key. And I think Kentucky has the roster
to push them. I have to give a shout out. Tori
Stafford absolutely dominated that match, though.
I got so many messages about how good Eva Hudson
was. I'm sorry. Tori Stafford was better. Tori
Stafford was the best player in that match. Best
player on the floor. Hands down. But there...
Spears has disappeared. He started strong, but
has just kind of fizzled as the season's gone
on. I think Emma Halter's good. You know who's
the best setter on Texas? Emma Halter. Yeah.
Everyone's going to hate me, but that's true.
She delivered some in -system jump sets from
behind the attack line. I was like, dang. In
tempo. Yes. Jump sets behind the 10 -foot line,
back sets. Jump sets in tempo. I'm like, teach
Swindle some things. She's fun to watch, too.
I like her. Sure. Setting is quite good. Texas
runs into that problem that Kentucky was having.
They don't run their middle. They're not good
offensive options, I don't think. Yeah, but they
should be better than they are. I agree. You
may not have Nebraska's middle. I actually like
Vanderwall. Her ball control is suspect, but
offensively, I like her. Well, and this, she
was swinging to win. She made some mistakes,
young mistakes, but I loved her mentality. She's
a girl who wants to earn her points. She's not
afraid to go out and take a rip, to look for
hands, to swing for open space. She impressed
me. That was probably the biggest match of her
career. And she did not shy away from the moment.
I was impressed. We had a comment asking about
Tezzo, the libero for Kentucky. wondering why
we were sleeping on her and she didn't get any
nods for an All -American. She's good. She's
in the conversation for liberos, I would say.
Do I think she's a first -team All -American?
No. Okay, so I'm going to branch out from that
question. Who do you think are the top five liberos?
Just rattle them off the top of your head. You're
not giving me time to think about this? Well,
okay, take a minute. But who comes to mind? Emma
Hickey, giving us a ton of points in our fantasy
league. No, just kidding. Seriously, she digs
a lot of balls. Okay, I would probably say Lola
Schumacher, Jillian Grimes, Emma Halter, Maya
Sands. I mean, I think Tozzo's good at passing
and defense. I don't think she's a great server
or setter. Fair. I was just curious where your
head was at with that. We also got a question.
Do you think the teams from the SEC that make
the NCAA tournament have a leg up coming from
playing the SEC tournament instead of just winning
a championship? I don't think so. I think because
all the teams, even in the teams that don't play
like an SEC tournament, they're still playing
the week before the NCAA starts. Yeah, I mean.
Kentucky got to beat Texas. Like that was a good
match. You had two teams going at it. I don't.
Like, do you think because it's in like a high
pressure, high stakes environment that like gets
them extra ready? I don't think so because you're
battling for that top spot all season. You're
playing all the same teams. Maybe if you're a
freshman, I can see a case for it being a good
experience for freshmen. Eva Hudson doesn't care
that she beat Texas. I think Eva Hudson definitely
cares. Have you seen her? Let me rephrase that.
She's very competitive. Yes, you want to win.
It's a good way to win. Good for you. But the
goal is a national championship. I mean, would
I rather play in that environment than Nebraska
who played Penn State and they didn't even score
25 points in three sets? I'm exaggerating, you
guys. Relax. And Ohio State? Yes. I would rather
be in an environment like that than playing two
easy peasy matches. Fair. But if you come back
and go, we didn't win. Because we didn't have
a big 10 tournament at the end. No, that's not
the question. It's just, do you think they have
a leg up? Not really. The other little matches
that we found interesting were Minnesota beat
Purdue in four. That was a match that I was looking
forward to watching. It actually didn't disappoint.
I enjoyed watching it. What do you think of Stella
Swenson, Minnesota's setter? I like her. I think
she delivers a good offense. I think she tried
to push the middle. All of the characteristics
that I look for in a setter, I think she's done
a good job of. And it wouldn't be a week if the
Big 12 didn't just go wild. There were more upsets
than this, but I can't keep track of the Big
12 anymore. It's crazy. Can K -State beat Iowa
State three straight? I don't know how that happens.
Yeah. I think BYU beat Colorado as well. Yeah,
I'm not sure I consider that an upset anymore.
No, I agree with you. But then Baylor beat TCU.
But TCU, how are they still ranked? Is TCU going
to make the tournament? Yes, they're going to
make the tournament. You can't be ranked top
25 and not make the tournament. Well, they shouldn't
be allowed to compete in the tournament. They've
been that bad. Somebody please take note that
Adam is also becoming Savage. Thank you. Those
were the big matches of the week in the NCAA.
I know that... We are NCAA focused, but the MLV,
I almost said PVF, the MLV draft happened this
week. We will do team reviews going into the
season once NCAA is done. So we're not going
to dive into what teams needed. Did they do a
good job drafting for the positions they needed?
But we will go over each team got four picks
if they hadn't traded them away. As a quick reminder
for those who haven't thought about it. Ever
or in the last eight months. Vegas is no longer
a team. That ownership group fell through. They
have added the Dallas Pulse. So they did get
the first overall pick. They've also drafted
a whole bunch of players. Orlando won last year
after I believe Omaha won the regular season.
I think they did, yeah. And Columbus, I believe,
came dead last. So we'll look at those teams
just in terms of draft order and where people
fell. I'm going to give you the first four choices
or the only four choices for each of the teams.
I want you to remember them and then give me
who you think from a pure skill standpoint made
the best choices. So Dallas got first choice.
Shout out to their new coach. Anna Windsor, baby.
Big fan. I actually think Dallas is going to
be quite good. They picked up Mimi Collier, Malia
Jones. and Carter Booth. So not four players?
They traded one of their picks to move up for
another player. So they traded, I think, they
traded their third round pick, I believe, to
either get a better pick or for another player.
I think it was a pretty good lineup. Okay, keep
going. I agree. Atlanta Vibe had five picks.
So they had two picks in the first round. So
they went Avery Carlson, Ava Martin, Shaylee
Myers, outside hitter from Kansas State, Eva
Hudson, and Kosok Paula. Okay, so they're taking
a flyer on Hudson. They just want the rights
to her and Cossack Paul in case they choose to
not go to Love or Overseas. And that's the other
thing we should point out for people who aren't
aware. These players aren't necessarily playing
for these teams. They have the rights and they
could choose to go, as Sarah mentioned, to Love
or Overseas. You're really, you're taking flyers
on players you're not 100 % sure in last year.
Nobody really seemed to know who was going to
play where, so it was a real crapshoot of a draft.
San Diego Mojo picked up Hayden Kubik, Jillian
Grimes, Allison Jacobs, and Elia Rubin. I'm shocked
that Elia Rubin won fourth round first of all.
People are probably expecting her to go elsewhere.
I want you to do this assuming all of the players
that were chosen are actually going to show up.
That's the only way to do it for real. Grand
Rapids Rise had the next pick. Alexa Shelton,
who's an outside from Oklahoma. We had an outside
from Indiana, Corchella. And then Jordan Wilson,
also an outside hitter from Arizona. They also
had Haiti Bray, who was a middle from Marquette.
Those seemed a little off the books to me. I'm
not super familiar with... I don't disagree with
you. Those choices seem a little odd at first
glance. Indie Ignite picked up Cara Cressy, Emma
Halter. and Taylor Landfair. They didn't have
their third round pick. To note, eight substitutions
in MLV. Landfair is either going to get in for
one rotation or is going to have to pass. She
passes every now and then for Nebraska. Yeah,
but just something to note would be interesting.
Orlando Valkyrie went Bree Kelly, Colby Neal,
Hankey from Florida State, and Sheridan Leverett
from UCLA. Omaha picked up Kira Reinhart. Brooke
Mosher, which I think is a good pick. Claire
Tremel and Allie Sheck. So clearly looking for
a setter in that regard to see who's going to
set there. And then we had Columbus, who picked
up. They were missing their first round pick.
I don't know exactly what happened to it. That
might have been a mistake if they did not do
hot last year. Yeah, not a great year to lose
your first pick. So they picked up Heredia Colon,
which is a good pickup. If she stays, I would
be a little surprised. They picked up Maya Winterhoff
from App State. She's a middle. And Avery Tatum
from Indiana, an opposite. There were a few head
scratching. Dallas dominated. Dallas's picks,
I think, are better than everybody else's. You
think Dallas did better than Atlanta? If Eva
Hudson and Kossak Paula show up there with Avery
Carlson and Ava Martin. Okay, you're right. I
wasn't thinking like they're actually staying.
Yes. Yeah, I think Dallas did well. Atlanta did
well. I think Indy did well. Those are the top
three, I would say, as far as I like Atlanta
and Dallas the best. If Taylor Lanfair settles
into passing and more of an all -around game
as a sixth rotation outside, a fourth round steal
for her would be a good pickup for Indy. There's
a lot of ifs there, I think. I'm just like Columbus.
What are you doing? And I'm also like San Diego
mojo. What are you doing? Yeah. Like Elliot Rubin
was a steal for them. If she does decide to play,
I think there's, I think Grimes is, I mean, they're,
they picked decent players, but not near the
level. I don't think of Dallas and Atlanta. Yeah.
You need an outside rapids. What are you doing?
The Grand Rapids won. The Grand Rapids won. Head
-scratching. I don't know who was making those
choices. And again, we don't know who reached
out. We don't know how much effort they put into
that. I think Dallas and Atlanta won the draft,
though. Yeah. I mean, Dallas got first overall
pick because they're an expansion team. Mimi
Collier's going to... I'm assuming that... But
Atlanta always does the sneaky trades and stuff.
Oh, yeah. Their GM is on top of it. He's paying
attention. I mean, if Eva Hudson and Cossack
Paul or even one of them show up... Those are
good pickups for them. And I think Avery Carlson's.
Ava Martin had a really good season. Shaylee
Myers. That's a sneaky pick. She's fine. Avery
Carlson's pretty good. Those two are my picks.
That was the MLV draft. Those are our initial
thoughts. As I said, we'll get into more team
breakdowns as we get closer to the season. I'm
sure there'll still be a few signings and maybe
some trades before we get going. But that'll
start in the new year and we'll look into that
once the tournament's over. All right, it's everybody's
favorite time of the year. It's bracket time.
It's been released. It's out to talk about. Here
are our thoughts. Sarah, looking at this bracket,
what's the first thing that pops out to you?
How they've arranged the ACC teams. Are you talking
specifically Stanford Pitt? Because that's what
popped out to me. I'm just really confused because
in that last match that Stanford played against
Louisville, they were like, oh, if Stanford wins
this, they're going to win a share of the ACC
and they're going to get the better seed in the
NCAA tournament because they want the head -to
-head with Pitt. Clearly, they were overruled
by the powers that be for whatever reason. And
I think they got screwed. I agree. I honestly
thought that Stanford would take a one seed.
And that they would have to beat Pitt to get
into the Final Four. That's how I thought they
were going to arrange it. Instead, Pitt just
has to play SMU. Which is not like, not just
has to play, but Stanford has to play Texas now.
I don't know. When on top of that, they lost,
and this is the thing for me, they lost the ability
to play at home. Yeah. You won. You should be
hosting, in my mind. There's nothing about this
other than it being political for whatever reason.
Well, I think Pitt will draw a bigger crowd than
Stanford and they'll make more money. Too bad.
I'm not saying that's why it happened, but. This
bothers me because you. Well, I'm just like either
the announcers had no idea what was going on
or. Well, that's generally the case. The NCAA
kind of pulled rank. But even when you see these
rankings, I'm like. So North Carolina was ranked
top 15, and they're not even seeded. And they're
playing UTEP, who has a sixth seed. Just the
decisions are weird. Well, Creighton was a sixth
in the RPI, and they're three, I think, somewhere.
It's interesting to me how they made those different
choices. But I think Stanford got the shortest
end of the stick on that decision. And I'd be
curious as to why they made it. I understand
that Pitt is... higher in the rpi ranking but
i think it's only by two or three spots and if
you're going to live and die by that like what
about creighton what about north carolina honestly
i expected stanford to have a one seed but the
fact that they're matched up with texas they've
already beaten texas this year i think they could
do it again the way they have it laid out they're
ensuring that four acc teams do not make the
final four but they're making sure that one of
them Or trying to make sure that one of them
does. I get all of that. I just, it hurts my
soul. And I know that I picked Stanford, but
outside of that, you go out and win big matches
and beat big teams to try and give yourself an
advantage. And for that to be taken away from
you for no particular reason that is discernible,
I think it's just, it just sucks. I'm not a fan
of how they do this. I don't love the rankings
they pick. So you're going to tell me the ABCA,
for whatever reason, decided that Penn State
was a top 25 team all season. And now all of
a sudden they're an eight seed, which according
to this, the layout is like a 29 through 32 ranking.
And then South Dakota State's a seven seed. Like,
I don't know. I don't love how this works. But
anyway, we could talk about this forever. Let's
go quadrant by quadrant or region by region and
break it down. Let's start with the Nebraska
region. I really don't want to do this because
we're going to be running a bracket challenge.
And I don't even want to tell you guys what my
thoughts are because I don't want you to get
any sneaky ideas. Okay. We saw how bad I did
last year. So maybe do listen to me. And you'll
switch it up. Yeah. On that note, I made my own
bracket this year. So we're going to post the
URL in the show notes for you to check out. It's
hosted on a weird website. That's a legitimate
website. It's not a virus. We did it on ESPN
last year, but I wanted to add a slight modifier
for getting the number of sets right. So it's
going to be a slightly different bracket than
what we did last year. Check it out. And also,
if you sign up, we'll send you other updates
about other fantasy stuff we're going to be running
in the future. Check us out. Join us in the Bracket
Challenge, and we'll be talking about it as the
weeks go on. Okay, let's look at the Nebraska
regional. We've got Nebraska as the one seed,
Louisville as the two, Texas A &M as the three,
and Kansas as the four. What about this is interesting
to you? I think the potential Texas A &M -Louisville
matchup in the round of 16 is interesting. And
where does your head go? Just off the bat without
a ton of thought put into it. Which way do you
lean? Honestly, I'm leaning Texas A &M. Me too.
I think this is another example of having star
players. And Lednicki's not Babcock. I understand
that. But she does swing high and hard. I'm not
sure it's a great matchup for Louisville. They're
going to have to serve really, really well to
beat Texas A &M. I think it's going to be a really
good game. But I think I give the edge to Texas,
and I'm on that one. We've got Lednicki, Stower,
and Kosokapala. I like those three over what
Louisville has going on, honestly. I think for
a first -round matchup, I'm curious about Western
Kentucky Marquette. That could be very interesting.
I think Nebraska's going to roll. Who do you
think wins between Miami and Kansas? Again, assuming
those two teams move on to the second round.
I'm going to give it to Miami. Me too. I think
Heredia Colon, like nobody can stop her. And
sometimes, yes, she makes an extravagant number
of errors, but it's actually impressive how she's
been a one -man team. And the setter's good,
I think, but you know what I mean. Honestly,
even if Nebraska plays them in the round of 16,
I think Nebraska will... find an answer. And
even if Nebraska doesn't, I think she makes enough
errors and Nebraska comes at you from enough
places that they will neutralize her. And then
I do think Texas A &M. So I think to get to the
final four, it'll be Nebraska, Texas A &M. I
think Nebraska will win. But those were the interesting
matchups I thought from that region. I agree.
And to piggyback on the Heredia Colon, she'll
still score points against Nebraska, but that
will be her toughest challenge. In terms of scoring
points. So she's not going to go off for 40.
Or maybe she will. And Nebraska is like sure.
You can score your points. But nobody else will.
I don't think so. But we'll see. But I agree
with your assessment there. Okay let's move down
to the lower half of that bracket. So on the
same side as the Nebraska bracket. So the winner
of this one will play. Assuming Nebraska. In
the semis we have. Pitt at one and SMU at two.
What stands out to you in this quadrant? Anything
interesting or that you're looking forward to
watching? Well, Purdue is three, Minnesota is
four. Honestly, these first round matchups, maybe
the most interesting one to me is potentially
Florida Rice. I'm honestly going to give it to
Florida. And you know what? These ones aren't
as interesting to me as the last quadrant or
the last region. I think we're going to see SMU
and Pitt in the round of eight. Again, Pitt's
success hinges on if Babcock can score. I think
she will show up, so I'm giving it to Pitt in
this region. Do you think Purdue has... Well,
do you think A, they'll beat Baylor, and B, do
you think... They can give SMU a run. Purdue
-Baylor could be a decent game. I think they
will beat Baylor. I don't think they will beat
SMU. You don't think they're physical enough
to beat SMU? I don't love their middles. Kenna
Wallard is fine. Grace Heaney is fine. They are
pretty consistent, but just as a whole, I think
SMU's middles. are better. I think Malaya Jones,
they're not going to have an answer for her.
I just think SMU will win that. Yeah, that's
fair. I think so far we're on the same page.
You know, the way that they've ranked these teams,
they're ensuring, they're assuming that a Pitt
or an SMU is coming out, so you're going to get
an ACC. They're assuming Nebraska is coming out
for Big Ten. They're setting up for Kentucky
to come out as an SEC. And then after that, they
don't care. They don't care whether it's ACC
or SEC in Texas or Stanford, which is they would
have had a hard time justifying a Big 12 set
up to come into the Final Four because the Big
12 is just like way behind the other three conferences,
I think. Definitely at the top end of the skill.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's bounce over to the lower
right. quadrant of the bracket. So we have Kentucky
at one, Arizona State at two. We've got Creighton
at three, USC at four. So interesting matchups
here. Do you have any of that jump out? I think
UNI and Utah could be an interesting match. UCLA
and Georgia Tech could potentially be interesting.
I think UCLA will win that one, but then they're
going to get smashed by Kentucky. BYU and USC
in the second round, assuming all things are
equal. Well, given how up and down BYU is, never
forget last year when they lost first round to
Loyola Chicago, everybody. Totally. I think on
paper they should crush Cal Poly, but who knows?
Yeah. Again, I'm saying, assuming that the rankings
hold, but I give my advantage to USC over BYU,
I think, in that round. So I'm looking at USC,
Kentucky. I just don't see anybody on this side
of the bracket that can give Kentucky a match.
I think they're going to cruise. to the semifinal,
which I don't know is a good thing. We might
see a Kentucky -Crayton order. I agree with you
that UNI -Utah could be interesting and UCLA
-Georgia Tech. I think Kentucky is the team coming
out of this region overall, but I think a potential
other interesting match could be Arizona State
-Crayton. That'll be a competitive match, I think.
I'm going to give the nod to Creighton, I think.
I got to do a little more digging on those teams.
Without doing that, I think I'm going to give
the nod to Creighton. They played a lot of good
teams at the beginning of the season. I think
they're ready. I mean, again, I think it's going
to be Kentucky, USC, Creighton, Arizona State.
I think it's going to be Kentucky, Creighton,
Kentucky making it through. So far, the least
interesting one is the Pitt side. I think there's
the least number of interesting matches there.
And now we come to maybe the most interesting
part of the bracket. We have Texas at one, Stanford
at two. We also have Wisconsin and Indiana in
this one as well. Give me your initial thoughts
and where you think this is going to go. I think
interesting matches early, potentially North
Carolina UTEP. I'm going to give it, I know that
UTEP had a really good season. I'm going to give
it to North Carolina. I think the Stanford -Wisconsin
potential matchup could be very interesting.
I think Stanford is going to win that one. I
don't know. I feel like the Texas kind of top
part of this is pretty weak. I think they're
going to move through it pretty easily. But Texas
-Stanford, I'm going to give it to Stanford.
I am not sure Stanford beats Wisconsin. What?
Why? I like Mimi Collier over Elia Rubin. Wow.
But the Blashov -Rubin combo, I think, is better
than Collier -Vajicic. I agree. I think the Sayer
-Lizzie -Andrew combo is better than the other
Andrew -Carter Booth, especially offensively.
And I think Jordan Harvey is a better right side
than Grace Egan. Wisconsin's blocking is going
to give the young outsides for Stanford trouble.
Young outsides? Blashov and Harvey. Harvey's
not that young. What is she? Is she a sophomore
or junior? I thought she was a sophomore. I'm
giving it to Stanford. I also... And Wisconsin's
blocking is not nearly what it used to be. Who
do you think's a better setter? parks or furbringer
i think right now probably furbringer but i said
what i said yeah i'm i need to think about this
one a little bit more but i don't think it's
as cut and dry as you think i think stanford
i don't know i'm not saying it's cut and dry
i'm saying who i think is gonna win yeah stanford
could beat texas i think texas beats wisconsin
too so i mean but i need to spend a little time
thinking about it this one is the most interesting
to me yes But I'm still giving it to Stanford.
Just to summarize, my kind of initial assessment,
and I might change my mind when I really dive
in to create my bracket, but just seeing this
really quick, I think it's going to be a Nebraska
-Texas A &M regional final, Texas -Stanford regional
final. It's going to be Kentucky -Crayton and
SMU -Pitt. And then in the final four, I think
it's going to be Nebraska -Pitt. Stanford, Kentucky,
the final Nebraska, Kentucky. I think we're going
to end up at the same place. I have Nebraska,
Kentucky, and Pitt's going to go. I got to sort
out Texas or Stanford. No, you have to make a
statement. You have to finish it off right here.
Texas. Oh. Yeah. Who do you think is better,
Logan Parks or Ellis Wendell? Sorry, I can't
help myself. So that's the bracket roundup. First
impressions. We're recording this an hour after.
This is literally right after it came out. So
we haven't really. This was my first deep dive
actually even looking at it. So every statement
I made was just looking at it for a second. And
the baby agrees. Wow. Wild stuff. Let us know
your thoughts. Put your bracket in. Put your
bracket in. Adam is programming up a storm these
days. So let's give this a try. And yeah, we
will see who the grand champion is. And I like
that you're adding in the sets so it can differentiate
even more at a modifier, make it exciting. But
yeah, let us know your thoughts on this bracket
and any question marks you have, how you think
it's going to play out. Okay, let's dive into
some listener questions. Our favorite segment.
Always. Okay, question one. When you guys talk
about generational talent players, for example,
Egonu, Gabi, Babcock, Kennedy Martin, etc. What
makes them a generational talent? It's a great
question. First and foremost, the performance
has to be there. So you have to be head and shoulder
better than your peers. And let's just make sure
we understand that Babcock is not in the same
realm as Gabi and Egonu. They're generational
talents for their college programs. They still
have a lot to prove on the international stage.
You know, in the arena that you're currently
playing in, you have to be one of, if not the
best player around. Well, and like if you look
at an Egonu and a Gabi, for example, these girls
were dominant at a professional level at a very
young age. Correct. We're talking like 18, 19,
20. They were outstanding. So that's going to
throw that out there. Well, that's the second
piece is. To be generational, you have to be
that good for a prolonged period of time. You're
not a flash in the pan. You're not one or two
good seasons. You repeat your performance again
and again and again. And I think the other piece
is you either win a ton with the team you're
at or every team you play for is competitive.
Whatever team Gabi goes to is generally playing
in Champions League Final Four. Granted, she's
going to the best teams. Totally. I know. Let's
head that off right now. Yeah, but, you know,
it's the same thing. You know that if you have
that player on your team, you have a chance to
win. That's kind of how I think about it. And
I think, like, as you said, they develop the
skills at a young age. They're able to transition
to the highest level at a very young age and
then carry that. success and that level of performance
forward for many years. Okay, question two. I'd
like to have a better understanding of all the
different types of volleyballs used. What are
the differences and what makes one ball harder
to play with than another? There are a whole
bunch of brands out there. Internationally, they
use the Mikasa. That is the yellow and blue one.
In Italy and some programs, they use the Molten
Ball. And then you've got like the Bodden. Then
you see Nike schools in the NCAA use the Nike
ball. Well, let's be honest. Nike doesn't make
a volleyball. They have a ball that they call
a volleyball. Don't ever use the Nike ball. It's
horrendous. It's awful. So let's just take that
one off the list. Let's do Moulton, Mikasa, Bodden.
Those are like the big, big ones that you kind
of see. Most difficult to play with, Mikasa.
I think it is like really smooth, but it's dimpled
kind of like a golf ball. It takes off. It's
the least forgiving of the balls. Yes. If you
don't control it or you. If your contact is not
perfect. Bye bye. As a spin server, I hated that
Mikasa ball because if I didn't hit it perfectly,
it was. sailing like maybe that's a me problem
I don't know but it's just like yeah the skin
of that one is really smooth and it's like dimpled
like a golf ball it floats a lot like for a float
serve it's difficult to pass it's like lighter
I would say um and very unforgiving as Adam said
the bottom ball is your typical volleyball with
like the panels you know leather that one generally
I think is Very easy to control and play with.
There's a lot of give there. It's a little bit
heavier. There's a lot of give. You often see
those in like high schools and club settings.
They're also cheaper. Some college programs do
play with them, but generally like a squishier
contact, easy to control. The Molten is kind
of a hybrid between the two. It's got like a
more sticky, leathery surface. Whereas like the
bod and leather is like smoother. The molten
leather is kind of stickier and it does often
have like a bit of dimpling in the surface of
the leather, but it's not as slick as, can you
tell that I've spent a lifetime with volleyballs?
You can hit the snot out of the mold. These are
very easy to control. The Italian league plays
with this and I loved when I would go, when I
would. play in Italy for seasons because these
balls for a spin server are a dream. They're
a little bit harder. It takes a while for your
arms to become conditioned to like passing them
and digging them just because they are a little
bit harder and stiffer than the bottom. I think
it's a perfect hybrid and very easy to control.
The molten is my favorite ball to play with for
sure. Adam's not nearly as passionate about this.
If we want to expand it into beach volleyball,
I am a Mikasa girl through and through. I hate
the Wilson for AVP. Why? Because you literally
just have to stick an arm out for a Wilson and
it will go high in the air, which I think makes
mediocre players better than they actually are.
And as a purist, you guys probably aren't shocked
to hear that drives me crazy. I've only ever
played with the Mikasa for real. So I don't really
have a ton of comparison points. In Canada, everybody
uses that ball for everything. If you are coaching
a team playing against Nebraska, Kentucky, Pitt,
or Texas, how would you design your defense or
blocking for each team? And then a follow -up
question, which I think we can answer this part
first. Which of these four teams heading into
the tournament is the best prepared slash able
to make in -game adjustments? I think Kentucky
is in the best place to make adjustments simply
because they've already made adjustments. And
I think their personnel lends itself to being
able to do that. Nebraska has the personnel and
is capable, but they haven't had to yet. And
I don't know, you know, I would hope that Danny
and company has been working on what adjustments
the teams can make in different situations in
practice. But they haven't had to do it in a
game. And sometimes when you have to shift or
think in matches and you haven't had to do it
or practice before, it's not always easy. So
that's why I would put Nebraska second over Kentucky.
I don't think Pitt has the, I don't want to say
skill, but the ball control to necessarily make...
Well, let's be real. Pitt is a one -trick pony.
Yeah, I mean, Brie Kelly in the middle is an
intelligent player, so we could do some blocking.
No, but I'm just saying better prepared, able
to adjust. They said Olivia. Yeah. Like you're
not like reinventing the wheel with Pitt. Yeah,
agreed. And then I think Texas with two freshmen
in key positions, opposite and left side, I think
it's tough to make adjustments when pressure
gets higher and higher. Well, and just like coaching
staff -wide. Like you have to think of like the
people. On the bench, too, like the coaching
staff. I would put Texas probably at the bottom
of that list, but that would be my order. You?
I'd pick Kentucky, yeah. And then in terms of
game plans, I mean, we're not going to go detail,
detail. Okay, let's not go detail, but let's
just. And I think we talked about the Nebraska
-Kentucky lineup. For Nebraska, you have to neutralize
their middles as best as you can. and make their
outside hitters score all the points. You could
do that with serving. You can do that with blocking.
So you could serve to disrupt the middle's attack
route, make them pass. You could take a hitter
to the ground, get them out of system. Whatever
you need to do from a serving perspective to
disrupt the middle, do that. And then I would...
If the middle is an option, you need to follow
the middle. Not necessarily commit, but have
your middle follow them. I would make the right
side the last option. So get a block up for sure.
Potentially two on the middle if possible. And
then focus more on the left side. Yeah, agreed.
Kentucky. You got to get them in passing trouble
and take their middles away. Get. Delay or Hudson
to the ground. Whatever one's in the front row,
take them to the ground on serve receive. I would
pinch your outside blocker to help with the pipe
and block the left side. You want to make Thigpen
beat you. You got to find a way to control the
two left sides. Pit, make the left sides beat
you. Babcock should see a solid double block.
She does not hit without a double block. Yes,
not one swing. You know what? You can let your
right side block both the middle and the left
side, and you just stick those two players out
there in Babcock's face. But I would force her
to swing into the sharp angle. That's her least
favorite swing, I would say. She likes to go
high line seam and deep angle. I would force
her to beat you hitting sharp angle, but I wouldn't
play her for tips. Get everybody back. Make her
tip. Yeah. Make her go angle. So I would block
ball line on her. Bring your off blocker back
to the attack line to dig. Set up your defense
neutral, but block the line. Make her swing for
the angle. And if she hits with one block, you
didn't follow the game plan. Correct. Texas.
Serve to position one. Don't worry about their
middles, honestly. Take their middles away. You
have to find a way to slow down their left sides.
You have to be ready to adjust on Spears. She
hasn't been playing well, but she's capable.
I wouldn't put it past Spears to have an unconscious
match or two in the tournament. And so I would
start with my focus on the left sides, knowing
that if Spears gets hot... that you'll have to
make that adjustment and that Vanderwall, she
could be aggressive, but she might not be on.
So you just have to pay attention to how those
two freshmen are doing and adjust your game plan
accordingly. But yeah, if you're stopping their
left sides with the setter, they have served
to position one. Okay, question four. As a hypothetical
and assuming no red shirts, where would a team
of Nebraska's bench finish in the Big Ten this
year? So who would that be? We're assuming nobody
who plays, so... Well, would you argue that Sigler
is bench? See, I would say no, because she has
a regular role in the team. I would say yes.
Okay. Well then, is Lanfair bench? Okay, we just
need to clarify. So Mouch and Choboy. Choboy's
been the libero, so Mouch not bench? I would
say Mouch is bench. So if you're saying... You
can't say Sigler is not bench. And Mouch is Bench.
Okay, fine. All right. Anybody who plays a regular
role. So both of those and Sigler. Okay. So we've
got Campbell Flynn. Okay. We've got Sheck on
the right side. We've got the young freshman
middle. Yeah. We've got Sky Pierce. We've got
like Basiger. It's tough because you haven't
seen a lot of these athletes play, but I think
we could probably put a fair estimate together.
You've got a solid lineup. Yeah, definitely.
Just pulling up the rankings. I would say they
would probably have a really good shot at beating
anybody under Minnesota. I was going to say third.
I was going to say third. If you bring, because
I was considering Sigler and Mouch. bench because
they... If Sigler's playing, I think that makes
a big difference. Sigler and Sky Pierce and then,
you know, I... So this is my thought process.
Purdue's starters are... You think under Minnesota?
Minnesota was basically all freshmen. I would...
Minnesota and under... That was my kind of cutoff
point. For sure, everybody below that. And then...
I think that they could finish third or fourth
in the Big Ten this year. I don't think they
beat... USC. I like how physical USC is. I think
Indiana, they'd be more consistent than Indiana.
If Indiana's good Indiana and they're passing
well and they're in system, I think it would
be a little more challenging. Minnesota, they
would probably be Minnesota. I think they would
push Purdue, honestly. I think their setter would
be better. I think their middles would be better.
I think they would be competitive. Purdue has
beaten a bunch of good teams and they're prepared
and they've competed. But you have to remember
coming. These girls haven't seen real competition.
No, you can't take that. No, you can't take that
into consideration. We're talking skill. We're
not talking like, oh, it's the end of the season.
Everybody on Purdue played the whole season and
Nebraska didn't. We're like, it's August right
now. We're in preseason. Okay, then. Yeah, probably
third or fourth. Let's say three to six. Adam's
playing safe. I'm sticking with three. Question
five for Adam. As a coach, have you ever made
personnel decisions between or during sets based
on the stats that you're gathering? Definitely.
Like if your data is telling you something between
sets two and three, are you making switches?
Totally. You don't ever make them solely based
off stats, but. It has definitely been a conversation.
And again, a lot of times if I'm coaching professionally,
I'm assisting. Decisions made definitely revolve
around hitting percentages, what we're trying
to do, what are the block numbers look like?
Are we getting the matchups we want? Are those
players performing? So are you more of a make
a switch in between sets type of guy or make
a switch during the set? Both. Nobody's safe.
If you have a player who is not doing their job
or you're relying on passing and it's not happening
and their numbers don't look good or they can't
score for whatever reason, absolutely, we're
making changes. Again, you have some players
you don't take off the court, but you have to
be active in what's going on. Not everybody's
going to have a great match every time. You should
be making changes. You need to win. This last
question is also about the stats discussion from
last week. We got Adam on the ready. You mentioned
a four -point scale. Does this influence things
like hitting percentage and assists? For example,
if a setter sets a really bad ball and then the
hitter gets blocked, does that still count as
an error for the hitter? Conversely, if the setter
sets a really bad ball and the hitter gets a
kill, do they still get an assist? Okay, so there's
a couple different things here, and I want to
clarify one thing. The four -point scale only
relates to... passing and serving. There's no
four point scale for assists or sets. Generally
we do those as like error, good, bad. Yeah. So
you, the four point scale, yes, only serving
and passing, but you were mentioning plus minus
neutral. So if a setter sets a really bad ball
and the hitter gets blocked, do both players
get a minus in your eyes? It's situational. If
the hitter has no chance, like if the setter
sets the ball over the net and the player's just
trying to tip it over and it's in the blocker's
hands, I generally, I won't count that as an
attempt. I won't count it as an error. I won't
count anything. I'll just, I'll leave that blank
in terms of statting that. But most of the time,
if the hitter can swing on the ball, it's their
job to fix it and they will get an error, even
if the set is bad. Now, if they set it over,
like if they can't actually hit it, then I give
it a wash in that regard. Like I don't stat attempt
or anything. But if the hitter takes a swing,
it counts as a stat because the reality of it
is you're going to hit some bad balls. And yes,
the setter always gets an assist. Even if the
set is bad and the hitter gets a kill, assist.
What if the setter makes a really good set and
the hitter makes an error? Do you give the setter
a positive? Totally. each contact based on its
merit. It doesn't, what happens before or after
is irrelevant in that regard. So yeah, when we're
looking at traditional stats that you might see
on a box score for a game or anything, they are
not taking into account the quality of the contact
at all. So anytime a player gets a kill, whoever
delivered that ball to them gets an assist. That's
why I feel like there's such a misunderstanding
about like, quality of sets totally because people
just are like oh assists woo but it's not like
box course it also is taking into account how
good your hitters are it's not just like you
can deliver a terrible set and your hitter scores
and you still get the assist box score sets are
more or less useless when it comes to team information
what you want to work on players actual abilities
Obviously, hitting percentage works itself out
over a course of several matches, and you can
look at that. But again, block stats, dig stats,
assists, those kind of things, serving ace and
error ratio, really those things are good to
put on a broadcast, but they're not particularly
useful. Okay. I said that was the last one. We're
just going to throw one more in here. Why not?
Are there measurables that give a sense of the
degree of court vision a player has, like a setter?
Or is this something for the eye test? I think
it's really hard to stat these things. It's more
of an eye test. Now, you can tell if a player
knows what's going on when you watch them play.
So if you see a setter and they're looking over
or they're setting away from the middle or when
they dump. I think is actually a really good
indicator of whether they have vision about what's
happening on the other side of the court. Or
how many one -on -ones they're getting their
hitter. Yes. That could be an indicator. From
a hitter's standpoint, and I know that this is
a topic that people love to discuss. I think
I can tell when a hitter can see things and when
they can't. Totally. But I will tell you this,
the number of times I've listened to broadcasters
go, oh. Great vision. That term is used so often
I want to like punch my TV. It's nonsense. Whenever
I hear it. What are the key words that we love?
Great vision. Volleyball IQ. Great volleyball
IQ. All of these announcers are using those terms
now and I'm like, you guys, you need to quit
it anyway. If you hit three hands on the block
and you score, that wasn't intentional. If you
are hammering the ball and it is continually.
rattling around the block or getting the biggest
block touch or you get blocked straight down
and it's just outside the sideline, you didn't
see anything. No, nothing. Okay. Players that
consistently just hit it as hard as they can
straight and are getting lucky every now and
then or just like are hitting it so hard they're
just blowing up the blocker's hands. They're
not seeing anything. And that's a legitimate
strategy. Like you can make a career doing that,
but you don't have great vision. You want to
see. Players who have great vision, they do things
consistently. So, for example, watching the Stanford
match, Blashov hit off the outside hand and out
of bounds five or six times. That's intentional.
She can see the outside hand and she's going
for it. Or somebody who hits like a variety of
angles, hits line, hits cross court, throws in
a tip when it's available. Like they can see
what's happening. If a player swings seam when
the middle's not closed, you can see that. If
a player swings seam and there's two blocks there,
they're not seeing anything. If they throw a
tip in when they've moved the defense back, if
they see the blocker. You know what I love? When
there's a replay and like an announcer's like,
oh, incredible vision. And then there's a replay.
And you see the hitter just hit straight. And
it's like, no, they didn't see anything. Anyway.
I think far less players have really good vision
than what credit is given on broadcasts. 100%.
100%. All right. For the looking forward segment,
it's rounds one and two. There's going to be
a ton of volleyball on. Have it on all day. Put
it on your second monitor. It's volleyball mayhem
this week. And as a reminder, we are hosting
our own. uh ncaa bracket the link will be attached
to the show notes uh it's not connected to the
volley talk website i'm just hosting it on a
random platform so that link is not a virus it's
uh it's our bracket and we've tossed a little
modifier in there so read the rules before you
make your choices and we're looking forward to
doing this with you guys That concludes this
week's episode of Volley Talk. There's always
something shaking in the volleyball world and
we hope you enjoyed this little fix. Be sure
to follow the show so you don't miss any updates
and we'd be so grateful if you would 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, be
sure to reach out to us on Instagram or at info
at sarahpavin .com. Thanks so much for joining
us and we'll be back next week.