UC Irvine Upsets Pepperdine, Scandicci & Novara Go The Distance

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. Lots of volleyball, just like last week.
Lots of different volleyball, which was fun.
There's a lot happening, you guys. We kind of
mixed up what we were watching this week. I think
everything got some love except love. True. I
didn't mean for that to happen, but you know.
Well, I couldn't get a couple of their games
that were worth watching due to our TV package
setup, but... I actually had a really good week
watching volleyball. I really enjoyed the matches
that we ended up watching. I thought it was a
good mix. I thought they were high quality. This
was one of my better volleyball watching weeks,
I think. Oh, there you go. Adam said it. So yeah,
as I said, we mixed things up a bit. We got our
fantasy going strong and we are very excited
to dive in, maybe play a little game today. So
let's get started. Okay, weekly highlights and
happenings. First up, would you consider your
fantasy league to be a highlight or just a happening?
Just a happening. It was not a spectacular week
for me. So I dropped in the rankings. I think
I'm currently... At 80 maybe. I was as low as
50 last time. Yeah. Not my best week, but I got
a bunch of three -week contracts in place. So
I'm hoping that my value will rise in the coming
weeks. I had the opposite situation. You had
a couple good parties. I started this week in
the high 200s. Okay. Things were looking bleak.
Shout out to all of you who joined the league.
Over 300 now. This past week were over 300. I
was a little upset, however, because new joiners
jump in at the, like, average score. Which was
ahead of you. And I was below midway. That just
kept pushing me way down. So I was like, while
I'm happy that you all are joining, I'm sad for
myself. Bottom third, not the best. I was lower
than the bottom third. I'm talking, like, bottom
maybe 20%. Okay? Maybe even bottom 10%. That's
how bad it was. As I told you last week, I had
two players get me negative points. I had no
money left. I couldn't even fill my bench. That's
how bleak things were. My salary cap went way
down. But as of the time of this recording, I
am in the low 90s. The improvement on my fantasy
team was drastic. Shout out to Lydia Martin for
doing way better this week than last week. So,
yes. I'm happy. A couple of my multi -week contracts
are expiring, so I'm pretty convinced that my
budget's going to go up. Hopefully. I'm feeling
so much better. But who was your star player
and who was your dud this week as of this recording?
I think my dud was my setter. Tueninga did not
have a great week. And I actually tried to pick
a bunch of average players who I thought... would
increase in value. So I did all one week contracts
at the beginning, the first week. So I had to
pick a full new team this week. And then I tried
to get value contracts that I thought would increase.
So I didn't have any bangers per se this week.
I had a bunch of middling performances. So I'm
hoping. Would you go back to that strategy? Ask
me again next week. Okay. Because I signed all
these players to three -week contracts expecting
their value to go up. So the long -term strategy,
we'll see if it pays off or not. Right now, not
so much. You know what I did last week? I signed
Nunaviller, Abercrombie, and hence the two -week
contracts because I'm like, we got some veterans,
you know, consistent performers. It wasn't good.
It was not good. Abercrombie lost me money. She
played well this week. But I was stuck with her.
She's doing better this week. But I will say,
so she did well. Nunaviller did pretty well.
She was the only person from Omaha who was good
this week. So they did well for my week, too.
Berkeley Oblad, I got stuck with her again. She
got me negative points this week, but I couldn't
afford anybody better. She was the lowest cost
middle that I could afford. She got me zero points.
And you know what? She didn't play. Understandably,
because she got negative points last week. So
she was my dud. You're going to bite that one.
I can get rid of her though after this week.
And then, so yeah, Nunavilla and Abercrombie
did pretty well for me. I'm having a ton of fun
playing. This is so much fun. It's keeping me
so engaged in MLV. I'm not going to lie. There
were a lot of questions that came up about the
bench players this week. Do you want to address
that? Sure. I had some questions as well. So
I was speaking with the developer. So hit me
with the questions. I'll throw you the answers.
So people were asking. Do the bench players'
points count for your points? They do not. They
only count if they replace a player on your active
roster who was officially injured. So it's basically
just an insurance policy. So that you can still
gain points in that position if an injury occurs,
yes. So what happens if one of your players doesn't
even sniff the court? Too bad. Not sniffing the
court and injured, two different things. Okay,
there you go. And you can't make subs. The subs
are automatic. The other thing, were there other
questions about the bench players? Just a lot
of people like, are you penalized for not being
able to fill your bench? Do they count for your
costs? The only other thing that I had a question
for was, you get locked out of some players when...
contracts expire your bench players should not
cost you contracts so if you have a bench player
they expire the next week if you wanted to put
them onto your active roster there isn't a cooling
down period so that's only the ones that have
been on your active roster when their contract
expires you can't resign them right away for
i think three weeks i don't know i can't remember
what the time frame is but maybe maybe not the
other thing i will say is for anyone else who's
interested and i saw some questions on the youtube
channel this week You can always join the league.
You will come in at the average spot. Right in
the middle. And as we found out this week. You
can be literally bottom of the barrel. And claw
your way back. Into the conversation. Look at
me. I was down and out. Down on my luck. And
now I'm re -energized. Rejuvenated. So for sure
join. Because you will jump in right at the middle.
So to do so head to play volley .com slash volley
talk. That's play V O L I .com slash volley talk.
You can join the league, join the conversation.
I've been getting in on the chats. I have not.
I've been following the stats. Of course, as,
as he does. But yeah, having a ton of fun. So
be sure to join the league. Okay. NCAA men noteworthy
results this week. These are results that kind
of made me raise an eyebrow, you know? So Lindenwood
beat number 12, CSUN in four. CSUN, if I remember
correctly, was inconsistent last year as well.
Losing some games, they quote unquote, shouldn't
winning some that they shouldn't either. So we'll
follow them, but that is definitely an upset.
Number seven, UC Irvine beat number three, Pepperdine
in four. We watched that game. We'll talk about
it. Great game. Loved watching that game. And
number 13, Penn State beat number nine, Lewis,
in four. Penn State's already off to a way better
start than they were last year. I believe they
started the season at least 0 -8 last year, but
held on to that top 20 ranking. Similar to the
women this past women's season. Penn State just
getting the nod for historical performance when
it comes to rankings. But do we think that Penn
State men are for real this year? I mean... Do
I? They play in the EIVA. I think they have a
chance to make it out of that conference into
the tournament. I do too. I'm looking forward
to watching them play a little more. I mean,
they're already doing better than last year.
At the time of this recording, Ball State was
up 2 -1 on Stanford. Stanford is not doing great.
Not the best. You know what? At MPSF Media Days,
talking to them, I was expecting... Them to turn
things around. Well, their coach does a good
job too. I think that they will get better as
the season goes on. They are the only team in
the MPSF returning every single player. That's
true. They should have started better. So they're
not doing amazing. I'm not willing to write them
off just yet. And Loyola Chicago and UCLA are
about to face off. So that is what we've got
going on there. In MLV, Columbus is still out
here getting wins. pushing teams I have been
that's my surprise of the season how good Columbus
has been they beat Grand Rapids in five yeah
they were down 4 -0 at the beginning of that
fifth set I mean kudos to them they just they
haven't given up they've been gritty in the matches
they've played they've kept coming I really like
what they've done with their culture and style
so far they knew they had to get out to a good
start and they've done that well and they pushed
Indy to five yeah Heredia Colon finally getting
that start. Been wondering where she was at.
I don't scour the injury list. I don't know.
Was she hurt? I saw her hip wrap this week. So
I'm assuming that there was some sort of injury
that she needed a little bit of time. She dominated.
So if anybody's looking for a player, maybe a
good steal for your fantasy team this week, maybe
think about her. Because now that she's played
a match, she can be drafted. They are doing well.
Dallas got their first win in franchise history,
3 -1 over San Diego, but it seems that everybody's
beating San Diego. But still, that's a big deal.
Well, San Diego might be 0 -4 after today. They
are currently playing Atlanta. I have to assume
they're not going to win that one. 0 -4 start
on the season, not the best. Well, we had them
finishing second last to Columbus. Columbus is
like, no way, Jose. San Diego is currently in
last. Yeah, they're digging themselves a hole
early. It's going to be. Not great. Yeah, not
great. I'm just going to say I'm not a fan of
their setter. I've been saying that since last
MLV season. Montserrat is just not it for me.
But there's a lot of unhittable balls. Might
be the MLV swindle for you for this season. You
want somebody to catch strays all season? Get
ready, Montserrat. It's you. I think I said that
watching the San Diego game this week. I was
like, Montserrat is my MLB swindle. Sarah always
has one player for each league for each season
who just catches strays. And the jokes are ongoing.
So buckle in. This is what it's going to be this
year. I don't think I have one for love yet.
Stay tuned. It's still early, everybody. Okay.
Omaha had a rough week. They lost in five to
both Atlanta and Orlando. I watched. pieces of
those games and a post -game interview on that
one you weren't a fan of the post -game interview
i wasn't wanted more i thought the coach was
boring to listen to the interview was only like
four minutes long and it still wasn't engaging
and i will say this you guys adam is feeling
it today well if you're gonna talk you might
as well they were just token answers Like, give
me something real. We're not talking a Kelly
Sheffield podcast interview, everybody. True.
I will say the post -game media I watched was
after the first match that they were reverse
swept. Was that Atlanta? I believe so. I liked
Beeson's answer, actually. She talked about continuing
to work on hitting high and deep and acknowledged
that that didn't happen. I think she got blocked
a bunch at the end of that match. They were not
close in the fifth set on that one. I think losing
15 -6, if I remember correctly. So to me, when
an athlete makes the recognition of what's going
wrong and you can tell they're aware of it, you
know that there's a process going on there. And
I think, you know, Emily Londot came in and played
well in their second match. Beeson was benched
after the first two. they're going to need that
right -side position to score points for them
to be successful, in my opinion. And so I liked
Beeson's answer early on in terms of what she
has to work on, but now you have to do it, and
you have to do it under pressure. So, you know,
didn't have the response in the second game after
the post -game statement. We'll see where it
goes. It doesn't always happen quickly, but focused
on the right things. Finally, in love, Madison
is off to a good start. They are 2 -0. They beat
Nebraska in four this week. But I want to say
I think Houston and Madison are playing the reverse
game from last season where Houston started so
strong and Madison was in the tank. Didn't they
drop like seven in a row at some point? It wasn't
good. It was not good. But this year it's the
reverse. Houston can't get a win so far, and
Madison's 2 -0. So watch out. Just goes to show
you that. completely getting rid of your roster
and bringing in 15 new players is the way to
go. There we go. Take some notes. That is what
happened this week in the leagues that we paid
most attention to. We have a couple matches that
we're going to dig into a little deeper here
in a second, but that's what's going on. We kind
of hinted at a few of the matches we watched
this week. We checked out Dallas, San Diego,
MLV. We did a little bit. Got that Victory app
downloaded for free. Maybe now that we know what
Victory Plus is. So again, I got some clarification
on this. So I think if I was confused, maybe
some other people were confused. Almost all Dallas
games will be streamed on Victory Plus. It's
either a Dallas or a Texas. streaming app where
they have a whole bunch of sports so it i it
is free to watch you can put it on your smart
tv and you'll be able to find all of their games
there so if you're looking for them easy enough
to set up pretty easy to sign up and worked really
well we watched a little bit of columbus indie
and we didn't watch any love did you watch any
love this week I didn't. The matches I wanted
to watch were on CBS and then... USA or something.
USA. So I'll have to wait for those to come out.
We're living that streaming life, everybody.
So we watched Pepperdine, UC Irvine, as we talked
about. Loved that game. And we checked out some
Italian league action with Scandici and Navarra
on the women's side. And that was a great match.
Yes, it was. So we're going to dive in a little
deeper into Pepperdine, UC Irvine. The match
ended up in a quote -unquote upset with... I
mean, a top 10 matchup, but yes, for all intents
and purposes, I think Pepperdine was expected
to win. And especially seeing the UC Irvine lineup,
they had a ton of turnover from last season.
They did. We saw Micah Goss playing, William
Darcy coming off the bench as a part of a 6 -2,
and their libero Shane Aiken, but everybody else...
That was playing was new to the court. Correct.
And Pepperdine coming off a great season. They've
got two, six, 10 pin hitters, one on the opposite,
one on the left side. They've got international
experience. They returned all their players,
but their setter, they won the MPSF tournament.
Like they had all of the momentum in my opinion,
coming into the season. I expected them to win
this one. I want to say handily, but I was expecting
them to win. So was I. I think watching the match,
like they have the physicality. Watching, I still
am like, how did they not win? UC Irvine was
just consistent. I thought they ran the middle
much better. And honestly, I just need to give
a shout out to those middles for their out of
system setting. Holy. Their middles are maybe
some of the best all around volleyball players.
Yes. I've seen in the NCAA. Oh my gosh. I saw
like. These middles setting beautiful out of
system balls. They were fake attack jump setting.
They were running tempo. I'm like, normally when
you see a middle going to set a ball, the hitters
are like, oh dear. These guys were delivering.
So shout out to them for sure. Let's just look
at this quickly since you already talked about
how dominant the middles were. The UC Irvine
middles got 25 sets total. Between the two of
them. And had 14 kills. So they got set a whole
bunch. Which was great. And they had a ton of
kills. Similar hairdos too. Love that. A little
hard to tell apart at the beginning for me. The
hair was puffy. Flowing. I loved it. Gives them
a few extra inches. Makes them look a little
taller. Intimidation factor. But you always felt
that they were a threat. Not only when they didn't
get set. But they worked hard in transition.
They're up in the air quick. I thought that the
Pepperdine Middles. had to really stay and watch
what was going to happen in the middle, which
opened up the outside hitters for UC Irvine.
And I actually thought that was one of the two
keys to success for them in that match, in my
opinion. And the other one was UC Irvine's defense.
They covered a ton of balls. UC Irvine also outdug
them 34 to 26, which in the men's game is a pretty
big margin because you're getting... way more
out -of -system swings, which was huge. Now,
Pepperdine did out -block them 8 -2. Part of
the defense was some of those coverage balls,
which they did a good job. I mean, you look at
Pepperdine with their size, they're a very good
blocking team, and they were leading in most
of the sets that they lost. UC Irvine came up
from behind. Pepperdine's going to have to learn
how to close out sets. I think in set 2, they
were up 16 -8. Pepperdine was up 16 -8. They
lost. Yeah. In set three, they were up at least
17 -14 at one point. And then UC Irvine caught
up. Pepperdine snuck out set three. But it was
just like, there's no reason to lose when you're
up 16 -8. From a team standpoint, how concerning
for you is that early in the season? I mean,
it's tough because every game counts towards
your ranking. And like, if you're not winning
your conference tournament, those matches really
matter for the at -large bids in the men's game.
Granted, there are 12 teams playing now in the
NCAA tournament. Do I think that this loss will
hurt them so much down the stretch? No. But if...
you want to be in the conversation for national
championship. Like you want to win those. And
what about from a culture standpoint moving forward?
Is that something you just write off? Like it's
going to happen once in a while, but it happened
in almost every set they lost. Is that something
as a coach or as players you're addressing after
it happens once or? Yeah, I think it has to be
addressed for sure. You don't. like what happened
did they do something like from a tactic perspective
or a physical perspective to make that happen
or was it our team's mentality or lack of focus
or whatever so I think if a team is pushing back
that's one thing but if it's like a lack of focus
because you're up that much like that's something
you can control now what did you see as one or
two key reasons for them giving up those leads
I know what I thought I saw. Honestly, Cole Hartke's
a black hole. He scores very well, but whenever
UC Irvine needed a point, it was like, tip it
somewhere near him, and we're going to score.
He had one dig on the match and many chances
to dig the ball. I don't think I saw him bend
his legs. When it came down to it, if UC Irvine
needed a point, it was like, tip it near him.
Sometimes he took a step. And I think his only
dig was actually a pancake where he laid out
and just got his hand on the ball. And this is
not uncommon. He's 6 '10". It's a lot of effort
to get low. And he had a lot of success as a
freshman. He was a second -team All -American.
Who knows what that does to your mentality? I'm
not saying this is certain. But this is, in my
experience, a very typical progression for a
male opposite. You come out, you're thinking
about hitting the ball, you're thinking about
blocking. He had a whole bunch of kills. I think
he had four or five blocks on the night. For
all intents and purposes, he's coming out of
that match going, I played really well. I mean,
he did his job as an opposite if we're looking
strictly at point scoring. But here's the thing.
When you lose close matches and you're the person
that teams are picking on to score points, those
defensive balls matter. If he's incapable of
making those reads or whatever, like, you're
6 '10". It's obviously not easy to hit the ground.
Trust me. But then, like, what are we doing to
tweak our defensive system to, like, cover that?
That was the biggest. Which I think makes it
good that this happened early in the season.
I agree. Because there's still a ton of time
to fix that. They will need to find an adjustment
because anybody watching that, that's going to
be what they're keying in on. And then you take
him out of transition as well. So there's going
to be a few things that I think Pepperdine needs
to adjust. They block well, but they're not a
good defensive team and they're not a good out
-of -system setting team. I will say two performances
I wanted to highlight, which I thought were really
good. Barnett played really well for Pepperdine.
He's incredibly dynamic. They run him in a bunch
of different pipe positions, which is incredibly
effective. He passes well. He's dynamic on the
swing. I really liked his performance. So that
was good. I also like William Darcy. Why he didn't
start the match is confounding to me. Yeah, he
played for UC Irvine when they moved Flex in
to the left. He was the right side last year.
To see him coming in as part of a 6 -2, I was
kind of surprised. But then they just kept him
in. Yeah, well, he went 19 for 27, hitting 630
as an opposite. That couldn't have been a shock
to the coaching staff. Like I don't, for whatever
reason, he didn't start, but he finished and
he was unbelievable. He didn't start, but he
finished it. Absolutely. And what else did you
think about the match? Honestly, I was just like
really impressed with UC Irvine's grittiness.
Like looking at them, I was like, wow, they're
really small. They're so undersized. And they're
like in this middle 6 '10". And I was like, yikes.
Wow. I mean, their middle was 6 '10", but compared
to the 6 '10 boys from Pepperdine, he looked.
The team as a whole looked very small. It was
a very different look than the UC Irvine we saw
last year. I thought, yeah, just their grittiness,
the way that they ran their system together.
I was like, oh, wow. Don't sleep on UC Irvine.
I really liked their setter. I thought he ran
a really good offense. I thought he ran a much
better offense than the Pepperdine setter. And
that was the other difference to me was. how
they chose to run the offense specifically owning
the middle of the court with both middles from
UC Irvine and then delivering over top of that
it was good really good that was a fun match
to watch it was engaging it was exciting both
teams played well but like the detail stuff was
taken care of better by UC Irvine agreed and
we were able to watch that match on YouTube actually
so if you're looking for a good men's game that
you want to watch I would check that out The
next match that we are going to talk about in
depth is from the Italian Women's League, Scandici
versus Navarra. They are currently number two
and five in the Italian League, I believe. So
we figured it would be a good game, and it did
not disappoint. Probably one of the best technical
and competitive games, especially on the women's
side, I've watched in a long time. Oh my gosh.
It just really highlights the difference in level,
I guess, from league to league. I haven't seen,
I guess we haven't seen a match played at this
high of a level since maybe Worlds. Yeah, I would
agree. The serves were tough. The opposites were
going after each other. Just the level of play
and defense and what they were trying to do to
different players. Strategy wise, the Italians
can't build an ice rink, but man, their coaches
look good on the sidelines. Gotta love it when
a coaching staff wears suits. So let's go over
some of the players from both teams. Our American
listeners will definitely recognize a few names
on Scandici, which is fun. Got Avery Skinner,
Sarah Franklin, and I believe Lindsey Ruddens.
Skinner starting, Franklin on the bench. I thought
Skinner looked good in that match. She's holding
her own. She's passing well. I thought she attacked
well. Overall, I would say a really good performance.
We've got Maya Onyanovich setting. Antropova
on the right side. Katarina Bosetti as the second
left side. And then for this match in the middle,
we had Graziani and Weitzel from Germany. Brenda
Castillo as the libero. So solid roster. Very
solid. Bunch of different countries, top players.
They're a very good team. For Novara, we have
Carlotta Comby setting the backup for Alessia
Oro on the national team. We've got Toluk from
Russia on the right side. I want to come back
to her after you finish going over the players
who are still there. We're at Herbots and Alsmeyer
on the left from Belgium and Germany, respectively.
And in the middle, we had another Belgian player.
And Federica Scorchini from Italy. Taylor Mims
is actually on this team, but she is on the bench.
We'll start with the interesting thing first
in terms of, you know, I watched this match and
I hadn't watched Tolok play at all. This was
the first time I had never even heard of her.
She's a Russian opposite. She has played her
last five or six seasons in Russia. And this
is one of the things you miss when Russia's not
involved in international play. And Russia produces
some very good volleyball players. And Dolhok
went toe -to -toe with Antropova in this match,
which I thought was impressive. Her numbers were
actually better than Antropova's. Yeah, she went
27 for 51, hitting 501. I felt like she was getting
blocked. She may have been blocked a few times,
but she was a scoring machine. Antropova was
17 for 38, hitting 368. So, not too shabby. No,
not too shabby. I think the craziest thing, though,
is that both of those women are 22 years old.
It's wild. They could be playing in college.
Think about that. Let's think about this. Like,
that's insane. And this is the piece that you
have to think about when you talk about... college
players and every once in a while you watch one
of these 21 22 year olds play on the international
stage and then you compare them to what you're
seeing and it's wild so if you if you're an nza
college volleyball fan i would encourage you
to go watch this match and pay attention to the
right sides and then let us know what you think
the comparison is to like an olivia babcock or
a martin because it's well and also take into
consideration who the level of athlete these
Women are playing against. Totally. Like these
are like national team. Every single player on
the court is on a starter on their national team.
Pretty much. Except for Antropova. Who would
probably start on any national team other than
Italy. Honestly, also shout out to my own Yinovich
who's like over 40 and is still running a banging
offense. Like, and I think she connects well
with Avery Skinner who likes a faster ball. Yes.
Some of those balls that they were running with
the 31 in the middle with Skinner over top, holy.
I think this year specifically, both for Skinner
and Franklin, is going to be huge for the U .S.
I see them coming back and probably stepping
into the starting left side spots. Franklin practicing
against that starting squad all the time is going
to make her so much better. I wonder if she'll
stay overseas and continue to take advantage
of that opportunity or if she just would rather
play. I think if she stays overseas and then
plays for the U S national team and does that
cycle up until 2028, that gives her the best
chance of starting for them. That would be my
opinion. The other thing that really impressed
me was everybody's out of system setting. And
I know that I always talk about it, but I'm obsessed
with some good out of system setting the liberos,
the left sides, like you name it. These women
were setting really good balls out of system.
Yeah. You would see almost every. dig that happened.
The hitters were in a window where they could
put a good attack on the ball. We're going to
do a listener question about three outsides and
an opposite. And this match really highlighted
to me what an opposite should do for you. There
were some great defensive plays and just massive
swings by both Toluk and Antropova. It was so
much fun to watch. It was such a high level match.
And it was... The skill of all of the players
to make decisions like that was impressive. And
some of the angles that these middles were hitting.
They weren't run a ton, I didn't think. But when
they were set, some of those angles were impressive.
It was just a really high -level entertaining
match to watch. Or was I completely wrong and
I said the middle a lot? So you are wrong. That
was one of the reasons that Scandicci won that
match was because... Their middles got set 33
times combined. I had 20 kills between the two
of them. Forget everything I just said. I mean,
it was five sets. So it's not a ton of sets,
but they were very active and they were very
efficient. And Scandici's middles were A, both
threats, and B, they blocked well. I think Scandici
out -blocked them 15 to 5 on the match, which
is a pretty big margin. And the middles for Navarra
didn't play poorly. They got set. 23 times with
12 kills. But the difference for me was they
only had one middle who was a real threat. Scorchini
scored a whole bunch of points for them out of
the middle, but their other middles who were
rotating in and out didn't get set a ton. And
so not having that second middle threat and not
setting them quite as much as Scandici, I thought
was one of the big differences. And you can see
those things show up in the block, right? A middle's
not a threat. Scandici has 15 blocks. Scandici's
middles are both threats. You're at five for
Novara. I thought that that made a huge difference
in the outcome of that match. I mean, both of
these teams are incredibly skilled. Honestly,
Scandici went up 2 -0, and I thought it was going
to be done in three or four. And the fact that
Novara fought back and pushed it to five, I was
like, dang. It was a gritty win. It reminded
me of the UC Irvine match we played, just in
terms of their refusing to lose. Yeah, and I
mean, in the first two sets, Scandici, like,
it was pretty tight until, like, 16 -16 or, like,
somewhere in the middle of the set. And then
Scandici just, like, blew them away. And, like,
to see them regroup and kind of get it together
in sets three and four, I thought was so good.
And like I said, like, both of these teams are
really good. But if you look at them, like, player
for player, I felt that Scandici had, like, elite
talent. And Novara had like a step down of that
talent. You know the analogy that I love. If
we go Scandicis 1A, then Novara had the 1B for
all of the positions just behind them. Although
I will say, I mean, Antropova is better than
Tolok. But I think Tolok outplayed her in this
match. Now she got set a whole bunch more and
she needed to outplay her for it to be close.
Scandici has a more balanced offense, as we alluded
to, but she was very good, especially down the
stretch. No, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying,
like, when you look at Avery Skinner to her bots,
okay, they're similar. But, like, Katarina Bosetti
to Alsmeyer, if we're looking at it from a passing
and defensive perspective for the P2, Bosetti's
better. Like, Weitzel is better than, you know,
Scorchini. Grande Castillo is better than their
libero on Yenovich. I thought set a better game
than camp. It's just like a slight edge in each
position was the difference. It makes a huge
difference. Everybody scores one more point or
plays that much better makes one more play. I
agree with you. I agree with you. Okay. So if
you just for perspective for listeners who might
not watch overseas leagues, if a love team were
to play against one of these teams, How many
points do you think they would score? Do you
think they'd win a set, etc.? I think if both
teams are playing to their capabilities, I think
they'd probably score 17 or 18 points against
these teams. That would be my guess. I think
they have trouble passing probably. Those serves
were bombs. We're talking about serving in one
of the listener questions later. were very good
serves. So I think that causes problems, which
means they probably aren't as effective at running
the middle, and I would say the out -of -system
setting for most of the love teams isn't as good
as it is here. So I feel like they would be on
the defensive quite a bit playing those two teams.
That would be my assessment. I mean, overall,
we watched some very entertaining matches, as
you said earlier. I'm so glad we tuned into this
one. I thought it would be good, and it did not
disappoint. So if you want to go back and watch
some good volleyball, you know, because there's
not enough happening live every single day. Monday,
Tuesday are a little slim. So if you want something
to do Mondays and Tuesdays, go back and watch
the Pepperdine -Use -Irvine game or the Skandation
-Avara game because they were very good. Mondays
and Tuesdays should now be known as replay days.
There you go. We haven't done this for a while
because there has been such an intense focus
on NCAA and we've been, you know, in kind of
one zone for a long time. Now that we're watching
and following a whole bunch of leagues, I think
it's going to be fun to bring some games back
into the mix. It'll help us look at some of the
different leagues, mix things up a little bit.
So because we have been doing fantasy and MLV
and following that pretty closely at the start
of the season, I think we're two weeks in at
this point, I wanted to get a quick kind of coach's
mood meter for the eight MLV teams based off
the first two weeks. We'll take it with perspective
going into the season, how they thought they
should do, who they beat, how they've lost. I'll
give a quick rundown here, and then you give
me who you think is the happiest coach down to
the least happy coach with a little bit of a
justification. As a quick rundown, Orlando Valkyrie
are 3 -0. Indie Ignite are 2 -0. Atlanta Vibe
are 2 -2. Now they beat Grand Rapids and Omaha.
They lost to Columbus and San Diego. Omaha is
2 -2. Remember, they lost two matches this week
in five. One of them a reverse sweep. The Dallas
Pulse are 1 -1, beating San Diego and losing
to Indy. Grand Rapids 1 -2, Columbus 1 -3, and
San Diego 1 -3. Hit me with your thoughts. Am
I putting them in order or something? Put them
in order. Which coaching staff do you think is
the happiest, the least happiest? Okay, happiest,
I'm going to say Orlando. Okay. Because, you
know, defending champs, you know you have a target
on your back. It is always harder to stay at
the top than it is to get to the top. So the
fact that they have come back after their championship
season and they started 3 -0. And beat Omaha.
In five. Recently. Last game. I think that they
should be very happy. I agree. Second, I'm going
to put Indy. They also had a really good season
last year. They finished second. They have a
new coach. So there's a bit of a transition there.
But that in consideration with the start that
they've had, you can't be mad at that. Third,
I'm going to say Dallas. That was going to be
my third. Yes. It is so hard to start a new program
and like having to pick players, take them from
different teams and try to, you know, hope that
it's a formula that works. That is such a big
risk. And it's just kind of like, well, let's
see what happens. Tried my best here. Kind of
like me with my fantasy team. So the fact that,
you know, they lost to Indy, strong team. Not
a bad loss, I would say, especially for the first
match. But to come out and win their second match,
albeit against San Diego, it doesn't matter.
But I think that they have to be happy with that
start. Not to mention that one of your key players
in Mimi Collier only got to practice with the
team two or three weeks before the season started.
And as a coaching staff, you're excited. You
got at least one win and you know, you have a
ton of room to improve and keep getting better.
So I agree with you so far. I think we might
differ in our opinion on the next one. What are
we on number four? Yeah. I'm going to say Columbus.
Oh, that's what I was going to say. Okay. Columbus,
even though they're currently sitting like second
last, they. are a completely different team than
last year. They are, even though they've lost
a few matches, like they are close. They're in
the conversation. They are so close to just like
getting a few more points and turning those matches.
So I think they are definitely on the right track.
I think they're heading in the right direction.
They got a huge win right off the bat against
Atlanta, which I don't think many people expected
them to do. And then... For all intents and purposes,
should have beaten Grand Rapids. They were big
in set five. Indy, good team. So I think that
things are going well for Columbus. And definitely
given how last season went, even though, like
you said, the record doesn't show it, they're
playing much better. The vibe and the feeling
is much better. I think you have hope that you
can finish in the middle of the pack and push
some good teams for them. Okay, number five,
I'm going to say Grand Rapids. Okay. Why would,
that sounded disgusted. No, I think I would have
gone Atlanta next. Absolutely not. Okay. Well,
you go your way, I'll go mine. I mean, Grand
Rapids, I don't really have a reason for putting
them there. I just mostly have reasons for putting
the other three below them. Okay. I would probably
put Omaha six. Okay. Because with the spend they
made on acquiring the names they did on the whole,
the expectations on them are very high just from
a sponsor perspective, a fan base perspective,
who they brought in, and the fact that you're
starting the season two and two, losing to two
of your rivals in Atlanta and Orlando, not amazing.
but I would put Atlanta below them because I
feel like Atlanta and Omaha have similar expectations,
but I feel like the teams that Atlanta lost to
are way worse than the ones that Omaha lost to.
They lost to San Diego and Columbus, the two
bottom teams. See, and for me, that's why the
justification would be flipped. I would put Atlanta
ahead of them. They beat Omaha, who's their rival.
They're going to look at those two losses and
go, okay, we can clean that up. That's not going
to happen again. But Omaha, the way they lost
in five to both of those teams, one of them being
a reverse sweep of the good teams in the league
of not being able to finish, I'm more unhappy
as a coach in that case. I can get behind that.
That would be my justification for that. I can
get behind that reasoning. San Diego, honestly,
I'd be worried as a coach just because they look
so bad. Yes, they just beat Atlanta in five,
which this is a new finding. Since we started
recording this episode. So keep that in mind.
But they just do not look good as a team for
me. They look disjointed. I already mentioned,
I don't think their center is running a good
offense. They can't, they don't seem to get anybody
going in a good rhythm. And it just seems so
disjointed. So even putting the losses aside
and the ranking standings aside, they just don't
look good to me. I agree with you. My question
for you about them is, I think that a lot of
their issues come from the setting, which we've
talked about. Well, yeah, so play somebody else
then, but they're not. But do you think that
their head coach in, I was going to call her
Alicia Glass, Alicia Childress, is uniquely set
up to fix that and make it better? Or do you
think that that's just, it's a tough ask? I mean,
I feel like once you hit this level, you're either
running a good offense or you're not. We're not
talking like 16U club where you can still be
like molded and see like massive improvements.
I'm not saying you can't see improvement. You
definitely can. You're playing professional volleyball.
Yeah, it takes longer and the changes are a little
more micro. Yeah, more micro. Fair enough. I
think it's going to be a long year for San Diego.
So you agree with my order, except you would
reverse Atlanta and or Omaha. And put Grand Rapids
somewhere at the bottom? Yeah, I would put...
Grand Rapids to me is the wild card. I haven't
watched them play it either, so I don't really
have a feel. And using your favorite word, I'd
be like, they're fine. Yeah. So somewhere in
between in the Atlanta -Omaha section, I don't
think that they're... I mean, they lost to Orlando
and Atlanta, so they've lost to good teams. I
think you're... okay with that knowing where
you were last time so I probably put them ahead
of Atlanta and Omaha given expectations and then
I would go Atlanta ahead of Omaha and then finish
with with what you said that would be my instinct
but we're in agreement for the top four yes okay
well there we go coach's mood meter for MLB week
two and we're gonna cook up some new games we
love a game or this year it stressed me out a
little bit yeah it's always fun because Sarah
never knows what's coming Let's dive in to some
listener questions. Question one. I thought it
was weird that on Civitanova, which is an Italian
men's team, they have three outsides on their
roster instead of two outsides and an opposite.
I've never seen this before. What do you guys
think makes a team go for a format like this?
And could you talk about the advantages and disadvantages
of doing this compared to a regular team makeup?
So the advantages of having, and for the sake
of this question, let's assume that you have
three legitimate outside hitters and no true
opposite. Because sometimes they do list an opposite
as an outside. I feel like it's kind of an oversight
sometimes. Yeah. Because they are not the same
position. Yeah, I would agree with that. So let's
say you have three actual outsides. Generally,
your right side is your best point score. They're
your most physical player. outside maybe of a
middle, but they're getting the majority. And
probably don't have the greatest ball control.
Yeah, so those are kind of the two big things
who are usually not as good ball control as your
left sides and usually a better attacker than
your left sides. Now, if you don't have somebody
who's significantly better attacking -wise, the
benefit of having three outside hitters on the
floor is you can change your passing rotation
based off who's serving to free up other players.
and to pass appropriate seams or have an easier
time getting approach routes for different headers.
So there is an advantage from an overall ball
control standpoint if you use outsides. The downside
is you often don't have as good of an outlet
option on the right side in terms of ability
to just score points. Question two, why do the
pro teams in the U .S. feel so much slower, especially
in serving? When the announcers say they're serving
tough, the other team still passes literally
perfect balls most of the time. For example,
Virginia Adriano at the college level, even though
her serve is inconsistent, when she does get
it in, it's really good. And internationally,
this person is talking about how those players
have speed and float and consistency. So why?
Does the US pro system seem different? A, do
you agree that it seems different? That it is
different? First of all. I think it depends on
what league you're comparing it to. Okay, so
this person was comparing it to like VNL Worlds.
Yes, totally. And if we're talking, let's compare
it to the two foreign leagues we talk about most,
which would be Italy and Turkey. Yes, it's different.
You have, listen, nobody wants to hear this,
but you have a different caliber of player in.
those vnl and worlds matches in the top two leagues
than you currently do in the u .s pro leagues
that's not to say there aren't some servers who
serve at an international caliber level but as
a whole it's not the same and that's they're
young leagues they are not as established as
those other teams and national teams so you're
just not going to see the same physicality and
skill level do you think it's different Yeah,
and I think a lot also has to do with the type
of ball that is used. Granted, the Italian league
does use a molten ball, so whatever. But internationally,
the different balls that are used do have a different
touch, both on serving and passing. But I think...
Another part of this person's question basically
is like, why are the announcers saying they're
serving so tough when the passes are perfect?
Do you think the serves are legitimately tough
and the passing is that good? Or do you think
they're just saying they're serving tough? Part
of the announcer's job is to make the league
interesting and seem competitive and compelling
to watch. You do that by talking about different
aspects. The serving is good. The passing is
not as good. I would say. the serving is probably
not as tough as the announcers are making it
seem or they use that line and remember they're
talking about volleyball for two hours you have
to put things into perspective and there's a
scale right maybe that was a tough serve for
the current match that was going on if you compare
it to vnl and worlds not tough if you compare
it to the match yesterday or three other servers
on her team maybe that was a tougher serve there's
all kinds of caveats to what the announcers are
trying to do and how they do it. And I mean,
we've talked about this at length on some of
the announcing trends on the leagues. But overall,
I don't think the serving is as competitive as
it is in the top leagues and internationally,
which is understandable. Okay, question three.
What are your thoughts on NCAA programs that
accept transfers when they're already at the
maximum roster capacity, which is 18 players
allowed for the NCAA? So this person alluded
to Arizona State. Basically, with the players
they lost, the players they signed for 2026,
they were going to be at the 18. Again, I didn't
fact check this. I'm assuming this person did
their research. And then they continued to sign
more portal players, which would put them over
the capacity, meaning they'll have to get rid
of people. I mean, I want to reiterate, I did
not fact check this, but if this is the case,
I feel like that's real shady. Like, what are
you doing? You recruited kids to come in. You
have your current roster who decided to stick
it out. Maybe. Unless they're anticipating more
transfers in May. But you don't know for sure.
Unless a kid walked into your office and was
like, hey, can I stick around for spring ball
and then I'm leaving? But I can't really see
that happening. Maybe, but you don't know. Okay,
so what would you do if you were a coach who
had over the capacity and then nobody decided
to leave in May? Well, so this comes back to
individual integrity, in my opinion. Same as
we talked about with the agents. The staff is...
working to get the best roster, the most competitive
roster they can. If you have made promises to
kids and you are breaking those promises to bring
in better athletes, personally, I don't love
that. You're trying to make the best team. So
I understand because the athletes have no loyalty.
So how it comes down to communication and expectation.
When you put it that way, like red flags were
flying when I was reading this question, but
you're right. There are not many athletes that
have loyalty anymore. And so it's like, look
out for yourself. But then do you also want that
reputation? Because then how hard is it going
to be to get athletes? Or are you just going
to be a portal school for the rest of your life
and just be like, well, I guess we're not going
to recruit any club kids. Well, and you're assuming
that it's the kids who are coming in that are
getting cut. Maybe they're getting rid of a fourth
year. No, that's what I mean. I'm not making
any assumptions. It's the recruits coming in
that are getting cut. I think it's the kids that
have been there who are maybe on the bench. Yeah.
Again, to me. Also, you need a bench because
bench players have a very important role, especially
during training. Yeah. It comes down to your
communication with your athletes, the expectations
you have set in your practice, and is everybody
on the same page? And I don't think that's any
different than the conversation we had with Wisconsin
last week or with any of these schools. It's
really hard, but you as a staff need to act with
integrity. And the same goes for the athletes.
At the end of the day, you have to live with
your choices. And it's like, if you sleep well
at night, I'm happy for you. I would not. I mean,
I don't think as a... But then don't go complaining.
Right. I don't think as a program you can pass
up on a really good athlete who makes your team
better who wants to come. I mean, your job is
to build a competitive program. I think this
is just a microcosm of society as a whole these
days where everybody's just looking out for themselves
and nobody cares about anybody else. It sucks.
It sucks. I don't disagree with you, but I think
given the climate, it's realistic. You look at
all the pro sports teams, you know, you don't
have to be cap compliant or roster compliant
until the season starts. I think you maybe mentioned
this last week. There needs to be a cap on how
many transfers you can accept. In a four year
period or something. You just. They'll let it
go for a few more years. They'll see what the
issues are. And then someone will make some rules.
They'll end up being like. All these people out
here just guinea pigs. With NIL and everything.
You'll end up having an athletes union. Who will
represent them. And there'll be a bargaining
agreement. That's where it's heading. I quit
at that point. Question four. This one is from
a Canadian listener. Okay. So, kind of a long
question, but we have a youth team, a club team,
who was ranked second in our province last year,
and we've been waitlisted for nationals. Just
wondering what your thoughts are on Volleyball
Canada's system of deciding which club teams
get to go to nationals, which is basically to
solicit expressions of interest from all teams
across Canada, and then do a random draw to see
who gets to attend. I can't even keep a straight
face because our parents run very big volleyball
clubs and this has come up before. Why are we
deciding who goes to nationals, if you can even
call it that at this point, by doing a random
draw instead of having top teams get an invite
first? How is this good for the competitiveness
of athletes in the sport in Canada? I mean, the
short answer to your question is it's not good
for the competitive nature for the sport, Fair
play and equality and all of those things. That's
why Canada doesn't win medals. Yes. I agree.
And I think they've come to realize that the
top teams who really want to be good come down
and play in the States. So they have the opportunity
to run nationals, to invite whoever they want
so they don't upset anybody. It's equal. It's
in line with a lot of, you know, sporting policies
across the country. And if you really want to
compete, you go to the U .S. That's nice guy.
Adam's answer. My answer is, I think it's a joke.
It's never used to be that way when we played,
which is like too long ago. Don't ask. It was
merit based. You had to be ranked in a certain
place in your province to even get the opportunity
to go, which I love that. And I love the way
the Americans do it, where you have to go to
qualifiers. You have to like. nationals actually
means something in the u .s and it meant something
back when we played i think is ridiculous quite
frankly what is the point of winning provincials
if you're just gonna potentially not even get
to go to nationals and if you do go you play
the 76th ranked team from like saskatchewan it's
not that's not fun for anybody no i don't disagree
not to mention like no college coaches want to
go watch nationals when it's literally a mixed
bag of skill level like But let's be honest,
the Canadian nationals is about money for the
national team. Is it even money for the national
team? Yes. You're still going to get that same
money, but you can have a better competition.
Do you know what I mean? Like if the top teams
go, you're still going to get the money. But
you're growing the sport and you're getting other
kids in. Like, I'm sorry. I understand. Let's
keep people interested in volleyball. Let's make
it an accessible sport for people. It's a sport
for life, blah, blah, blah. That's fine. But
let's have like real nationals. And then we can
have like an open play nationals for kids and
teams who want to have fun. Yeah. I mean, I think
the best approach is, and again, similarly, the
U .S. does this. They have divisions. So lots
of people can go to divisions and play wherever
they want. But if you want to compete at the
top tier and you want to win those tournaments,
which means something. No, but I think for nationals,
you straight up need to qualify. I believe there
is like an open division for other teams, depending
on which tournaments you go to, like some of
the big tournaments, which are equivalent to
a national, I believe. I think Canada has swung
too far in the fair play mantra and you're losing
some of that competitiveness. And again, teaching
opportunities to be competitive, when you have
to go to a qualifier and you have to win to go
to nationals, those are learning experience for
athletes who want to be. Top players. You have
to learn how to perform. You have to learn how
to make adjustments. You have to play under pressure.
It matters. All skills that matter if you want
to continue playing the sport after high school.
Or you know what? Even deal with real life pressures.
Not a fan. Not a fan. Question five, can you
guys talk about contracts for MLV and Love? I'm
curious if someone like Lexi Rodriguez would
be paid more due to her popularity within Nebraska,
or are contracts strictly based on positions
and performance? Okay, so first and foremost,
contract talk is not really public information.
Yeah, I don't know what the MLV and Love situations
are. This is my best understanding. It may not
be entirely accurate, but it's different between
the two leagues. Love as an organization signs
and pays players and then puts them on their
corresponding team. I don't believe in Lexi's
case you would be getting additional revenue
because you're playing in Nebraska and you're
popular there because it's a central organization
deciding contracts. But do you think that their
contracts operate the way most do where like...
points going outsides and opposites get paid
the most and liberos and middles get paid the
least from a league standpoint i'm not sure how
love operates i don't know whether that's how
it does yeah that's how it works in a lot of
places right but they also need the league to
succeed so maybe they're paying players who get
more eyeballs or bring people in or have agreements
to do Marketing, like the love situation is different
than any other pro team because the players are
registered centrally and not for a team. MLV,
on the other hand, is those teams are individually
owned. The general managers or the owners are
signing those contracts. Now, there's a framework
in terms of what you can pay people. But yes,
it would make more sense for those people to
sign and pay players who will put butts in seats.
positionally i think that could be different
because they're making their own revenue so it
is it's different and the considerations would
be different again i'm fully acknowledging that
a lot of those processes are are private but
that's my understanding i mean liberos aren't
are definitely making less than everybody else
around the world i'm curious how the mlv and
love libero salaries compared overseas I think
there's a big push in the American leagues that
there's a lot of equity. Like there's a minimum
salary and then a maximum salary. So you're not
paying your libero, you know, a 10th of the lowest
person. They may be making the minimum salary,
but there is a minimum salary. I mean, I don't
think they have those in some of the other leagues.
Okay, last question of the day. If there is a
toxic player on your team that's not meshing
well with the culture of the team, as a teammate,
what is the best way to deal with that toxic
player to make it through the season? We know
various ways coaches can deal with toxic players,
so I'm curious to get your perspective on best
approaches for fellow teammates to deal with
this type of athlete. So I think this question,
it's different for men and women. fundamentally
different I have played with people that I didn't
like yeah but was the person toxic or did you
just not like them toxic is such a weird word
he's like he was toxic to me they weren't great
for team dynamics let's put it that way you just
go out and you play and you do your job and you
work towards that and you put that beside you
and you don't spend time together off the court
like I think that's generally how guys function
how male teams function unless it's Really bad.
I was thinking that's how I would function. It
also depends. Like if this is 14U or 16U club
volleyball, there's a different solution than
if you're playing professionally and you're being
paid to behave a certain way. But how often in
like youth and club is it like toxic parents?
Wow. And not necessarily toxic kids, but like
the toxic parents, like the messaging at home
makes the kid. I think if you're looking for
a way to deal with this as a player, you treat
that person with respect when you need to, but
you do your best to limit the interactions, especially
if they are condescending or demeaning to you
or if that toxic is wearing on you in a particular
way. That's a tough question. Yeah, that's so
hard. Because it's like, okay, if you have a
problem with somebody, you don't need to be friends
with everybody you play with. But if it's ruining
team culture. And again, depending on what the
age group is, there are more or less roles that
a coach should play. Like if they're youth, the
coach needs to help address the situation because
the athletes may not have the tools or the experience
to deal with that. If it's a professional or
a college situation, you know, you should be
better equipped to kind of handle that and make
it work because the team's shooting for a goal.
I always think it's worth having a conversation
though. Totally. I remember we had a conversation
like this once on our national team when I played
indoor. It didn't go well. And it might not go
well, but at least you've tried. Yeah, I think
it's important to give people the opportunity
to make changes once they are made aware of how
their actions make you feel. And also you have
to be careful that you're not the only one who
perceives the toxicness. Yeah, whatever you want
to call it. No, that's what it's called. Yeah,
okay. Fair. But if you're the only one who's
bothered by this person, then it's more of a
personal thing than a team issue. If it's affecting
three or four players, then try and address it.
But I think people can only operate with information
they're given. So I think allowing... Bringing
things up and letting it be known how a certain
person's words or actions are making a group
feel. You have to give people the opportunity
to make a change. And then if that doesn't work,
cut them. No, just kidding. Great question. Tough
question. Really tough. Love these questions.
Every week, keep them coming. Instagram, email,
you name it. Top segment for me. I love this
one as well. Looking forward to this week. Again,
there's so much to watch and so many good matches.
So we're going to highlight a few here. Watch
some replays Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday in this
case as well. But starting on Thursday at 9 p
.m. Eastern, we have Stanford versus UC Santa
Barbara on the men's side. Thursday at 7 p .m.
Eastern, MLV is Indy versus Orlando, both undefeated
teams. So that will be a really good match to
watch. Friday at 7 p .m. Eastern, Pepperdine
versus Loyola Chicago. Pepperdine coming off
a loss. Loyola Chicago playing really well currently,
so that will be really good. That's also NCAA
men's. Saturday at 9 p .m. Eastern, UC Irvine
versus BYU. Lots of really good men's games this
week. Saturday, 9 p .m. Eastern, Love Madison
versus Salt Lake. Both teams are currently playing
well, so that should be a really good game. And
then Sunday at 2 p .m. Eastern, we have Trentino
versus Perugia, which is an Italian men's game.
Both of those teams are at the top of the league.
I think it's a one versus three. Yeah, that's
going to be a great game, and that'll be on VBTV.
Lots to tune into. Watch what you can, and we'll
be back here next week to discuss it. 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 find us on Instagram at
volleytalk underscore podcast. If you have a
topic you'd like us to discuss, you can reach
out to us on Instagram or at info at sarahpavin
.com. Thanks so much for joining us and we'll
be back next week.