Sandflea's Week One 2011 NCAA Volleyball Top 40 Rankings

Sandflea 2011 NCAA Top 40 Women's Volleyball Rankings: Week 1 (through games of 8/28/11)

 Editor's Note: Here, schools are rewarded for scheduling tough adversaries, not weak cream puffs.

Rank   School      Record   Ranked Opponents at Time Played

 1)       Washington     3-0         (1)           

 2)       Hawaii            3-0          (1)

 3)       Duke               3-0          (1)

 4)       Iowa State       3-0          (1)

 5)       Florida State    3-0          (1)

 6)       Miami (FL)      3-0          (1)

 7)       Texas               2-0          (1)

 8)       Oregon             1-1          (2)  

 9)       Penn State        1-1          (1)

10)      USC                 1-1          (2)

11)      Minnesota        1-1          (1) 

12)      Illinois              3-0      

13)      Colorado St.     3-0          

14)      UCLA              3-0

15)      Northwestern    3-0

16)      California          3-0

17)      Nebraska          2-0

18)      Florida             2-0

19)      Stanford           2-0

20)      San Diego        3-0

21)      LSU                 3-1          (1)

22)      Long Beach St.2-1          (1)

23)      Kentucky          2-1         (1)

24)      San Diego St.   3-0          (1)

25)      Oklahoma        3-0          

26)      Notre Dame     3-0

27)      N. Iowa           3-0

28)      Tennessee       3-0

29)      Purdue            3-0

30)      Missouri          4-0

31)      Dayton            3-0

32)      Ohio State       4-0

33)      TCU               3-0

34)      Michigan St.   3-0

35)      Arizona          2-1            (1)

36)      Cal Poly SLO 2-1           (1)

37)      Georgia Tech 3-0            (1)

38)      Furman           2-1            (1)

39)      Michigan        3-0  

40)      Texas A&M   3-0

Others to Watch: Clemson (3-0), Pepperdine (1-1), Louisville (2-1), Houston (3-0), UTEP (3-0),

   North Carolina (1-1), Wyoming (3-1), Santa Clara (2-1), Loyola (CA) (2-1), Virginia Tech (3-0)  

Dig It: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Volleyball//Part Two: Recent Term and Scoring Changes for Indoor Volleyball Are Bad

 Let's deal with the easy misstep by the NCAA first: changing the name of indoor volleyball games to sets is not a fan-friendly change. Scoring changes for the past twelve years have been justified for the purpose of boosting volleyball's popularity and making it more fan friendly. How is changing the term for "game" to "set" an improvement in simplifying the sport for the casual observer? I would argue that it confuses, rather than simplifies.
 In tennis, the first player to win six games wins a set. Sets are for tennis. Sure, both sports use nets, serves, and rallies. End of similarities. Why add a term from tennis into volleyball? A game is a game. A match is a match. A set is a tennis term.
 The other misstep has far more defenders, which makes the following argument weaker. Perhaps, perhaps not. The NCAA simply cannot leave its hands off intercollegiate indoor volleyball scoring. It has been on a roll since academic year 2001-2002, when rally scoring replaced side-out scoring.
 Some scoring changes are good. When the game of volleyball was invented in 1895, there were nine innings like in baseball. Every player served at least once in every inning. 
 In 1900, side-out scoring was adopted, wherein a team only scored if it was the serving team. If the defensive team won the point, it won the right to serve--it did not score. The first team to 21 points won the match. In 1916, the matches became best-of-three competitions.
 Flash forward to 1998, when the international volleyball organization, FIVB, adopted rally scoring in its competitions. Rally scoring means both serving and non-serving teams can score by winning the point. Every point results in a score. Rally scoring streamlined matches, reduced their lengths, and allegedly increased fan interest. USA Volleyball adopted rally scoring in 1999, and the NCAA did the same two years later.
 Of course, it made statistics and records somewhat obsolete from the side-out days. Rally scoring was inevitable if the sport were ever to catch on as a popular television attraction.
 The NCAA continued playing with the scoring system of indoor volleyball. What the organization really was telling the world was that it viewed volleyball as a lesser Olympic sport that had no structural integrity. One could fiddle with its scoring without suffering repercussions in the athletic community. NCAA committees had already decided that basketball was going to be the heavily-promoted women's team sport, thanks to NBA interest. Dollars went to women's hoops at the expense of softball, soccer, field hockey, and volleyball. But I digress.
 Reluctantly accepting rally scoring in 2001 does not mean that further abridgements should be given a pass. In 2008, at the time "games" became "sets," the NCAA deemed it wise to tweak the scoring again for women's indoor volleyball. The first four games would now be played to 25, not 30. The fifth game, if necessary, would still be played to 15, with all games requiring victory by at least two points. Once again, statistics and records from 2001-2007 would become obsolete.
 Many observers argue that it's only a five-points-per-game reduction: what's the big deal? Well, the modification changes the total required minimum points in five games for the winning team from 135 to 115. That's about a 15% reduction. Worse, it changes a blow-out 3-game romp from 90 to 75 points minimum required for the victory. That's about a 16% reduction. The correlative for basketball would be to reduce the halves to 17 minutes each. Economical? Yes. Good for the modern, ADD-stricken society? Yes. Unfair for coaches, players, and teams? Yes. 
 What reasoning was given? The NCAA wanted the sport's structure to reflect its Olympic structure. Really? Then what about basketball? In the Olympics, basketball has four 10-minute quarters. In college, there are two 20-minute halves. Sounds like a different structure to me. 
 I believe other reasons are involved. It guarantees matches won't go beyond two hours: much better for television. It works for ADD student fans and adult viewers. Also, since volleyball is a non-revenue sport in most universities, it saves on infrastructure: utilities like electricity, gas, and water for air conditioning, lighting, heating, and thirsty spectators. 
 Can anybody really accept the NCAA explanation? How many NCAA athletes become Olympians? Indoor Olympic teams are limited to 12 individuals. How much of a handicap is it for those American Olympians to play to only 25 instead of 30 in the first four games of an Olympic or world championship competition if they played the longer games in college? The national team plays plenty of warm-up international matches using the Olympic system. Is it that hard of an adjustment to make? I doubt it. The NCAA changed a scoring system again for the purported reason of eliminating a competitive disadvantage for those 12 national team members.
 If any adjustment should have been made in 2008, it should have been to make the fifth game to 30 points as well. Respect the sport, NCAA, don't disrespect it.
In 2010, the men adopted the women's streamlined scoring. Who wins? Not volleyball.  
 Perhaps the NCAA Volleyball Committee is long-range planning to whittle the first four games to 20, then 15, then all 5 games to 10. Shoot, why stop there? Why not phase the sport out entirely? After all, it's a non-revenue sport outside of Hawaii and some Big 10 schools, and most universities have shrinking budgets. Shame on you, NCAA. 

Dig It: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Volleyball//Part One: Beach Volleyball Is Ugly

 I realize the title assertion runs counter to the imagery of hardbodies in scant attire flying through the air and diving through the sand. I'm not talking anatomical aesthetics; I'm talking athletic aesthetics. Two-person beach volleyball, sanctioned or not by FIVB, is a travesty, a grossly abridged distortion of the great sport of volleyball.
 Off and on, there has been a professional beach volleyball tour in America since 1984. Financial mismanagement is blamed for tour failures in 1998 and 2010. Mismanagement, such as six-figure executive salaries for an undercapitalized league, played a part, no doubt. Small stadiums on sand was called another factor, as it underlined limited popularity of the sport to casual TV viewers. Of course, large temporary bleachers could not be safely constructed on loose sand. Thus, indoor sand volleyball is trying to gain traction.
 Really? Has anybody considered that the sport as a sport (and not as a festival-carnival event with free-flowing alcohol) is just not that interesting? Of course, there have been and continue to be great athletes involved with the competition. Names like Kiraly, Stoklos, Smith, Dodd, May-Traynor, and Walsh are "legendary" among true believers. However, how popular would Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson have become if all they played was two-on-two half-court basketball? There is a reason two-on-two or three-on-three hoops has not caught on as a major spectator sport. It's just not interesting or fun to watch! It's an abomination of the great game of basketball.
 Funny thing, though. Two-person sand volleyball became a medal sport at the 1996 Summer Olympics, thereby legitimizing the "sport" in the eyes of many. Uh-huh. To many purists, two-person volleyball remains a recreation and not a sport. It's like setting up a bleacher around a batting cage and watching Prince Fielder take several swings. Zzzzzzzz. Let's see, where's the setter? On this play, Player A is the setter. Who will Player A pass it to? Let's see. Player B?
 What else is boring about the "sport"? Hint: try watching Nadal in an early-round match at Wimbledon. He serves, he scores. He serves, he scores. He serves, he faults. He serves, he scores. Zzzzzzz. Two-person beach volleyball de-emphasizes finesse, defense, and strategy. It focuses on the serve and the spike. He attacks, he scores. He attacks, he scores. He attacks, he faults. He attacks, he scores.
Sure, there are exceptions. And there are the colorful "uniforms."
 What else is unappealing about sand volleyball? They play in the sand! That's fun in casual parties and with family, not as formal competition maximizing skills of players. One moves slower in sand. Quick is less quick. Lateral movement becomes glacial. Would you like to watch Michael Jordan play basketball in a sandbox? Zzzzzzz. Also, hops are huge in volleyball. One does not jump as high off sand as off a hardwood court. Again, beach volleyball reduces the game's aesthetic.
 For about half of the '90s, a four-person sand volleyball league flourished. As a hybrid, the small league was far more interesting as athletic competition. Alas, it floundered and closed shop in 1998.
 I do hope the NCAA and other athletic organizations think twice before diving headlong into establishing sand volleyball as an intercollegiate sport. How about focusing on promoting the popularity of the real six-person indoor game first for both men and women? 
 The NCAA should realize that beach volleyball was added as an Olympic sport for two reasons. First, the power and influence at the time of the USOC  and American television networks pressed for inclusion of new events which Americans were good at. Why? Gold medals boosted TV ratings and TV ratings boosted ad revenues. Second, Europeans love any athletic events where clothing, if not optional, is kept to a minimum.
Therefore, the NCAA should realize the truth: two-person sand volleyball is ugly.

ESPN: Sports Network as Political Party, Complete with Talking Points

 First, the good news must be admitted. ESPN has the most professional game production, feature documentaries, hosts, analysts, play-by-play announcers, camerawork, graphics, and sets of any cable sports network. Overall, the network is smooth as glass.
 Second, the bad news must not be ignored. Like many major corporations, ESPN is run like a major mainstream political party (take your pick), complete with spin in its self-interest, bias, and weekly, if not daily, talking points to put them and their allies in the best light and casting opponents, both real and perceived, in the worst light imaginable.
 First, ESPN presents spin to protect its friends and partners, business and otherwise. The predominant opinion voiced by ESPN talking heads supports the NCAA and the BCS system. Why? The network has a multi-million dollar deal for broadcasting BCS bowl games. It also has hundreds of hours of regular-season NCAA sports programming. One of ESPN's missions is to prop up the sanctity of the NCAA, promoting the health of college sports participation and viewing.
 Second, ESPN Northeast and Midwest bias rears its ugly head more often than not when dismissing non-BCS conferences in the West like the WAC and the Mountain West. Its love of all things UConn is understandable, being headquartered in Bristol, but its love of Notre Dame and Ohio State and Texas is less comprehensible.  That is, until one understands the enormous ties between the BCS, NCAA, and those three schools. Who at ESPN is asking for the resignation of Ohio State AD Gene Smith? Would you believe nobody? Who at ESPN called for a criminal investigation into the death of the student videographer at Notre Dame during a team practice during high winds? Would you believe nobody? Who at ESPN ridiculed Texas football coach Mack Brown for his embarrassing tear-stained plea for more poll votes to get his Longhorns a BCS bid at the expense of a more deserving Aaron Rodgers-led Cal-Berkeley in 2004? Would you believe nobody? Who at ESPN supported USC in its appeal to reduce NCAA sanctions this spring? Would you believe nobody?
 Third, ESPN's use of combative talking points on a weekly or daily basis has never been more apparent than in its recent disparagement of Texas A&M and its quiet support of Texas and the Big 12. Bleacher Report  writer Michael Taglienti summed it up best in his "Why ESPN Is Afraid of A&M" article. Like both major political parties, the network realizes that the best defense is a good offense. When your position is indefensible, (and defending UT's Longhorn Network as a fair use of media is just that), you attack the opposition on any grounds.
 Unbelievable as it may sound, ESPN ironically attacked Texas A&M for having too much pride and being selfish. Really? Was Colorado hubris-ridden and selfish for joining the Pac-10/Pac-12? Was Nebraska hubris-ridden and selfish for joining the Big 10? No. Colorado and Nebraska saw the writing on the wall: they were sick of a Texas-dominated Big 12 appeasing the Longhorns to the extent that they were agreeable to allowing a Longhorn Network to come to fruition. It was bad enough that the conference championship game had been permanently moved to the Dallas region. 
 It is UT's hubris and selfishness that is ruining the Big 12. The Pac 12 has extremely fair revenue sharing. The Big 10 has fair revenue sharing. The Big 12 has inequitable revenue sharing. The conference grew more tilted towards the Longhorns in 2010 when, in desperate eleventh-hour fashion to keep them from bolting, they caved to UT's demands for its own network. Oklahoma and Texas A&M, in particular, were steamed at the prospects of high school games and a weekly Big 12 conference game being shown on the Longhorn Network.
 Texas overplayed its hand, like Chuck Yeager pushing the envelope. ESPN is fully invested in the Longhorn Network. ESPN has to defend Texas the best way it knows how: attack schools that are fed up with the UT bullying. Coach Bob Stoops is noncommittal towards OU's future in the Big 12. Still, OU is not in ESPN's crosshairs yet, because the school hasn't taken any formal action to leave the conference.
 No doubt, ESPN leveraged pressure on SEC presidents to reject A&M's bid to join. No doubt, ESPN producers and executives are high-fiving each other, thinking the crisis is over. They can notch another unjust victory. But can they?
 On Monday, the A&M Board of Regents gave A&M President R. Bowen Loftin the autonomy to seek the best conference alignment available. If the SEC is slow to act, there is always the Big East or Pac-12, one happy to establish a travel partner for TCU and the other happy to establish a media and recruiting footprint in Texas (well, USC and Oregon recruit there already). Who else is in A&M's corner? Don't be surprised if the Texas Legislature endorses A&M's shift, especially since rising political star and state governor Rick Perry is an A&M graduate.
 ESPN is saying A&M could be the ogre, the catalyst for Conference Realignment, Phase Two. Really? Anybody with a three-digit IQ knows college football power conferences will morph into four or five super- conferences with at least 16 members each, regardless of who starts it. There will be good endings (probably BYU) and sad endings (probably Iowa State), but the change is going to come. Who promoted the change? Directly or indirectly, the networks and their dollars did.
 If the Big 12 is a casualty of Conference Realignment, Phase Two, who is the guilty party? Look no further than the offices and studios in Bristol, Connecticut for financing the Longhorn Network and mimicking the University of Texas with bullying tactics to deride and slander any opponent of its selfish plans. 

2011 PGA Championship: Strategy to Help Floundering Americans

 As the competition from Asia, Europe, Africa, and Australia increases to the point where no American has won a major since Mickelson's 2010 Master's victory, the PGA, tour sponsors, and networks have to be working overtime to give USA golfers some type of advantage. Yes, some foreign golfers like Rory McIlroy, Sergio Garcia, and Darren Clarke are popular in all countries, but Americans atop leaderboards drive ratings at home like nothing else. Little stunts like propping up faded stars undeservedly in the world rankings (e.g., Tiger Woods in the top 30) can only help so much.
 The situation by last week was so dire that CBS decided to interview a caddy on live television, a caddy from New Zealand, to boost buzz and ratings for this week's major tournament. However, Stevie Williams has an American connection: he was Woods' caddy for several years and had just been fired by the declining ex-superstar. Williams' remarks dissing Tiger were the story of the weekend. That was a bigger story than Adam Scott's victory, pounding the field into submission; after all, the deserving Scott is only an Australian.
 What became the big drama early in the week? Would Tiger bounce back and achieve vindication for his ill-advised recent personnel moves (not to mention his sorry private life indiscretions). Would he exact quiet revenge against the ex-rugby-playing former employee?
 Based on first round results, where Woods shot his worst round ever in a major (+7), the answer is a resounding no, and what was once the big story becomes a minor subplot at best: will Woods miss the cut or withdraw earlier to save face?
 It appears the PGA, sponsors, and networks decided on an ace strategy to assist Yanks: play the PGA Championship in a hot, humid environment in August. Australia and South Africa have dry heat. Europe, apart from Spain and Italy, have little heat. Northern Asia, where the most competitive pro golfers on that continent hail from, has some heat. Nothing resembles the mind-numbing stultifying humid heat of the American Deep South except the mind-numbing stultifying humid heat of the American Midwest and American Northeast. Advantage: Team USA.
 This year's PGA Championship is set at the Atlanta Athletic Club, a more interesting and better manicured course than initial reports indicated. We're talking 95 degrees and 95% humidity. Darren Clarke, the 2011 British Open Champion (to call it "The Open" is tantamount to calling Ohio State "The University"), was sweating like an eskimo in hell on the first green. He was +5 at last count.
 While it's true that Lee Westwood and Luke Donald are the top two ranked golfers in the world, it's also true that the two Englishmen have a snail's eyeball of a chance of being in the final pairing on Sunday.  
 Announcers were quick to make a big story out of McIlroy's poor decision to swing away into a tree root in the rough. The club that flew out of his jammed hands went almost as far as the ball. The result? McIlroy kept shaking the pain and tingling out of his right wrist and forearm through the round. Was it bravery, playing to the camera and the crowd, or satisfying sponsor-mandated appearance requirements that kept him from withdrawing? Only Rory and his Chubby manager know for sure. 
 Not surprisingly, atop the leaderboard are the ageless Steve Stricker (-7) and lesser-known Jerry Kelly (-5), both from Wisconsin and both accustomed to humid summers.
 Who else has a chance of playing in the final pairing Sunday in Atlanta? Don't rule out Mickelson, Matt Kuchar, Davis Love III, Rickie Barnes, Rickie Fowler, and too-good-to-succumb-to-the-humidity foreigners Jason Day, Martin Kaymer, Charl Schwartzel, and Adam Scott.
 Kudos to CBS for its terrific seamless integration of its broadcasters with the TNT crew for the first two days. Ernie Johnson has the same kind of soothing, mellifluous host voice as Jim Nantz, but without the shameless grab-the-ankles-for-an-endorsement persona. 
 Will an American break the six-in-a-row foreign streak at golf majors this week? Stay tuned.