[BostonCard]

I went to senior night last night.  USC played us remarkably tough; the first set was back and forth, with 18 tie scores, 7 lead changes and neither team building up a lead of more than 2 points until Stanford pulled off two or three points to go up 24-21, before we closed it out 25-22.  The second set was the only one where Stanford was very clearly better, in part because USC just fell apart.  USC actually won the third set (another fairly close set until SC pulled away towards the end).  The fourth and fiinal set was the tightest, with Stanford winning 28-26.  Overall a very fun experience, and it was nice to see the seniors and fifth years go out with a win on senior night.

Statistically, we were better in almost every facet, with a .339 - .159 hitting advantage (the only set where SC hit better than us was the third, and not by much; in contrast, even in the super-tight fourth set, we outhit them by over .100, .256 - .146).  Blocking, assists, and digs all favored Stanford as well.  The only place where I thought we struggled was with service errors (19!) vs. USC who had 6.  Koste must be from the Hambly school of serving: serve it hard to make it tough for the other team to get in system, even if it leads to service errors.  But we only had 5 aces to 4 for USC, so I think that's something that can be cleaned up.

Highlight of the match was seeing Matt Martinez enter the game to serve.  Matt sticks out by being over a foot shorter at 5'5" than any other player on the team.  Even our starting libero is 6'6".  He's also a chemistry major, which was my major at Stanford.  He was subbed in to serve, and we won the first point he was in.

Rottman had a monster game (especially in the last set) leading the team in kills (17 on a .341 hitting average) and blocks (5), was tied in aces (2), and was second on the team in digs (11).  I think we will miss him next year.

Unless they play abroad or decide on a career on the sand, it's unlikely that any of these guys will make a living playing volleyball, and I would be shocked if any merits any NIL money.  Of course, since MVB was one of the sports on the chopping block, many are just happy to have had a chance to play at Stanford.  Nine players on the roster are seniors or fifth years.  But, I would be sad if men's volleyball, either here or more broadly in DI, was a casualty of the ongoing redistribution of money.  Let's face it, MVB doesn't bring much revenue (the game was free to attend, and though well-attended for a men's volleyball match, the upper stands were roped off), and unlike many women's sports teams, doesn't offset football scholarships for Title IX purposes.  I think there is a very legit risk that men's volleyball will at some point in the not too distant future have to be dropped by Stanford and/or the NCAA.

BC

[BostonCard]

I went to senior night last night.  USC played us remarkably tough; the first set was back and forth, with 18 tie scores, 7 lead changes and neither team building up a lead of more than 2 points until Stanford pulled off two or three points to go up 24-21, before we closed it out 25-22.  The second set was the only one where Stanford was very clearly better, in part because USC just fell apart.  USC actually won the third set (another fairly close set until SC pulled away towards the end).  The fourth and fiinal set was the tightest, with Stanford winning 28-26.  Overall a very fun experience, and it was nice to see the seniors and fifth years go out with a win on senior night.

Statistically, we were better in almost every facet, with a .339 - .159 hitting advantage (the only set where SC hit better than us was the third, and not by much; in contrast, even in the super-tight fourth set, we outhit them by over .100, .256 - .146).  Blocking, assists, and digs all favored Stanford as well.  The only place where I thought we struggled was with service errors (19!) vs. USC who had 6.  Koste must be from the Hambly school of serving: serve it hard to make it tough for the other team to get in system, even if it leads to service errors.  But we only had 5 aces to 4 for USC, so I think that's something that can be cleaned up.

Highlight of the match was seeing Matt Martinez enter the game to serve.  Matt sticks out by being over a foot shorter at 5'5" than any other player on the team.  Even our starting libero is 6'6".  He's also a chemistry major, which was my major at Stanford.  He was subbed in to serve, and we won the first point he was in.

Rottman had a monster game (especially in the last set) leading the team in kills (17 on a .341 hitting average) and blocks (5), was tied in aces (2), and was second on the team in digs (11).  I think we will miss him next year.

Unless they play abroad or decide on a career on the sand, it's unlikely that any of these guys will make a living playing volleyball, and I would be shocked if any merits any NIL money.  Of course, since MVB was one of the sports on the chopping block, many are just happy to have had a chance to play at Stanford.  Nine players on the roster are seniors or fifth years.  But, I would be sad if men's volleyball, either here or more broadly in DI, was a casualty of the ongoing redistribution of money.  Let's face it, MVB doesn't bring much revenue (the game was free to attend, and though well-attended for a men's volleyball match, the upper stands were roped off), and unlike many women's sports teams, doesn't offset football scholarships for Title IX purposes.  I think there is a very legit risk that men's volleyball will at some point in the not too distant future have to be dropped by Stanford and/or the NCAA.

BC