[TonyLima]

Top 10 breakdown:
BigTen: 1 (Nebraska), 6 (Wisconsin)
SEC: 2 (Texas), 3 (Kentucky), 8 (Texas A&M)
ACC: 4 (Louisville), 5 (Stanford), 7 (Pitt), 10 (SMU)
Big12: 9 (ASU)

As noted, a five set loss on the road to the #2 team in the country is the definition of a good loss.  Clearly we are a bit below the top teams (but not that much lower than #2 Texas).  We play #23 Missouri tomorrow, then have Utah State and Davis at home. Wins in the matches won’t mean much, though a solid win against Missouri will be helpful.  A loss, though, will call into question whether we are really a top-10 team.

BC

Another definition of a good loss: you lose and move up in the rankings. IIRC last week we were 6. But that might be a different poll.

---

I wish I had it, (it’s not in the box score) but I think we had a marginally higher side out percentage than Texas.

On the season, ignoring side outs on balls in play, our net serving (aces - errors) is better than our opponents.

We have 28 aces to 66 errors (-38 points net on serve), versus our opponents (9 aces versus 51 errors, -42 points net).  Moreover, for every ace, we get probably get several serves that leave the opponent out of system, and since the side out percentage is much higher for attacks in system than OOS, the effect of having nearly 3x the aces as the opposition is magnified.

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see service errors, especially unforced ones like foot faults, but if you aren’t getting some service errors, you aren’t serving aggressively enough.  And in collegiate women’s volleyball, you have to serve aggressively because attacks are so strong that serving it so that the opposition gets an in system attack might as well be a service error.

BC

I am frustrated by but have grown to accept the service errors for the upside that you mention. The foot faults are inexcusable. I can't remember three foot faults in the past ten years of watching Stanford vb let alone three in one match.

Easy to agree about the foot faults. One is bad. Three is terrible.

[TonyLima]

Top 10 breakdown:
BigTen: 1 (Nebraska), 6 (Wisconsin)
SEC: 2 (Texas), 3 (Kentucky), 8 (Texas A&M)
ACC: 4 (Louisville), 5 (Stanford), 7 (Pitt), 10 (SMU)
Big12: 9 (ASU)

As noted, a five set loss on the road to the #2 team in the country is the definition of a good loss.  Clearly we are a bit below the top teams (but not that much lower than #2 Texas).  We play #23 Missouri tomorrow, then have Utah State and Davis at home. Wins in the matches won’t mean much, though a solid win against Missouri will be helpful.  A loss, though, will call into question whether we are really a top-10 team.

BC

Another definition of a good loss: you lose and move up in the rankings. IIRC last week we were 6. But that might be a different poll.

---

I wish I had it, (it’s not in the box score) but I think we had a marginally higher side out percentage than Texas.

On the season, ignoring side outs on balls in play, our net serving (aces - errors) is better than our opponents.

We have 28 aces to 66 errors (-38 points net on serve), versus our opponents (9 aces versus 51 errors, -42 points net).  Moreover, for every ace, we get probably get several serves that leave the opponent out of system, and since the side out percentage is much higher for attacks in system than OOS, the effect of having nearly 3x the aces as the opposition is magnified.

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see service errors, especially unforced ones like foot faults, but if you aren’t getting some service errors, you aren’t serving aggressively enough.  And in collegiate women’s volleyball, you have to serve aggressively because attacks are so strong that serving it so that the opposition gets an in system attack might as well be a service error.

BC

I am frustrated by but have grown to accept the service errors for the upside that you mention. The foot faults are inexcusable. I can't remember three foot faults in the past ten years of watching Stanford vb let alone three in one match.

Easy to agree about the foot faults. One is bad. Three is terrible.