[paloalto]

North Carolina State at Stanford on Friday 7:00pm PT livestream on ACCNX.  NC State is 10-1, however I don't believe any of their opponents were ranked and half were cupcakes.  It's difficult to rate NC State based only on their record.

---

In regard to the Louisville match, I base my assessment of a team's performance in part on my expectations.

Stanford has one elite pin player.  Two pin players are good but not elite.  They may get there some day.  It won't be this season.  Stanford's DSs are average DI players.  So I'm not really disappointed about the Louisville game.  If anything at 9-2 this Stanford team has over-achieved thus far.

[paloalto]

North Carolina State at Stanford on Friday 7:00pm PT livestream on ACCNX.  NC State is 10-1, however I don't believe any of their opponents were ranked and half were cupcakes.  It's difficult to rate NC State based only on their record.

---

In regard to the Louisville match, I base my assessment of a team's performance in part on my expectations.

Stanford has one elite pin player.  Two pin players are good but not elite.  They may get there some day.  It won't be this season.  Stanford's DSs are average DI players.  So I'm not really disappointed about the Louisville game.  If anything at 9-2 this Stanford team has over-achieved thus far.

[M T]

I can''t tell that PaloAlto is pleased with the team overachieving.  Or is it just that he sees the green grass on the other side of the fence?

He is consistent.

Playing Wisconsin the first weekend could be a brutal wake-up call about how much the team will need to improve.  I won't let a loss at the start of the season keep me from being optimistic.

AVCA putting Stanford at #5 in the pre-season poll is very generous IMO based on what they lost to graduation.

[M T]

I can''t tell that PaloAlto is pleased with the team overachieving.  Or is it just that he sees the green grass on the other side of the fence?

He is consistent.

Playing Wisconsin the first weekend could be a brutal wake-up call about how much the team will need to improve.  I won't let a loss at the start of the season keep me from being optimistic.

AVCA putting Stanford at #5 in the pre-season poll is very generous IMO based on what they lost to graduation.

[SkiBum80]

Stanford has one elite pin player.  Two pin players are good but not elite.  They may get there some day.  It won't be this season.  Stanford's DSs are average DI players.  So I'm not really disappointed about the Louisville game.  If anything at 9-2 this Stanford team has over-achieved thus far.

Logically I can't quibble with this. And yet it feels a bit like being too accepting of losing.
When I've seen how good this team can play, either in certain matches, or games, it seems like the talent is great and expectations can and should be very high. For every game.
I hope Coach H is not telling them they are over-achieving.

[SkiBum80]

Stanford has one elite pin player.  Two pin players are good but not elite.  They may get there some day.  It won't be this season.  Stanford's DSs are average DI players.  So I'm not really disappointed about the Louisville game.  If anything at 9-2 this Stanford team has over-achieved thus far.

Logically I can't quibble with this. And yet it feels a bit like being too accepting of losing.
When I've seen how good this team can play, either in certain matches, or games, it seems like the talent is great and expectations can and should be very high. For every game.
I hope Coach H is not telling them they are over-achieving.

[paloalto]

I am certain Coach Hambly is not telling the team they are overachieving.  I can't see any coach telling his/her team they are overachieving.   To be clear I would like for the team to win every match, but I'm also realistic.

[paloalto]

I am certain Coach Hambly is not telling the team they are overachieving.  I can't see any coach telling his/her team they are overachieving.   To be clear I would like for the team to win every match, but I'm also realistic.

[MSG1716]

We are not over-achieving.  We have a 3 All American level performers - a 6 rotation OH, a setter and libero.  We also have an all-conference level MB.  How many teams have that?  The other pins and MB are first year players.  That means they will get noticeably better as the year continues.  If you asked me before the season, I would have predicted us to be a 2 or 3 seed.  I think that's where we are now, and we will get better.  Let's see if we can get to the point where we beat Louisville 3-0 for the last match of the regular season at Maples.  They are an experienced team that likely won't improve nearly as much as we will in the next two months.

[MSG1716]

We are not over-achieving.  We have a 3 All American level performers - a 6 rotation OH, a setter and libero.  We also have an all-conference level MB.  How many teams have that?  The other pins and MB are first year players.  That means they will get noticeably better as the year continues.  If you asked me before the season, I would have predicted us to be a 2 or 3 seed.  I think that's where we are now, and we will get better.  Let's see if we can get to the point where we beat Louisville 3-0 for the last match of the regular season at Maples.  They are an experienced team that likely won't improve nearly as much as we will in the next two months.

[TonyLima]

Interesting. On my iPad, the Tickets button for wvb seems to be dead. Are they really sold out for the rest of the season?

[TonyLima]

Interesting. On my iPad, the Tickets button for wvb seems to be dead. Are they really sold out for the rest of the season?

[johnbar]

Interesting. On my iPad, the Tickets button for wvb seems to be dead. Are they really sold out for the rest of the season?

Tickets available using firefox on my laptop:

https://tickets.gostanford.com/section/w...yball-2d05

[johnbar]

Interesting. On my iPad, the Tickets button for wvb seems to be dead. Are they really sold out for the rest of the season?

Tickets available using firefox on my laptop:

https://tickets.gostanford.com/section/w...yball-2d05

[TonyLima]

Interesting. On my iPad, the Tickets button for wvb seems to be dead. Are they really sold out for the rest of the season?

Tickets available using firefox on my laptop:

https://tickets.gostanford.com/section/w...yball-2d05

Thanks.

[TonyLima]

Interesting. On my iPad, the Tickets button for wvb seems to be dead. Are they really sold out for the rest of the season?

Tickets available using firefox on my laptop:

https://tickets.gostanford.com/section/w...yball-2d05

Thanks.

[paloalto]

We are not over-achieving.  We have a 3 All American level performers - a 6 rotation OH, a setter and libero.  We also have an all-conference level MB.  How many teams have that?  The other pins and MB are first year players.  That means they will get noticeably better as the year continues.  If you asked me before the season, I would have predicted us to be a 2 or 3 seed.  I think that's where we are now, and we will get better.  Let's see if we can get to the point where we beat Louisville 3-0 for the last match of the regular season at Maples.  They are an experienced team that likely won't improve nearly as much as we will in the next two months.

I enjoy your commentary MSG.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  Prior to the season I thought replacing three fifth year starters with three players who are essentially rookies would be a reason for lowered expectations.  While I've been pleasantly surprised thus far I still think a top four overall seed will be a challenge.

Stanford plays Pitt and some pretty good ACC teams on the road later this season.  I'm looking forward to how Stanford plays SMU in the big D on October 16.  

Hope you are correct.

[paloalto]

We are not over-achieving.  We have a 3 All American level performers - a 6 rotation OH, a setter and libero.  We also have an all-conference level MB.  How many teams have that?  The other pins and MB are first year players.  That means they will get noticeably better as the year continues.  If you asked me before the season, I would have predicted us to be a 2 or 3 seed.  I think that's where we are now, and we will get better.  Let's see if we can get to the point where we beat Louisville 3-0 for the last match of the regular season at Maples.  They are an experienced team that likely won't improve nearly as much as we will in the next two months.

I enjoy your commentary MSG.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  Prior to the season I thought replacing three fifth year starters with three players who are essentially rookies would be a reason for lowered expectations.  While I've been pleasantly surprised thus far I still think a top four overall seed will be a challenge.

Stanford plays Pitt and some pretty good ACC teams on the road later this season.  I'm looking forward to how Stanford plays SMU in the big D on October 16.  

Hope you are correct.

[MSG1716]

I know my after last season and before this season prediction of a very good team this season, a top 15 team and potentially higher by the end of the year, was different than anyone's except maybe Hambly.  My basis was returning a top setter, a top libero, and a top OH.  Also, the last few years we did not play well under pressure (the two elite 8 matches) and I found that Rubin fought hard to the end, as did Miner and Oglivie, even the last set against Texas.  I also figured our three 2nd year pins were great on paper and at least one I figured would develop quickly, like Rubin did, and expected Francis and Andrew to provide a good MB combo.  We started out inconsistent with Harvey and Kurt, and Blyashov injured.  I was surprised we did so well OOC.  It did shock me that we were killed by Nebraska and then did not play tough in a Louisville sweep.  I'm still incredibly optimistic thinking the most likely is we will be a #2 seed (at this point) and OK if we are #3 seed.

---

Those needing tickets.  I have awesome seats, section 11 row C, and live in WA so only will be around for 4-5 home matches.  I have a friend who wants the seat for about half the matches.  For instance, if someone needs seats for this Sunday match, just contact me directly at darrow24@gmail.com.  If interested in a match, ask me about tickets the Monday of the week before and I'll know if they're available.  I've been getting below ticket cost, $20/ticket, from my friend and selling on stubhub.

[MSG1716]

I know my after last season and before this season prediction of a very good team this season, a top 15 team and potentially higher by the end of the year, was different than anyone's except maybe Hambly.  My basis was returning a top setter, a top libero, and a top OH.  Also, the last few years we did not play well under pressure (the two elite 8 matches) and I found that Rubin fought hard to the end, as did Miner and Oglivie, even the last set against Texas.  I also figured our three 2nd year pins were great on paper and at least one I figured would develop quickly, like Rubin did, and expected Francis and Andrew to provide a good MB combo.  We started out inconsistent with Harvey and Kurt, and Blyashov injured.  I was surprised we did so well OOC.  It did shock me that we were killed by Nebraska and then did not play tough in a Louisville sweep.  I'm still incredibly optimistic thinking the most likely is we will be a #2 seed (at this point) and OK if we are #3 seed.

---

Those needing tickets.  I have awesome seats, section 11 row C, and live in WA so only will be around for 4-5 home matches.  I have a friend who wants the seat for about half the matches.  For instance, if someone needs seats for this Sunday match, just contact me directly at darrow24@gmail.com.  If interested in a match, ask me about tickets the Monday of the week before and I'll know if they're available.  I've been getting below ticket cost, $20/ticket, from my friend and selling on stubhub.

[Spiny_Norman]

How much of Stanford's early season success has been due to tough serving? Is it sustainable as opponents get more video and better scouting as the season progresses so that they are better prepared?

The serving vs. Louisville was frustrating. Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

[Spiny_Norman]

How much of Stanford's early season success has been due to tough serving? Is it sustainable as opponents get more video and better scouting as the season progresses so that they are better prepared?

The serving vs. Louisville was frustrating. Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

[paloalto]

MSG, I believe we are on the same page.  In your first post I thought you meant #2 or #3 overall seed.  I now see you mean #2 or #3 regional seed.  I'm completely in agreement with that.  I think #2 regional seed is a reasonable expectation for this team.

---

#11 Oregon vs #3 Penn State today at 4:00pm PT on BTN.  Oregon has an MB who can touch 11"0" and also quick and athletic.  She transferred from UC Irvine two years ago and redshirted a year at Oregon to improve her game.  I was hoping she would consider Stanford back then but that didn't happen.

[paloalto]

MSG, I believe we are on the same page.  In your first post I thought you meant #2 or #3 overall seed.  I now see you mean #2 or #3 regional seed.  I'm completely in agreement with that.  I think #2 regional seed is a reasonable expectation for this team.

---

#11 Oregon vs #3 Penn State today at 4:00pm PT on BTN.  Oregon has an MB who can touch 11"0" and also quick and athletic.  She transferred from UC Irvine two years ago and redshirted a year at Oregon to improve her game.  I was hoping she would consider Stanford back then but that didn't happen.

[oldalum]

Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

I didn't see the match, but in general, it seems to me that most runs usually are a run in part because of aggressive serving that helps avoid side-outs. Side-outs not from service errors kill momentum too. An undesirable result of aggressive serving is that a run ends (or never gets started) because of a service error. There needs to be a balance, but Hambly seems ok with more service errors than most of us spectators seem to be. I suspect he has the stats to support it, based on things such as the grading of each serve, the percentage of each grade of serves that result in poor passes by the other team, and the percent of those that end in a point for us, versus how points go when we don't hit tough serves and when they serve-receive well. Against the very top teams that have highly potent offenses when in system (the ones we have to beat to win a NC), aggressive serving is especially important and I would guess Hambly wants to practice that all through the season.

[oldalum]

Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

I didn't see the match, but in general, it seems to me that most runs usually are a run in part because of aggressive serving that helps avoid side-outs. Side-outs not from service errors kill momentum too. An undesirable result of aggressive serving is that a run ends (or never gets started) because of a service error. There needs to be a balance, but Hambly seems ok with more service errors than most of us spectators seem to be. I suspect he has the stats to support it, based on things such as the grading of each serve, the percentage of each grade of serves that result in poor passes by the other team, and the percent of those that end in a point for us, versus how points go when we don't hit tough serves and when they serve-receive well. Against the very top teams that have highly potent offenses when in system (the ones we have to beat to win a NC), aggressive serving is especially important and I would guess Hambly wants to practice that all through the season.

[BostonCard]

Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

I didn't see the match, but in general, it seems to me that most runs usually are a run in part because of aggressive serving that helps avoid side-outs. Side-outs not from service errors kill momentum too. An undesirable result of aggressive serving is that a run ends (or never gets started) because of a service error. There needs to be a balance, but Hambly seems ok with more service errors than most of us spectators seem to be. I suspect he has the stats to support it, based on things such as the grading of each serve, the percentage of each grade of serves that result in poor passes by the other team, and the percent of those that end in a point for us, versus how points go when we don't hit tough serves and when they serve-receive well. Against the very top teams that have highly potent offenses when in system (the ones we have to beat to win a NC), aggressive serving is especially important and I would guess Hambly wants to practice that all through the season.

One thing is that I think this helps explain why even in matches where we win pretty decisively, we sometimes give up a set.  Let's say that on average, we can expect 1-2 "runs" per set, defined as a at least four consecutive points (this is just a simplifying assumption; runs aren't going to be exactly four points).  Let's also say that against a team that we beat, if we get two 4-point runs, we will beat them 25-19.  Of course, sometimes we only get one run, in which case we are looking at a much closer match (would be 21-19 without the run, and a battle to the finish).  If we get zero runs, as sometimes happens, the other team leads 19-17 and can beat us.  If we get more than two runs, it's a blow-out and we get two 25 well before they hit even 19.  Because you can usually but not always get a run, you sometimes have weird sets where an otherwise overmatched opponent will take a set.

BC

---

By the way, vis a vis the debate, I think we are over performing somewhat.  Looking at who we played through 11 games (6 matches ranked teams, 4 in the top 10, two in the top five), I think 9-2 (with losses against the #2 and #4 teams, on the road) is probably the upper limit of what we could reasonably have expected.  7-4 against this schedule wouldn't have been too much of a disappointment, and frankly 6-5 was completely possible.

We are currently the #5 ranked team, so if going in we thought a 2-3 regional seed was the expectation, which I agree with, we are currently at the upper end of the range.  I think we will wind up a #2 regional seed; if we improve we could wind up a top regional seed, and with some unexpected losses we can wind up a #3 seed.  With 18 matches left, I'd expect to go anywhere between 16-2 and 13-15 the rest of the way (very tough matches at Pitt, hosting Louisville, plus a home and away with Georgia Tech and matches at SMU and Florida State); best guess is 15-3.

BC

[BostonCard]

Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

I didn't see the match, but in general, it seems to me that most runs usually are a run in part because of aggressive serving that helps avoid side-outs. Side-outs not from service errors kill momentum too. An undesirable result of aggressive serving is that a run ends (or never gets started) because of a service error. There needs to be a balance, but Hambly seems ok with more service errors than most of us spectators seem to be. I suspect he has the stats to support it, based on things such as the grading of each serve, the percentage of each grade of serves that result in poor passes by the other team, and the percent of those that end in a point for us, versus how points go when we don't hit tough serves and when they serve-receive well. Against the very top teams that have highly potent offenses when in system (the ones we have to beat to win a NC), aggressive serving is especially important and I would guess Hambly wants to practice that all through the season.

One thing is that I think this helps explain why even in matches where we win pretty decisively, we sometimes give up a set.  Let's say that on average, we can expect 1-2 "runs" per set, defined as a at least four consecutive points (this is just a simplifying assumption; runs aren't going to be exactly four points).  Let's also say that against a team that we beat, if we get two 4-point runs, we will beat them 25-19.  Of course, sometimes we only get one run, in which case we are looking at a much closer match (would be 21-19 without the run, and a battle to the finish).  If we get zero runs, as sometimes happens, the other team leads 19-17 and can beat us.  If we get more than two runs, it's a blow-out and we get two 25 well before they hit even 19.  Because you can usually but not always get a run, you sometimes have weird sets where an otherwise overmatched opponent will take a set.

BC

---

By the way, vis a vis the debate, I think we are over performing somewhat.  Looking at who we played through 11 games (6 matches ranked teams, 4 in the top 10, two in the top five), I think 9-2 (with losses against the #2 and #4 teams, on the road) is probably the upper limit of what we could reasonably have expected.  7-4 against this schedule wouldn't have been too much of a disappointment, and frankly 6-5 was completely possible.

We are currently the #5 ranked team, so if going in we thought a 2-3 regional seed was the expectation, which I agree with, we are currently at the upper end of the range.  I think we will wind up a #2 regional seed; if we improve we could wind up a top regional seed, and with some unexpected losses we can wind up a #3 seed.  With 18 matches left, I'd expect to go anywhere between 16-2 and 13-15 the rest of the way (very tough matches at Pitt, hosting Louisville, plus a home and away with Georgia Tech and matches at SMU and Florida State); best guess is 15-3.

BC

[M T]

One thing is that I think this helps explain why even in matches where we win pretty decisively, we sometimes give up a set.  Let's say that on average, we can expect 1-2 "runs" per set, defined as a at least four consecutive points (this is just a simplifying assumption; runs aren't going to be exactly four points).  Let's also say that against a team that we beat, if we get two 4-point runs, we will beat them 25-19.  Of course, sometimes we only get one run, in which case we are looking at a much closer match (would be 21-19 without the run, and a battle to the finish).  If we get zero runs, as sometimes happens, the other team leads 19-17 and can beat us.  If we get more than two runs, it's a blow-out and we get two 25 well before they hit even 19.  Because you can usually but not always get a run, you sometimes have weird sets where an otherwise overmatched opponent will take a set.

BC

Interesting thought.  I'm no expert, but I kinda doubt that math works.  Serves are individual events.  As far as I know, playing VB doesn't bundle into runs  like that, except when viewed after the fact.  (No doubt that with certain servers and/or certain rotation match-ups, there will be more runs in certain rotations.)

I think a better way to look at this is to ignore the modern scoring and go back to scoring only when on serve.  Add those points for each team and you'il get the final differential.  Of course, side-outs influence how quickly the game ends. To win by N points, you need to win N (+/- 1) more of your serves than the opponent does.  (Indeed, in my head, I keep track of the score that way. Initial serving team gets a negative 0.5 points.  Side outs count for nothing, so don't affect how much one team is up or down.)

A swing from a first set 25-20 win to a second set 20-25 loss is a swing of about 10 wins-on-service. What happened?  Well, the opponent adjusted, perhaps how they receive, or who they serve to, where sets are going, or how the blockers react.

I just don't think you can simplify it down to getting or missing a set of runs.

---

Someone's label of "over-performing" or "under-performing" is simply a reflection of that person's perception of the team and its opponents.  Matters not a hoot to me.  I'm not someone who gambles, so I don't really care much what others think.

In case you missed it, the team is sitting at #5, right where their pre-season ranking was.   By that measure, they're performing on track.

This team is doing well and I support them.  (I feel certain I'd support them even if they weren't doing well.)   But then I'm a fan.  I will cheer when they win and ache when they lose.

I do believe Stanford has an elite coach who will help them develop as much as possible.  I've already said that their travel is a big impediment to their having the best record during the season.  I'm hoping that despite the travel, their performance in the NC tourney will be good.

[M T]

One thing is that I think this helps explain why even in matches where we win pretty decisively, we sometimes give up a set.  Let's say that on average, we can expect 1-2 "runs" per set, defined as a at least four consecutive points (this is just a simplifying assumption; runs aren't going to be exactly four points).  Let's also say that against a team that we beat, if we get two 4-point runs, we will beat them 25-19.  Of course, sometimes we only get one run, in which case we are looking at a much closer match (would be 21-19 without the run, and a battle to the finish).  If we get zero runs, as sometimes happens, the other team leads 19-17 and can beat us.  If we get more than two runs, it's a blow-out and we get two 25 well before they hit even 19.  Because you can usually but not always get a run, you sometimes have weird sets where an otherwise overmatched opponent will take a set.

BC

Interesting thought.  I'm no expert, but I kinda doubt that math works.  Serves are individual events.  As far as I know, playing VB doesn't bundle into runs  like that, except when viewed after the fact.  (No doubt that with certain servers and/or certain rotation match-ups, there will be more runs in certain rotations.)

I think a better way to look at this is to ignore the modern scoring and go back to scoring only when on serve.  Add those points for each team and you'il get the final differential.  Of course, side-outs influence how quickly the game ends. To win by N points, you need to win N (+/- 1) more of your serves than the opponent does.  (Indeed, in my head, I keep track of the score that way. Initial serving team gets a negative 0.5 points.  Side outs count for nothing, so don't affect how much one team is up or down.)

A swing from a first set 25-20 win to a second set 20-25 loss is a swing of about 10 wins-on-service. What happened?  Well, the opponent adjusted, perhaps how they receive, or who they serve to, where sets are going, or how the blockers react.

I just don't think you can simplify it down to getting or missing a set of runs.

---

Someone's label of "over-performing" or "under-performing" is simply a reflection of that person's perception of the team and its opponents.  Matters not a hoot to me.  I'm not someone who gambles, so I don't really care much what others think.

In case you missed it, the team is sitting at #5, right where their pre-season ranking was.   By that measure, they're performing on track.

This team is doing well and I support them.  (I feel certain I'd support them even if they weren't doing well.)   But then I'm a fan.  I will cheer when they win and ache when they lose.

I do believe Stanford has an elite coach who will help them develop as much as possible.  I've already said that their travel is a big impediment to their having the best record during the season.  I'm hoping that despite the travel, their performance in the NC tourney will be good.

[Spiny_Norman]

Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

I didn't see the match, but in general, it seems to me that most runs usually are a run in part because of aggressive serving that helps avoid side-outs. Side-outs not from service errors kill momentum too. An undesirable result of aggressive serving is that a run ends (or never gets started) because of a service error. There needs to be a balance, but Hambly seems ok with more service errors than most of us spectators seem to be. I suspect he has the stats to support it, based on things such as the grading of each serve, the percentage of each grade of serves that result in poor passes by the other team, and the percent of those that end in a point for us, versus how points go when we don't hit tough serves and when they serve-receive well. Against the very top teams that have highly potent offenses when in system (the ones we have to beat to win a NC), aggressive serving is especially important and I would guess Hambly wants to practice that all through the season.

I like the strategy. It's just a high risk approach that sometimes is frustrating for the fans. Does playing a high pressure serve game necessarily mean so many service errors?

Stanford is 80th in country in aces per set. Pitt is 4th.

[Spiny_Norman]

Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

I didn't see the match, but in general, it seems to me that most runs usually are a run in part because of aggressive serving that helps avoid side-outs. Side-outs not from service errors kill momentum too. An undesirable result of aggressive serving is that a run ends (or never gets started) because of a service error. There needs to be a balance, but Hambly seems ok with more service errors than most of us spectators seem to be. I suspect he has the stats to support it, based on things such as the grading of each serve, the percentage of each grade of serves that result in poor passes by the other team, and the percent of those that end in a point for us, versus how points go when we don't hit tough serves and when they serve-receive well. Against the very top teams that have highly potent offenses when in system (the ones we have to beat to win a NC), aggressive serving is especially important and I would guess Hambly wants to practice that all through the season.

I like the strategy. It's just a high risk approach that sometimes is frustrating for the fans. Does playing a high pressure serve game necessarily mean so many service errors?

Stanford is 80th in country in aces per set. Pitt is 4th.

[paloalto]

NC State match has started.  ACCNX no volume and score on screen not up to date.  Thus far it looks like Cawa instead of Beaven for one of the DSs.

---

I haven't checked.  I don't think NC State is ranked.  Thus far they look better than Stanford in first set.

---

According to livestats now 13-13.  Rubin with a nice kill from the back row.

[paloalto]

NC State match has started.  ACCNX no volume and score on screen not up to date.  Thus far it looks like Cawa instead of Beaven for one of the DSs.

---

I haven't checked.  I don't think NC State is ranked.  Thus far they look better than Stanford in first set.

---

According to livestats now 13-13.  Rubin with a nice kill from the back row.

[M T]

Audio on KZSU-2

Live stats had 24-19, but KZSU said 23-20

[M T]

Audio on KZSU-2

Live stats had 24-19, but KZSU said 23-20

[paloalto]

When Kurt can get the ball past the block you can see the heat she puts on her hits.

[paloalto]

When Kurt can get the ball past the block you can see the heat she puts on her hits.

[M T]

ACC-NX finally gets audio working just before Stanford wins set 1 25-22. Apparently Stanford was down 9-14 earlier, so the last part was 16-8.

Bleah on ACC-NX. At least on Sling, I can't record it. So I have to miss either the men's soccer or the WVB. No, I can't use two devices -- Sling shut me off when I tried two devices.
No ability to go back and review the last play.
No live score on the screen for either WVB or MSoc.

This is clearly an East Coast announcer. I wonder if it is the first time she's seen Stanford.
Without the score visible, this announcer is not doing a good job of telling the audience the score, except occasionally.
I've heard better KZSU announcing.

[M T]

ACC-NX finally gets audio working just before Stanford wins set 1 25-22. Apparently Stanford was down 9-14 earlier, so the last part was 16-8.

Bleah on ACC-NX. At least on Sling, I can't record it. So I have to miss either the men's soccer or the WVB. No, I can't use two devices -- Sling shut me off when I tried two devices.
No ability to go back and review the last play.
No live score on the screen for either WVB or MSoc.

This is clearly an East Coast announcer. I wonder if it is the first time she's seen Stanford.
Without the score visible, this announcer is not doing a good job of telling the audience the score, except occasionally.
I've heard better KZSU announcing.