Media Coverage for Kentucky vs. Penn State

Tournament Central

A quick note about coverage of Friday’s match between Kentucky and Penn State.

The Penn State Women’s Volleyball Booster Club is helping to sponsor Forever Broadcasting’s radio broadcast of Friday’s match.  Coverage will begin at 4:00 p.m (the match starts at 5:00 p.m.).   Dean Devore will provide the play-by-play for the broadcast on 1390 am radio.

We think there will be a live stream of the event, as well, and that there is a live stream for a 1390 am Penn State Women’s Volleyball show tonight from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm, but we’ll have an update on that later today or tomorrow.

The Kentucky match also will be streamed live on ESPN3, with an audio stream from CBSulive,  and stats coverage from GameTracker.

Q&A with Club Coach

We’re speaking today with Club Coach, a coach who has coached numerous collegiate and club volleyball players, about the West Lafayette Regional (and so-called “Easy Roads” to the Final Four), freshmen Daly Santana and Annie Drews, and about the improvement shown this season by the Penn State team.

About “Easy Roads” and the West Lafayette Regional

DigNittany: The West Lafayette Regional received a lot of criticism as giving Penn State an “easy road” to the Final Four.  We have a feeling none of the other three teams in the Regional Semifinals — Kentucky, Minnesota and Purdue — agree with that assessment.  [Editor’s note: it’s also worth pointing out that It’s Never Easy to win the NCAA Women’s Volleyball Championship.]

We’ve seen Minnesota and Purdue, and know they can be tough.  What can you tell us about Kentucky, and what do you have to say to the “Easy Road” crowd?

Club Coach: I think people think it’s easy because they know PSU has already beaten those teams. They also beat Texas and Stanford this year, and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t call it easy if they were in PSU’s regional.  Minnesota is a scary team.  They bomb the ball from multiple positions and can be as good as, or better than, any team in the country from the service line.

Purdue got beat in a regional final last year, and was an injury away from beating Texas and advancing the year before.  I think there were a lot of people out there who thought Michigan State would be easy for UCLA, but it didn’t work out that way.  Lastly, they should have the easiest draw — they earned the overall #1 seed.

Kentucky is very well coached, has athletes, and has played a tough schedule. Ohio State was playing great volleyball late in the season, and Kentucky dismantled them. The Wildcats aren’t showing up just so they can tell their grandkids they got to play Penn State.  They will play to win.

About Daly Santana and Annie Drews

2012 Big Ten All-Freshman Team (Unanimous Choices in ALL CAPS)

Name	Position	Height	School
BIRKS, JOCELYNN	OH	6-2	Illinois
COURTNEY, MEGAN	OH	6-2	Penn State
HAGGERTY, MEGHAN	MB	6-2	Nebraska
MORALES, TIFFANY	Libero	5-6	Michigan
SANTANA, DALY	OH	6-1	Minnesota
Drews, Annie (tie)	Opp	6-4	Purdue
Peterson, Halle (tie)	S	5-10	Michigan State

DigNittany: Megan Courtney won Big Ten Freshman of the Year, but two other freshmen in this Regional – Minnesota’s 6-1 OH Daly Santana and Purdue’s 6-4 OH Annie Drews – have impressed us this season.  Santana was a unanimous pick for the All Big Ten Freshman team, and Drews tied with Michigan State’s 5-10 setter Halle Peterson for a spot on the team.  Any thoughts on either of these players?

Club Coach: I think that is a great group of freshman. Santana in particular really impressed me late in the season; she can really jump and bang it at the net, and has a dangerous serve.

About Things Getting Better

DigNittany: Last year, #8 seed Penn State came into the Sweet Sixteen as a slight favorite over #9  seed UCLA, but was defeated rather convincingly by the Bruins, 3-0 (20-25, 22-25, 21-25).

Statistically, this year’s team is much improved over last year’s edition (see the tables below, for a comparison of last year’s stats to this year’s stats as of November 10, 2012), and certainly garnering the #1 overall seed is an indication that lots of people think very highly of the Nittany Lions.  Putting statistics aside, how much do you think this year’s team has improved in terms of leadership, communication, and ability to overcome adversity, and how has that improvement manifested itself this season?

Club Coach: I think this is a totally different group than the one we saw last year. First off, Hancock went from a player battling to keep her head above water, to a confident player and leader.

Secondly, I think they have made tremendous strides in their passing and defense – something I think Steve Aird had a big impact on in the spring season.  I also think that McClendon’s development as an all-around player has also played a really big role.  Her attack numbers are down, but she is contributing in areas of the game that she hasn’t before, and therefore is a more valuable player.

I don’t know if this group will win it, but they look like champions and are carrying themselves that way as well. They really put the hammer down on teams late in the season, and appear to be playing their best volleyball at the right time.

DigNittany: Thanks very much for your time.  We really appreciate it.

Getting Better – Statistically Speaking

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk0dBZ1meio’]

Attack Leaders - 2012 vs. 2011 (as of 11-10-12)

Year	Name	Class	Sets Played	Matches Played	Matches Started	Kills	Kills/Set	Attack Errors	Total Attacks	Hitting Pct.
2012	Scott, Ariel	Jr.	95	27	26	346	3.64	103	851	.286
2011	Scott, Ariel	So.	118	33	31	418	3.54	136	1083	.260
2012	McClendon, Deja	Jr.	94	27	27	307	3.27	97	852	.246
2011	McClendon, Deja	So.	122	33	33	432	3.54	144	1090	.264
2012	Slay, Katie	Jr.	92	26	22	224	2.43	45	414	.432
2011	Slay, Katie	So.	122	33	33	257	2.11	63	502	.386
2012	Courtney, Megan	Fr.	90	27	26	182	2.02	71	485	.229
2011	Martin, Maddie	So.	98	33	24	141	1.44	60	410	.198
2012	Grant, Nia	So.	94	27	27	160	1.70	42	311	.379
2011	Grant, Nia	Fr.	117	32	32	151	1.29	44	309	.346
2012	Hancock, Micha	So.	95	27	27	104	1.09	25	197	.389
2011	Hancock, Micha	Fr.	121	33	32	110	0.91	34	246	.309
2012	Team	n/a	95	27	27	1384	14.57	408	3275	.298
2011	Team	n/a	122	33	33	1676	13.74	564	4159	.267
2012	Opponents	n/a	95	27	27	1022	10.76	581	3242	.136
2011	Opponents	n/a	122	33	33	1377	11.29	684	4077	.170

Set/Serve Leaders - 2012 vs. 2011 (as of 11-10-12)

Year	Name	Class	Sets Played	Matches Played	Matches Started	Assists	Assists /Set	Service Aces	Service Aces/Set	Service Errors
2012	Hancock, Micha	So.	95	27	27	1090	11.47	53	0.56	95
2011	Hancock, Micha	Fr.	121	33	33	1275	10.54	91	0.75	76
2012	Gonzalez, Dominique	So.	95	27	0	74	0.78	19	0.20	21
2011	Longo, Ali	So.	117	33	0	90	0.77	32	0.27	30
2012	Courtney, Megan	Fr.	90	27	26	24	0.27	8	0.09	28
2011	Carpenter, Kristin	Jr.	100	33	4	76	0.76	14	0.14	37
2012	Fuller, Lacey	So.	92	27	1	12	0.13	12	0.13	13
2011	Gonzalez, Dominique	Fr.	84	29	6	19	0.23	8	0.10	21
2012	Team	n/a	95	27	27	1268	13.35	135	1.42	241
2011	Team	n/a	122	33	33	1549	12.70	209	1.71	288
2012	Opponents	n/a	95	27	27	977	10.28	75	0.79	156
2011	Opponents	n/a	122	33	33	1293	10.60	113	0.93	202

Recept/Dig Leaders - 2012 vs. 2011 (as of 11-10-12)

Year	Name	Class	SP	MP	MS	RE	Dig	Dig/S
2012	Gonzalez, Dominique	So.	95	27	0	15	349	3.67
2011	Longo, Ali	So.	117	33	0	19	397	3.39
2012	McClendon, Deja	Jr.	94	27	27	26	266	2.83
2011	McClendon, Deja	So.	122	33	33	22	245	2.01
2012	Hancock, Micha	So.	95	27	27	0	226	2.38
2011	Hancock, Micha	Fr.	121	33	32	4	279	2.31
2012	Courtney, Megan	Fr.	90	27	26	19	173	1.92
2011	Martin, Maddie	So.	98	33	24	21	156	1.59
2012	Fuller, Lacey	So.	92	27	1	2	142	1.54
2011	Carpenter, Kristin	Jr.	100	33	4	12	182	1.82
2012	Team	n/a	95	27	27	75	1401	14.75
2011	Team	n/a	122	33	33	113	1729	14.17
2012	Opponents	n/a	95	27	27	135	1278	13.45
2011	Opponents	n/a	122	33	33	209	1671	13.70

Blocking and Points Leaders - 2012 vs. 2011 (as of 11-10-12)

Year	Name	Class	SP	MP	MS	Block Solo	Block Assist	Total	Blocks /Set	Blocking Errors	Points	Points /Set
2012	Scott, Ariel	Jr.	95	27	26	11	63	74	0.78	3	391.5	4.12
2011	Scott, Ariel	So.	118	33	31	5	81	86	0.73	2	471.5	4.00
2012	McClendon, Deja	Jr.	94	27	27	13	39	52	0.55	5	349.5	3.72
2011	McClendon, Deja	So.	122	33	33	13	48	61	0.50	6	482.0	3.95
2012	Slay, Katie	Jr.	92	26	22	12	113	125	1.36	8	292.5	3.18
2011	Slay, Katie	So.	122	33	33	27	146	173	1.42	11	359.0	2.94
2012	Courtney, Megan	Fr.	90	27	26	21	51	72	0.80	8	236.5	2.63
2011	Martin, Maddie	So.	98	33	24	5	34	39	0.40	2	180.0	1.84
2012	Grant, Nia	So.	94	27	27	4	86	90	0.96	10	207.0	2.20
2011	Grant, Nia	Fr.	117	32	32	13	94	107	0.91	4	224.0	1.91
2012	Hancock, Micha	So.	95	27	27	6	60	66	0.69	4	193.0	2.03
2011	Hancock, Micha	Fr.	121	33	32	5	54	59	0.49	9	233.0	1.93
2012	Team	n/a	95	27	27	67	427	280.5	2.95	41	1799.5	18.94
2011	Team	n/a	122	33	33	76	503	327.5	2.68	40	n/a	n/a
2012	Opponents	n/a	95	27	27	37	277	175.5	1.85	38	1272.5	13.39
2011	Opponents	n/a	122	33	33	51	341	221.5	1.82	69	n/a	n/a