Seawolves lose perfect season in five set nail-biter, defeat Humboldt 3-0, CSUMB 3-1
After serving up a perfect 11-0 season, the No. 13 ranked Sonoma State Women’s Volleyball team faced their first loss against San Francisco State University and ended the weekend with a 13-1 record.
The Seawolves started off the week with a 3-0 win against the Humboldt State Lumberjacks on Wednesday, 25-8, 25-14, 25-14. Led by three service aces from senior Lindsay Brown (totaling five in the game), Sonoma State took the early lead in the first set.
With 12 kills and only two errors in 28 attacks, the girls reached a 19-3 lead before ending the round at 25-8. SSU kept the momentum up through the next two sets, dominating the Lumberjacks with 12 kills from senior Sarah Illingsworth and 10 from Ali Walker.
With 17 digs, sophomore Taylor Krenwinkel led the team, and Brown would set a season high 40 assists in a three set game. Humboldt State would be held to just 18 kills the entire match.
“Someone has to be more physical to beat us,” said head coach Bear Grassl.
The Seawolves won both sets 25-14 to keep an undefeated season at 11-0, while the Lumberjacks maintained a 5-6 (1-2 CCAA) record.
However, the team’s winning streak would come to an abrupt halt when they faced the SFSU Gators on Friday, losing 3-2 (24-26, 26-28, 25-22, 25-15, 13-15).
“They’re good defensively, they’re good attacking and they have fight and hustle,” said Grassl. “We definitely can beat them, they just happened to be better that night.”
In a five-set game that saw numerous ties and lead changes, the Seawolves were up against a constant battle for the lead.
Sonoma State bounded to an early 7-2 count in the first set; eventually reaching a 21-16 lead after three tie scores and two rebounds by the Gators. Despite having a lead close to the end of the set, SFSU bounced back with four kills from Beth Perkins for a 10-3 run to take over the lead, and the set 26-24.
“We would have liked to respond to pressure better,” said Grassl.
The second set was a close match between the two, with the win coming down to the number of kills produced. Freshman Ally Sather reached a career-high 25 kills on the night while junior Marianne Fox contributed 12. SFSU chased the Seawolves through most of the set until a kill from Kyle Lamet switched the momentum over to allow a 4-1 run to give the Gators the win at 28-24.
The third set saw a lot of back and forth action; neither team held more than a three run lead, tied six times and changed the lead 10 times. SSU held strong and won 25-22 to begin their short-lived comeback.
The Seawolves tied it up in the fourth set, with a much easier win compared to the previous rounds.
Four kills from Fox and Sather and three from Rikki Buckshnis and Brown allowed Sonoma State the early, and ending, lead at 25-15.
Errors plagued the Seawolves in the fifth and final set of the match, as SFSU took advantage of the mistakes to come out of the set, and the game, victorious, 13-15.
“It’s important to not panic because we lost one game, then change everything,” Grassl told the girls after the game. “We’ve been pretty successful, we’re still playing good volleyball.”
Brown had a season high 50 assists in the game, Taylor Krenwinkel had 22 digs, and Illingworth had five blocks.
History was made the next day as Brown made her 3,000th career assist in the second set against CSU Monterey Bay and ended the game with 3,021. Sather supplied a team high 23 kills, with seven from Illingworth and Devynne Johnson apiece and 46 of the team’s 51 assists came from Brown.
In the four-set victory, the Seawolves got off to a good start in a close set with the Otters to win 25-23, with 17 kills, five errors and 38 attacks.
The momentum ended as Sonoma State was unable to beat Monterey Bay in the second set to even the score at 1-1. The Otters produced multiple long run streaks to put them in position to win, 25-18.
The Seawolves then fought back and started out with an astonishing 12 point run in the third set. Four of those points were service aces made by Brown, and led to a 25-19 lead.
“This year’s roster is a lot like last years,” said Grassl. “Most of the starters are returning. We are playing a different style, we’re not as physical as last year.”
An easy victory in the fourth set gave the Seawolves the 3-1 lead to win the game and bounce back from a disheartening loss the previous night. Sonoma State retained the lead through the set and had a five point run to end at 25-17.
“Brown, Krenwinkel and Walker are the backbone of this team,” said Grassl. “They’re the glue that holds us together. About 70 percent of the balls we touch are handled by them.”
According to Grassl, sophomore Keala Peterson, who was injured last week during a block attempt against a competitive Cal State Los Angeles, will likely be able to return to play within the next week or two.
The Seawolves remain ranked at No. 13 with a 12-1 overall record, 4-1 in the CCAA.
They will face Cal Poly Pomona on Fri., Sept. 25 and Cal State San Bernadino on Sat., Sept. 26. The first serve for both games is scheduled for 7 p.m.
These games won’t be pushover wins for the Seawolves. Last year, San Bernadino played in the national championship game and are currently ranked at No. 2, and SSU hasn’t won against Pomona in at least ten years, according to Grassl.
“They’re both very good teams,” he commented on his opponents. “But we’re also prepared.”
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Saturdays in Rohnert Park are boring; bring back the pigskin
One of the biggest factors in my college decision was football. I wanted to be part of the college football culture: tailgates with your friends, painting faces, and screaming at the top of your lungs as you cheer on your school.
I grew up with football, and I wanted this to continue throughout college. As a die-hard University of Southern California Trojan fan, obviously USC was my first choice.
But with circumstances out of my control, my decision came down to the University of Nebraska and Sonoma State University.
Most of my desire to go to Nebraska was based on the football family within it, (plus a strong urge to distance myself from my parents) as well as their academic program.
It wasn’t until a tornado struck the town a week before I had to send in my acceptance letter that I thought about Sonoma State. Sure, it was a little closer to home, but that ended up working out for the best.
I have never regretted my decision, but it still annoys me every time I see a friend’s Facebook status that reads “At the game – Go [insert school name here]!”
I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. I genuinely envy them, not just for the tailgates and team spirit, but for the lost hours watching the best kind of football there is.
Sonoma was fortunate enough to host a team in the school’s early years, with winning teams and legendary players. The first Sonoma State team hit the field in 1969, but all that remains is a t-shirt in the bookstore which reads “SSU Football: Undefeated since 1992.”
Even now, the only glimpse of seeing any Sonoma football star has disappeared with the retirement of Larry Allen, an offensive lineman for the San Francisco 49-ers.
However, due to increasing costs and Title IX, the team was dismantled. The scores weren’t horrible and the fans were there, but the money wasn’t.
The budget continues to be the largest deterrent in recreating SSU football’s former glory. A previous estimate stated that a football team would cost around $500,000 on average a year to run – not to mention the $10 million needed to rehabilitate the stadium to make it suitable to play in.
On top of that, Humboldt State is the only Division II football team in California. The team’s traveling costs would be off the charts.
Title IX would then force new women’s teams to be created, as there need to be an equal number of women’s and men’s players. A solid football program would require at least 80 players, meaning around four new women’s teams would have to be created.
I understand the reasons why the team was disbanded.
I understand that with the current state of the economy, more money cannot be spent to build around new team, or a stadium to hold them.
However, I still hope that one day this can change.
SSU is a fairly distant community. While the number of students suggests otherwise, and in the end everyone knows each other’s business, we still need to work at bringing everyone together.
What could be a more perfect way than by starting up football again?
Every Saturday, an entire stadium could be filled with students decked out in Sonoma blue and white, cheering on our school.
Maybe this won’t happen in the next decade or two, but someday, I’d like to take my kids to a game to watch my alma mater play.
I grew up with football, and I wanted this to continue throughout college. As a die-hard University of Southern California Trojan fan, obviously USC was my first choice.
But with circumstances out of my control, my decision came down to the University of Nebraska and Sonoma State University.
Most of my desire to go to Nebraska was based on the football family within it, (plus a strong urge to distance myself from my parents) as well as their academic program.
It wasn’t until a tornado struck the town a week before I had to send in my acceptance letter that I thought about Sonoma State. Sure, it was a little closer to home, but that ended up working out for the best.
I have never regretted my decision, but it still annoys me every time I see a friend’s Facebook status that reads “At the game – Go [insert school name here]!”
I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. I genuinely envy them, not just for the tailgates and team spirit, but for the lost hours watching the best kind of football there is.
Sonoma was fortunate enough to host a team in the school’s early years, with winning teams and legendary players. The first Sonoma State team hit the field in 1969, but all that remains is a t-shirt in the bookstore which reads “SSU Football: Undefeated since 1992.”
Even now, the only glimpse of seeing any Sonoma football star has disappeared with the retirement of Larry Allen, an offensive lineman for the San Francisco 49-ers.
However, due to increasing costs and Title IX, the team was dismantled. The scores weren’t horrible and the fans were there, but the money wasn’t.
The budget continues to be the largest deterrent in recreating SSU football’s former glory. A previous estimate stated that a football team would cost around $500,000 on average a year to run – not to mention the $10 million needed to rehabilitate the stadium to make it suitable to play in.
On top of that, Humboldt State is the only Division II football team in California. The team’s traveling costs would be off the charts.
Title IX would then force new women’s teams to be created, as there need to be an equal number of women’s and men’s players. A solid football program would require at least 80 players, meaning around four new women’s teams would have to be created.
I understand the reasons why the team was disbanded.
I understand that with the current state of the economy, more money cannot be spent to build around new team, or a stadium to hold them.
However, I still hope that one day this can change.
SSU is a fairly distant community. While the number of students suggests otherwise, and in the end everyone knows each other’s business, we still need to work at bringing everyone together.
What could be a more perfect way than by starting up football again?
Every Saturday, an entire stadium could be filled with students decked out in Sonoma blue and white, cheering on our school.
Maybe this won’t happen in the next decade or two, but someday, I’d like to take my kids to a game to watch my alma mater play.
Volleyball sweeps up Seawolf Spike
It seemed like Sonoma State women’s volleyball could do no wrong in the Seawolf Spike season opener, dominating strong opposition to win all four games.
The Seawolves began the tournament with a quick battle against Notre Dame de Namur, Fri., Aug. 28, defeating them 3-0.
While the first set ran smoothly, with senior Lindsay Brown assisting on 10 of the Seawolves’ 15 kills to win 25-12, Notre Dame fought back in the second.
With nine ties and five lead changes, Sonoma State faced the fierce offense of Breanna Morales and Caitlin Torres, both with five kills that set.
Allyson Sather made an outstanding volleyball debut, leading the team with 11 kills with sophomore transfer Keala Peterson adding a close ten. Brown totaled 27 assists and Taylor Krenwinkel led with 11 digs.
Western Oregon would not go down quite as easily in Friday’s second game.
Sonoma State took control of the first two sets, with 25-16 and 25-10 victories, then lost in a close contest of 22-25 in the third, and finally ended the match with a 25-23 win.
Sather brought in 17 kills and Peterson contributed an additional 11.
Competition was the toughest in the Seawolves’ first game on Saturday against Dominican University, taking all five sets to determine the winner.
Though Sonoma State started out strong, dominating the Penguins 25-9, Dominican retaliated in the second and abrubtly quieted SSU’s cheers with a disheartening defeat of 16-25.
It then took 52 points between the two teams to declare a winner for the third set. The Seawolves maintained the lead for most of the set until a kill from Gabby Pecora evened the score out and allowed Dominican to steal the lead and win 27-25.
SSU came back and won the next two sets neccesary to claim victory over Dominican.
In their final match against Central Washington University, the Seawolves took off right from the start, only losing the lead once in the first set. It was a close round, with constant back and forth action, but Sonoma State prevailed with a 25-19 win.
From there, the domination continued as Sonoma State won the next two sets with ease.
Senior Lindsay Brown was named tournament MVP after the game. Brown accumulated 161 assists, 12 digs and 15 kills over the weekend.
The Seawolves remain undefeated and will travel to Washington for the CWU Invitational next weekend where they will face BYU-Hawaii, Seattle Pacific, Evergreen State and Western Washington.
SSU alum makes “monster” debut with the Oakland A’s
It’s not every day that someone makes their Major League Baseball debut with a double off the legendary Green Monster with all-star closer Jonathan Papelbon throwing fastballs at them.
For Sonoma State University alumnus Tommy Everidge however, this day was just the first of a promising career with the Oakland Athletics.
His hit landed a foot from the top of the Monster, scoring Jack Cust to help the A’s rally against the Red Sox and eventually win in extra innings, 9-8, on July 28.
A first baseman, Everidge was first drafted to the Athletics in the 10th round in 2004, just after graduating from SSU. He was sent to the minor leagues, where he spent five years earning awards for outstanding batting and waiting to be called up to the majors.
In 2008, he brought in another 22 homeruns and lead the league with 115 RBIs. His batting average against lefties translated into .364 in the majors.
Despite his impressive records, he had to fight for a position with the A’s. The battle to open 2009 came down to Nomar Garciaparra , Joe Dillon and Everidge. It was with a few injuries and a little bit of luck that he was able to play.
Since the first game, Everidge’s bat has become an advantage for Oakland.
Everidge hit his first MLB home-run against Kansas City Chief’s closer Joakim Soria; a 396 ft. shot to right center at the bottom of the ninth to lessen the Cheif’s lead to 12-4.
“It feels really good to get it out of the way,” Everidge told MLB.com.
The next blast came against the New York Yankees on Aug. 18. A long, left field shot would regain the lead for the A’s in the top of the second, but would be the last time anyone crossed the plate. Yankees won 7-2.
Everidge’s last game with the A’s was on Aug. 28 against the Seattle Mariners where he went 1-4 with just one strike-out.
According to the A’s website, he has been “reassigned” but still has a chance at playing in the majors again.
Everidge holds a .224 batting average with a .302 OBP. He has 27 hits, seven RBIs and 13 runs scored in 85 at bats.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Legalization of Marijuana
So by now everyone has heard of the attempt to legalize marijuana to bring in tax revenue. This is my response to this whole debate.
First off, I wonder if those who call marijuana a "harmful" drug and a "gateway to more dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroine" have ever actually smoked it, or hung around people who do. Marijuana, for the most part, is the most harmless drug of them all if you get straight down to immediate effects. According to erowid.com these are the effects:
mood lift, euphoria
laughter
relaxation, stress reduction
creative, philosophical or deep thinking : ideas flow more easily
increased appreciation of music. More aware of, deeper connection to music.
increased awareness of senses. (eating, drinking, smell)
change in experience of muscle fatigue. Pleasant body feel. Increase in body/mind connection.
pain relief (headaches, cramps)
boring tasks or entertainment can become more interesting or funny
general change in consciousness (as with many psychoactives)
increased appetite, snacky-ness
slowness (slow driving, talking)
change in vision such as sharpened colors or lights
closed-eye visuals (somewhat uncommon)
tiredness, sleepiness, lethargy
In all of this, no where do you find aggression or easy agitation. It is a peaceful drug and in more cases than none, it knocks the user on their ass, making them lazy and incapable of doing much else. Alcohol in large doses causes many to lash out and fight, say things they want to keep secret, and participate in actions they normally wouldn't and probably shouldn't. Driving under this influence is also extremely dangerous and causes more deaths than many others. Weed use does not produce these same effects and are relatively harmless.
While it does have an addicting nature, many find that they do not become completely dependent on it. Just like alcohol and tobacco, and even food, and any substance or action can become addicting. If addiction is a valid case for criminalization, then let's ban shopping, eating, exercising and countless other things. Just because some people are unable to handle drugs does not mean that others can't. Anything is ok in moderation.
I personally feel that marijuana is not a gateway drug towards more harmful ones. "Studies" have shown it is, but they are funded by anti-marijuana parties. Anyone who has ever experienced it first-hand would know that it's quite the opposite. Steady users are quite content to continue it's use, and in my experience if a stronger drug is necessary, shrooms are the drug of choice (I've never done them, just seen it happen).
I'm not advocating complete and total freedom if it's legalized. Rules will have to be implemented for its use. Age limits, driving laws, and public use laws will be necessary in order to maintain stability in our society. Distribution will also have to be watched, eliminating illegal drug cartels from the south and ensuring quality marijuana. An expert on CNBC said this will only further the illegal cocaine and heroin industries, but I feel that marijuana legalization would have no effect on it whatsoever.
More modest studies are showing that by legalizing weed we could earn $14 billion a year in taxes, and others are showing estimates in the 40 billion dollar zone. As we enter the inevitable, and quite possibly greatest depression the country as ever faced, we now realize the status quo is not working. Tax cuts to the rich are bullshit and do not encourage more spending. The unbelievable amount of money spent on the now futile war in Iraq is draining U.S. accounts and plummeting us further and further into debt. A new source of revenue that does not include overtaxing the already suffering middle and lower classes is necessary.
Not only would legalization create a new source of revenue, it would create stable, accepted jobs. People could work as dealers, or continue to keep a job lost due to use.
To end this long rant, we've seen with prohibition that criminalization does not work and leads to fighting and sending hundred (and in today's case, thousands) of people into prison. If we could earn $40 billion/year just by legalizing marijuana, I feel it would be worth it. It's a pretty harmless drug.
[Note: This opinion was not written because I am a frequent marijuana user. I admit I have used it in the past, but I do not like smoking it and will not in the future. I simply believe there are worse drugs out there and out time, money and effort should be spent on fighting those drugs.]
To see the CNBC debate, follow this link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1010175323&play=1
First off, I wonder if those who call marijuana a "harmful" drug and a "gateway to more dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroine" have ever actually smoked it, or hung around people who do. Marijuana, for the most part, is the most harmless drug of them all if you get straight down to immediate effects. According to erowid.com these are the effects:
mood lift, euphoria
laughter
relaxation, stress reduction
creative, philosophical or deep thinking : ideas flow more easily
increased appreciation of music. More aware of, deeper connection to music.
increased awareness of senses. (eating, drinking, smell)
change in experience of muscle fatigue. Pleasant body feel. Increase in body/mind connection.
pain relief (headaches, cramps)
boring tasks or entertainment can become more interesting or funny
general change in consciousness (as with many psychoactives)
increased appetite, snacky-ness
slowness (slow driving, talking)
change in vision such as sharpened colors or lights
closed-eye visuals (somewhat uncommon)
tiredness, sleepiness, lethargy
In all of this, no where do you find aggression or easy agitation. It is a peaceful drug and in more cases than none, it knocks the user on their ass, making them lazy and incapable of doing much else. Alcohol in large doses causes many to lash out and fight, say things they want to keep secret, and participate in actions they normally wouldn't and probably shouldn't. Driving under this influence is also extremely dangerous and causes more deaths than many others. Weed use does not produce these same effects and are relatively harmless.
While it does have an addicting nature, many find that they do not become completely dependent on it. Just like alcohol and tobacco, and even food, and any substance or action can become addicting. If addiction is a valid case for criminalization, then let's ban shopping, eating, exercising and countless other things. Just because some people are unable to handle drugs does not mean that others can't. Anything is ok in moderation.
I personally feel that marijuana is not a gateway drug towards more harmful ones. "Studies" have shown it is, but they are funded by anti-marijuana parties. Anyone who has ever experienced it first-hand would know that it's quite the opposite. Steady users are quite content to continue it's use, and in my experience if a stronger drug is necessary, shrooms are the drug of choice (I've never done them, just seen it happen).
I'm not advocating complete and total freedom if it's legalized. Rules will have to be implemented for its use. Age limits, driving laws, and public use laws will be necessary in order to maintain stability in our society. Distribution will also have to be watched, eliminating illegal drug cartels from the south and ensuring quality marijuana. An expert on CNBC said this will only further the illegal cocaine and heroin industries, but I feel that marijuana legalization would have no effect on it whatsoever.
More modest studies are showing that by legalizing weed we could earn $14 billion a year in taxes, and others are showing estimates in the 40 billion dollar zone. As we enter the inevitable, and quite possibly greatest depression the country as ever faced, we now realize the status quo is not working. Tax cuts to the rich are bullshit and do not encourage more spending. The unbelievable amount of money spent on the now futile war in Iraq is draining U.S. accounts and plummeting us further and further into debt. A new source of revenue that does not include overtaxing the already suffering middle and lower classes is necessary.
Not only would legalization create a new source of revenue, it would create stable, accepted jobs. People could work as dealers, or continue to keep a job lost due to use.
To end this long rant, we've seen with prohibition that criminalization does not work and leads to fighting and sending hundred (and in today's case, thousands) of people into prison. If we could earn $40 billion/year just by legalizing marijuana, I feel it would be worth it. It's a pretty harmless drug.
[Note: This opinion was not written because I am a frequent marijuana user. I admit I have used it in the past, but I do not like smoking it and will not in the future. I simply believe there are worse drugs out there and out time, money and effort should be spent on fighting those drugs.]
To see the CNBC debate, follow this link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1010175323&play=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
