Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 7 of 7     «   Prev   4   5   6   7
pounder

Registered:
Posts: 456
Reply with quote  #181 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA

Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder
. But ultimately it is the QUALITY of players recruited to those ... (pac10) ... schools that make those teams ultimately successful.
You lost me there Pounder.  There are HUNDREDS of Jessica Mapes in the country.  Her time under quality coaching made her a one of the top 3 hitters on Arizona St. this year when she started as a walk-on.  Take a look at University of Nevada last year.  They got a baseball trained hitting instructor and surprised everyone with their new aggressive approaches at the plate in last year's Regionals.

Just my opinion now... but any current hitting coach (or head coach who handles hitting) who learned to hit more than ten years ago from Softball hitting instructors, and has not fundamentally reworked their swing since, is not qualified to teach hitting today.  My exceptions would be Lisa Fernandez, Kristen Rivera, Crystl Bustos (who played baseball until age 13 I believe), and several Olympians -- all of whom clearly learned from a baseball hitting coach originally, or have evolved their swing over time in to a more modern (read: Baseball) swing.

If there were hundreds of Jessica Mapes around the country, why was it that SHE was the one selected and recruited to play for AZ St?(defending national champs.) They saw her reaction time, her "eye" for hitting good pitches and her natural talent. Sure great coaching can make a difference, but there are great hitters who do not get great instruction also.

Some kids just have the talent. Then, when that talent gets developed it is even better. I will agree with that. Please dont infer that these PAC 10 programs go out a recruit just average talent and THEN try to mold it.
Most of these kids were very good hitters to begin with, that is why they were recruited in the first place... Some just need tweeking.

__________________
pounder
volcrazy89

Registered:
Posts: 2,022
Reply with quote  #182 
Seabiscuit calling someone out for arrogance? Hello pot, meet kettle.
pounder

Registered:
Posts: 456
Reply with quote  #183 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabiscuit
pounder said, still not getting it: "When the PAC 10 started playing softball, most of the other major conferences were just getting started too."

I'll rephrase.  Ah, the arrogance.  Since there was no other BCS conferences "there was no one else."  Now we get it.

You act as if these other tough teams such as Fresno State, CSUF, etc. were pansies.  They weren't.  Those tough players that are now spread out all over the country were concentrated in one area of the country.  Some might argue that it was even tougher then. 

Then we had concentrated orange juice, today we have orange juice.
Had I been arrogant I would have said something like," so where are the Fresno St`s of the softball world now?"

But I didn`t

I never said they were pansies. I only meant there were not many college softball teams back then. It had not been around for twenty years. I only stated a fact. It was not meant to put down the established teams from the day. I will say this, and you can take it for what its worth. The smaller schools only won two championships dispite their being established before the UCLA`s of the softball world.. in 86 and 98. It didnt take long for the BCS conference (PAC 10) to take over. Why is that?

Women's College World Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


__________________
pounder
pounder

Registered:
Posts: 456
Reply with quote  #184 
Results for UCLA in the AIAW national championship

1978 POSTSEASON RESULTS

Western Regionals (Elk Grove, Calif.)

May 4 beat Nevada, 1-0 (9 inn.)

May 4 beat Sacramento State, 1-0 (12 inn.)

May 5 beat Chico State, 1-0

May 6 lost to Cal Poly Pomona, 6-5

May 6 beat Cal Poly Pomona, 1-0 (8 inn.)

College World Series (Omaha, Neb.)

May 25 beat Texas Woman’s University, 4-0

May 26 beat Missouri State, 1-0

May 26 beat Utah State, 7-0

May 27 beat Minnesota, 3-0 (11 inn.)

May 29 beat Northern Colorado, 3-0


Names of the schools look a little bit different now.

__________________
pounder
coley1959

Registered:
Posts: 846
Reply with quote  #185 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA

Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder
. But ultimately it is the QUALITY of players recruited to those ... (pac10) ... schools that make those teams ultimately successful.
You lost me there Pounder.  There are HUNDREDS of Jessica Mapes in the country.  Her time under quality coaching made her a one of the top 3 hitters on Arizona St. this year when she started as a walk-on.  Take a look at University of Nevada last year.  They got a baseball trained hitting instructor and surprised everyone with their new aggressive approaches at the plate in last year's Regionals.

Just my opinion now... but any current hitting coach (or head coach who handles hitting) who learned to hit more than ten years ago from Softball hitting instructors, and has not fundamentally reworked their swing since, is not qualified to teach hitting today.  My exceptions would be Lisa Fernandez, Kristen Rivera, Crystl Bustos (who played baseball until age 13 I believe), and several Olympians -- all of whom clearly learned from a baseball hitting coach originally, or have evolved their swing over time in to a more modern (read: Baseball) swing.

If there were hundreds of Jessica Mapes around the country, why was it that SHE was the one selected and recruited to play for AZ St?(defending national champs.) They saw her reaction time, her "eye" for hitting good pitches and her natural talent. Sure great coaching can make a difference, but there are great hitters who do not get great instruction also.

Some kids just have the talent. Then, when that talent gets developed it is even better. I will agree with that. Please dont infer that these PAC 10 programs go out a recruit just average talent and THEN try to mold it.
Most of these kids were very good hitters to begin with, that is why they were recruited in the first place... Some just need tweeking.

She was a true "WALK ON".  She told the story of how she walked into Clint Myer's office when school started and said she would like to try out.  It took her four years to be an everyday starter.  Her batting average this year was .403, just .007 points behind Cochran.  That's a lot of heart and good coaching as far as I'm concerned.

Lovemesomesoftball

Registered:
Posts: 5,791
Reply with quote  #186 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabiscuit
pounder said, still not getting it: "When the PAC 10 started playing softball, most of the other major conferences were just getting started too."

I'll rephrase.  Ah, the arrogance.  Since there was no other BCS conferences "there was no one else."  Now we get it.

You act as if these other tough teams such as Fresno State, CSUF, etc. were pansies.  They weren't.  Those tough players that are now spread out all over the country were concentrated in one area of the country.  Some might argue that it was even tougher then. 

Then we had concentrated orange juice, today we have orange juice.
Had I been arrogant I would have said something like," so where are the Fresno St`s of the softball world now?"

But I didn`t

I never said they were pansies. I only meant there were not many college softball teams back then. It had not been around for twenty years. I only stated a fact. It was not meant to put down the established teams from the day. I will say this, and you can take it for what its worth. The smaller schools only won two championships dispite their being established before the UCLA`s of the softball world.. in 86 and 98. It didnt take long for the BCS conference (PAC 10) to take over. Why is that?

Women's College World Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I noted the change in the guard from AIAW to NCAA earlier in this thread. If you approach me at a game, I'll go into detail. I would have to write a book to explain how the NCAA changed women's college sports. It wasn't just softball.  Look at basketball. Ever hear of Immaculata? Delta State? Those teams didn't compete for championships after the NCAA became the governing body for women's college sports.


 

AIAW championship from 1973-82. Previously administered by the Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (CIAW).



 

FPWizard

Registered:
Posts: 21
Reply with quote  #187 

Pac-10 NCAA Championships by the #'s

26:  Total number of NCAA Softball National Champions since the organization recognized women's athletics in 1982.

21:  NCAA Championships won by Pac-10 Teams. UCLA (10), Arizona (8), Arizona State (1), California (1), Washington (1).

10:  WCWS championship games between two Pac-10 teams.

15:  Pac-10 NCAA Runners-Up. UCLA (7), Arizona (4), Washington (2), California (2).

2:   The number of times a Pac-10 team has not made it to the Women's College World Series finals (1983, 1986).
 
Looks like the PAC10 has the numbers to back up that they are a step above the SEC (short for second). 
AZSBFAN

Registered:
Posts: 1,541
Reply with quote  #188 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovemesomesoftball
Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabiscuit
pounder said, still not getting it: "When the PAC 10 started playing softball, most of the other major conferences were just getting started too."

I'll rephrase.  Ah, the arrogance.  Since there was no other BCS conferences "there was no one else."  Now we get it.

You act as if these other tough teams such as Fresno State, CSUF, etc. were pansies.  They weren't.  Those tough players that are now spread out all over the country were concentrated in one area of the country.  Some might argue that it was even tougher then. 

Then we had concentrated orange juice, today we have orange juice.
Had I been arrogant I would have said something like," so where are the Fresno St`s of the softball world now?"

But I didn`t

I never said they were pansies. I only meant there were not many college softball teams back then. It had not been around for twenty years. I only stated a fact. It was not meant to put down the established teams from the day. I will say this, and you can take it for what its worth. The smaller schools only won two championships dispite their being established before the UCLA`s of the softball world.. in 86 and 98. It didnt take long for the BCS conference (PAC 10) to take over. Why is that?

Women's College World Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I noted the change in the guard from AIAW to NCAA earlier in this thread. If you approach me at a game, I'll go into detail. I would have to write a book to explain how the NCAA changed women's college sports. It wasn't just softball.  Look at basketball. Ever hear of Immaculata? Delta State? Those teams didn't compete for championships after the NCAA became the governing body for women's college sports.


 

AIAW championship from 1973-82. Previously administered by the Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (CIAW).



 



LMSS excellent point on the AIAW to the NCAA.
indyrun

Registered:
Posts: 6,017
Reply with quote  #189 
Know "I'm going to hate myself in the morning" for getting even peripherally involved in this never ending back and forth, BUT - paper this AM published Final USA Today/NFCA D1 Top 25, and the 2009 ESPN All-American Team. I will do this without the normal "editorial comment" - not really necessary here.

Top 25 - 5 of top 10, and 6 of top 11 are "PAC 10" conference clubs.

All-Americans - 6 of the 12 young ladies also play for the same conference.

AND, a personal congrats to ALL the ALL-AMERICAN selections, but a special and personal "pat on the back" from most of us that follow the two great D1 Arizona programs -UofA and ASU - to Ms. Lastrapes and Ms. Cochran!

  
ssarge

Registered:
Posts: 1,114
Reply with quote  #190 
I kind of feel that the most impressive thing about Pac10 softball is NOT that they have won 75% of the national championships (going by memory, but I think it is either 21/27 or 22/28 depending on how the vacated championshipo is v iewed).

To me, what is more impressive is that 5 of the 8 teams in the conference have won it at least once (UCLA, Arizona, Cal, Arizona State, Washinton).

And those 5 teams represent half of the teams who have EVER won it (Texas A&M[2], Oklahoma, Fullerton, Fresno State, and Michigan being the other 5 schools).

Regards,

Scott
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 5,145
Reply with quote  #191 
I found this on Wikipedia's entry on the AIAW.

AIAW championship from 1974-82. Previously administered by the Amateur Softball Association (?) from ? - 1973. Co-sponsored by the AIAW and ASA through 1979.

I guess Arizona State can claim 3 Division I Collegiate "National Championships" in softball?

I wonder what coach Myers was doing in 1972 and 1973 when ASU won those titles?  Was he even aware that the team existed?

__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
CmonBluuuuue

Registered:
Posts: 271
Reply with quote  #192 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudDad

Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder
In THIS tournament, Washington was the best team, SEC was the best conference. 3 of the final 4 teams says it all. If you disagree then you are just a homer.
< Big Ten fan here.

Well you should know something about that.

You know I AM a proud dad too......And a homer, but at least I am a realistic homer. I know OSU is a very good team, they proved that, but they were not in the top 8. I also know the Big Ten is not as good as the SEC and the Pac 10. Three or four teams might compete pretty well against them, but that is it.

But for the PAC 10 homers to be riding the coat tails of Washington is just silly. The PAC 10 has ALWAYS been the top conference. But like I said, in THIS years tourney, the SEC was the top conference.75% of the final four is proof enough.
I was also right about the PAC 10 pitching (Washington excluded)

Not.

pounder

Registered:
Posts: 456
Reply with quote  #193 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CmonBluuuuue
Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudDad

Quote:
Originally Posted by pounder
In THIS tournament, Washington was the best team, SEC was the best conference. 3 of the final 4 teams says it all. If you disagree then you are just a homer.
< Big Ten fan here.

Well you should know something about that.

You know I AM a proud dad too......And a homer, but at least I am a realistic homer. I know OSU is a very good team, they proved that, but they were not in the top 8. I also know the Big Ten is not as good as the SEC and the Pac 10. Three or four teams might compete pretty well against them, but that is it.

But for the PAC 10 homers to be riding the coat tails of Washington is just silly. The PAC 10 has ALWAYS been the top conference. But like I said, in THIS years tourney, the SEC was the top conference.75% of the final four is proof enough.
I was also right about the PAC 10 pitching (Washington excluded)

Not a bad analogy...There I fixed it for you.

...

__________________
pounder
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.