Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Gators2014

Registered:
Posts: 3,659
Reply with quote  #1 
WHAT THE F***

That's all.
G8terfan23

Registered:
Posts: 2,301
Reply with quote  #2 
??
Bama_CF

Registered:
Posts: 2,385
Reply with quote  #3 
What this post does not point out is that one team, Alabama, would be required to defeat BOTH #1 and #2 in order to even reach the WCWS. Nothing like this has ever been done to a team in NCAA softball history.
__________________

 

Fpitch9

Registered:
Posts: 4,217
Reply with quote  #4 
It's a disservice to all 3 teams. Bama too low, Minnesota should be at home and some reward for the overall number 1. I know Walton wasn't pleased. Allister as well. I'm sure Murphy isn't jumping up and down either.
Bama_CF

Registered:
Posts: 2,385
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fpitch9
It's a disservice to all 3 teams. Bama too low, Minnesota should be at home and some reward for the overall number 1. I know Walton wasn't pleased. Allister as well. I'm sure Murphy isn't jumping up and down either.



Of course Minnesota should be at home. If they wanted to send a message, that could have been accomplished by making them just a top 16 and not a top 8. Making them a 2 seed in a regional was incompetent. And not only that, but have to go on the road to beat 2 of the 3 most successful programs in the county over the last 5 years just to make it to OKC

__________________

 

olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 777
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bama_CF
What this post does not point out is that one team, Alabama, would be required to defeat BOTH #1 and #2 in order to even reach the WCWS. Nothing like this has ever been done to a team in NCAA softball history.


No reasonably knowledgeable person in their right mind believes that Minnesota is the #1 or #2 team.  That is as good a spin job and plea for pity as the latest by any politician or media outlet.
Bama_CF

Registered:
Posts: 2,385
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg


No reasonably knowledgeable person in their right mind believes that Minnesota is the #1 or #2 team.  That is as good a spin job and plea for pity as the latest by any politician or media outlet.



The coaches had them at #2 even before the Committee's idiotic seedings. The softball experts who vote on the USA Softball poll have them #3.  No, I don't believe they are #1 in reality. But I know they are not #17. 

It is not an appropriate move by the committee. It is incompetent. When they do their job in such a way that is clearly less fair to 3 teams than the others, they have failed to do their job.

__________________

 

olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 777
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bama_CF



The coaches had them at #2 even before the Committee's idiotic seedings. The softball experts who vote on the USA Softball poll have them #3.  No, I don't believe they are #1 in reality. But I know they are not #17. 

It is not an appropriate move by the committee. It is incompetent. When they do their job in such a way that is clearly less fair to 3 teams than the others, they have failed to do their job.


The coaches do not vote any more than they do the teams laundry.  They pass that off to some assistant sports information director who covers three or four sports and reads the press clippings to make their choices.

The USA Polls are voted by low level media research assistants who do the same.

That is why we have RPI.  As imperfect as it is, it is usually, in the final analysis, closer to reality than the polls.

I hope Minnesota is the Cinderella story of NCAA Softball history and that they win the NCAA Championship... we will know real shortly the depth of the committee's stupidity.  If Minnesota goes two and out; were they any better than #17?
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,428
Reply with quote  #9 
And, olddawg is as dyed-in-the-wool an Allister/Minnesota fan that there is
olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 777
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
And, olddawg is as dyed-in-the-wool an Allister/Minnesota fan that there is


I am not a dyed in the wool gopher, but correct about my opinion of Allister.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,428
Reply with quote  #11 
fair enough
Bama_CF

Registered:
Posts: 2,385
Reply with quote  #12 
Listen, we all know they are not really #1 or #2.  And we all know they are not really #17, which is where the committee seeded them. 

If the team I support happens to beat them in the regional, it won't prove the committee right.

__________________

 

eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg
If Minnesota goes two and out; were they any better than #17?


Yes.  The idiocy of relying upon the small sample size of a single weekend to justify or condemn decisions based upon a 55+ game regular season ought to be obvious, but apparently isn't.
olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 777
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore


Yes.  The idiocy of relying upon the small sample size of a single weekend to justify or condemn decisions based upon a 55+ game regular season ought to be obvious, but apparently isn't.


Totally disagree.  The teams which shine when all the chips are in are the best.  The 55 games which came before are meaningless at this point.  If Minnesota wins when it matters, they are as good as their record suggests.  If they don't the lower seeding was justified.

Florida was overrated last year.  Oregon was overrated last year.  If Alabama and/or Florida cannot beat Minnesota, then Minnesota was underrated and the others overrated.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,428
Reply with quote  #15 
Well, I will say UF and Oregon both lost at home.

Minnesota going into a cauldron
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,098
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg


Totally disagree.  The teams which shine when all the chips are in are the best.  The 55 games which came before are meaningless at this point.  If Minnesota wins when it matters, they are as good as their record suggests.  If they don't the lower seeding was justified.

Florida was overrated last year.  Oregon was overrated last year.  If Alabama and/or Florida cannot beat Minnesota, then Minnesota was underrated and the others overrated.


The stupidity of this post is unmatched.
G8terfan23

Registered:
Posts: 2,301
Reply with quote  #17 
Florida was not overrated last season. they won back to back and had the sec player of the year on their team and the best pitching staff in the nation. Not to mention the top 3rd fielding in the nation. But ran into a tough pitcher and a uga team that came and conquered Florida. I think it's a good thing in a way Florida had that gut punch and not make it to OKC. Change things up,develop a new pitch or two in the off season and change your approach at the plate and or on base.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,428
Reply with quote  #18 
Florida was overrated last year. Offense, with its .903 OPS, kept putting massive pressure on the pitchers and it caught up with them. And Oregon lost at home to a 12 after winning the first game.

I agree with THAT much of olddawg's post
olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 777
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot
The stupidity of this post is unmatched.


So, are you saying that if Minnesota wins the regional; Alabama is still the better team?  If they beat Florida, Florida is still better?


AleDawg

Registered:
Posts: 401
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore


Yes.  The idiocy of relying upon the small sample size of a single weekend to justify or condemn decisions based upon a 55+ game regular season ought to be obvious, but apparently isn't.



And yet if Minnesota would have swept UW then...???

Idiotic or not. It is what it is.

__________________
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,098
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg


So, are you saying that if Minnesota wins the regional; Alabama is still the better team?  If they beat Florida, Florida is still better?




Depends on the manner. Otherwise the "best team this week" phrase wouldn't exist. Do I think Hawaii was the better team in 2010? I'm gonna guess I don't need to answer that.
olddawg

Registered:
Posts: 777
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot
Depends on the manner. Otherwise the "best team this week" phrase wouldn't exist. Do I think Hawaii was the better team in 2010? I'm gonna guess I don't need to answer that.


Isn't the only time frame that matters at this point "this week"?  The operable time frame for all but 16 teams will be next year.

Of course, in a great culture like that at Alabama; over the long haul, there are more important things than this week.  Same with Minnesota.  Too bad not all coaches and fans see it that way.


eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleDawg
And yet if Minnesota would have swept UW then...??? Idiotic or not. It is what it is.


If Minnesota had swept Washington, then they would be hosting.  Would it have meant that they are better than Washington in any abstract sense?  Hard to say, and the answer depends more upon what the two teams did in the other 55 games they played than it does on just those two.  Small sample sizes remain small sample sizes, and their explanatory or predictive power is accordingly small.
eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg
So, are you saying that if Minnesota wins the regional; Alabama is still the better team?  If they beat Florida, Florida is still better?


There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Minnesota or Alabama is the better team.  Regardless, what happens this weekend shouldn't cause you to change your opinion on that, unless you think that they're very close to equal right now.  Personally, I think Minnesota is better, and this weekend is unlikely to change my mind.  On the other hand, right now I think Florida is a better team than the Gophers, and one weekend is not going to change that opinion.

Unless we reduce the definition of "better team" to mean nothing more than who fares better in a series of double elimination tournaments, then we have to accept that sometimes, the better team doesn't win.  It happens.  Winning the national tournament doesn't necessarily mean that a team was the best; it means that they won the tournament.  For better or for worse, we hold that out as the greatest accomplishment a team can make, but we shouldn't confuse it with meaning more than it does.


3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,428
Reply with quote  #25 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore


If Minnesota had swept Washington, then they would be hosting.  Would it have meant that they are better than Washington in any abstract sense?  Hard to say, and the answer depends more upon what the two teams did in the other 55 games they played than it does on just those two.  Small sample sizes remain small sample sizes, and their explanatory or predictive power is accordingly small.
Hate to break it to you, but if a team loses two games any of the next three weekends, it is done.

Small sample sizes carry the most weight at the end

eeyore

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
Hate to break it to you, but if a team loses two games any of the next three weekends, it is done.

Small sample sizes carry the most weight at the end



It depends upon what question you are trying to answer.  If the question is, "Who is going to win the WCWS?" then you are absolutely correct.  If the question is, "Which teams should we think of as better based upon the entire season's work?" then you are wrong.

3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,428
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore


It depends upon what question you are trying to answer.  If the question is, "Who is going to win the WCWS?" then you are absolutely correct.  If the question is, "Which teams should we think of as better based upon the entire season's work?" then you are wrong.
PUHHHLEASE. If you lose two in one of these weekends, you are an afterthought and deservedly placed behind teams that outperformed you in the time that mattered most

Gopherites wayyyy overplaying the hand
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,098
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olddawg


Isn't the only time frame that matters at this point "this week"?  The operable time frame for all but 16 teams will be next year.

Of course, in a great culture like that at Alabama; over the long haul, there are more important things than this week.  Same with Minnesota.  Too bad not all coaches and fans see it that way.




If all things were even, then yes. By your account Florida was overrated and in effect wasn't as good as the 8 teams that made it to OKC. Florida was seeded 1 in front of Michigan. Isn't it a little strange to say Florida was overrated when Michigan makes it to OKC despite having already proved they weren't as good as Florida?
CrowHop

Registered:
Posts: 78
Reply with quote  #29 
I don't recall anyone ever saying, "Yeah, we lost the World Series but our regular-season record was better, so there."


__________________
Your pitcher is illegal.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowHop
I don't recall anyone ever saying, "Yeah, we lost the World Series but our regular-season record was better, so there."



No but you probably said "we shouldn't have lost the world series because we were the better team".

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.