Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #31 
Valid points Landie. It does beg the question however,about the cost of traveling to or being invited to prestigious high profile tournaments. As Lefty the was unable to or refused to address is the elementary question, do P5 schools have a vast monetary recruiting advantage. I can live with that, what sickens me is the notion that the NCAA promotes the fallacy that all have an equal chance when the season starts. A non P5 school will never win the WCWS. I don't give a flying fig about the demographic makeup of all the P5 schools. What would be more revealing would be how much each school invests per player. Or simply put,  the value of a degree from a P5 vs a degree from BFE U. It's like pretending the Bluefield Blue Jays have as much of a chance of winning the WS as the New York Yankees. The P5 schools are the bigs, the rest are D1 lite. Not hating, just living in reality.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,014
Reply with quote  #32 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudymartinez
Valid points Landie. It does beg the question however,about the cost of traveling to or being invited to prestigious high profile tournaments. As Lefty the was unable to or refused to address is the elementary question, do P5 schools have a vast monetary recruiting advantage.
Dullard's question that anyone can answer themselves, just like 1+1=2. Why do you think I didn't include the non-P5 conference champions?

Quote:
I can live with that, what sickens me is the notion that the NCAA promotes the fallacy that all have an equal chance when the season starts. A non P5 school will never win the WCWS.

Who in the NCAA puts forth the notion that Dartmouth has the same chance of winning the national title as Oklahoma?

Take the tin-foil hat off and come back to earth.

Quote:
I don't give a flying fig about the demographic makeup of all the P5 schools. What would be more revealing would be how much each school invests per player.


OK, then get off this thread, and do some work yourself.




cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 124
Reply with quote  #33 
WA has kids coming from Australia and HI this year (gabby plain, nawai kaupe). They were going to go to Australia to see plain but she ended up going to Hawaii with a group of other Australian kids so they saw both plain and kaupe in HI.

I would imagine most of the big programs can get money to go where they need to get the best kids. I know of a Big Sky program that has a $3K recruiting budget , so with small programs, maybe not so much.
rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #34 
Lefty, I enjoy being in the stratosphere wearing my tin foil hat. It beats being a boot licking NCAA lackey. BTW smoke a little weed lest you have an aneurysm. KISS KISS from the unemployment line. Love ya pal, bro hug.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,014
Reply with quote  #35 
I started this topic, showing what states were producing the most players on the top teams, and where those kids were going.

Next thing you know, we need to get you the Kleenex again.

PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,887
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudymartinez
... what sickens me is the notion that the NCAA promotes the fallacy that all have an equal chance when the season starts. A non P5 school will never win the WCWS.

NCAA publicly abandoned the 'notion' of competitive equity in 2013 when it streamlined / deregulated its rules:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/breakdown-division-i-rules-changes

Why is the NCAA changing its rules?

The goal of deregulation is to protect and enhance the student-athlete experience, shift the regulatory focus from competitive equity to fair competition and allow schools to use the natural advantages of geography, a talented student-athlete or deeper pockets. Over time, the rulebook has expanded to include rules designed to limit those things. The deregulation effort hopes to shift the focus from limiting the advantages of individual schools to making sure all schools compete within the framework of the collegiate model, in which athletics competition is an integral part of the student-athlete’s education.

Why focus on fairness of competition instead of competitive equity?

The current justification for rules as creating a level playing field has produced too many rules that are not meaningful, enforceable or contributory to student-athlete success. The shift to a fair competition model acknowledges that natural advantages exist between campuses that cannot – and should not – be regulated. The changes are intended to better define what fairness means in terms of eligible student-athletes, scholarships, the length of the playing and recruiting seasons, and the number of coaches. Ultimately, retaining the current rules will not impede the competitive shift.

rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #37 
As LEFTY pointed out I am a dullard, of course he admended  that from f**king idiot. So for my simpleton mind, PDAD please explain the jist of your post.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,887
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudymartinez
As LEFTY pointed out I am a dullard, of course he admended  that from f**king idiot. So for my simpleton mind, PDAD please explain the jist of your post.

The NCAA's 2013 declaration "competitive equity" was no longer their goal clearly rebuts your assertion "the NCAA promotes the fallacy that all have an equal chance when the season starts." IOW, NCAA recognized inherent advantages make it impossible to give everyone "an equal chance" via regulations.
rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #39 
Inherent is the key word then. By rules, everyone  gets around 12 scholarships but by the NCAA'S own admission a majority of D1 schools INHERENTLY stand little or no chance to reasonably compete for a WCWS championship. Perhaps a realignment is MORE REALISTIC. P5 championship division, little sisters of the poor i.e. the rest of the D1 schools championship and then titles for  D2 and D3 schools. I just hope that membership dues reflect this inherent disadvantage. But hey, the NCAA loves to promote the rainbow and unicorn life their student-athletes seemingly enjoy.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,887
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudymartinez
Inherent is the key word then. By rules, everyone  gets around 12 scholarships but by the NCAA'S own admission a majority of D1 schools INHERENTLY stand little or no chance to reasonably compete for a WCWS championship. Perhaps a realignment is MORE REALISTIC. P5 championship division, little sisters of the poor i.e. the rest of the D1 schools championship and then titles for  D2 and D3 schools. 

"Inherent" is my interpretation of the NCAA's term, "natural." D-I football has 2 subdivisions, so other sports could do the same thing. 

Quote:
I just hope that membership dues reflect this inherent disadvantage. But hey, the NCAA loves to promote the rainbow and unicorn life their student-athletes seemingly enjoy.

Dues? LMAO Membership dues are an insignificant rounding error in NCAA finances, especially for D-I. Dues vary by division with schools paying $900-1800/year and conferences $450-900/year.
Added: The advantaged ones ARE bringing in the bulk of the money and you want to tax them more too. What a guy...

I have no sympathy for schools since they choose which division they play and divisions are largely run by their member schools. They can go elsewhere - the NCAA isn't holding a gun to their head.
rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #41 
Talk about funny. The old love it or leave it rhetoric always makes me giggle. Keep whistling Dixie. One doesn't need a gun when you can money whip 'em.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,887
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudymartinez
Talk about funny. The old love it or leave it rhetoric always makes me giggle. Keep whistling Dixie. One doesn't need a gun when you can money whip 'em.

Sad is delusional people like yourself always finding someone else to blame for their shortcomings.
rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #43 
If fighting an inherently corrupt organization (which it has now become) is a delusional shortcoming , then guilty as charged. Call me what you may, but what is more disgraceful is when good men do nothing. I am not alone in my opinion. I suggest you  read the book (or at least some excerpts) Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes by Walter Byers, the first Executive Director of the ncaa from 1951 to 1988. His expertise on the subject is vastly superior to mine, Maybe not yours, but he knows a little sumpin' sumpin'.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,887
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudymartinez
If fighting an inherently corrupt organization (which it has now become) is a delusional shortcoming , then guilty as charged. Call me what you may, but what is more disgraceful is when good men do nothing. I am not alone in my opinion. I suggest you  read the book (or at least some excerpts) Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes by Walter Byers, the first Executive Director of the ncaa from 1951 to 1988. His expertise on the subject is vastly superior to mine, Maybe not yours, but he knows a little sumpin' sumpin'.

I'm familiar with the book and it's a whole different topic than where we started. I suspect it's your go-to when you're losing.

Keep up the good fight, Don Quixote.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,014
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad

I'm familiar with the book and it's a whole different topic than where we started. I suspect it's your go-to when you're losing.

Keep up the good fight, Don Quixote.

rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #46 
Keep drinking the cool aid Siegfried and Roy. Watch out for the tiger.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,887
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
ooooo... That's a BINGO

Thanks. My apologies for derailing your thread. Let's see if we can get it back on track...

I like how you focused on significant contributors since I've always advocated that approach over including the entire roster.

Not sure why you put so much weight on P5 teams. I think your selection of teams could be improved since you included weak sisters from P5 conferences (e.g. Texas, UNC, Wisc, Notre Dame, Ark, OR St) and excluded better/comparable teams from non-P5 conferences (e.g. BYU, Tulsa, Marshall, Fullerton, TX St).
Added: IMO either include all at that level or exclude them to focus on the truly "top" teams.

Anyway, interesting stuff. Thanks for compiling it and sharing.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,014
Reply with quote  #48 

I wanted to focus on the tournament teams from those conferences who annually get multiple at-large bids. Added in the couple non-P5s that have been in the regional host discussion for at least the past few years.

I added BYU.

 

rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #49 
What a tender moment between you two, now I need the Kleenex.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,014
Reply with quote  #50 
One way or the other, you are a Kleenex machine!

TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 3,158
Reply with quote  #51 
Glad the guys at Fresno State and Coastal Carolina didn't listen to you Rudy.
rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 326
Reply with quote  #52 
Are we talking softball or baseball? No one in softball leaves early to play in the pros.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.