Softball - Printable Version

Softball - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Softball (/thread-13507.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Re: Softball - 2006alum - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 10:24 AM)MT link Wrote:Some of the items in this discussion are seemingly expressed opinions of the authors.Â For instance, "flagrant".Â If someone can provide NCAA or Stanford use of that word regarding Rittman's activities, it would be illuminating.Â Until that is provided, such a word is just someone's opinion.

To be clear, my initial point was that if the NCAA put a show cause penalty in effect, it must have thought this was a particularly flagrant violation. Now that might not be the technical term, but it just seems odd to me that the NCAA would find, in effect, that what Rittman did was so bad that Stanford had to terminate him, if all that was was a few minor misreportings of practice hours. Maybe I'm missing something? Otherwise the NCAA seems incredibly punitive, and Stanford should have pushed back, rather than fired Rittman.

Re: Softball - d4cohn - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 06:24 AM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:Call me (optimistically) crazy, but I think Hanson over the upcoming 24 just might elevate this team to the 5-win level reached by the crippled Rittman team of 2014.
Here is what my crystal ball is telling me:

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 5-19

I break it down like this:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

TEAMS Â Â Â Â Â COMBINED # OF GAMES TO BE PLAYED Â Â Â Â Â WINS

Oregon-Arizona Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 6 Â Â Â Â Â Â "1/4"Â Â Â (0 or 1, more likely 0)

Washington-Utah Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 6 Â Â Â Â Â Â "3/4"Â Â Â (0 or 1, more likely 1)

UCLA-×ÉÉ-AZ State Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 9 Â Â Â Â Â "2 1/2"Â Â (2 or 3, equally likely)

Oregon State Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 3 Â Â Â Â Â "1 1/2"Â Â (1 or 2, equally likely)

TOTAL Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 24 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 5

Â Â Â Â Â Â

I also had 5 wins as my most optimistic estimate. I think a performance mirroring 2015's conference record (2-22, with wins over Utah and Arizona State at home) is more likely. Two points to consider: 1) Because of our non-conference schedule, we haven't beaten an RPI Top 50 squad this year (0-4 record). Everyone in the Pac-12, aside from Oregon State (at #53), is a Top 50 team. Therefore, it is hard for me to predict wins over Top 50 squads when we currently haven't done it yet. 2) Coach Hanson, in her tenure, has not won a single road Pac-12 game (0-24 record). As such, I think your Oregon State projection is optimistic. I definitely think we could steal a game, but I do not think a road series win is likely.

Re: Softball - Mick - 03-24-2017

Call me (optimistically) crazy, but I think Hanson over the upcoming 24 just might elevate this team to the 5-win level reached by the crippled Rittman team of 2014.
Here is what my crystal ball is telling me:

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 5-19

I break it down like this:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

TEAMS	Â Â Â Â Â COMBINED # OF GAMES TO BE PLAYED	Â Â Â Â Â WINS
Oregon-Arizona	Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 6	Â Â Â Â Â Â "1/4"Â Â Â (0 or 1, more likely 0)
Washington-Utah	Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 6	Â Â Â Â Â Â "3/4"Â Â Â (0 or 1, more likely 1)
UCLA-×ÉÉ-AZ State	Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 9	Â Â Â Â Â "2 1/2"Â Â (2 or 3, equally likely)
Oregon State	Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 3	Â Â Â Â Â "1 1/2"Â Â (1 or 2, equally likely)
TOTAL	Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 24	Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 5

Â Â Â Â Â Â

If it turns out, however, that the wins total falls a good bit short of my calculated guess (as low as, say, 2 or 3 wins) I won't be *absolutely shocked*. Much depends in particular on how steep the inevitable drop-off in team hitting proves to be in the nonconference to conference play transition (not sure, but I think the '16 team finished with a sub-.200 BA in Pac-12 play) and I see that as a big question mark. Should that (20+ losses) occur, expect to see some speculative second-guessing pertaining to the question of whether or not the scheduling of so soft a nonconference lineup of opponents left the team impactfully (ultimately, in the W/L column) less prepared for Pac-12 play than it could have been, should have been.
[/quote]

Rittman's "crippled" team of 2014 went 25-6 outside of league and finished 30-25.Â I'd like to see any Hanson team hit that total.

But it's a non-issue.Â Stanford won't win five in league.

Re: Softball - Mick - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 07:39 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190478#msg190478 date=1490302065]
And candidly, I wonder how many of the very finest softball coaches have practices longer than the NCAA allows, but don't have watchdog parents (or others) jotting down start-and-stop times.

Personally, I don't care much about the answer to that question.

Rather strongly, I don't want my school to continue to employ coaches who knowingly file false reports to the school and the NCAA. I don't believe that Stanford should employ a coach found personally responsible for NCAA level II violations and under a show-cause penalty. That makes me cry when they are able coaches, but doesn't change the balance.

Other programs cheating (or not) wouldn't change my stance.
[/quote]

One of the other posters referenced "flagrant" violations of practice time.Â During the meeting with Muir, it was referenced that Rittman's practices "slightly" exceeded the time limits, and that he was punished for the cover up versus the crime.Â Fine, I get all that.

My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.Â That's the danger.Â That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.Â I know my AD will not have my back, because he'll invite a room full of parents to gripe about me and ensure that (a) I won't be in the room nor will (b) members of the team who support me.

Why run the risk of leaving a successful program to take over an 0-for-Pac-12 program?

Re: Softball - 2006alum - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 12:52 PM)Mick link Wrote:One of the other posters referenced "flagrant" violations of practice time.Â During the meeting with Muir, it was referenced that Rittman's practices "slightly" exceeded the time limits, and that he was punished for the cover up versus the crime.Â Fine, I get all that.

That was me, as I said earlier. And again, what I don't understand is, if the only basis for the NCAA sanctions was that Rittman "slightly" exceeded the time limits and didn't report them, then why would the NCAA level such heavy sanctions against both him and Stanford? It just seems that Rittman being found personally liable for NCAA level II violations and being placed under a show-cause penalty would be pretty draconian for "slightly" exceeding the time limits and nothing more. And if so, then I am surprised Stanford wouldn't push back rather than terminate a very successful coach, because that sets a precedent for the NCAA to enforce draconian punishments for "slight" violations of rules. I could be wrong, but it makes me think there was more basis to the sanctions than "slightly" exceeding the time limits.

Re: Softball - fullmetal - 03-24-2017

There were also the allegations of impropriety regarding the trainer, I believe, and iirc, Rittman was aware of that.

Re: Softball - CTcard - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 10:24 AM)MT link Wrote:Some of the items in this discussion are seemingly expressed opinions of the authors.
...
I looked around for information on Rittman, the situation that happened at Stanford, and the subsequent (quick) hiring of him at Kansas.Â
The NCAA public announcement is at
Â http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/stanford-failed-monitor-softball-program-activities?sf35990526=1

This indicates that "Stanford University did not monitor countable athletically related activity for its softball program".
"The former head softball coach did not promote an atmosphere of compliance when he directed, supervised and had knowledge of countable activity violations in his program"

I do not see "falsification or records" or "flagrant" in the NCAA's report.Â The "show-cause order" was
"During that time [one year], if an NCAA member school hires the coach, it must conduct compliance education sessions for the coach."

Just a couple of notes.

If you care about details, it is probably best to read the actual NCAA report on the matter. That can be found here:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016INF_PublicInfractionsDecisionStanford_20160915.pdf

On falsifying reports, there are several references, perhaps the most clear is:

Quote:InÂ addition,Â theÂ formerÂ headÂ softballÂ coach routinely submitted inaccurate CARA reports to theÂ compliance staff that did not reflect actual time spent in CARA.

CARA = Countable Athletically Related Activity, primarily the limit on practice hours.

The show-cause penalty is a requirement that any institution employing the person under the order must conduct compliance education with that person, among other things. That the actual sanction is relatively mild is because of the limitations of the NCAA authority on universities hiring people. However, it is also a mark that the NCAA has officially concluded that person committed a major violation.Â
Here is an article on the show-cause penalty from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show-cause_penalty

(03-24-2017, 12:52 PM)Mick link Wrote:My point is that if I'm an exceedingly successful coach at another program, I would be crazy to take on Stanford's coaching role, because if I run over practice time -- flagrant or not, accidental or not -- I will lose my job.Â That's the danger.Â That's the risk of accepting the Stanford role.

That may be what other coaches think, but that does not appear to be the reason Rittman lost his job. The message should be that if you commit a major NCAA violation and receive a show-cause penalty, you will lose your job.Â (And the show cause penalty was NOT because of an accidental tripping over the practice time limits.)

I suspect that there are many coaches who would view that as a red-line warning against taking a job at Stanford.
I consider not committing such violations a minimum requirement for having a job of responsibility at Stanford.

Re: Softball - M T - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 03:09 PM)CTcard link Wrote:If you care about details, it is probably best to read the actual NCAA report on the matter. That can be found here:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016INF_PublicInfractionsDecisionStanford_20160915.pdf

On falsifying reports, there are several references, perhaps the most clear is:

Quote:InÂ addition,Â theÂ formerÂ headÂ softballÂ coach routinely submitted inaccurate CARA reports to theÂ compliance staff that did not reflect actual time spent in CARA.
CARA = Countable Athletically Related Activity, primarily the limit on practice hours.

Details aren't necessarily of interest, but facts are.Â Thanks!

Interesting, differing accounts in the same document:

Quote: Further, theÂ partiesÂ agreedÂ that,Â duringÂ aÂ four-yearÂ periodÂ fromÂ 2010Â toÂ 2014,Â
theÂ softball coachingÂ staff permittedÂ certainÂ softballÂ student-athletes toÂ participate
in impermissible countable athletically relatedÂ activitiesÂ (CARA).Â Â
AsÂ aÂ resultÂ ofÂ thisÂ impermissibleÂ CARA,Â andÂ occasionalÂ failureÂ to
accuratelyÂ recordÂ CARAÂ hours,Â theÂ headÂ softballÂ coach
failedÂ toÂ promoteÂ anÂ atmosphereÂ of compliance.

Quote:Specifically,Â CARAÂ limitsÂ wereÂ violatedÂ whenÂ fourÂ toÂ six
student-athletes participatedÂ inÂ bullpenÂ sessionsÂ thatÂ wereÂ notÂ countedÂ towardÂ the
student-athletes' daily and weekly CARA limits. On some other occasions, the
softball team's daily practice activities also exceeded CARA limits. On some of those
occasions, the former head softball failed to record an accurate amount of time
the softball student-athletes participated in CARA

"Routinely" & "occasional" seem very opposite descriptions!Â As I read the sentence with "routinely", I can take it to mean that Rittman routinely (as in, prepared "by rote or habit") submitted CARA reports (of which some (on some of those other occasions) were inaccurate), but I am not sure that was that was the authors' intent.Â When I read the "occasional" sentence, it is hard to understand "routinely" as "commonly."Â It is hard for me to fathom a consistent explanation of those two references otherwise.

The NCAA took this as a Level-II violation by the coach, but the penalty seems a lot like taking a Driver's Ed class after getting a moving violation.Â It seemingly didn't prevent his employment as a NCAA softball coach (albeit associate head coach rather than head coach).

I also note that I see no sense of "cover-up" in the NCAA statements.Â

My take (your take may be different) is that the team disintegrated under him, Stanford found a brake-light violation to pull him over, and the rest is history.Â No doubt he was responsible (whether the cause or not) for the team's situation.Â

Re: Softball - BostonCard - 03-24-2017

To put it more plainly, any coach that views the fact that Stanford takes NCAA requirements seriously as a reason not to take a job is a coach that we probably don't want at Stanford.

Re: Softball - 82lsju - 03-24-2017

wow, it must be the slow time of the year to have 108 posts in a thread on softballÂ :)

Re: Softball - d4cohn - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 04:10 PM)eric link Wrote:wow, it must be the slow time of the year to have 108 posts in a thread on softballÂ :)

The reason that I love being a Stanford fan is because we truly care about the success of all of our sports, not just football and basketball. Furthermore, I believe that a situation where a program has not won a Pac-12 series since 2013, to say nothing of the surrounding circumstances, warrants discussion. The sooner Bernard addresses this situation (i.e. hopefully at the end of this season), the better for everyone (players, fans etc.).

Re: Softball - Mick - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 02:48 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:There were also the allegations of impropriety regarding the trainer, I believe, and iirc, Rittman was aware of that.

Re: Softball - Mick - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 03:58 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:To put it more plainly, any coach that views the fact that Stanford takes NCAA requirements seriously as a reason not to take a job is a coach that we probably don't want at Stanford.

NCAA softball coaches take those requirements seriously.Â You missed most of my key points.Â Muir handled the initial meeting and communications with the parents badly -- without informing the coach -- and the parents essentially blackmailed him into the meeting and into action.Â There were multiple versions of what had occurred, and that the players who supported Rittman not only were (a) not invited to that meeting, but (b) the parents and players at that meeting misrepresented the positions of the players who were not there and © when the inevitable "independent" investigation was conducted by a law firm, the law firm wasn't remotely independent.Â That firm was dependent upon Stanford for a hugely significant chunk of its revenues, and at one time the firm's MP sat on Stanford's board, to say nothing of the fact that there were many other law firms more qualified to conduct that type of investigation.Â The pro-Rittman players said either that they weren't contacted for the investigation or that the interviews were perfunctory.

My point is that great softball coaches are aware of all of that.Â Many of them turned down the chance to interview with Stanford when Hanson was ultimately hired, NOT because "Stanford Follows The Rules" (really?) but because of the other aforementioned reasons.

Re: Softball - M T - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 04:35 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16598.msg190532#msg190532 date=1490392106]
There were also the allegations of impropriety regarding the trainer, I believe, and iirc, Rittman was aware of that.

IIRC, the trainer was a departmental employee not a softball employee.Â And the supposed object of his affections vehemently denied there was anything between them.Â I don't think any other coaches were fired, at any rate.
[/quote]

Per the NCAA document, simultaneous with Rittman's resignation, two other softball coaches were involuntarily terminated without cause "to permit the softball team to move in a different direction."Â I saw no mention in that document about any alleged improprieties beyond the practice time and its reporting.

Re: Softball - Owen Tufornomor - 03-24-2017

(03-24-2017, 12:41 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190514#msg190514 date=1490361852]
Call me (optimistically) crazy, but I think Hanson over the upcoming 24 just might elevate this team to the 5-win level reached by the crippled Rittman team of 2014.

Re: Softball - Mick - 03-25-2017

(03-24-2017, 08:44 PM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190527#msg190527 date=1490384478]
[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190514#msg190514 date=1490361852]
Call me (optimistically) crazy, but I think Hanson over the upcoming 24 just might elevate this team to the 5-win level reached by the crippled Rittman team of 2014.

Re: Softball - Owen Tufornomor - 03-25-2017

(03-25-2017, 05:33 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190563#msg190563 date=1490413482]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190527#msg190527 date=1490384478]
[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190514#msg190514 date=1490361852]
Call me (optimistically) crazy, but I think Hanson over the upcoming 24 just might elevate this team to the 5-win level reached by the crippled Rittman team of 2014.

Rittman's "crippled" team of 2014 went 25-6 outside of league and finished 30-25.Â I'd like to see any Hanson team hit that total.
But it's a non-issue.Â Stanford won't win five in league.
[/quote]

Your curt dismissal of my crystal-ball vision notwithstanding, the truth value of your claim will be determined in due course on the playing field; not today, not on this forum.
[/quote]

Yes, that's true for both of our claims.
[/quote]

"True," so long as the pretense that I made a claim rather than expressed an opinion is maintained.

Seems to me that the phrase "it's a non-issue" (that Stanford won't win five) suggests that your opinion (that Stanford won't win five) is beyond challenge, that is to say, it is essentially a fact (beyond challenge) and, as such, the question of the possibility of Stanford perhaps winning as many as 5 is, in fact, a non-issue, i.e., a question the raising of which would be pointless given that the answer already is (supposedly) known.

I take it from your reply that we are nonetheless in agreement on the plain and abundantly obvious fact that the truth value of both of our opinions will be determined in due course on the playing field; not today (or yesterday), not on this forum.

Re: Softball - Owen Tufornomor - 03-25-2017

(03-24-2017, 12:33 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:I also had 5 wins as my most optimistic estimate. I think a performance mirroring 2015's conference record (2-22, with wins over Utah and Arizona State at home) is more likely. Two points to consider: 1) Because of our non-conference schedule, we haven't beaten an RPI Top 50 squad this year (0-4 record). Everyone in the Pac-12, aside from Oregon State (at #53), is a Top 50 team. Therefore, it is hard for me to predict wins over Top 50 squads when we currently haven't done it yet. 2) Coach Hanson, in her tenure, has not won a single road Pac-12 game (0-24 record). As such, I think your Oregon State projection is optimistic. I definitely think we could steal a game, but I do not think a road series win is likely.

Call me (optimistically) crazy--again--but ... invite me to wager on the probability that Stanford's 27-game nonconference losing streak will fail to survive the weekend (3/25-3/27) and I will kiss the dice and roll 'em (see www.dailycal.org/2017/03/24/no-23-cal-softball-seeks-offensive-revival-home-series-stanford). And should I bring home the booty, well, so much for Owen Tufor (0-24) the sequel. (Although seemingly quite a longshot, neither do I find the possibility of Stanford actually winning this series absolutely inconceivable.)

Re: your point #1, one must acknowledge that 4 games is a quite tiny data sample upon which to predict future outcomes. It takes but a li'l bit of fudging (or slight difference of opinion) and then you have 24 Top 50 opponents lying in wait. What does an 0-4 record compiled thus far against Top 50s suggest regarding what will be the results of those 24 contests? Not much, insofar as it gives little, if any, clue regarding whether total wins ultimately will lie closer to 2 or to 5. A team ultimately bound for a 5-19 finish could easily sport an 0-4 record early on.

Re: your point #2, while Hanson indeed has been shut out in road wins, she also has barely touched the win column at home. There is insufficient data from which any reasonably firm notion can be drawn regarding how much of a home field advantage, if any, Stanford may enjoy for any particular home game or series. Most probably an advantage of some measure does exist; however, I think you overestimate its value. For example, a win over Utah at home? I have my doubts. Big ones. I see the Stanford home field advantage (presuming its existence) versus Utah's 1.15 team ERA as a pretty merciless matchup for Stanford. That weekend could prove to be downright brutal from start to finish.

Re: Softball - d4cohn - 03-25-2017

(03-25-2017, 07:28 AM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:Re: your point #1, one must acknowledge that 4 games is a quite tiny data sample upon which to predict future outcomes.

I agree that 4 games, especially in softball, is a tiny sample size. However, three of those games were a 24-8 blowout loss to Fresno St., a 4-0 loss to Alabama in which we struck out 18 times and were totally dominated offensively, and an 8-2 loss to Florida State in which FSU left 13 runners on base. I should have clarified my point to say that not only are we 0-4 against Top 50 competition, aside from Cal Poly, we have also not been very competitive against Top 50 competition. Nevertheless, I still think we can pick up a few Top 50 wins over the course of conference play.

(03-25-2017, 07:28 AM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:Re: your point #2, while Hanson indeed has been shut out in road wins, she also has barely touched the win column at home. There is insufficient data from which any reasonably firm notion can be drawn regarding how much of a home field advantage, if any, Stanford may enjoy for any particular home game or series. Most probably an advantage of some measure does exist; however, I think you overestimate its value. For example, a win over Utah at home? I have my doubts. Big ones. I see the Stanford home field advantage (presuming its existence) versus Utah's 1.15 team ERA as a pretty merciless matchup for Stanford. That weekend could prove to be downright brutal from start to finish.

Re: Softball - Owen Tufornomor - 03-25-2017

(03-25-2017, 09:16 AM)d4cohn link Wrote:[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190583#msg190583 date=1490452108]

Re: your point #1, one must acknowledge that 4 games is a quite tiny data sample upon which to predict future outcomes.

I agree that 4 games, especially in softball, is a tiny sample size. However, three of those games were a 24-8 blowout loss to Fresno St., a 4-0 loss to Alabama in which we struck out 18 times and were totally dominated offensively, and an 8-2 loss to Florida State in which FSU left 13 runners on base. I should have clarified my point to say that not only are we 0-4 against Top 50 competition, aside from ×ÉÉ Poly, we have also not been very competitive against Top 50 competition. Nevertheless, I still think we can pick up a few Top 50 wins over the course of conference play.

(03-25-2017, 07:28 AM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:Re: your point #2, while Hanson indeed has been shut out in road wins, she also has barely touched the win column at home. There is insufficient data from which any reasonably firm notion can be drawn regarding how much of a home field advantage, if any, Stanford may enjoy for any particular home game or series. Most probably an advantage of some measure does exist; however, I think you overestimate its value. For example, a win over Utah at home? I have my doubts. Big ones. I see the Stanford home field advantage (presuming its existence) versus Utah's 1.15 team ERA as a pretty merciless matchup for Stanford. That weekend could prove to be downright brutal from start to finish.

My point regarding home vs. road wins was similar to my Top 50 point: until Coach Hanson picks up a road win, it is simply hard for me to predict with confidence that she is going to pick up multiple road wins in a series. But I agree, Utah will be a really tough matchup. However, I think we have a better chance against Utah at home, then Washington on the road, per your original table.

I will be interested to see your 2000-word case to Bernard, Owen. Despite any disagreements, I respect your analysis and breakdown of the upcoming conference season.
[/quote]

Thanks for the kind words, Mr. C., and know that I have appreciated your contributions here as well. In fact, given the fact that the one and only internet forum I have frequented over the years more closely resembles a food fight than a place for people to gather to exchange thoughts and hopefully profit from those exchanges, I have in the short time I've been here found the level of civility maintained a refreshing change from that to which I am accustomed. I do heartily commend all here for that.

I'm afraid I am confused by your statement, "I think we have a better chance against Utah at home, then Washington on the road, per your original table." I'm assuming "then" was a typo meant to be "than".Â Assuming that is the case, I am still confused.

If you were interpreting the table as it was intended to be "read" you would not be under the impression that I have pointed to either Utah at home or Washington on the road as a more winnable series. I've not addressed that particular question here.

I've posted the 2nd row of the table below and will explain its meaning in detail to (hopefully) clear up any possible misunderstanding regarding a "correct" interpretation of the table.

Â Â Â TEAM(S)	Â Â Â Â Â COMBINED # OF GAMES PLAYED	Â Â Â Â WINS
Washington-Utah	Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 6	Â Â Â Â Â "3/4"Â (0 or 1, more likely 1)

Here, the first column refers to two series, Washington and [i]Utah[/i]. I've grouped the two (totaling 6 games, as indicated in the 2nd column) together as a block.

Suppose I consider the most likely result of Stanford's participation in that block of 6 games to be 1 win and also that I place equal weight on the lesser possibilities that (a) Stanford will win 0 and (b) Stanford will win 2 (3 or more Stanford wins is extremely unlikely and since the probability of that transpiring is negligible I give it no consideration here). Then in this simple case I would simply enter a "1" in the third column and that number would represent my best estimate of the number of Stanford wins for that block of 6 games.

In reality, however, although I still consider 1 win the most likely result, I see 0 wins as a more likely result than 2. This is indicated by the fact that the "3/4" (wins) shown in column 3 "leans" from a starting point of 1 (the most likely result) toward 0 and away from 2. Essentially, the simple "1" (the most likely result) appearing in the earlier example has been "discounted" down to "3/4" to represent this favoring of 0 (wins) over 2 (wins). Thus, the expected number of wins (noted in parentheses, and expressed as whole numbers) is "0 or 1, more likely 1" (as indicated by the fact that 3/4 is closer to 1 than to 0).

Is this all clear as mud now? I now wonder if anyone who took a look at the table was not confused by it.