The CardBoard
Women's Golf at NCAA Final - 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: Women's Golf at NCAA Final (/thread-9247.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Farm93 - 05-26-2015

(05-26-2015, 04:07 PM)BobK link Wrote:Wow what a great tournament for the women. Now tomorrow for all the marbles.

How about our coach  what an great team.
BTW - Over the last few years Stanford has had a significant facilities advantage too.  Rather than driving all over the area to find tee times for practice, like UCLA and USC, Stanford has a top tier golf course and a one of a kind "road game greens" since 2008.

Big thanks to all of those that support the program financially and have enabled the AD to carve a chunk of the Stanford campus into anywhere USA CC.  Not that those facilities should count as resources to the athletes coming to Stanford.  ;)
http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=30600&ATCLID=208446875


Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - oldalum - 05-26-2015

was it just my imagination and bias, or did the TV coverage show and talk about the Duke/Baylor match about 2/3 of the time and Stanford/USC 1/3 of the time?

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Leftcoast - 05-26-2015

In the May 10 Golf Week rankings Stanford entered the tournament ranked 17th while Baylor entered ranked 19th.  Today's losing teams, Duke and USC were ranked 3 and 6 respectively.   

Can you imagine a 17 seed playing a 19 in the NCAA basketball finals?  Golf is an unpredictable game where the differences between the top 20 teams are slight.  Rankings certainly didn't matter much this past two weeks.

Congrats to the Stanford women.

/Lefty

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/golf-women/d1


Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Farm93 - 05-26-2015

(05-26-2015, 04:34 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:In the May 10 Golf Week rankings Stanford entered the tournament ranked 17th while Baylor entered ranked 19th.  Today's losing teams, Duke and U$€ were ranked 3 and 6 respectively.   

Can you imagine a 17 seed playing a 19 in the NCAA basketball finals?  Golf is an unpredictable game where the differences between the top 20 teams are slight.  Rankings certainly didn't matter much this past two weeks.

Congrats to the Stanford women.

/Lefty
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/golf-women/d1

Can I imagine the NCAA tournament with a regional #4 seed playing a regional #5 seed?  Yes.  As recently as 2011 the NCAA basketball tournament had regional #3, #4, #8 & #11 seeds.  Those were regional seeds, so that corresponds to ~#10, ~#14, ~#30, ~#42 overall seeds.  Basketball is not as unpredictable, but the depth is so good that teams outside of the top 20 routinely make it to the Final Four.

In this women's golf case it is even easier to imagine this depth rising up since the Regional #4 type seed had players out with injuries over large stretches of the season and was the preseason #1.

Does not mean that the depth and match play luck are not impressive factors in golf.  Just an observation that the depth of men's basketball is so impressive that low seeds advance frequently and the top 40 are really more evenly matched than in most NCAA sports.

Now, women's basketball is a different story.  Since perhaps 7 programs seem to own the Final Four and two or three have exclusive rights to the titles.  In Women's hoops I sadly can't even imagine a #3 or #4 type Stanford team winning the title.  That's a different sad story, obviously.

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Hulk01 - 05-26-2015

The rankings system in golf seems flawed to lots of people.  But a major factor has been the enormous comprehension in women's golf; there isn't anything like the gap you see between the number one and number 20 football teams.

One influence may be scholarship limits.  Last time I talked with Conrad Ray, my understanding was the men's and women's golf could award 4.5 scholarships.  This makes it hard to stockpile many elite players on one one team.  As a result, some of the powerhouses have very weak players in the fifth spot.  You can endure that all year because only your low four scores in each round count.  But it exposes you in match play, and you cannot win a national championship without winning three consecutive matches. 

The golf teams also are seeing the results of the surge on interest created by Tiger on the male side and a series of great Asian players starting with Grace Park and extending through Michelle Wie.  You see the influence on the SC team; all five are Asian.  But game is suffering among kids now, however, so the next decade could get more interesting, just as it may with baseball and softball, which are suffering from the same drop off.  (Football, as a sign of the intelligence of this new generation, is attracting more participants.)

Plus it's golf.  Athletes in many sports tend to reach a level and play to it.  Golf is more evil; one day the cup's an ocean and the next it's a worm hole.  One day you're David Duvall and the next day you are, but you can't find a green with Bushnel  binoculars.  (Mariah Stackhouse has been each version this year at different times.)  Plus the pressure of team match play makes almost everyone shake.  (Mark Calchavecia at the Ryder Cup at Kiawah Island comes to mind.  Fortunately for the US side, so does Bernhard Langer.)  But the rankings are based on this idea of overall performance for the year, a false notion, and even if you give greater weight to recent events, you may just be overweighing a hot streak.

Not sure on Baylor, but many folks projected Stanford to be a top five team, and some pegged them for first.  They really never showed that, finishing seventh at the Pac-12s.  But here they are.  It seems they do a great job scouting courses for big events; I'd be interested in seeing how they are gathering that information.  The players were putting the ball in the right places, which on these greens was utterly critical--and a sign someone did the homework.

Anyway--anyone's match.  Stackhouse seems almost certain to rebound, and Kim is terrific in the two spot.  And QE is a good and dangerous player at number five.  But again, it's match play.  The difference likely will be the player or two who can stop her hand from shaking and sink the six foot putt--somehow.

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - BobK - 05-26-2015

6 for women, Hulk. Plus Golf is a partial scholie sport so while they could be some on full there are others on half or more. 


http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html


May I also say Wie is an American and all the USC golfers went to school in the US.  :)

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - terry - 05-26-2015

(05-26-2015, 04:32 PM)oldalum link Wrote:was it just my imagination and bias, or did the TV coverage show and talk about the Duke/Baylor match about 2/3 of the time and Stanford/U$€ 1/3 of the time?

I saw very little of the coverage, but while I was watching, there was a lot of talk about defending champion Duke, 2013 champion U'S'C, and Cinderella story Baylor. Stanford wasn't getting much love in the part I saw.

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - BobK - 05-26-2015

Baylor's team:


http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/w-golf/mtt/bay-w-golf-mtt.html


3 of 10 from the US

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Brainiac_Infinite - 05-26-2015

(05-26-2015, 05:22 PM)BobK link Wrote:Baylor's team:


http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/w-golf/mtt/bay-w-golf-mtt.html


3 of 10 from the US


And only 1 out of 5 in the lineup  is from the US.

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Mick - 05-26-2015

(05-26-2015, 12:55 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=12165.msg119056#msg119056 date=1432669900]

They have one American on the team, if you think of Canada as America.

Find me a single Canadian who does.
[/quote]




If there's one thing I've learned living in Detroit, looking across the river at Windsor, Ontario, and spending WAY more time than I want babysitting in Toronto, I've learned that Canadian's view themselves as anything BUT American, and take brobdingnagian offense at the implication.


They sure do want our money, though.  Easiest way to get through Canadian customs?  Tell them you want to go to the casinos.

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Spiny_Norman - 05-26-2015

Earlier in the thread I believe there was a reference to "mercenary" type players who join a team in the middle of the year.  Dylan Kim enrolled at Baylor in January and immediately began playing on the golf team.  She was an early enrollee.  http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/w-golf/spec-rel/111314aaa.html

We have seen this in football - kids graduating after the first semester of their senior year, then enrolling in college so they can participate in spring practice.  But I was not aware that this happened in golf. 

Dylan Kim finished 5th at the Big 12 championship, 3rd at the regional and 4th at the NCAAs.  In her first tournament in February, Baylor beat a field that included USC, UCLA, Duke, Washington and Arizona.  Think she has made a difference?

Btw, in a matchup with great potential to confuse the announcers and the audience, Baylor's Dylan Kim will face Stanford's Lauren Kim tomorrow.

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Farm93 - 05-26-2015

(05-26-2015, 09:56 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Earlier in the thread I believe there was a reference to "mercenary" type players who join a team in the middle of the year.  Dylan Kim enrolled at Baylor in January and immediately began playing on the golf team.  She was an early enrollee.  http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/w-golf/spec-rel/111314aaa.html

We have seen this in football - kids graduating after the first semester of their senior year, then enrolling in college so they can participate in spring practice.  But I was not aware that this happened in golf. 


Apparently happens all of the time.  USC got the #1 Juco player, and then conveniently enough she was able to compete in January. 
http://www.usctrojans.com/sports/w-golf/spec-rel/111214aaa.html


Golf really is an individual sport, so as soon as these schools can find a way to get the players on campus they are essentially ready to go.

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Viking_Guy - 05-26-2015

The ultimate example, of course, being Australian softball player Tanya Harding (not Tonya).

She "enrolled" at UCLA to begin the spring quarter on March 22, 1995.  She pitched for the Bruins that spring, going 17-1 as a 23-year old "junior," going 4-0 on the WCWS while batting .500 and winning Most Valuable Player as the Bruins beat Arizona for the title on May 30.

On June 1 she left to return to Australia, taking incompletes in all of her classes and never returning.

UCLA would later vacate the title because three softball players were listed as "soccer" players, despite never setting foot on the field for the Bruins beyond an unofficial tryout. What they did with Harding violated no NCAA rules.


To paraphrase a great Western philosopher, "Ten weeks of college down the drain."

VG

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - slide - 05-27-2015

(05-26-2015, 04:24 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12165.msg119123#msg119123 date=1432682196]
I guess this is good, right?

BC
Duke played better all week long AND played better today despite the 3-2 loss.  Likely not a big deal either way, both had strong #1s and a great week of golf.
[/quote]


not so sure about Duke playing better in all the matches against Baylor.  at least in the match between Whyte and Maguire, Whyte outplayed Maguire on the 20 or so holes I watched.  Whyte let Maguire back in the match with an awful 3 putt from 35 feet on 17 (a 2 putt and she wins) and then almost let her back in on the last hole with another awful 3 putt from 30 feet or so on the last hole.  Maguire failed to fly the ball 200 yards off the tee with driver on the last hole.  it was a pretty ugly shot.

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - BigEasyCard - 05-27-2015

(05-26-2015, 11:19 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:The ultimate example, of course, being Australian softball player Tanya Harding (not Tonya).

She "enrolled" at UCLA to begin the spring quarter on March 22, 1995.  She pitched for the Bruins that spring, going 17-1 as a 23-year old "junior," going 4-0 on the WCWS while batting .500 and winning Most Valuable Player as the Bruins beat Arizona for the title on May 30.

On June 1 she left to return to Australia, taking incompletes in all of her classes and never returning.

UCLA would later vacate the title because three softball players were listed as "soccer" players, despite never setting foot on the field for the Bruins beyond an unofficial tryout. What they did with Harding violated no NCAA rules.


To paraphrase a great Western philosopher, "Ten weeks of college down the drain."

VG

One of my favorite philosophers, Western or otherwise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjIH1jdx2_A

Geaux Cardinal!



Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Hulk01 - 05-27-2015

Perhaps Slide or another competitive golfer can help me here.

On the fatal hole, Maguire made what appeared to me a ridiculous decision. 

The pin was cut close to front of the green, and tucked in behind a deep bunker.  The apparent play was to hit her second shot from the hazard anywhere but toward the middle of the fairway.  Her ideal angle to the green for her third shot appeared to be from the right side of fairway, where she didn't need to worry about clearing the bunker and had from more green to work with.  Lay up to your 56 degree or 60 degree wedge distance, and hit a full shot to that clear target.

But she didn't.  She hit the shot from the hazard to about her half-wedge distance, right in the middle of fairway--right behind the brobdingnagian bunker. 

You could see the mess she was in from her practice shots.  She had to attempt a sharply cut, half-wedge shot that could clear the bunker, hit what little green there was between the bunker and the pin, and get it to stop quickly and not run across the green and into more trouble. A few pros can hit that shot--one time in three maybe.  But they wouldn't put themselves in that place.  They'd have given themselves the much easier third shot from the left side.

Was there something about that hole I am missing?  Or did she mishit that shot from the hazard too, somehow pulling it left and right behind that bunker?  It sure didn't look like it.  It looks like it landed right where she foolishly intended.

Anyone watching have an idea?  And did the commentators question it? (I was watching with the sound off.)

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - BigEasyCard - 05-27-2015

Yes the commentators did question the shot and made the same point as you did about a shot to the right giving her a much better chance.

Geaux Cardinal!

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - Hulk01 - 05-27-2015

Thanks for the response.  I was watching the post mortem last night, which fixed on the two sisters just looking off into the trees.  I wondered if she was asking herself why she made such a foolish choice at the worst possible time. 

I looked back at the finals putts.  Not only was the angle from the right clear, but it gave her the option of running the ball up, plus it was uphill, so she could have gone right at the flag and had it stick, even with a half-wedge.  Real shot at par--which would have won the hole--and a near-lock for a two-putt bogey and a tie.

Not used to seeing decisions like that.  A few pros must make them now and then, but pack in the pack and out of camera range. 

Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - slide - 05-27-2015

Hulk -- Maguire's 2nd shot club selection and shot choice were puzzling.  the ass't coach was in the hazard with her -- and that was the choice after considerable deliberation?  as you point out, play to a good yardage -- 80 yards to 100 yards -- where you can stop the ball close to a tough pin.  instead she leaves herself with a nearly impossible up and down. 


similarly, Whyte's 2nd shot to the par 5 was curious too.  poor club selection leaves her with a 45 yard bunker shot.  she hit a good shot but still ended up in the recovery area.  her up and down from that place may have been the best pressure shots I watched yesterday.




Re: Women's Golf at NCAA Final - oldalum - 05-27-2015

I had the impression that Maguire was not comfortable with the shot/club the coach wanted her to hit, probably because of the sloped lie below her feet and uncertainty about the stuff the ball was lying on, so she hit the shot she was comfortable with. But that doesn't explain the line she chose (if she chose it, maybe the sloped lie affected where it ended up). Her wedge shot was very difficult with the green sloping away from the hole, and she did not spin the ball enough anyway.