05-26-2015, 05:05 PM
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.Â
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.
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.Â
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.