05-30-2017, 10:44 AM
Nothing but close matches today, Oregon 3-2 over Oklahoma State, SUC loses to Illinois.
Casey Martin's Ducks in, SUC out
05-30-2017, 10:55 AM
Were you watching on tv, Hulk? Some really dramatic swings in all 4 matches. From a fan's perspective, I really do enjoy this format.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
Were you watching on tv, Hulk? Some really dramatic swings in all 4 matches. From a fan's perspective, I really do enjoy this format.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
05-30-2017, 12:53 PM
No question this format makes dramatic television, as it did this morning. The difference betweenmoving on and heading home was tiny. =
05-30-2017, 05:14 PM
#2 Oklahoma defeats #3 Illinois, #5 Oregon defeats #1 Vanderbilt.
The finals will be UO vs. OU!
The finals will be UO vs. OU!
05-30-2017, 05:57 PM
Conrad Ray seems like a good guy. Casey Martin seems like a better coach.
Also, given that Maverick McNealy's collegiate win totals over the last 3 years are 6-4-1, how is it that he is so highly ranked now?
Also, given that Maverick McNealy's collegiate win totals over the last 3 years are 6-4-1, how is it that he is so highly ranked now?
05-31-2017, 08:15 AM
An unusual number of our better players in recent years---Ziegler, Sihwan Kim. Andrew Yun, David Chung, and Viraat this year--have had their highest scoring averages in their senior seasons. Maverick won ten events in the two years leading up to this one, but only one this year, and averaged a stroke more per round than he averaged as a sophomore.Â
An unusual number of our better players in recent years---Ziegler, Sihwan Kim. Andrew Yun, David Chung, and Viraat this year--have had their highest scoring averages in their senior seasons. Maverick won ten events in the two years leading up to this one, but only one this year, and averaged a stroke more per round than he averaged as a sophomore.Â
05-31-2017, 09:34 AM
Based on what I saw over the weekend, and what I heard from the regionals, tee-to-green is in great shape for Maverick. Not making much outside of 5 feet though. That was true of the whole team, especially when compared to their playing partners from LSU and Baylor. Making a few putts after a good approach shot is the difference between posting +1 or -2.
You can chalk up Stanford's disappointing score on Sunday to wind that came up in the afternoon. Look at the scores from Monday if you want to understand how wind wreaks havoc on this course. -8 was the cut line going into the round and +8 was the cut line at the end of the round. Best round of the day was -2 by a Duck who finished with four straight birdies (talk about clutch!).
You can chalk up Stanford's disappointing score on Sunday to wind that came up in the afternoon. Look at the scores from Monday if you want to understand how wind wreaks havoc on this course. -8 was the cut line going into the round and +8 was the cut line at the end of the round. Best round of the day was -2 by a Duck who finished with four straight birdies (talk about clutch!).
Based on what I saw over the weekend, and what I heard from the regionals, tee-to-green is in great shape for Maverick. Not making much outside of 5 feet though. That was true of the whole team, especially when compared to their playing partners from LSU and Baylor. Making a few putts after a good approach shot is the difference between posting +1 or -2.
You can chalk up Stanford's disappointing score on Sunday to wind that came up in the afternoon. Look at the scores from Monday if you want to understand how wind wreaks havoc on this course. -8 was the cut line going into the round and +8 was the cut line at the end of the round. Best round of the day was -2 by a Duck who finished with four straight birdies (talk about clutch!).
You can chalk up Stanford's disappointing score on Sunday to wind that came up in the afternoon. Look at the scores from Monday if you want to understand how wind wreaks havoc on this course. -8 was the cut line going into the round and +8 was the cut line at the end of the round. Best round of the day was -2 by a Duck who finished with four straight birdies (talk about clutch!).
05-31-2017, 01:21 PM
Each of the semifinal teams (Oklahoma, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Oregon) had 3 different players win tournaments this season. Stanford had one. And that one individual win happened last fall. No individual wins in the spring. Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
Each of the semifinal teams (Oklahoma, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Oregon) had 3 different players win tournaments this season. Stanford had one. And that one individual win happened last fall. No individual wins in the spring. Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
05-31-2017, 02:12 PM
Stanford's two best recent teams had multiple event winners: Grube, Zach Miller, and Joseph Brammlet for the 06-07 NCAA champs, and Patrick Rodgers and Cameron Wilson (the NCAA champion) on the 3rd place '13-14 team.
05-31-2017, 03:19 PM
(05-31-2017, 01:21 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Each of the semifinal teams (Oklahoma, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Oregon) had 3 different players win tournaments this season. Stanford had one.Â
... Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams.
So, how are the rankings created?
I note that going into the tournament, the rankings were:
#2 Stanford
#3 Oklahoma
#4 Vanderbilt
#8 Illinois
#9 Oregon
(05-31-2017, 01:21 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Each of the semifinal teams (Oklahoma, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Oregon) had 3 different players win tournaments this season. Stanford had one.Â
... Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams.
So, how are the rankings created?
I note that going into the tournament, the rankings were:
#2 Stanford
#3 Oklahoma
#4 Vanderbilt
#8 Illinois
#9 Oregon
05-31-2017, 04:28 PM
(05-31-2017, 03:19 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16938.msg194271#msg194271 date=1496262112]
Each of the semifinal teams (Oklahoma, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Oregon) had 3 different players win tournaments this season. Stanford had one.Â
... Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams.
So, how are the rankings created?
I note that going into the tournament, the rankings were:
#2 Stanford
#3 Oklahoma
#4 Vanderbilt
#8 Illinois
#9 Oregon
[/quote]
For golf that's not bad. Stanford clearly didn't play well on the course. It was not that different from Alabama on the women's side. And the women's side had #2 UCLA miss the entire final tournament, so rankings are rarely going to perfectly play out.
I am just thankful #1 on the men's side missed the finals too.
I am not thrilled that Oklahoma will win this thing, but not my biggest worry. I think Oklahoma now has three NCAA team titles (men's gym, women's gym and men's golf). That's a pretty solid combination.Â
(05-31-2017, 03:19 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16938.msg194271#msg194271 date=1496262112]
Each of the semifinal teams (Oklahoma, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Oregon) had 3 different players win tournaments this season. Stanford had one.Â
... Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams.
So, how are the rankings created?
I note that going into the tournament, the rankings were:
#2 Stanford
#3 Oklahoma
#4 Vanderbilt
#8 Illinois
#9 Oregon
[/quote]
For golf that's not bad. Stanford clearly didn't play well on the course. It was not that different from Alabama on the women's side. And the women's side had #2 UCLA miss the entire final tournament, so rankings are rarely going to perfectly play out.
I am just thankful #1 on the men's side missed the finals too.
I am not thrilled that Oklahoma will win this thing, but not my biggest worry. I think Oklahoma now has three NCAA team titles (men's gym, women's gym and men's golf). That's a pretty solid combination.Â
Oklahoma wasn't ranked #3; Oklahoma State was. Oklahoma was ranked 18th.
Oklahoma State would've been ranked number one if they hadn't lost their All American #!, Wyndham Clark. He transferred to Oregon--he needed a change of scene after his mom died from cancer--and played #! for them this year.Â
The rankings, as others have nicely detailed here, haven't predicted the NCAA outcomes well at all. They seem almost comically bad. Among the problems is that those rankings are based on season-long performance Players in May aren't the players they were in October, for better or worse. One guy goes sour--especially your one or two--and it's over. One guy gets hot--especially your three or four--and you're the surprise of the tournament.Â
Oklahoma State would've been ranked number one if they hadn't lost their All American #!, Wyndham Clark. He transferred to Oregon--he needed a change of scene after his mom died from cancer--and played #! for them this year.Â
The rankings, as others have nicely detailed here, haven't predicted the NCAA outcomes well at all. They seem almost comically bad. Among the problems is that those rankings are based on season-long performance Players in May aren't the players they were in October, for better or worse. One guy goes sour--especially your one or two--and it's over. One guy gets hot--especially your three or four--and you're the surprise of the tournament.Â
Oklahoma wasn't ranked #3; Oklahoma State was. Oklahoma was ranked 18th.
Oklahoma State would've been ranked number one if they hadn't lost their All American #!, Wyndham Clark. He transferred to Oregon--he needed a change of scene after his mom died from cancer--and played #! for them this year.Â
The rankings, as others have nicely detailed here, haven't predicted the NCAA outcomes well at all. They seem almost comically bad. Among the problems is that those rankings are based on season-long performance Players in May aren't the players they were in October, for better or worse. One guy goes sour--especially your one or two--and it's over. One guy gets hot--especially your three or four--and you're the surprise of the tournament.Â
Oklahoma State would've been ranked number one if they hadn't lost their All American #!, Wyndham Clark. He transferred to Oregon--he needed a change of scene after his mom died from cancer--and played #! for them this year.Â
The rankings, as others have nicely detailed here, haven't predicted the NCAA outcomes well at all. They seem almost comically bad. Among the problems is that those rankings are based on season-long performance Players in May aren't the players they were in October, for better or worse. One guy goes sour--especially your one or two--and it's over. One guy gets hot--especially your three or four--and you're the surprise of the tournament.Â
06-01-2017, 10:21 AM
(06-01-2017, 05:03 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The rankings, as others have nicely detailed here, haven't predicted the NCAA outcomes well at all. They seem almost comically bad. Among the problems is that those rankings are based on season-long performance Players in May aren't the players they were in October, for better or worse. One guy goes sour--especially your one or two--and it's over. One guy gets hot--especially your three or four--and you're the surprise of the tournament.
This is rather what I was asking about.
The statement was made that given that Stanford had only one guy who had only won one tournament whereas the semifinalists all had three different players who had won tournaments, therefore Stanford was not at the same level as these other teams. That sounded logical to me, given the tournament victories noted and the fact that Stanford was in fact not close to making the cut.
However, the national rankings seem surprising in light of that; it's not so much that a particular highly ranked team isn't in contention at one particular event - golf is like that as you noted with your "surprise of the tournament" comment. However, a team ranked #2 should not be at a fundamentally lower level than teams ranked #4-18. Now in some sports there are weird idiosyncrasies in how the rankings are compiled that lead to such a disconnect. I think tennis is one as they rely upon events that Stanford typically doesn't enter. I was wondering if anyone understood what the similar issue was in the golf rankings. Depending upon fall events would seem like it could be a little bit of that, but it is not as if Stanford was collecting a ton of individual tournament victories in the fall either.
It seems in this particular case there must be more, though I suppose it could all be due to a one-off rough week.
(06-01-2017, 05:03 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The rankings, as others have nicely detailed here, haven't predicted the NCAA outcomes well at all. They seem almost comically bad. Among the problems is that those rankings are based on season-long performance Players in May aren't the players they were in October, for better or worse. One guy goes sour--especially your one or two--and it's over. One guy gets hot--especially your three or four--and you're the surprise of the tournament.
This is rather what I was asking about.
The statement was made that given that Stanford had only one guy who had only won one tournament whereas the semifinalists all had three different players who had won tournaments, therefore Stanford was not at the same level as these other teams. That sounded logical to me, given the tournament victories noted and the fact that Stanford was in fact not close to making the cut.
However, the national rankings seem surprising in light of that; it's not so much that a particular highly ranked team isn't in contention at one particular event - golf is like that as you noted with your "surprise of the tournament" comment. However, a team ranked #2 should not be at a fundamentally lower level than teams ranked #4-18. Now in some sports there are weird idiosyncrasies in how the rankings are compiled that lead to such a disconnect. I think tennis is one as they rely upon events that Stanford typically doesn't enter. I was wondering if anyone understood what the similar issue was in the golf rankings. Depending upon fall events would seem like it could be a little bit of that, but it is not as if Stanford was collecting a ton of individual tournament victories in the fall either.
It seems in this particular case there must be more, though I suppose it could all be due to a one-off rough week.
Golf is idiosyncratic, particularly college competitive golf.
You dispatch five 20-year-old guys to a distant locale to play a course they aren't familiar with, particularly given that day's setup and weather. Get up the next day, play another round, repeat once more. Think of it as three consecutive away games--except, unlike in all other sports, the field changes for every new event. It's like playing with an 18-foot, three point line one week and a 22-footer--along with a much wider key--the next
And five guys. One may be struggling off the tee, another struggling almost everywhere, a third on the verge of quitting and going home (e.g.) Jimmy Liu. Go through a year of college and its challenges, including finals, midterms, social life. Variables upon variables.
Whatever the variables and challenges, Stanford never demonstrated this year that it belonged in the elite. SC beat us badly twice, Vanderbilt in our only match up.Â
But with that said, men's college golf also has an odd feature. It really is hard to distinguish team #3 and #14. The difference is so small that the specifics of the day and the course matter far more than the small apparent differences in talent between the teams.Â
That helps explain why in six NCAA finals contested at match play, men's and women's, the #1 team has qualified only three times and has never won, and the highest-rated team ever to win the finals was ranked 8th.Â
I think you can trace this partly to scholarship limits. A sport with fewer scholarships (4.5) than starters (5), is bound to push all the teams more toward the middle. And if you guess wrong on even one of those scholarships, your team has an albatross.Â
Oregon may look like a juggernaut after two consecutive appearances in the finals, and therefore evidence otherwise, but that's only because (1) a scholarship opened up to Casey Martin's surprise when Oregon's #1 decided to go pro; and (2) Oklahoma State's #1 lost his mother to cancer and wanted to get far from Oklahoma for his final year, and had been recruited by Martin--who, again, had a full scholarship available.
You dispatch five 20-year-old guys to a distant locale to play a course they aren't familiar with, particularly given that day's setup and weather. Get up the next day, play another round, repeat once more. Think of it as three consecutive away games--except, unlike in all other sports, the field changes for every new event. It's like playing with an 18-foot, three point line one week and a 22-footer--along with a much wider key--the next
And five guys. One may be struggling off the tee, another struggling almost everywhere, a third on the verge of quitting and going home (e.g.) Jimmy Liu. Go through a year of college and its challenges, including finals, midterms, social life. Variables upon variables.
Whatever the variables and challenges, Stanford never demonstrated this year that it belonged in the elite. SC beat us badly twice, Vanderbilt in our only match up.Â
But with that said, men's college golf also has an odd feature. It really is hard to distinguish team #3 and #14. The difference is so small that the specifics of the day and the course matter far more than the small apparent differences in talent between the teams.Â
That helps explain why in six NCAA finals contested at match play, men's and women's, the #1 team has qualified only three times and has never won, and the highest-rated team ever to win the finals was ranked 8th.Â
I think you can trace this partly to scholarship limits. A sport with fewer scholarships (4.5) than starters (5), is bound to push all the teams more toward the middle. And if you guess wrong on even one of those scholarships, your team has an albatross.Â
Oregon may look like a juggernaut after two consecutive appearances in the finals, and therefore evidence otherwise, but that's only because (1) a scholarship opened up to Casey Martin's surprise when Oregon's #1 decided to go pro; and (2) Oklahoma State's #1 lost his mother to cancer and wanted to get far from Oklahoma for his final year, and had been recruited by Martin--who, again, had a full scholarship available.
Golf is idiosyncratic, particularly college competitive golf.
You dispatch five 20-year-old guys to a distant locale to play a course they aren't familiar with, particularly given that day's setup and weather. Get up the next day, play another round, repeat once more. Think of it as three consecutive away games--except, unlike in all other sports, the field changes for every new event. It's like playing with an 18-foot, three point line one week and a 22-footer--along with a much wider key--the next
And five guys. One may be struggling off the tee, another struggling almost everywhere, a third on the verge of quitting and going home (e.g.) Jimmy Liu. Go through a year of college and its challenges, including finals, midterms, social life. Variables upon variables.
Whatever the variables and challenges, Stanford never demonstrated this year that it belonged in the elite. SC beat us badly twice, Vanderbilt in our only match up.Â
But with that said, men's college golf also has an odd feature. It really is hard to distinguish team #3 and #14. The difference is so small that the specifics of the day and the course matter far more than the small apparent differences in talent between the teams.Â
That helps explain why in six NCAA finals contested at match play, men's and women's, the #1 team has qualified only three times and has never won, and the highest-rated team ever to win the finals was ranked 8th.Â
I think you can trace this partly to scholarship limits. A sport with fewer scholarships (4.5) than starters (5), is bound to push all the teams more toward the middle. And if you guess wrong on even one of those scholarships, your team has an albatross.Â
Oregon may look like a juggernaut after two consecutive appearances in the finals, and therefore evidence otherwise, but that's only because (1) a scholarship opened up to Casey Martin's surprise when Oregon's #1 decided to go pro; and (2) Oklahoma State's #1 lost his mother to cancer and wanted to get far from Oklahoma for his final year, and had been recruited by Martin--who, again, had a full scholarship available.
You dispatch five 20-year-old guys to a distant locale to play a course they aren't familiar with, particularly given that day's setup and weather. Get up the next day, play another round, repeat once more. Think of it as three consecutive away games--except, unlike in all other sports, the field changes for every new event. It's like playing with an 18-foot, three point line one week and a 22-footer--along with a much wider key--the next
And five guys. One may be struggling off the tee, another struggling almost everywhere, a third on the verge of quitting and going home (e.g.) Jimmy Liu. Go through a year of college and its challenges, including finals, midterms, social life. Variables upon variables.
Whatever the variables and challenges, Stanford never demonstrated this year that it belonged in the elite. SC beat us badly twice, Vanderbilt in our only match up.Â
But with that said, men's college golf also has an odd feature. It really is hard to distinguish team #3 and #14. The difference is so small that the specifics of the day and the course matter far more than the small apparent differences in talent between the teams.Â
That helps explain why in six NCAA finals contested at match play, men's and women's, the #1 team has qualified only three times and has never won, and the highest-rated team ever to win the finals was ranked 8th.Â
I think you can trace this partly to scholarship limits. A sport with fewer scholarships (4.5) than starters (5), is bound to push all the teams more toward the middle. And if you guess wrong on even one of those scholarships, your team has an albatross.Â
Oregon may look like a juggernaut after two consecutive appearances in the finals, and therefore evidence otherwise, but that's only because (1) a scholarship opened up to Casey Martin's surprise when Oregon's #1 decided to go pro; and (2) Oklahoma State's #1 lost his mother to cancer and wanted to get far from Oklahoma for his final year, and had been recruited by Martin--who, again, had a full scholarship available.
06-01-2017, 11:33 AM
Golfweek (which compiles one of the collegiate golf rankings) published a special ranking after the season based solely on spring performance. Oregon was #2, reflective of their success after Norman Xiong graduated early from high school and joined the team in January. Oklahoma was #15. Perhaps they were enigmatic during the spring and everything finally came together at the NCAAs.
http://golfweek.com/2017/05/13/ranking-e...golf-team/
As we have seen with the men's and women's NCAA golf results, the difference between the #1 and #15 teams can be so small that any team can beat another once they get to match play. Let's recall that Augusta State won back to back national championships recently!
http://golfweek.com/2017/05/13/ranking-e...golf-team/
As we have seen with the men's and women's NCAA golf results, the difference between the #1 and #15 teams can be so small that any team can beat another once they get to match play. Let's recall that Augusta State won back to back national championships recently!
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
Golfweek (which compiles one of the collegiate golf rankings) published a special ranking after the season based solely on spring performance. Oregon was #2, reflective of their success after Norman Xiong graduated early from high school and joined the team in January. Oklahoma was #15. Perhaps they were enigmatic during the spring and everything finally came together at the NCAAs.
http://golfweek.com/2017/05/13/ranking-e...golf-team/
As we have seen with the men's and women's NCAA golf results, the difference between the #1 and #15 teams can be so small that any team can beat another once they get to match play. Let's recall that Augusta State won back to back national championships recently!
http://golfweek.com/2017/05/13/ranking-e...golf-team/
As we have seen with the men's and women's NCAA golf results, the difference between the #1 and #15 teams can be so small that any team can beat another once they get to match play. Let's recall that Augusta State won back to back national championships recently!
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(06-01-2017, 11:33 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:As we have seen with the men's and women's NCAA golf results, the difference between the #1 and #15 teams can be so small that any team can beat another once they get to match play.Â
Yes, that and the fact that the best golfer overall just doesn't win any particular competition all that often. The sport has a ton more variability than most.
So, my sense now is that your statement above was probably more like,
"Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams this week"
rather than,
"Stanford was not really a top-ten kind of team generally and the rankings are messed up."
Yes?
(06-01-2017, 11:33 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:As we have seen with the men's and women's NCAA golf results, the difference between the #1 and #15 teams can be so small that any team can beat another once they get to match play.Â
Yes, that and the fact that the best golfer overall just doesn't win any particular competition all that often. The sport has a ton more variability than most.
So, my sense now is that your statement above was probably more like,
"Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams this week"
rather than,
"Stanford was not really a top-ten kind of team generally and the rankings are messed up."
Yes?
06-01-2017, 01:02 PM
(06-01-2017, 12:46 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16938.msg194308#msg194308 date=1496342039]
As we have seen with the men's and women's NCAA golf results, the difference between the #1 and #15 teams can be so small that any team can beat another once they get to match play.Â
Yes, that and the fact that the best golfer overall just doesn't win any particular competition all that often. The sport has a ton more variability than most.
So, my sense now is that your statement above was probably more like,
"Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams this week"
rather than,
"Stanford was not really a top-ten kind of team and the rankings are messed up."
Yes?
[/quote]
IMO, yes.Â
National champion OU was FOURTH at the Stanford regional, 14 shots behind Stanford.
Prior to NCAAs,
Stanford was 2-2 vs. UO in the spring, beating them at Pasatiempo and Stanford (The Goodwin) and losing at Pac-12s and Hawaii in February.
Stanford was 2-3 vs. USC in the spring, beating them handily at Pac-12s and Stanford (The Goodwin) and getting clobbered by them at Pasatiempo, Vegas (Southern Highlands), and Hawaii.
Many believe that USC was the best team in the country. Five or so years ago, kal was clearly the best team in the country. Neither has hardware from the NCAA to prove it.
As others have noted, golf is a very fickle game. Being great today doesn't mean a thing on the first tee tomorrow.
(06-01-2017, 12:46 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16938.msg194308#msg194308 date=1496342039]
As we have seen with the men's and women's NCAA golf results, the difference between the #1 and #15 teams can be so small that any team can beat another once they get to match play.Â
Yes, that and the fact that the best golfer overall just doesn't win any particular competition all that often. The sport has a ton more variability than most.
So, my sense now is that your statement above was probably more like,
"Stanford was not really at the same level as these teams this week"
rather than,
"Stanford was not really a top-ten kind of team and the rankings are messed up."
Yes?
[/quote]
IMO, yes.Â
National champion OU was FOURTH at the Stanford regional, 14 shots behind Stanford.
Prior to NCAAs,
Stanford was 2-2 vs. UO in the spring, beating them at Pasatiempo and Stanford (The Goodwin) and losing at Pac-12s and Hawaii in February.
Stanford was 2-3 vs. USC in the spring, beating them handily at Pac-12s and Stanford (The Goodwin) and getting clobbered by them at Pasatiempo, Vegas (Southern Highlands), and Hawaii.
Many believe that USC was the best team in the country. Five or so years ago, kal was clearly the best team in the country. Neither has hardware from the NCAA to prove it.
As others have noted, golf is a very fickle game. Being great today doesn't mean a thing on the first tee tomorrow.
06-01-2017, 01:08 PM
Cal golf is the best/worst example of the fickleness inherent in the match play format. That team was the most dominant college team of the last 20 years. I remember thinking they should have given them a championship trophy on their season long performance, and principle, alone.
Cal golf is the best/worst example of the fickleness inherent in the match play format. That team was the most dominant college team of the last 20 years. I remember thinking they should have given them a championship trophy on their season long performance, and principle, alone.
That "greatest team" ever from Cal.
All five players won at least one event. Two won twice and their #1, Michael Kim, won four times. Their #2 won Cal's regional and their #3, Max Homa, won the NCAA.
All five players ranked in the nation's top 20: 1, 11, 12, 13, and 19. (#1 USC this year had 9, 10, 29, 47, and 114)
But Cal lost in the NCAA match semifinals to Illinois, 3-2. . .
All five players won at least one event. Two won twice and their #1, Michael Kim, won four times. Their #2 won Cal's regional and their #3, Max Homa, won the NCAA.
All five players ranked in the nation's top 20: 1, 11, 12, 13, and 19. (#1 USC this year had 9, 10, 29, 47, and 114)
But Cal lost in the NCAA match semifinals to Illinois, 3-2. . .
That "greatest team" ever from Cal.
All five players won at least one event. Two won twice and their #1, Michael Kim, won four times. Their #2 won Cal's regional and their #3, Max Homa, won the NCAA.
All five players ranked in the nation's top 20: 1, 11, 12, 13, and 19. (#1 USC this year had 9, 10, 29, 47, and 114)
But Cal lost in the NCAA match semifinals to Illinois, 3-2. . .
All five players won at least one event. Two won twice and their #1, Michael Kim, won four times. Their #2 won Cal's regional and their #3, Max Homa, won the NCAA.
All five players ranked in the nation's top 20: 1, 11, 12, 13, and 19. (#1 USC this year had 9, 10, 29, 47, and 114)
But Cal lost in the NCAA match semifinals to Illinois, 3-2. . .
06-02-2017, 02:41 AM
(06-01-2017, 11:32 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Golf is idiosyncratic, particularly college competitive golf.
You dispatch five 20-year-old guys to a distant locale to play a course they aren't familiar, particularly given that day's setup and weather. Get up the next day, play another round, repeat once more. Think of it as three consecutive away games--except, unlike in all other sports, the field changes for every new event. It's llke playing with an 18 foot three point line one week and a 22 footer--along with a much wider key--the next
And five guys. One may be struggling off the tee, another struggling almost everywhere, a third on the verge of quitting and going home (e.g.) Jimmy Liu. Go through a year of college and its challenges, including finals, midterms, social life. Variables upon variables.
I think you can trace this at least partly to scholarship limits. When you have a sport with fewer scholarships (4.5) that starters (5), you're bound to push all the teams more toward the middle--and if you guess wrong on even one of those scholarships, your team has an albatross.Â
Great post, Hulk.
There was a young golfer in our neighborhood, took golf very seriously. Best scoring average in his league during the regular season. I wouldn't say he melted down in pressure situations, but he certainly felt it. He played little league for one year, I was his coach. He was a pitcher and his entire game was predicated on the first batter. If he got the first batter out, he would mow down the rest. If the first guy got on base, I might as well have pulled him right then (I never did, but he rarely lasted more than two innings in those situations).
He played in the CCS, shot a 78. Played for a year at a mid level college, scoring average just over 75, sixth on his team. He left the team after his frosh year.
He's in his mid-20s now. I looked up his scores on the NCGA web site, and playing just for fun, in his last 20 rounds he's had 10 in the 60s, 9 in the 70s and an 83. He's a +2.8. The mental/emotional game is so critical, and so tough for 20 year old men.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(06-01-2017, 11:32 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Golf is idiosyncratic, particularly college competitive golf.
You dispatch five 20-year-old guys to a distant locale to play a course they aren't familiar, particularly given that day's setup and weather. Get up the next day, play another round, repeat once more. Think of it as three consecutive away games--except, unlike in all other sports, the field changes for every new event. It's llke playing with an 18 foot three point line one week and a 22 footer--along with a much wider key--the next
And five guys. One may be struggling off the tee, another struggling almost everywhere, a third on the verge of quitting and going home (e.g.) Jimmy Liu. Go through a year of college and its challenges, including finals, midterms, social life. Variables upon variables.
I think you can trace this at least partly to scholarship limits. When you have a sport with fewer scholarships (4.5) that starters (5), you're bound to push all the teams more toward the middle--and if you guess wrong on even one of those scholarships, your team has an albatross.Â
Great post, Hulk.
There was a young golfer in our neighborhood, took golf very seriously. Best scoring average in his league during the regular season. I wouldn't say he melted down in pressure situations, but he certainly felt it. He played little league for one year, I was his coach. He was a pitcher and his entire game was predicated on the first batter. If he got the first batter out, he would mow down the rest. If the first guy got on base, I might as well have pulled him right then (I never did, but he rarely lasted more than two innings in those situations).
He played in the CCS, shot a 78. Played for a year at a mid level college, scoring average just over 75, sixth on his team. He left the team after his frosh year.
He's in his mid-20s now. I looked up his scores on the NCGA web site, and playing just for fun, in his last 20 rounds he's had 10 in the 60s, 9 in the 70s and an 83. He's a +2.8. The mental/emotional game is so critical, and so tough for 20 year old men.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »