05-21-2025, 11:21 AM
--cont'd from last post--
DI golf, as I argued above, has it as close to right (as I see it) as any sport I follow. By the "eye test," Stanford was the best team and FSU was the second best. But both of those teams had to fight their way through the regionals, then through stroke play, then through the first round of match play with seeding determined by on-course performance with no subjective judgments by human committees, to end up matched against each other in the semis, where they played an epic match. Once the regionals started, there were (to my knowledge, though it does occasionally happen in golf that something goes to a rules or infractions official or committee) no referees, committees, or others making judgments, subjective or otherwise, about when to assess penalties, because players assess penalties against themselves, or even how to seed the teams into the match play tournament. So, from the regionals forward through today, it was all about the student-athletes. Which set of student-athletes was better on a particular day (or, for yesterday, twice on a particular day) or set of days (stroke play).
Admittedly, my preference for playing it out on the field comes, like most preferences, from my life experience. In my playing days and for the vast majority of sports fan rooting days, my team has not been the best team, so I favor a system that gives underdogs a realistic shot. In my long ago community college football playing days (on the first and second teams my little school ever had), I used to think it odd that, at the end of the captains' meeting for the coin toss before the game, the referee would say, "May the best team win." [First, it should have been "better," not "best," but let's put grammar aside.] I used to think, "Well, if that is the idea, we should just go home right now without playing, because we are most definitely NOT the "better" team. [To be fair, the concept was probably "may the team that is better today win," meaning let's hope nothing fluky, especially from the officials, changes the result of the game. But that is not what they said.] Of course, the better team almost always did win, though we did manage to win twice in two years, which is not bad when you are consistently not the better team.
In women's golf, my preference for a system that gives the underdog a realistic shot at winning a natty runs up against my Stanford loyalty. Stanford is, and has been, the best team in college women's golf for quite some time. Therefore, a system that more prominently favored the best team, like stroke play, would be great for "my" team in this sport. But if I am going to be consistent, I have to say that being the best team, which Stanford rather clearly is in women's golf, does not mean that you should be the national champion. Even if you are the best team--indeed, even if you are the best team by a fairly wide margin--my preference is for a system where you have to fight your way through an inclusive tournament, where you have to survive an underdog's best shot time after time, to be the national champion.
It is also true that, of all sports that I follow (and it is a rather large variety) golf probably has the most variability, if that is the correct term. All sports have some variability due to injuries, emotions, the way the ball bounces, and (unfortunately) officiating. But golf has the most (despite the absence of officiating, interestingly) due to nature of the game. Said another way, the best golfer in the world does not necessarily win every match against another good golfer. [See yesterday's key Stanford v. FSU match.] Indeed, she probably loses that match more often than the best team or athlete against another good team or athlete in any other sport. So it hurts a bit to realize that "my" team is the best team, by both the "eye test" and by the large margin of victory in stroke play, but it might not win the championship, especially in golf where that is more probable than in other sports.
Almost final thought: By indicating a preference for stroke play, your view is not necessarily inconsistent with my preference for the match play format. After all, stroke play is another version of the "who is better on this (set of) day(s)" system that I prefer. So your view and mine might not actually be different. My preference for the match play format, even though it hurts my team, is probably related to my rather substantial preference for formats that give underdogs a real shot at winning the whole thing.
Real final thought: Winning the stroke play tournament is an accomplishment, even if it is not considered winning the national championship. I don't know if there is a trophy for winning the stroke play, but there should be. To me, it is roughly the equivalent of winning the regular season conference championship in a sport like basketball, volleyball, baseball, or softball. The tournament champ might get the auto bid, but the regular season champ, imo, should still hang a banner in the gym (or elsewhere, or at least the locker room if you are at school like Stanford which is so spoiled by national championships that a conference championship is not always, imo, adequately appreciated and celebrated), because winning the regular season, like winning the stroke play portion of the tournament, is a substantial accomplishment.
DI golf, as I argued above, has it as close to right (as I see it) as any sport I follow. By the "eye test," Stanford was the best team and FSU was the second best. But both of those teams had to fight their way through the regionals, then through stroke play, then through the first round of match play with seeding determined by on-course performance with no subjective judgments by human committees, to end up matched against each other in the semis, where they played an epic match. Once the regionals started, there were (to my knowledge, though it does occasionally happen in golf that something goes to a rules or infractions official or committee) no referees, committees, or others making judgments, subjective or otherwise, about when to assess penalties, because players assess penalties against themselves, or even how to seed the teams into the match play tournament. So, from the regionals forward through today, it was all about the student-athletes. Which set of student-athletes was better on a particular day (or, for yesterday, twice on a particular day) or set of days (stroke play).
Admittedly, my preference for playing it out on the field comes, like most preferences, from my life experience. In my playing days and for the vast majority of sports fan rooting days, my team has not been the best team, so I favor a system that gives underdogs a realistic shot. In my long ago community college football playing days (on the first and second teams my little school ever had), I used to think it odd that, at the end of the captains' meeting for the coin toss before the game, the referee would say, "May the best team win." [First, it should have been "better," not "best," but let's put grammar aside.] I used to think, "Well, if that is the idea, we should just go home right now without playing, because we are most definitely NOT the "better" team. [To be fair, the concept was probably "may the team that is better today win," meaning let's hope nothing fluky, especially from the officials, changes the result of the game. But that is not what they said.] Of course, the better team almost always did win, though we did manage to win twice in two years, which is not bad when you are consistently not the better team.
In women's golf, my preference for a system that gives the underdog a realistic shot at winning a natty runs up against my Stanford loyalty. Stanford is, and has been, the best team in college women's golf for quite some time. Therefore, a system that more prominently favored the best team, like stroke play, would be great for "my" team in this sport. But if I am going to be consistent, I have to say that being the best team, which Stanford rather clearly is in women's golf, does not mean that you should be the national champion. Even if you are the best team--indeed, even if you are the best team by a fairly wide margin--my preference is for a system where you have to fight your way through an inclusive tournament, where you have to survive an underdog's best shot time after time, to be the national champion.
It is also true that, of all sports that I follow (and it is a rather large variety) golf probably has the most variability, if that is the correct term. All sports have some variability due to injuries, emotions, the way the ball bounces, and (unfortunately) officiating. But golf has the most (despite the absence of officiating, interestingly) due to nature of the game. Said another way, the best golfer in the world does not necessarily win every match against another good golfer. [See yesterday's key Stanford v. FSU match.] Indeed, she probably loses that match more often than the best team or athlete against another good team or athlete in any other sport. So it hurts a bit to realize that "my" team is the best team, by both the "eye test" and by the large margin of victory in stroke play, but it might not win the championship, especially in golf where that is more probable than in other sports.
Almost final thought: By indicating a preference for stroke play, your view is not necessarily inconsistent with my preference for the match play format. After all, stroke play is another version of the "who is better on this (set of) day(s)" system that I prefer. So your view and mine might not actually be different. My preference for the match play format, even though it hurts my team, is probably related to my rather substantial preference for formats that give underdogs a real shot at winning the whole thing.
Real final thought: Winning the stroke play tournament is an accomplishment, even if it is not considered winning the national championship. I don't know if there is a trophy for winning the stroke play, but there should be. To me, it is roughly the equivalent of winning the regular season conference championship in a sport like basketball, volleyball, baseball, or softball. The tournament champ might get the auto bid, but the regular season champ, imo, should still hang a banner in the gym (or elsewhere, or at least the locker room if you are at school like Stanford which is so spoiled by national championships that a conference championship is not always, imo, adequately appreciated and celebrated), because winning the regular season, like winning the stroke play portion of the tournament, is a substantial accomplishment.