[d4cohn]

Yes. Stanford to the NCAAs.

And as a #2 regional seed in Arkansas's regional (First round matchup against South Dakota State 
will be tough; this tourney has a lot of great teams, and SDSU is one of them).

[d4cohn]

Yes. Stanford to the NCAAs.

And as a #2 regional seed in Arkansas's regional (First round matchup against South Dakota State 
will be tough; this tourney has a lot of great teams, and SDSU is one of them).

[Farm93]

Yes. Stanford to the NCAAs.

And as a #2 regional seed in Arkansas's regional (First round matchup against South Dakota State 
will be tough; this tourney has a lot of great teams, and SDSU is one of them).

6th place in a conference getting into the tournament should expect a relatively difficult draw. 
All upside from here, and hopefully it will get better and better over the next few years.

[Farm93]

Yes. Stanford to the NCAAs.

And as a #2 regional seed in Arkansas's regional (First round matchup against South Dakota State 
will be tough; this tourney has a lot of great teams, and SDSU is one of them).

6th place in a conference getting into the tournament should expect a relatively difficult draw. 
All upside from here, and hopefully it will get better and better over the next few years.

[BobK]

First practice was FEB 4. Most teams had 5 months of practice by then
Awesome performance by the team

[BobK]

First practice was FEB 4. Most teams had 5 months of practice by then
Awesome performance by the team

[BostonCard]

Congratulations too to the five all-conference selections:
Alana Vawter was named to the first team and all-freshmen team
Taylor Gindlesperger was named to the second team
Teaghan Cowles and Emily Young were named to the third team
Montana Dixon was named to the all-defensive team.

Nice picture of the team when the announcement was made




BC

[BostonCard]

Congratulations too to the five all-conference selections:
Alana Vawter was named to the first team and all-freshmen team
Taylor Gindlesperger was named to the second team
Teaghan Cowles and Emily Young were named to the third team
Montana Dixon was named to the all-defensive team.

Nice picture of the team when the announcement was made




BC

[CTcard]

Wonder if anyone has insight into a seeding question.

ASU 32-14; 12-9 (4th) is the 15 seed overall
UW  41-11; 18-5 (2nd) is the 16 seed overall
Head to head they split, but ASU won the official series 2-1.
ASU edged out UW in RPI, #14 vs #16 (Oregon between them)

ASU did play a somewhat tougher OOC schedule, losing to #1 overall seed Oklahoma and beating tourney team Iowa State, both at home. UW beat tourney team BYU in Utah.

So, was this something more than devotion to the (heavily discredited) RPI?

[CTcard]

Wonder if anyone has insight into a seeding question.

ASU 32-14; 12-9 (4th) is the 15 seed overall
UW  41-11; 18-5 (2nd) is the 16 seed overall
Head to head they split, but ASU won the official series 2-1.
ASU edged out UW in RPI, #14 vs #16 (Oregon between them)

ASU did play a somewhat tougher OOC schedule, losing to #1 overall seed Oklahoma and beating tourney team Iowa State, both at home. UW beat tourney team BYU in Utah.

So, was this something more than devotion to the (heavily discredited) RPI?

[BostonCard]

Recency bias?  Washington may have been hurt by splitting its 4 game series to us on the last week end.

BC

[BostonCard]

Recency bias?  Washington may have been hurt by splitting its 4 game series to us on the last week end.

BC

[d4cohn]

Wonder if anyone has insight into a seeding question.

ASU 32-14; 12-9 (4th) is the 15 seed overall
UW  41-11; 18-5 (2nd) is the 16 seed overall
Head to head they split, but ASU won the official series 2-1.
ASU edged out UW in RPI, #14 vs #16 (Oregon between them)

ASU did play a somewhat tougher OOC schedule, losing to #1 overall seed Oklahoma and beating tourney team Iowa State, both at home. UW beat tourney team BYU in Utah.

So, was this something more than devotion to the (heavily discredited) RPI?

It was devotion to RPI mostly (softball tourney seeding is known for that), but a component was definitely the OOC schedule.

Also, with the caveat of this being the (subjective) "eye test", ASU looked like the tougher and deeper team, particularly in the circle, but also on offense as well, in comparing our series against them. Honestly, we should have taken 3 out of 4 from UW (I think we made a bad coaching decision to send a runner from second in a scoreless game on a ground ball in the infield; it was bit too aggressive, and if we had loaded the bases instead of sending the runner, we would have scored on the next at-bat; ended up losing the game 1-0). 

Oregon also did not impress me in our series (we should have taken 3 out of 4 in that series too, except we lost Game #1 on a very controversial call that was overruled and apparently took 20 minutes to adjudicate). This might be the minority opinion (#BackThePac and all), but I thought the committee got the Pac-12 teams seeds right (including our #2 regional seed).

---

Recency bias?  Washington may have been hurt by splitting its 4 game series to us on the last week end.

BC

UW has no depth behind Gabbie Plain, their ace. Our deeper staff was shown very plain (no pun intended) for the 
committee in our 8-0 run-rule of them. If Plain isn't pitching, UW won't be competitive against the top-end competition,
such as a Michigan in their regional. And it will be tough for Plain to pitch every competitive inning in their regional. I think
Michigan, on account of their deeper staff, advances in that regional.

[d4cohn]

Wonder if anyone has insight into a seeding question.

ASU 32-14; 12-9 (4th) is the 15 seed overall
UW  41-11; 18-5 (2nd) is the 16 seed overall
Head to head they split, but ASU won the official series 2-1.
ASU edged out UW in RPI, #14 vs #16 (Oregon between them)

ASU did play a somewhat tougher OOC schedule, losing to #1 overall seed Oklahoma and beating tourney team Iowa State, both at home. UW beat tourney team BYU in Utah.

So, was this something more than devotion to the (heavily discredited) RPI?

It was devotion to RPI mostly (softball tourney seeding is known for that), but a component was definitely the OOC schedule.

Also, with the caveat of this being the (subjective) "eye test", ASU looked like the tougher and deeper team, particularly in the circle, but also on offense as well, in comparing our series against them. Honestly, we should have taken 3 out of 4 from UW (I think we made a bad coaching decision to send a runner from second in a scoreless game on a ground ball in the infield; it was bit too aggressive, and if we had loaded the bases instead of sending the runner, we would have scored on the next at-bat; ended up losing the game 1-0). 

Oregon also did not impress me in our series (we should have taken 3 out of 4 in that series too, except we lost Game #1 on a very controversial call that was overruled and apparently took 20 minutes to adjudicate). This might be the minority opinion (#BackThePac and all), but I thought the committee got the Pac-12 teams seeds right (including our #2 regional seed).

---

Recency bias?  Washington may have been hurt by splitting its 4 game series to us on the last week end.

BC

UW has no depth behind Gabbie Plain, their ace. Our deeper staff was shown very plain (no pun intended) for the 
committee in our 8-0 run-rule of them. If Plain isn't pitching, UW won't be competitive against the top-end competition,
such as a Michigan in their regional. And it will be tough for Plain to pitch every competitive inning in their regional. I think
Michigan, on account of their deeper staff, advances in that regional.