[Hulk01]

All in all, while I'm not a golfer, I don't find the Omni La Costa course as where I'd want a tournament.
Gusty, firm greens, conditions change through the day, not a great view outside of the fairways, seems a lot of traffic noise.
The changing conditions make the results almost as much luck as skill.
The match play feels a bit like playing craps.
I noted the announcers (who of course are going to compliment the course) saying how much softer the course is this year than last, and then immediately comment about how the firm green was making it hard to land a shot.

As I said, my daughter lives maybe 2 miles away;  I've been to the (recreation) pool there a couple of times but not onto the courses.
I know they were redoing the course, but a couple of years ago, I looked at the north end of the north course and figured the course belonged to some club that had gone bankrupt and the course was abandoned.  The 2025 imagery at Google Maps doesn't make it look much better.

As a matter of clarification, the tournament was held on the North Course.  The course looked in pretty good shape.  Lots of SoCal courses don't keep their rough well watered due to lack of same.  Everyone played the same course and at the same times during match play. 
There are lots and lots of great golf courses on the Western USA but I have no idea of how many of those would be interested in hosting this tournament or what kind of deals the NCAA has already inked.
I am so glad we do not have to play the waterfowl from Eugene tomorrow.

The North Course was redesigned by Gil Hanse, an architect regarded highly enough of to be given the redesigns of epic courses including Merion, Baltsurol, Oakmont. Olympic, amd Winged Foot East and West.

[Hulk01]

All in all, while I'm not a golfer, I don't find the Omni La Costa course as where I'd want a tournament.
Gusty, firm greens, conditions change through the day, not a great view outside of the fairways, seems a lot of traffic noise.
The changing conditions make the results almost as much luck as skill.
The match play feels a bit like playing craps.
I noted the announcers (who of course are going to compliment the course) saying how much softer the course is this year than last, and then immediately comment about how the firm green was making it hard to land a shot.

As I said, my daughter lives maybe 2 miles away;  I've been to the (recreation) pool there a couple of times but not onto the courses.
I know they were redoing the course, but a couple of years ago, I looked at the north end of the north course and figured the course belonged to some club that had gone bankrupt and the course was abandoned.  The 2025 imagery at Google Maps doesn't make it look much better.

As a matter of clarification, the tournament was held on the North Course.  The course looked in pretty good shape.  Lots of SoCal courses don't keep their rough well watered due to lack of same.  Everyone played the same course and at the same times during match play. 
There are lots and lots of great golf courses on the Western USA but I have no idea of how many of those would be interested in hosting this tournament or what kind of deals the NCAA has already inked.
I am so glad we do not have to play the waterfowl from Eugene tomorrow.

The North Course was redesigned by Gil Hanse, an architect regarded highly enough of to be given the redesigns of epic courses including Merion, Baltsurol, Oakmont. Olympic, amd Winged Foot East and West.

[ColoradoTree]

That sure was a heap of fun following along with you all yesterday. Here's hoping for another great day!

[ColoradoTree]

That sure was a heap of fun following along with you all yesterday. Here's hoping for another great day!

[martyup]

I know that match play is exciting and is the tradition, but I don't like the fact that the overwhelmingly best team in stroke play is not named the National Champion.  Stroke play over 4 rounds clearly establishes who is the best golf team.  Match play is a crap shoot that doesn't always result in the best team winning the NC.

[martyup]

I know that match play is exciting and is the tradition, but I don't like the fact that the overwhelmingly best team in stroke play is not named the National Champion.  Stroke play over 4 rounds clearly establishes who is the best golf team.  Match play is a crap shoot that doesn't always result in the best team winning the NC.

[GK3]

I know that match play is exciting and is the tradition, but I don't like the fact that the overwhelmingly best team in stroke play is not named the National Champion.  Stroke play over 4 rounds clearly establishes who is the best golf team.  Match play is a crap shoot that doesn't always result in the best team winning the NC.

Not sure it is a crapshoot, but it is much different.  In stroke play a bad hole or two can be made up if you can string a few birdies together, in match play, a bad hole is a lost hole.  Players can at times take shots they probably would never take in stroke play. How your opponent plays each shot can dictate what you try to hit on your shot. Stanford did indeed prove itself the best stroke play team, now they have to prove they are the best match play team.  A lot of pressure on the individual players and the coaches

[GK3]

I know that match play is exciting and is the tradition, but I don't like the fact that the overwhelmingly best team in stroke play is not named the National Champion.  Stroke play over 4 rounds clearly establishes who is the best golf team.  Match play is a crap shoot that doesn't always result in the best team winning the NC.

Not sure it is a crapshoot, but it is much different.  In stroke play a bad hole or two can be made up if you can string a few birdies together, in match play, a bad hole is a lost hole.  Players can at times take shots they probably would never take in stroke play. How your opponent plays each shot can dictate what you try to hit on your shot. Stanford did indeed prove itself the best stroke play team, now they have to prove they are the best match play team.  A lot of pressure on the individual players and the coaches

[oldalum]

Are the match pairings still determined by match-by-match choices by the coaches, so that pairings are made strategically one by one in real time, or does each coach now independently submit a 1-5 list without knowing the other's list? I haven't seen the pairings process televised lately but it was interesting to watch when the former method was used.

[oldalum]

Are the match pairings still determined by match-by-match choices by the coaches, so that pairings are made strategically one by one in real time, or does each coach now independently submit a 1-5 list without knowing the other's list? I haven't seen the pairings process televised lately but it was interesting to watch when the former method was used.

[PVTree]

CardDevil8500 explained it clearly on another site:

“In NCAA match play, coaches determine the order and pairings of their teams using a strategy similar to the Presidents Cup, where the higher seeded team has the first choice of players. The opposing team then selects an opponent for that match, and the process continues in an alternating "S" curve until all five matches are determined.”

So in today’s case, I think the pairings chess match between Coach Walker and FSU’s Coach went something like this:

1. Walker decided to send out (9) Paula first again. As Paula demonstrated in her come-from-behind victory in her morning match, she is patient, mentally tough, and fearless. Paula had also played the course as well as anyone during Stroke Play. FSU’s coach countered with (114) Williams — who was dominant in her morning match contest against u$c — hoping to get an early upset without using either of their two top guns. (In retrospect, the FSU coach probably regrets not using her most accomplished player (3) Woad in the first match, as she usually does to take the momentum-generating first point.)

2. FSU’s coach had to assume Stanford would most likely win Match 1 and couldn’t afford to go down 2 right out of the gate so she went with her best, most experienced player in Match 2 - JR (3) Woad. This is where Walker made the strategically key decision to send out her equally experienced JR (16) Ganne. It proved prescient.

3. Walker regularly puts (29) Xu — our lowest ranked player — in the 3 hole. Coach’s logic today being that even if Kelly loses and we go down 1-2, we can rely on her frosh phenoms Örtengren and Revuelta to win the last two matches. FSU’s coach countered Xu with her second lowest ranked player (105) Fulbrook in hopes of possibly stealing a full point but at least earning a tie for a half point.

4. FSU’s coach probably calculated she’d be knotted at 1.5-1.5 after 3, or worst case down 1-2. There’s no point in saving the NCAA’s top-ranked player (1) Ting for the last match and risk her score not even counting. Coach Walker countered with (7) Revuelta. Despite Andrea’s erratic performance in Stroke Play, she had been on fire the last month of the season. She is an intelligent player, very poised, and athletic enough to not be intimidated by the physically imposing and long Ting. Revuelta was also fresh and riding high after her morning match 5&3 rout. While I have no doubt our Örtengren could have risen to the occasion against Ting, I think Coach Walker thought Andrea was the slightly better choice in that Revuelta and Ting have similar on course dispositions — quiet but affable bullies. :)

5. That left Coach Walker with her highest ranked player, (5) Örtengren, as our insurance policy in case we needed a full point in the last match to win. FSU’s coach, on the other hand, was left with her lowest ranked player (270) Gazzoli. If it got to the 5th match, Stanford would have a brobdingnagian advantage and FSU would have needed a miracle.

[PVTree]

CardDevil8500 explained it clearly on another site:

“In NCAA match play, coaches determine the order and pairings of their teams using a strategy similar to the Presidents Cup, where the higher seeded team has the first choice of players. The opposing team then selects an opponent for that match, and the process continues in an alternating "S" curve until all five matches are determined.”

So in today’s case, I think the pairings chess match between Coach Walker and FSU’s Coach went something like this:

1. Walker decided to send out (9) Paula first again. As Paula demonstrated in her come-from-behind victory in her morning match, she is patient, mentally tough, and fearless. Paula had also played the course as well as anyone during Stroke Play. FSU’s coach countered with (114) Williams — who was dominant in her morning match contest against u$c — hoping to get an early upset without using either of their two top guns. (In retrospect, the FSU coach probably regrets not using her most accomplished player (3) Woad in the first match, as she usually does to take the momentum-generating first point.)

2. FSU’s coach had to assume Stanford would most likely win Match 1 and couldn’t afford to go down 2 right out of the gate so she went with her best, most experienced player in Match 2 - JR (3) Woad. This is where Walker made the strategically key decision to send out her equally experienced JR (16) Ganne. It proved prescient.

3. Walker regularly puts (29) Xu — our lowest ranked player — in the 3 hole. Coach’s logic today being that even if Kelly loses and we go down 1-2, we can rely on her frosh phenoms Örtengren and Revuelta to win the last two matches. FSU’s coach countered Xu with her second lowest ranked player (105) Fulbrook in hopes of possibly stealing a full point but at least earning a tie for a half point.

4. FSU’s coach probably calculated she’d be knotted at 1.5-1.5 after 3, or worst case down 1-2. There’s no point in saving the NCAA’s top-ranked player (1) Ting for the last match and risk her score not even counting. Coach Walker countered with (7) Revuelta. Despite Andrea’s erratic performance in Stroke Play, she had been on fire the last month of the season. She is an intelligent player, very poised, and athletic enough to not be intimidated by the physically imposing and long Ting. Revuelta was also fresh and riding high after her morning match 5&3 rout. While I have no doubt our Örtengren could have risen to the occasion against Ting, I think Coach Walker thought Andrea was the slightly better choice in that Revuelta and Ting have similar on course dispositions — quiet but affable bullies. :)

5. That left Coach Walker with her highest ranked player, (5) Örtengren, as our insurance policy in case we needed a full point in the last match to win. FSU’s coach, on the other hand, was left with her lowest ranked player (270) Gazzoli. If it got to the 5th match, Stanford would have a brobdingnagian advantage and FSU would have needed a miracle.

[Spiny_Norman]

CardDevil8500 explained it clearly on another site:

“In NCAA match play, coaches determine the order and pairings of their teams using a strategy similar to the Presidents Cup, where the higher seeded team has the first choice of players. The opposing team then selects an opponent for that match, and the process continues in an alternating "S" curve until all five matches are determined.”

So in today’s case, I think the pairings chess match between Coach Walker and FSU’s Coach went something like this:

1. Walker decided to send out (9) Paula first again. As Paula demonstrated in her come-from-behind victory in her morning match, she is patient, mentally tough, and fearless. Paula had also played the course as well as anyone during Stroke Play. FSU’s coach countered with (114) Williams — who was dominant in her morning match contest against u$c — hoping to get an early upset without using either of their two top guns. (In retrospect, the FSU coach probably regrets not using her most accomplished player (3) Woad in the first match, as she usually does to take the momentum-generating first point.)

2. FSU’s coach had to assume Stanford would most likely win Match 1 and couldn’t afford to go down 2 right out of the gate so she went with her best, most experienced player in Match 2 - JR (3) Woad. This is where Walker made the strategically key decision to send out her equally experienced JR (16) Ganne. It proved prescient.

3. Walker regularly puts (29) Xu — our lowest ranked player — in the 3 hole. Coach’s logic today being that even if Kelly loses and we go down 1-2, we can rely on her frosh phenoms Örtengren and Revuelta to win the last two matches. FSU’s coach countered Xu with her second lowest ranked player (105) Fulbrook in hopes of possibly stealing a full point but at least earning a tie for a half point.

4. FSU’s coach probably calculated she’d be knotted at 1.5-1.5 after 3, or worst case down 1-2. There’s no point in saving the NCAA’s top-ranked player (1) Ting for the last match and risk her score not even counting. Coach Walker countered with (7) Revuelta. Despite Andrea’s erratic performance in Stroke Play, she had been on fire the last month of the season. She is an intelligent player, very poised, and athletic enough to not be intimidated by the physically imposing and long Ting. Revuelta was also fresh and riding high after her morning match 5&3 rout. While I have no doubt our Örtengren could have risen to the occasion against Ting, I think Coach Walker thought Andrea was the slightly better choice in that Revuelta and Ting have similar on course dispositions — quiet but affable bullies. :)

5. That left Coach Walker with her highest ranked player, (5) Örtengren, as our insurance policy in case we needed a full point in the last match to win. FSU’s coach, on the other hand, was left with her lowest ranked player (270) Gazzoli. If it got to the 5th match, Stanford would have a brobdingnagian advantage and FSU would have needed a miracle.

I'll add one thing to this explanation of the match play pairing process. The coach of the higher seeded team has the option to pass or defer in the 1st position and make the opposing coach go first. Then the S curve selections proceeds from there.

[Spiny_Norman]

CardDevil8500 explained it clearly on another site:

“In NCAA match play, coaches determine the order and pairings of their teams using a strategy similar to the Presidents Cup, where the higher seeded team has the first choice of players. The opposing team then selects an opponent for that match, and the process continues in an alternating "S" curve until all five matches are determined.”

So in today’s case, I think the pairings chess match between Coach Walker and FSU’s Coach went something like this:

1. Walker decided to send out (9) Paula first again. As Paula demonstrated in her come-from-behind victory in her morning match, she is patient, mentally tough, and fearless. Paula had also played the course as well as anyone during Stroke Play. FSU’s coach countered with (114) Williams — who was dominant in her morning match contest against u$c — hoping to get an early upset without using either of their two top guns. (In retrospect, the FSU coach probably regrets not using her most accomplished player (3) Woad in the first match, as she usually does to take the momentum-generating first point.)

2. FSU’s coach had to assume Stanford would most likely win Match 1 and couldn’t afford to go down 2 right out of the gate so she went with her best, most experienced player in Match 2 - JR (3) Woad. This is where Walker made the strategically key decision to send out her equally experienced JR (16) Ganne. It proved prescient.

3. Walker regularly puts (29) Xu — our lowest ranked player — in the 3 hole. Coach’s logic today being that even if Kelly loses and we go down 1-2, we can rely on her frosh phenoms Örtengren and Revuelta to win the last two matches. FSU’s coach countered Xu with her second lowest ranked player (105) Fulbrook in hopes of possibly stealing a full point but at least earning a tie for a half point.

4. FSU’s coach probably calculated she’d be knotted at 1.5-1.5 after 3, or worst case down 1-2. There’s no point in saving the NCAA’s top-ranked player (1) Ting for the last match and risk her score not even counting. Coach Walker countered with (7) Revuelta. Despite Andrea’s erratic performance in Stroke Play, she had been on fire the last month of the season. She is an intelligent player, very poised, and athletic enough to not be intimidated by the physically imposing and long Ting. Revuelta was also fresh and riding high after her morning match 5&3 rout. While I have no doubt our Örtengren could have risen to the occasion against Ting, I think Coach Walker thought Andrea was the slightly better choice in that Revuelta and Ting have similar on course dispositions — quiet but affable bullies. :)

5. That left Coach Walker with her highest ranked player, (5) Örtengren, as our insurance policy in case we needed a full point in the last match to win. FSU’s coach, on the other hand, was left with her lowest ranked player (270) Gazzoli. If it got to the 5th match, Stanford would have a brobdingnagian advantage and FSU would have needed a miracle.

I'll add one thing to this explanation of the match play pairing process. The coach of the higher seeded team has the option to pass or defer in the 1st position and make the opposing coach go first. Then the S curve selections proceeds from there.

[oldalum]

The coach of the higher seeded team has the option to pass or defer in the 1st position and make the opposing coach go first.

Does the higher-seeded team's coach always decide to go first? I think I can conceive of situations in which they might decide to defer for the first match. For example, if the most important thing to them is to ensure one specific player of theirs be in the final match, they can only control that (or risk having them in the second-to-last match) if they defer initially. But in practice, are there ever times when the higher-seeded team has elected to defer for the first match?

[oldalum]

The coach of the higher seeded team has the option to pass or defer in the 1st position and make the opposing coach go first.

Does the higher-seeded team's coach always decide to go first? I think I can conceive of situations in which they might decide to defer for the first match. For example, if the most important thing to them is to ensure one specific player of theirs be in the final match, they can only control that (or risk having them in the second-to-last match) if they defer initially. But in practice, are there ever times when the higher-seeded team has elected to defer for the first match?

[Spike]

Is there a new “Scoreboard “ for today’s match?

[Spike]

Is there a new “Scoreboard “ for today’s match?

[Spiny_Norman]

The coach of the higher seeded team has the option to pass or defer in the 1st position and make the opposing coach go first.

Does the higher-seeded team's coach always decide to go first? I think I can conceive of situations in which they might decide to defer for the first match. For example, if the most important thing to them is to ensure one specific player of theirs be in the final match, they can only control that (or risk having them in the second-to-last match) if they defer initially. But in practice, are there ever times when the higher-seeded team has elected to defer for the first match?

Coach Walker absolutely will defer when she thinks that it is strategically advantageous. Let's face it, no one on the planet has more experience than she does at this process.

---

Is there a new “Scoreboard “ for today’s match?

Opening match tees off at 2:25.

Live scoring - https://scoreboard.clippd.com/tournament...ring/round

The Golf Channel coverage officially begins at 3. But they likely will talk about the match and maybe have some early look-ins on Golf Central between 2 and 3.

[Spiny_Norman]

The coach of the higher seeded team has the option to pass or defer in the 1st position and make the opposing coach go first.

Does the higher-seeded team's coach always decide to go first? I think I can conceive of situations in which they might decide to defer for the first match. For example, if the most important thing to them is to ensure one specific player of theirs be in the final match, they can only control that (or risk having them in the second-to-last match) if they defer initially. But in practice, are there ever times when the higher-seeded team has elected to defer for the first match?

Coach Walker absolutely will defer when she thinks that it is strategically advantageous. Let's face it, no one on the planet has more experience than she does at this process.

---

Is there a new “Scoreboard “ for today’s match?

Opening match tees off at 2:25.

Live scoring - https://scoreboard.clippd.com/tournament...ring/round

The Golf Channel coverage officially begins at 3. But they likely will talk about the match and maybe have some early look-ins on Golf Central between 2 and 3.

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

I know that match play is exciting and is the tradition, but I don't like the fact that the overwhelmingly best team in stroke play is not named the National Champion.  Stroke play over 4 rounds clearly establishes who is the best golf team.  Match play is a crap shoot that doesn't always result in the best team winning the NC.

I understand and respect your view, as always, martyup. Indeed, I think it is almost certain that the majority of college sports fans probably believe that the system should be set up so the best team is the national champion (or, to put it another way, that the post-season process should determine who is the best team). But, fwliw, I disagree.

It does not favor my team, but imo DI college golf (unlike most DI sports these days, but that is another story) has it about right. Despite with the ESPN and other college football (and, to some extent, basketball) talking heads constantly say, it should not be about "the eye test." Imo, to the extent reasonably possible, the teams with a plausible shot to win the national championship (an admittedly flexible and therefore subjective test) should be eligible for a sport's "tournament" (to use the phrase generally, not specifically in the golf sense) to determine the national champion.

Of course, there has to be some system for determining who has a plausible chance to win the natty. If it is possible logistically (in sports other than football, where it is probably not plausible), I would start by putting every conference champion (even if those conference champions are not the "best" teams in their conferences) in the tournament. That way, at the start of the season (or the start of the post-season tournament, if that is how the conference selects is champion for these purposes) every team has a shot at qualifying for, and therefore a chance of winning, the national championship. That includes teams that, by everyone's "eye test," are universally viewed by experts as only okay, mediocre, bad, and even horrible at the beginning of the year. Let every team have a chance to prove the experts wrong, get into the national championship post-season tournament, and keep beating better teams, all the way to the national title. It won't happen very often, if ever, for teams that everyone dismisses at the start, but it should be possible.

[Aside: This is what was wrong with the college football playoff, when it was limited to two and then four teams, imo. There were conference champions who had a legit shot at winning a post-season tournament who were left out that tournament due to the work of a "selection" committee, which was really a "de-selecetion" committee, that did its work with, imo, way too much reliance on the "eye test" instead of the on-field results of the season, including conference championships. Admittedly, this stings especially hard for me because "my" DI team, Stanford, was one of those teams for a few years, but never got the chance to be in a post-season tournament. The current, larger college football playoff is closer to what I think is correct and perhaps the best that can be done in a collision sport that produces lots of injuries and should not be played more than once a week, the sum of which limits how many teams can be in the post-season tournament.]

If you are going to add teams other than conference champions to the tournament, and these days you are (though in the old days that was not the system for basketball, for example, iirc), than you need some sort of selection committee or some sort of pre-determined formula for deciding who makes the post-season tournament (which, I believe though I am not sure, is what men's college hockey uses). Once you introduce human beings into the system, you have introduced subjectivity. But if you let enough teams in, like they do in college golf, you are probably going to let in any team that has a legit shot at winning the national championship.

From the point at which you determine the post-seasonal national championship tournament field forward, imo, it should be about what happens on the field, not the "eye test." Seed the tournament fairly without favoring conferences or teams (something the NCAA has a problem doing, imo), referee the games evenly without favoring conferences or teams (no comment, as that is for another discussion), roll out the ball, and find out who has the most points at the end of the game. If a lesser team beats a better team on a particular day, so be it. It is, imo, about COMPETITION, not about who is the better team, especially in college sports.

--cont'd in next post--

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

I know that match play is exciting and is the tradition, but I don't like the fact that the overwhelmingly best team in stroke play is not named the National Champion.  Stroke play over 4 rounds clearly establishes who is the best golf team.  Match play is a crap shoot that doesn't always result in the best team winning the NC.

I understand and respect your view, as always, martyup. Indeed, I think it is almost certain that the majority of college sports fans probably believe that the system should be set up so the best team is the national champion (or, to put it another way, that the post-season process should determine who is the best team). But, fwliw, I disagree.

It does not favor my team, but imo DI college golf (unlike most DI sports these days, but that is another story) has it about right. Despite with the ESPN and other college football (and, to some extent, basketball) talking heads constantly say, it should not be about "the eye test." Imo, to the extent reasonably possible, the teams with a plausible shot to win the national championship (an admittedly flexible and therefore subjective test) should be eligible for a sport's "tournament" (to use the phrase generally, not specifically in the golf sense) to determine the national champion.

Of course, there has to be some system for determining who has a plausible chance to win the natty. If it is possible logistically (in sports other than football, where it is probably not plausible), I would start by putting every conference champion (even if those conference champions are not the "best" teams in their conferences) in the tournament. That way, at the start of the season (or the start of the post-season tournament, if that is how the conference selects is champion for these purposes) every team has a shot at qualifying for, and therefore a chance of winning, the national championship. That includes teams that, by everyone's "eye test," are universally viewed by experts as only okay, mediocre, bad, and even horrible at the beginning of the year. Let every team have a chance to prove the experts wrong, get into the national championship post-season tournament, and keep beating better teams, all the way to the national title. It won't happen very often, if ever, for teams that everyone dismisses at the start, but it should be possible.

[Aside: This is what was wrong with the college football playoff, when it was limited to two and then four teams, imo. There were conference champions who had a legit shot at winning a post-season tournament who were left out that tournament due to the work of a "selection" committee, which was really a "de-selecetion" committee, that did its work with, imo, way too much reliance on the "eye test" instead of the on-field results of the season, including conference championships. Admittedly, this stings especially hard for me because "my" DI team, Stanford, was one of those teams for a few years, but never got the chance to be in a post-season tournament. The current, larger college football playoff is closer to what I think is correct and perhaps the best that can be done in a collision sport that produces lots of injuries and should not be played more than once a week, the sum of which limits how many teams can be in the post-season tournament.]

If you are going to add teams other than conference champions to the tournament, and these days you are (though in the old days that was not the system for basketball, for example, iirc), than you need some sort of selection committee or some sort of pre-determined formula for deciding who makes the post-season tournament (which, I believe though I am not sure, is what men's college hockey uses). Once you introduce human beings into the system, you have introduced subjectivity. But if you let enough teams in, like they do in college golf, you are probably going to let in any team that has a legit shot at winning the national championship.

From the point at which you determine the post-seasonal national championship tournament field forward, imo, it should be about what happens on the field, not the "eye test." Seed the tournament fairly without favoring conferences or teams (something the NCAA has a problem doing, imo), referee the games evenly without favoring conferences or teams (no comment, as that is for another discussion), roll out the ball, and find out who has the most points at the end of the game. If a lesser team beats a better team on a particular day, so be it. It is, imo, about COMPETITION, not about who is the better team, especially in college sports.

--cont'd in next post--

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

--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.

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

--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.

[Spiny_Norman]

I love the NCAA golf format but there is an element to it that disadvantages the underdogs a bit.

Golf courses may not play the same throughout the day as weather changes. There are parts of the country (such as on the plains and near the ocean) where it is common for the wind to pick up in the afternoon. Similarly there are parts of the country (like the desert Southwest) where mornings can be tolerable but temperatures as you approach noon and beyond can be very, very warm. In both of these situations, conditions in the morning are usually better for scoring. We have seen this at La Costa.

The NCAA tournament divides the field into 2 waves for each of the first 3 stroke play days - the top 15 teams and the lower 15 teams. For the first 2 days, this is determined by pre-tournament ranking. Each wave plays one round in the morning and one round in the afternoon. Fair enough. But for the 3rd round, all of the top 15 teams after 36 holes get to play in the morning while the lower 15 teams play in the afternoon. If the golf course is playing harder in the afternoon, this makes it that much tougher for bottom 15 teams to catch up on Day 3.

Still, this is a small critique. The format is the most grueling in all of college sports. The winning team (women's or men's) has survived a meat-grinder that puts their mental and physical skill to a very strong test. It does more than a strictly stroke play tournament would to ensure that every player's results can be counted. And it's great for TV.

The NCAA golf format also has benefited Stanford. The 2019 men's team had no business winning it all. But things clicked into place at the right time in the right way for 2 future PGA tour pros and 3 journeymen to bring home a championship.

[Spiny_Norman]

I love the NCAA golf format but there is an element to it that disadvantages the underdogs a bit.

Golf courses may not play the same throughout the day as weather changes. There are parts of the country (such as on the plains and near the ocean) where it is common for the wind to pick up in the afternoon. Similarly there are parts of the country (like the desert Southwest) where mornings can be tolerable but temperatures as you approach noon and beyond can be very, very warm. In both of these situations, conditions in the morning are usually better for scoring. We have seen this at La Costa.

The NCAA tournament divides the field into 2 waves for each of the first 3 stroke play days - the top 15 teams and the lower 15 teams. For the first 2 days, this is determined by pre-tournament ranking. Each wave plays one round in the morning and one round in the afternoon. Fair enough. But for the 3rd round, all of the top 15 teams after 36 holes get to play in the morning while the lower 15 teams play in the afternoon. If the golf course is playing harder in the afternoon, this makes it that much tougher for bottom 15 teams to catch up on Day 3.

Still, this is a small critique. The format is the most grueling in all of college sports. The winning team (women's or men's) has survived a meat-grinder that puts their mental and physical skill to a very strong test. It does more than a strictly stroke play tournament would to ensure that every player's results can be counted. And it's great for TV.

The NCAA golf format also has benefited Stanford. The 2019 men's team had no business winning it all. But things clicked into place at the right time in the right way for 2 future PGA tour pros and 3 journeymen to bring home a championship.

[Hulk01]

I love the NCAA golf format but there is an element to it that disadvantages the underdogs a bit.

Golf courses may not play the same throughout the day as weather changes. There are parts of the country (such as on the plains and near the ocean) where it is common for the wind to pick up in the afternoon. Similarly there are parts of the country (like the desert Southwest) where mornings can be tolerable but temperatures as you approach noon and beyond can be very, very warm. In both of these situations, conditions in the morning are usually better for scoring. We have seen this at La Costa.

The NCAA tournament divides the field into 2 waves for each of the first 3 stroke play days - the top 15 teams and the lower 15 teams. For the first 2 days, this is determined by pre-tournament ranking. Each wave plays one round in the morning and one round in the afternoon. Fair enough. But for the 3rd round, all of the top 15 teams after 36 holes get to play in the morning while the lower 15 teams play in the afternoon. If the golf course is playing harder in the afternoon, this makes it that much tougher for bottom 15 teams to catch up on Day 3.

Still, this is a small critique. The format is the most grueling in all of college sports. The winning team (women's or men's) has survived a meat-grinder that puts their mental and physical skill to a very strong test. It does more than a strictly stroke play tournament would to ensure that every player's results can be counted. And it's great for TV.

The NCAA golf format also has benefited Stanford. The 2019 men's team had no business winning it all. But things clicked into place at the right time in the right way for 2 future PGA tour pros and 3 journeymen to bring home a championship.

No question re the 2019 men's team NCAA title.  Salinda and Wu each went 3-0, which meant only one of their other three teammates needed. to win to advance in the first two match play rounds and win in the end.  And neither star was on par with Rogers, Mc Neally, or Thornbjornsen.

[Hulk01]

I love the NCAA golf format but there is an element to it that disadvantages the underdogs a bit.

Golf courses may not play the same throughout the day as weather changes. There are parts of the country (such as on the plains and near the ocean) where it is common for the wind to pick up in the afternoon. Similarly there are parts of the country (like the desert Southwest) where mornings can be tolerable but temperatures as you approach noon and beyond can be very, very warm. In both of these situations, conditions in the morning are usually better for scoring. We have seen this at La Costa.

The NCAA tournament divides the field into 2 waves for each of the first 3 stroke play days - the top 15 teams and the lower 15 teams. For the first 2 days, this is determined by pre-tournament ranking. Each wave plays one round in the morning and one round in the afternoon. Fair enough. But for the 3rd round, all of the top 15 teams after 36 holes get to play in the morning while the lower 15 teams play in the afternoon. If the golf course is playing harder in the afternoon, this makes it that much tougher for bottom 15 teams to catch up on Day 3.

Still, this is a small critique. The format is the most grueling in all of college sports. The winning team (women's or men's) has survived a meat-grinder that puts their mental and physical skill to a very strong test. It does more than a strictly stroke play tournament would to ensure that every player's results can be counted. And it's great for TV.

The NCAA golf format also has benefited Stanford. The 2019 men's team had no business winning it all. But things clicked into place at the right time in the right way for 2 future PGA tour pros and 3 journeymen to bring home a championship.

No question re the 2019 men's team NCAA title.  Salinda and Wu each went 3-0, which meant only one of their other three teammates needed. to win to advance in the first two match play rounds and win in the end.  And neither star was on par with Rogers, Mc Neally, or Thornbjornsen.

[SkiBum80]

Looking at live stats, not TV.
But see the Card off to a blistering start! 3-0
Nothing better than that other than staying strong and finishing strong

[SkiBum80]

Looking at live stats, not TV.
But see the Card off to a blistering start! 3-0
Nothing better than that other than staying strong and finishing strong

[PVTree]

Tied 2.5-2.5 early on.

*************

Trailing 3-2 after holes 3 thru 7

[PVTree]

Tied 2.5-2.5 early on.

*************

Trailing 3-2 after holes 3 thru 7

[d4cohn]

Ganne is playing some brillant golf right now.

[d4cohn]

Ganne is playing some brillant golf right now.

[Spiny_Norman]

Ganne is playing some brillant golf right now.

Among the other 4 Stanford players, I have seen a number of missed putts from distances the players were making yesterday. And Northwestern is making theirs. Just have to be patient and not get rattled.

[Spiny_Norman]

Ganne is playing some brillant golf right now.

Among the other 4 Stanford players, I have seen a number of missed putts from distances the players were making yesterday. And Northwestern is making theirs. Just have to be patient and not get rattled.

[cardfan77]

Not lookinig very good except for Ganne but there's time.

[cardfan77]

Not lookinig very good except for Ganne but there's time.

[martyup]

On paper, we should smoke NW.  We have better golfers that have performed better all season.  Let's hope the cream rises to the top by the 18th hole.  I would hate to see this beautiful cream get spoiled.

[martyup]

On paper, we should smoke NW.  We have better golfers that have performed better all season.  Let's hope the cream rises to the top by the 18th hole.  I would hate to see this beautiful cream get spoiled.