Awards are always subjective and often considered "unfair" if you aren't on the winning end, and that includes the Heisman. Nice to have, but folks still argue as to it's accuracy. I'm okay with one person winning multiple. UCLA’s Rachel Garcia named Pac-12 Player of the Year and Pac-12 Pitcher of the Year Washington’s Sis Bates tabbed Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Year UCLA’s Megan Faraimo named Pac-12 Freshman of the Year Stanford’s Jessica Allister selected as Pac-12 Coach of the Year This year for the Pac, it's coming down to the very last games. ucla will either be outright winner or end up tied. No lack of drama. I really have no interest in watching the top 3 play utah, for instance.
Seems to me if there’s a policy of not giving a player more than one award- if they otherwise truly deserve it, that's not a good thing. Defining “deserving” is another thing, I get it.
That's where I am. If somebody plays lights out and they've earned it, so be it. Spreading it around for the sake of doing so is the everyone gets a trophy mindset.
Lol. I don't think they missed anything. I heard the Scarborough birthday shit on Friday. A lot of those have heard multiple times in the last few days.
@uscvball it's been my understanding that the selection committee has a criteria set that does not include OOC strength of schedule. Yet, that's what was cited last night about the seeding. It's been my opinion all year—and still is—that Bama doesn't have the pitching to do really well in the WCWS. Even with Cornell being awarded SEC Pitcher of the Year, she's far from an ACE. I'd call her a King if we can stick with playing card analogies. It's been my opinion that next season was the year to watch more closely than this year (see Lexi Kilfoyl.) It's also been my view that Bama was looking at a #6 seed. So, seeing #8 (while a very good thing) does tend to leave one wondering exactly what the selection committee was thinking. Especially when this team was 6-1 against the teams seeded higher; 9-1 against the top 10 seeds. Minnesota. Do you think the committee was looking at last year when seeding this season? I've a hard time understanding how they could be ranked higher than Bama when they were 0-5 against the SEC, 0-2 against the Tide. Earlier in this thread you mentioned you thought one of the top eight wouldn't make it through the regionals. While I've not seen the ML on the games yet, if there's value I'm looking at betting against the Gophers.
I'd have to look up what the criteria is supposed to be but let's face it, committees do what they want so things like "eyeball test" in football are used even though it's not measurable. Bama had a horribly weak OOC SoS and Minnesota's was strong in comparison. I mentioned it once on the board here early in the season, that Bama's propensity to play nobody early and at home might be too conservative a tactic. More on Minnesota below but in 2017 when they got snubbed, the committee said, "Minnesota’s strength of schedule ranked 114 nationally, and that all 16 seeded teams had schedules ranked between No. 1 and No. 36." Can't say for sure. Minnesota's RPI is 8. They had 12 top 50 wins plus they took 2 of 3 against the Horns in Austin and Texas' RPI is 6. 3 late-season wins against Northwestern, RPI there was 11. They have a great pitching staff, top 10 I think for ERA and they are near the top in a couple other categories. I think you have to break it down a bit more. Your win over Arizona was back in February. Committee members have short-term memory unless it's an inexcusable loss. You did have 3 wins over Florida in April but you lost to them in CCG this weekend. You were 1-2 against Kentucky in April at home and they are a much lower seed. Yes, you got past them in the tournament but the earlier series hurt. 3 wins against the Tigers but again, a lower seed than Bama. If anything you should be pissed about Florida being a higher seed. If you didn't have a conference tournament, you'd be seeded higher right now. No clue but if it were something outside of this year, it would be 2017 when the Gophers got ass raped by the selection committee. They won regular and post season conference titles, had 50 wins, were ranked #2 overall heading into bracket announcements and ended up unseeded and in the same bracket as Florida with an extremely tough road to even get to the WCWS. At that time, selection committee chair Keisha Dunlap, released a statement credited to the committee on Monday evening, saying it spent parts of three days discussing the Gophers. “Many factors were considered regarding team seeding and … the final decision was difficult,” the statement read. “As a part of the selection criteria, the committee reviews each team’s body of work individually when selecting the field of 64 teams for the softball tournament. When selecting the top 16 seeds, the committee emphasizes a team’s performance against Top 25 teams along with other variables including strength of schedule.” Their bracket is no cake walk but after 2017, they want redemption.
@uscvball "Committee's do what they want." Hence, the reason I said it was difficult to understand their reasoning. I've looked through the criteria this morning and it reads as I thought: SOS is considered, but it's not "OOC SOS" which is exactly what was cited last night. Which should weigh more? OOC SOS, or record versus top 25? Which should carry the most weight here? Now is it not only difficult to understand, it's becoming damn near impossible. The overall SOS for Bama was at #25 the last I checked. Murph and company scheduled it that way due to questions on pitching. (There is no propensity here. 4 ranked on the road last year including #1 Washington, two ranked at home) However, at what point to do draw the line on on SOS is the question I'm left with. Here's a look at the game against the top 25 teams along with the record. You mentioned you thought it needed to be broken down more. Okay, let's go with that for a minute ... Record vs Top 25: Oklahoma 16-2, Alabama 16-5, UCLA 9-3, FSU 9-4, Wash 9-5, Florida 17-13, Ariz 9-9, Texas 8-11, Minn 3-7. Record vs Top 10: Alabama 9-1,UCLA 7-2, FSU 5 -2, Okla 4 -2, Fla 7-8, Wash 3-4, Ariz 4-9, Minn 1-6, Texas 1-6. The thing that was confusing about Minnesota last season is just a week or two before the selection committee made their choices they released information stating they had Minnesota at #7. Then they ended up being unseeded. I'm not pissed, nor should I be, about anything here. It's inexplicable, but that doesn't lead to anger, just confusion. .
I think it's a balance of everything with top 25 record getting heavy consideration. I'm not the person to answer which should weigh more but if you make the effort to play a strong OOC schedule it should get consideration, particularly if those teams are also ranked. I'll see if I can find the article I read last night but I'm fairly certain it said Bama's OOC Sos was #114. FTR, I'm not giving full credit for a second win against the Gophers as that game did not finish due to weather. It was in the 5th. However, of the 15 top 25 wins (even top 10) Bama has just 2 OOC, Minnesota and Arizona. The rest includes 4 wins against UGa, 3 against Fla, 3 against LSU, and 2 against Kentucky. But you also lost twice to Sakerlina, twice to Kentucky, and once to Fla when it counted. ucla for example has OOC wins against Ole Miss, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Florida. Their quality in-conference wins include 3 vs Washington and 1 vs AZ. 2 of their losses are from AZ. Numbers don't always tell the tale. Now you know how a lot of football fans feel about playoff selections.
