Omaha

[Mikey 16,777]

Just a note;....the requirements for an academic scholarship are different at every school as is the amount of money available for academic scholarships. That playing field is not level.

Every major school has sufficient money. Surely no-one thinks that Vanderbilt's academic requirements are lower than Auburn's? A kid can get academic help at Vandy with lower grades than at Auburn? That's not even a laugher. The playing field is as level as it is in any other sport. If money mattered, Harvard and Stanford would be in the CWS every year.

Perhaps more than any other major college sport, successful baseball coaches draw the players to their schools. Successful coaches normally stay put and draw successful players. Thus we see the same ol' same ol' teams every year, with a rare exception thrown in for good measure.

This year TCU was there when just two years ago some Dallas writer was whining because TCU's endowment wasn't big compared to Texas and A&M's, as though a school's endowment had the slightest thing to do with baseball success. Again, if money mattered, Harvard and Stanford would be annual fixtures in Omaha.

[AU64 10,122]

It's a combination of money and desire.

For example, the TCU pitcher, Preston Morrison is from the Charlotte area and the only reason he went to TCU is because they made the best offer of an academic scholarship to supplement his baseball. They described him as a "walk-on" but make not mistake, he was recruited there by TCU to play baseball...and set all kinds of records for the school. Granted, UNC or NC State could have done that too perhaps....but some schools are just more creative with their academic scholarship money and IMO, it's no coincidence that the final schools are among the richest schools in the country.

[Mikey 16,777]

It's a combination of money and desire.

For example, the TCU pitcher, Preston Morrison is from the Charlotte area and the only reason he went to TCU is because they made the best offer of an academic scholarship to supplement his baseball. They described him as a "walk-on" but make not mistake, he was recruited there by TCU to play baseball...and set all kinds of records for the school. Granted, UNC or NC State could have done that too perhaps....but some schools are just more creative with their academic scholarship money and IMO, it's no coincidence that the final schools are among the richest schools in the country.

Add Auburn to the list of schools that failed to recruit the guy. We have as much academic scholarship money as does TCU and our qualifications shouldn't be any tougher. The area in which they "whupped" us for this kid was their coach was better than ours at the time, and probably still is, though the jury is out on Golloway.

We've been through this again and again, but I'll try one more time: If we can compete with "rich" schools such as Florida, Arkansas and LSU in other sports then we are on a level table with them in baseball as well. Why isn't bammer there more often, they have plenty of money and lower academic standards than Auburn? Is Cal St. Fullerton rich? They are in Omaha frequently. Money doesn't matter. If Fullerton, TCU and the like can be there Auburn could too. Look no further than softball for a good example.

The failure is ours, not some tilted table designed by an NCAA that favors schools like LSU and Cal Fullerton and hates Auburn.

[AU64 10,122]

Interesting that Virginia, a team with 42 wins and 24 losses this season will be playing Vandy tonight for the Div 1 baseball championship.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/vandys-3-0-loss-virginia-forces-game-3-052020156-ncaabb.html

Vandy will be playing their 72nd game of the season....which IMO is crazy.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Just a note;....the requirements for an academic scholarship are different at every school as is the amount of money available for academic scholarships. That playing field is not level.

Every major school has sufficient money. Surely no-one thinks that Vanderbilt's academic requirements are lower than Auburn's? A kid can get academic help at Vandy with lower grades than at Auburn? That's not even a laugher. The playing field is as level as it is in any other sport. If money mattered, Harvard and Stanford would be in the CWS every year.

Perhaps more than any other major college sport, successful baseball coaches draw the players to their schools. Successful coaches normally stay put and draw successful players. Thus we see the same ol' same ol' teams every year, with a rare exception thrown in for good measure.

This year TCU was there when just two years ago some Dallas writer was whining because TCU's endowment wasn't big compared to Texas and A&M's, as though a school's endowment had the slightest thing to do with baseball success. Again, if money mattered, Harvard and Stanford would be annual fixtures in Omaha.

Mikey, I understand what you are saying but for schools that are in Florida taking Florida kids who qualify for Bright Futures they can spread their scholly money out further to out of state players if needed or to players to cover more of the cost. There are some states that have this kind of thing. As for Harvard if your parents make less than (I believe) 100k a year then your tuition is free as long as you meet the requirements to get in. So there is an advantage at other schools that AU doesn't have. Now, I am not sure if those other schools are taking full advantage of it or not but they probably are.

[Mikey 16,777]

Here's the thing: Any kid that can qualify for the Bright Futures Scholarship in Florida or the Hope Scholarship in Georgia can also qualify for academic scholarship aid at Auburn. We have an out-of-state poster on this board that is going through this very thing with his baseball-playing son right now. We can do anything they can do..

Somebody ran the numbers on this last year. There is no correlation between lottery sponsored scholarships and baseball won/loss records. None. Looking close to home, SEC bottom feeders Tennessee and Georgia both have lottery scholarships at their schools. Division winners Vandy and LSU do not. The lottery scholarship sounds like a good excuse for losing until one takes a closer look at the results.

If that's true of Harvard, then I guess they aren't interested in baseball. A free Harvard education should be appealing to some players, somewhere.

[AU64 10,122]

If that's true of Harvard, then I guess they aren't interested in baseball. A free Harvard education should be appealing to some players, somewhere.

A free Harvard education must not appeal to many football or basketball players either...wonder why that is?

[augolf1716 21,432]

Meanwhile back at the ranch the final game is tonight. Go dores...................................

[AU64 10,122]

Meanwhile back at the ranch the final game is tonight. Go dores...................................

yep....include me in...

[AU64 10,122]

Well UVA pulled it out with some clutch pitching and some outstanding defense.

So a #3 seed that just barely made it into the tournament...rated right there along with Auburn for example...got just enough hitting to win it....and just enough pitching from two outstanding pitchers and their centerfielder (who pitched a great game when it was needed) to win the big prize.

UVA was ranked early in the season but suffered a slide after a couple injuries and just barely squeaked into the bracket of 64 with enough wins in the ACC tournament to qualify. Once they were there, they had the right combination of pitching, defense and timely hitting to win it.

I thought the 'dores had all the tools to get it done but UVA matched them in pitching and defense....and the hot Vandy bats were mostly silent when it counted.

[Mikey 16,777]

My power went out at 7:20 and didn't come back on until after midnight so I'm just now finding out who won. Vandy used to be my second favorite SEC team behind AU but since 2010 it's AU, aTm, Mizz and go to hell.

If that's true of Harvard, then I guess they aren't interested in baseball. A free Harvard education should be appealing to some players, somewhere.

A free Harvard education must not appeal to many football or basketball players either...wonder why that is?

I don't know. Maybe the Harvard administrators think having successful sports teams isn't the cool thing to do? One thing is for certain and backed up by on-field results: The lottery schools do not have any advantage over non-lottery schools and schools with huge endowments do not have any advantage over schools with more modest financial resources. Won/lost records clearly demonstrate that.

It was just two years ago that a Dallas writer wrote the (erroneous) article that TCU couldn't compete with Texas and aTm in baseball because the latter two had more money. This year TCU is in the CWS and the other two are not. Proof of the puddin' is in the eatin' and alla that.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

I think Harvard wants to win the Ivy League and doesn't care as much for the National Stage. I mean why should it? It considers itself elite in Academics so that is their forte. They also are big in Non-NCAA sanctioned sports.

[PowerOfDixieland 3,226]

Two quality academic institutions with really outstanding coaches playing at such a high level on a consistent basis (rematch of last years finals). And to the argument of scholarship/lottery money being the ultimate "not playing on a level playing field argument", we can all look at Vanderbilt and Virginia.

I have a very good friend who does not lack financially and whose three sons are all incredibly talented baseball players and even more talented students. One of those boys went to Young Harris just prior to their becoming a four year institution and was named a Rawlings (junior college) gold glove centerfielder. Was pursued by everybody, most notably Virginia and Georgia. He never had the discussion with his parents, assumed the balance of what they would have to cover after the relatively small scholarship money was offered would be too much to ask so he took the Georgia baseball money. That, along with the HOPE money, and his cost of attendance was ridiculously less than going to school in Charlottesville. So the home state school won out. And he never even played in the NCAA tournament, suffered an arm injury and got a really good finance degree in '13. There is so much baseball talent out there. UVa was not loaded. It's a matter of getting that talent to mesh and play well over the course of almost 70 games. I am certain great coaching does not "ride" their talent; they bring it out.

[AU64 10,122]

Probably the most "loaded" team was Vandy if the MLB draft means anything but UVA had more talent that some folks are giving them credit for....Back in March, UVA was ranked #3 nationally based on their returning talent.....but a month or so into the season they went into a tailspin and by the end of the year, they they were at the point where it was necessary for them to win a couple games in the ACC tournament in order to get in the bracket of 64. This was a team that had 7 players drafted....several pretty well up into the draft.

I like UVA but there are many questions as to why a team that started the season with such high expectations was scrambling to qualify....though they did finally pull things together when it counted. ..so what kind of coaching were they getting during that slide from #3 to obscurity ?

And of course there is the question about why Connor "forced" his star pitcher to throw over 100 pitches last night, his 3rd start in just over a week....where he had thrown about 100 +/- pitches in each game. Maybe I missed it but i did not see anyone screaming about him overworking his star pitcher, fans wanting him fired for risking the future of his player like I saw here when Thompson went over 100 pitches with SIX days rest in between.

Really enjoyed the series....some great defensive players on both teams bailed out their pitchers at key moments. Was interesting to watch the strategies of both managers and I guess Vandy's loss could be attributed to their inability to get clutch hits ..and seems I recall they ran themselves out of a couple innings too...but a great series.

[around4ever 4,139]

Probably the most "loaded" team was Vandy if the MLB draft means anything but UVA had more talent that some folks are giving them credit for....Back in March, UVA was ranked #3 nationally based on their returning talent.....but a month or so into the season they went into a tailspin and by the end of the year, they they were at the point where it was necessary for them to win a couple games in the ACC tournament in order to get in the bracket of 64. This was a team that had 7 players drafted....several pretty well up into the draft.

I like UVA but there are many questions as to why a team that started the season with such high expectations was scrambling to qualify....though they did finally pull things together when it counted. ..so what kind of coaching were they getting during that slide from #3 to obscurity ?

And of course there is the question about why Connor "forced" his star pitcher to throw over 100 pitches last night, his 3rd start in just over a week....where he had thrown about 100 +/- pitches in each game. Maybe I missed it but i did not see anyone screaming about him overworking his star pitcher, fans wanting him fired for risking the future of his player like I saw here when Thompson went over 100 pitches with SIX days rest in between.

Really enjoyed the series....some great defensive players on both teams bailed out their pitchers at key moments. Was interesting to watch the strategies of both managers and I guess Vandy's loss could be attributed to their inability to get clutch hits ..and seems I recall they ran themselves out of a couple innings too...but a great series.

I think Sborz was fine with that pitch count. He actually wanted to be in the bullpen for Game 3 and O'Connor told him absolutely not and made the manager take his cleats and glove away and lock them up. O'Connor has a reputation as a player's coach. He is known for protecting his players. I don't think the three starts and pitch counts were more than he could handle. I can't believe that O'Connor would allow him to jeopardize his future.

It was a very good series played by two very talented teams. The defense was as good as you will ever see in a college series.

[AU64 10,122]

Probably the most "loaded" team was Vandy if the MLB draft means anything but UVA had more talent that some folks are giving them credit for....Back in March, UVA was ranked #3 nationally based on their returning talent.....but a month or so into the season they went into a tailspin and by the end of the year, they they were at the point where it was necessary for them to win a couple games in the ACC tournament in order to get in the bracket of 64. This was a team that had 7 players drafted....several pretty well up into the draft.

I like UVA but there are many questions as to why a team that started the season with such high expectations was scrambling to qualify....though they did finally pull things together when it counted. ..so what kind of coaching were they getting during that slide from #3 to obscurity ?

And of course there is the question about why Connor "forced" his star pitcher to throw over 100 pitches last night, his 3rd start in just over a week....where he had thrown about 100 +/- pitches in each game. Maybe I missed it but i did not see anyone screaming about him overworking his star pitcher, fans wanting him fired for risking the future of his player like I saw here when Thompson went over 100 pitches with SIX days rest in between.

Really enjoyed the series....some great defensive players on both teams bailed out their pitchers at key moments. Was interesting to watch the strategies of both managers and I guess Vandy's loss could be attributed to their inability to get clutch hits ..and seems I recall they ran themselves out of a couple innings too...but a great series.

I think Sborz was fine with that pitch count. He actually wanted to be in the bullpen for Game 3 and O'Connor told him absolutely not and made the manager take his cleats and glove away and lock them up. O'Connor has a reputation as a player's coach. He is known for protecting his players. I don't think the three starts and pitch counts were more than he could handle. I can't believe that O'Connor would allow him to jeopardize his future.

It was a very good series played by two very talented teams. The defense was as good as you will ever see in a college series.

Waddell was the guy who made the starts...on the 15th, 20th and 24th.....but you are right, he did hold Sborz back though with Vandy's bats cool, he was not needed.

And as noted....some fantastic defense by both team.

[Mikey 16,777]

Three days rest between starts is normal and more than that is "plenty". Going somewhat over 100 pitches in a start is normal. I see nothing wrong with the way UVA's pitchers were managed. I'm also one that didn't think Thompson was throwing too much. If he couldn't handle the modest load he was given by Galloway then he had a pre-existing arm problem.

[AU64 10,122]

Three days rest between starts is normal and more than that is "plenty". Going somewhat over 100 pitches in a start is normal. I see nothing wrong with the way UVA's pitchers were managed. I'm also one that didn't think Thompson was throwing too much. If he couldn't handle the modest load he was given by Galloway then he had a pre-existing arm problem.

I fully agree......was making reference to some posters who were virtually demanding that CSG be fired for "forcing" KT to pitch on 6 days rest and going over 100 pitches on back to back starts. In my view those posters were either looking for some excuse to land on Sunny....or pretty clueless about the subject.

Quite a few people in the know suggest that under-use is the cause arm problem ...more than over-use.

Meanwhile, the UVA coach made clever use of his modest pitching staff...did not have much in the way of quantity....but had three very good arms at his disposal and the CF who started one game was a real difference maker.

[Mikey 16,777]

Three days rest between starts is normal and more than that is "plenty". Going somewhat over 100 pitches in a start is normal. I see nothing wrong with the way UVA's pitchers were managed. I'm also one that didn't think Thompson was throwing too much. If he couldn't handle the modest load he was given by Galloway then he had a pre-existing arm problem.

I fully agree......was making reference to some posters who were virtually demanding that CSG be fired for "forcing" KT to pitch on 6 days rest and going over 100 pitches on back to back starts. In my view those posters were either looking for some excuse to land on Sunny....or pretty clueless about the subject.

Quite a few people in the know suggest that under-use is the cause arm problem ...more than over-use.

Meanwhile, the UVA coach made clever use of his modest pitching staff...did not have much in the way of quantity....but had three very good arms at his disposal and the CF who started one game was a real difference maker.

I knew what you meant. Also, you are correct, there are some here that want to criticize Golloway at every turn. I'm not sold on the guy and wasn't the day we hired him, but he deserves a chance.

My main problem is I don't think "small ball" is the way to win games and Golloway is the second "bunt because it makes the coach look smart" coach we've had in succession. Maybe Golloway can win big at AU. I hope he can because every coaching turnover is a process of tearing down and rebuilding the new model. If Golloway doesn't cut it, I hope our next guy is a "hit the ball and run like hell" coach, not a small baller.

Interesting stat from the CWS broadcasting crew: Likelihood of scoring with a man on first and nobody out, 49%. Likelihood of scoring with a man on second and one out, 46%. So even a well executed sacrifice decreases your chance of scoring. There's a big, big book that's been out a long time, I believe the title is Statistical Baseball. That author states, point-blank "never sacrifice".

End of tirade, for now anyway.

[AU64 10,122]

Three days rest between starts is normal and more than that is "plenty". Going somewhat over 100 pitches in a start is normal. I see nothing wrong with the way UVA's pitchers were managed. I'm also one that didn't think Thompson was throwing too much. If he couldn't handle the modest load he was given by Galloway then he had a pre-existing arm problem.

I fully agree......was making reference to some posters who were virtually demanding that CSG be fired for "forcing" KT to pitch on 6 days rest and going over 100 pitches on back to back starts. In my view those posters were either looking for some excuse to land on Sunny....or pretty clueless about the subject.

Quite a few people in the know suggest that under-use is the cause arm problem ...more than over-use.

Meanwhile, the UVA coach made clever use of his modest pitching staff...did not have much in the way of quantity....but had three very good arms at his disposal and the CF who started one game was a real difference maker.

I knew what you meant. Also, you are correct, there are some here that want to criticize Golloway at every turn. I'm not sold on the guy and wasn't the day we hired him, but he deserves a chance.

My main problem is I don't think "small ball" is the way to win games and Golloway is the second "bunt because it makes the coach look smart" coach we've had in succession. Maybe Golloway can win big at AU. I hope he can because every coaching turnover is a process of tearing down and rebuilding the new model. If Golloway doesn't cut it, I hope our next guy is a "hit the ball and run like hell" coach, not a small baller.

Interesting stat from the CWS broadcasting crew: Likelihood of scoring with a man on first and nobody out, 49%. Likelihood of scoring with a man on second and one out, 46%. So even a well executed sacrifice decreases your chance of scoring. There's a big, big book that's been out a long time, I believe the title is Statistical Baseball. That author states, point-blank "never sacrifice".

End of tirade, for now anyway.

Kind of like those who advocate ..."never punt the football"...with stats to back up the position... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1281962-when-and-why-it-is-smarter-not-to-punt-on-fourth-down. There are good stats to say that you are not much worse off giving up the ball on your own 20 than punting and giving it back at the 50 or the opponent's 40.....and always on-sides kick.

I guess in baseball, the sac bunt is part of the lore....and there are people quick to criticize the coach when he fails to move a runner along with a bunt in a tight game. As for CSG, I don't know whether his strategy this season was based on the players capabilities ...basically singles and doubles hitters...or a philosophy that is set in his mind. He mentioned in an interview I saw during the season, that while at OK, he had teams that were very HR oriented when he had the hitters and he hoped to add some power for next year.

Funny thing though, watching the series at TD Ameritrade, CSG's approach was pretty much right...defense, good pitching and somehow managing to get a few runs on the board. It was fun to see the homers but pitching and defense paved the way...and the fact that Vandy was about 0 for 10 with runners in scoring position which probably helped increase the stat you mentioned about plating the runner from second.

The big problem as I see it....even with a runner on 2nd base, the average single will not bring him him... even with the slightly more lively ball.....so it typically takes two hits to score a guy from second,...which is not that easy.

AU will have all position players back next year (for those that come back) ...don't know if the approach will change or not. Lots of things doomed the season at the end....Thompson's arm problems and Grier going totally in the tank with his bat. Hopefully that is behind us.

[Mikey 16,777]

I never fault a coach for doing what's necessary with the personnel available to him. I really do hope Golloway can go get some hitters for us.

Another thing about a sacrifice that's not in the statistics: A sacrifice greatly cuts down the odds of having a big inning, and a large % of games are won with big innings. With a good hitter at the plate, the likelihood of a hit is so close to the likelihood of a successful bunt that the "swing away" call is a no-brainer. If a poor hitter that's also a talented bunter is up, that should affect the coach's thinking but to me, having your top stick try to bunt a guy ahead by one base is folly.

Some players simply are not good at bunting. A good bunt isn't something you can demand like telling someone to turn the water faucet on.

[AU64 10,122]

A very classy note from Coach Corbin to the U of Va team.