chiefsfan, when your team needs to play 6 games in such a short time period of time, it's very hard to find pitchers in your roster that is limited to begin with.

You can't compare playing 6 games in 3-4 days, to playing 4 in the same amount of time...especially when some of those games might be going to extra innings, and/or a lot of runs are scored due to lack of depth pitching....

That's the difference. In the SEC/ACC tournament all 8 participants made it. In the SBC tournament, there are 1 or at most 2 teams that are shoe in, the rest are either on the bubble or have to win. That's why you see it in the SBC tourney and not in the SEC. I saw a thread somewhere about whether we are proud of being represented by the #8 seed in our tourney seeing as they are going to get blown out in the regionals (that's the theory), but if that bothers you, how could it not bother you that the tournament champ has basically killed it's #1 starter to make regionals. What do you think is going to happen to that team, I'll tell you what, our #1 couldn't go in the first game of the regionals last year and we lost both games.

(05-31-2011 12:46 PM)FIU Panther Fan Wrote:  That's the difference. In the SEC/ACC tournament all 8 participants made it. In the SBC tournament, there are 1 or at most 2 teams that are shoe in, the rest are either on the bubble or have to win. That's why you see it in the SBC tourney and not in the SEC. I saw a thread somewhere about whether we are proud of being represented by the #8 seed in our tourney seeing as they are going to get blown out in the regionals (that's the theory), but if that bothers you, how could it not bother you that the tournament champ has basically killed it's #1 starter to make regionals. What do you think is going to happen to that team, I'll tell you what, our #1 couldn't go in the first game of the regionals last year and we lost both games.

That's 100% right.

(05-31-2011 10:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If there aren't at least four NCAA Tournament wins the fresher for the tournament argument is totally blown up. Last year we had three wins and six losses.

You are being extremely shortsighted if you are going to base the success solely by comparing NCAA Tournament wins from last year to this year.

(05-31-2011 12:58 PM)warhawk09 Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 10:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If there aren't at least four NCAA Tournament wins the fresher for the tournament argument is totally blown up. Last year we had three wins and six losses.

You are being extremely shortsighted if you are going to base the success solely by comparing NCAA Tournament wins from last year to this year.

What is your counter-proposal for determining whether the change has a positive impact. Anyone can throw rocks at an idea. What's your counter? Look at three years? Look at four? Accept it as gospel and move on?

I think the new format is more fan friendly and that's a good thing but the justification was to improve performance in the NCAA Tournament, if wins isn't the measure what is?

You're talking about a one-year sample size and when you do that there are a lot more factors that play in. Just for starters, what teams are in the regional with the SBC teams for one; which SBC teams in are in the field. Last year you had FAU, FIU and ULL in a regional; this year you swap out a top three program for a team that finished under .500 thanks to a magical tournament run.

You at least need to give it a couple of years to examine how it helps/hurts. Remember, it was the coaches who brought this to the table and not the SBC. Does something need to be looked at as far as how the schedule for the tournament is set up? Maybe. But the perfect storm hit this past week for the last four games to be "meaningless" as far as the title game went. However, if one game has a different outcome (and remember all three went into extra-innings on day one) the last four games play out differently.

(05-31-2011 12:46 PM)FIU Panther Fan Wrote:  That's the difference. In the SEC/ACC tournament all 8 participants made it. In the SBC tournament, there are 1 or at most 2 teams that are shoe in, the rest are either on the bubble or have to win. That's why you see it in the SBC tourney and not in the SEC. I saw a thread somewhere about whether we are proud of being represented by the #8 seed in our tourney seeing as they are going to get blown out in the regionals (that's the theory), but if that bothers you, how could it not bother you that the tournament champ has basically killed it's #1 starter to make regionals. What do you think is going to happen to that team, I'll tell you what, our #1 couldn't go in the first game of the regionals last year and we lost both games.

The conference can fix that though. for some reason unbeknownst to me the conference tournament was set up so teams would have to win 6 games in 4 days to advance. If they would play the Finals on Sunday, its at most 6 games in 5 days, and winners bracket teams play only 4 in 5 days... Thats not bad at all

The tournament had finished on Sunday each of the previous three years due to weather. Also, the winner's bracket teams play 4 in 5 if they don't lose in the semifinals, if they do then it's five games.

Regarding this format, according to an article in today's Monroe newspaper, the pool format was agreed to by the baseball coaches in the conference. They wanted to see how it would work and agree that there will be some modifications for next year.

As to the attendance, the article states that there were 5,469 in total attendance which was more than those who came to the tournament last year at Middle Tennessee. The Blue Raiders played in 3 games before being eliminated. There were ULM fans at the games who had already purchased tickets although it was bittersweet to watch. Overall it appears that everyone thought the Warhawks were great hosts and thought the field condition was excellent.

Link to the article:
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110...ed-reviews

(05-31-2011 04:21 PM)SOT1977 Wrote:  Regarding this format, according to an article in today's Monroe newspaper, the pool format was agreed to by the baseball coaches in the conference. They wanted to see how it would work and agree that there will be some modifications for next year.

As to the attendance, the article states that there were 5,469 in total attendance which was more than those who came to the tournament last year at Middle Tennessee. The Blue Raiders played in 3 games before being eliminated. There were ULM fans at the games who had already purchased tickets although it was bittersweet to watch. Overall it appears that everyone thought the Warhawks were great hosts and thought the field condition was excellent.

Link to the article:
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110...ed-reviews

First I absolutely agree that the folks at ULM did a fine job of putting on the tournament. Not an easy thing to do when you don't have a dog in the hunt. The playing surface looked better than I've ever seen it. I didn't talk to anyone who had complaints about how the tournament was run, at least from the standpoint of ULM.

Most folks who point fingers at the new format are people who don't (regularly) attend the tournament. The fans I talked to loved the new format because, as already stated, they knew how long they'd be at the tournament, when their teams were going to play, etc. So much easier to make plans.

I believe if, given a chance, this format will increase attendance for that reason. Frontrunner fans leave early if their team is eliminated early but real fans just go and enjoy the baseball.

Last year Scott Rembisz threw 215 pitches at the tournament. And, after expending incredible energy to win the tournament last year, FIU wasn't even competitive in its regional.

I bet that won't be the case this year.

I think, as many have said, we need to give this a few years before we make any real judgment on its future.

See I look at the tournament from the perspective of someone who wants to go one day. (If I can ever get time off work) But if I go, im going to get out at the park in time for the first game every day, and stay there till the last out is made of the last game. I could care less what time ASU plays, Im going to watch everyone. But if I am going to watch everyone, I want the games to have maning. It would have been really hard for me as a fan to go out to the park to watch Friday and Saturday knowing that the results of those games meant nothing to who would play in the title game

That ULL/FIU game would havfe been fascinating had there been something important behind it. Same for USA/ASU

In ASU's case, we lost in 10 innings to the best team in the league on the first day of te tournament, and our reward was that we were essentuakkt akready eliminated from title game contention, and had to play Friday Saturday knowing we were going nowhere... Thats just not really fair. Sure we'd have to waste alot of pitching to win the tourney in a double elimination format, but we deserved it because we lost our first game.

If our teams who were already clinched understood the tournament was meaningless and would try to just play 3 games and be done, itd be much easier to support the format. Thats what SEC teams do

(06-01-2011 01:38 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  That ULL/FIU game would havfe been fascinating had there been something important behind it.

In ASU's case, we lost in 10 innings to the best team in the league on the first day of te tournament, and our reward was that we were essentuakkt akready eliminated from title game contention, and had to play Friday Saturday knowing we were going nowhere... Thats just not really fair.

First, there wouldn't have been a UL/FIU game had it not been for this format. UL would have been two and done.

Second, you were not 'already eliminated after losing to FIU', you were eliminated after we beat USA. If we had lost, all of Saturday's games would have become important.

Finally, FIU and UALR both won all their games in pool play. There was no question who should have been in the championship game, so it appears the better teams this weekend played for the championship. Why beat the crap out of these two teams in order to prove they were best.

Let's see how the regionals go; but I think we'll get at least one more year of this format.

(06-02-2011 11:40 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(06-01-2011 01:38 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  That ULL/FIU game would havfe been fascinating had there been something important behind it.

In ASU's case, we lost in 10 innings to the best team in the league on the first day of te tournament, and our reward was that we were essentuakkt akready eliminated from title game contention, and had to play Friday Saturday knowing we were going nowhere... Thats just not really fair.

First, there wouldn't have been a UL/FIU game had it not been for this format. UL would have been two and done.

Second, you were not 'already eliminated after losing to FIU', you were eliminated after we beat USA. If we had lost, all of Saturday's games would have become important.

Finally, FIU and UALR both won all their games in pool play. There was no question who should have been in the championship game, so it appears the better teams this weekend played for the championship. Why beat the crap out of these two teams in order to prove they were best.

Let's see how the regionals go; but I think we'll get at least one more year of this format.

Great points 'Fan. Agreed. Agreed, and agreed. BOP made some other great points as well. UALR showed that by winning 4 games they dominated the tournament by winning every game. Although I understand the concerns about this format and probably would have to be revisited at some point, there's no doubt that the best teams IN the tournament reached the finals, and the best one won. Period.