|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Jun 12, 2023 10:08:29 GMT -8
Regular season standings:
1. Stanford
2. Oregon State
3. Washington
4. USC
5. ASU
6. Oregon
7. UCLA
8. Arizona
Did the Conference tournament help, hurt, or have no impact on the conferences post season positioning?
It clearly helped get our 6th and 8th place teams in the field, but not in addition to more deserving teams, it came at the expense of more deserving teams. I don't see how you can look at that any other way than it hurt the conference in post season.
Take USC for example. Finished 4th in league standings. Record verse top 6 other teams in conference:
2-1 vs Stanford
0-3 vs Beavers
2-1 vs UCLA
0-3 vs UW
2-1 vs Ducks
3-0 vs ASU
With our without a conference tournament, nothing changes for Stanford most likely. They're in and still host. What about 2nd place Oregon State? Seems reasonable to assume no conference tournament might mean a regional host, and at the least a better landing spot if not hosting.
My primary gripe here is not how this impacted the Beavers this one particular year. In another year and circumstance, we could easily benefit from the tournament. My gripe is how the tournament results relegated the season long results vastly inferior this year. Imagine a scenario where a top 4 team in conference loses a key player or two for the week of tournament, scuffles a bit as a result and gets left out of ncaa tournament in favor of a 6, 7, or 8th place team they swept or took series from during league play.
If a team gets hot in conference tournament and can earn a post season bid, I'm fine with that except when it's at expense of better season long teams. If in addition to. I'm all for it, but that's not what happened this year and in the end it hurt the conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Jun 12, 2023 11:31:46 GMT -8
We woulda got a better regional draw without tourney
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 12, 2023 15:37:35 GMT -8
We woulda got a better regional draw without tourney The Pac-12 Conference Tourney gave Oregon State an opportunity to host a Corvallis Regional. Oregon State had a 0% chance of hosting a Corvallis Regional without one. The Beavers went 0-2 to kill all chances to host, though. A very winnable Corvallis Regional was there, just had to not give up 12+ runs to Arizona. Then Arizona State would not have mattered, and Oregon State would have played Oregon with Trent Sellers on the mound for the right to play the Stanford-Washington winner with who knows on the mound. Win a Pac-12 Tournament and host a Corvallis Regional. The Committee was going to screw Oregon State whether there was a Tournament or not. The only decision turned out to be whether to send Oregon State to Baton Rouge or Nashville, and Oregon State drew the short straw. But Oregon won a Pac-12 Championship and earned it. Oregon State went 0-2. Sucks. 2024 will be better. hottubbeaver My response to you is above. The Committee should have put both Arizona State and USC in and left Arizona out. The Wildcats were trash that got hot for three games. And that should not trump a very awful regular season. That is where it hurt the conference. Washington was put in an imminently winnable Oklahoma State Tournament but could not hold an 8-0 lead or give up fewer than 12 runs against Oral Roberts. Arizona was given a tough draw, but an Arizona State or a USC had a chance. Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Troy had no business getting in over either Arizona or USC or Arizona for that matter, but that is another story. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Jun 12, 2023 19:18:18 GMT -8
We woulda got a better regional draw without tourney The Pac-12 Conference Tourney gave Oregon State an opportunity to host a Corvallis Regional. Oregon State had a 0% chance of hosting a Corvallis Regional without one. The Beavers went 0-2 to kill all chances to host, though. A very winnable Corvallis Regional was there, just had to not give up 12+ runs to Arizona. Then Arizona State would not have mattered, and Oregon State would have played Oregon with Trent Sellers on the mound for the right to play the Stanford-Washington winner with who knows on the mound. Win a Pac-12 Tournament and host a Corvallis Regional. The Committee was going to screw Oregon State whether there was a Tournament or not. The only decision turned out to be whether to send Oregon State to Baton Rouge or Nashville, and Oregon State drew the short straw. But Oregon won a Pac-12 Championship and earned it. Oregon State went 0-2. Sucks. 2024 will be better. hottubbeaver My response to you is above. The Committee should have put both Arizona State and USC in and left Arizona out. The Wildcats were trash that got hot for three games. And that should not trump a very awful regular season. That is where it hurt the conference. Washington was put in an imminently winnable Oklahoma State Tournament but could not hold an 8-0 lead or give up fewer than 12 runs against Oral Roberts. Arizona was given a tough draw, but an Arizona State or a USC had a chance. Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Troy had no business getting in over either Arizona or USC or Arizona for that matter, but that is another story. My point is without the tournament we probly get a better draw, based on our performance at the tourney .....we performed poorly, and were rewarded with a near unwinnable regional.......without that, we probly go to Lexington or something similar |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 12, 2023 19:59:42 GMT -8
The Pac-12 Conference Tourney gave Oregon State an opportunity to host a Corvallis Regional. Oregon State had a 0% chance of hosting a Corvallis Regional without one. The Beavers went 0-2 to kill all chances to host, though. A very winnable Corvallis Regional was there, just had to not give up 12+ runs to Arizona. Then Arizona State would not have mattered, and Oregon State would have played Oregon with Trent Sellers on the mound for the right to play the Stanford-Washington winner with who knows on the mound. Win a Pac-12 Tournament and host a Corvallis Regional. The Committee was going to screw Oregon State whether there was a Tournament or not. The only decision turned out to be whether to send Oregon State to Baton Rouge or Nashville, and Oregon State drew the short straw. But Oregon won a Pac-12 Championship and earned it. Oregon State went 0-2. Sucks. 2024 will be better. hottubbeaver My response to you is above. The Committee should have put both Arizona State and USC in and left Arizona out. The Wildcats were trash that got hot for three games. And that should not trump a very awful regular season. That is where it hurt the conference. Washington was put in an imminently winnable Oklahoma State Tournament but could not hold an 8-0 lead or give up fewer than 12 runs against Oral Roberts. Arizona was given a tough draw, but an Arizona State or a USC had a chance. Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Troy had no business getting in over either Arizona or USC or Arizona for that matter, but that is another story. My point is without the tournament we probly get a better draw, based on our performance at the tourney .....we performed poorly, and were rewarded with a near unwinnable regional.......without that, we probly go to Lexington or something similar The Committee that you just saw is the worst Committee since 2016. I think that they had it down to Oregon and Oregon State in Baton Rouge and Nashville. Oregon passed Oregon State with a Pac-12 Championship and played in Nashville in a damn near unlosable Regional, while Oregon State was shipped off to Baton Rouge in a damned near unwinnable Regional. If that is what you are referring to, you may be correct. But Oregon State was very close to hosting and two or three wins probably bags a Corvallis Regional. Instead, Oregon benefited by going from a fringe Tournament team (which is a ridiculous statement, but with this Committee.........) to basically second in the line of Pac-12 teams. It still all came down to not giving up more than 11 to Arizona. Do that, and Oregon State would have played Oregon in the semifinal, and Stanford would have played Washington. |
|
