It's hard to argue about Dame Fortune having an impact on who is the ultimate winner.

However, another thing that jumps out at me from Wiessman's data is that 9 of the 16 finalists since 2006 have been to the CWS within the previous four year period (so there's almost certainly carryover in personnel).

And even among the 7 (UNC, (2006, previous 1989), previous Fresno (2008, previous 1991), Texas (2009, previous 2005), SCar (2010, previous 2004), UCLA (2010, previous 1997), Arizona (2012, previous 2004), and MissSt (2013, previous 2007), there's more experience. Augie and Andy Lopez previously won national championships and Ray Tanner made it to the championship game with SCar in 2002. John Cohen, Mississippi State's coach also played in the CWS while a player at MissSt (1990).

I liked the comment from Paul Janish (I think) on the video about the 2003 team. He said about the experience in 2003 something like we had already picked up our welcome bag in Omaha in 2002.

If it's a crap shoot, my money is on the guys who have been there before. That's one of the great things that Rice baseball has going for it and that I like the Owls chances every year.

UCLA wins the first one, 3-1

It's 3-0 UCLA in the 3rd. It's over.

(06-25-2013 08:17 PM)grol Wrote:  It's 3-0 UCLA in the 3rd. It's over.

And that's what is wrong with the new stadium.

I mean, not saying UCLA's pitching isn't a huge part as well, but with the park playing bigger than the Astrodome, sure makes it easier to hold a 3 run lead when you have an elite staff.

(06-25-2013 08:25 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 08:17 PM)grol Wrote:  It's 3-0 UCLA in the 3rd. It's over.

And that's what is wrong with the new stadium.

I mean, not saying UCLA's pitching isn't a huge part as well, but with the park playing bigger than the Astrodome, sure makes it easier to hold a 3 run lead when you have an elite staff.

And what's wrong with that? That's the way baseball has been for the past 100 years. What bothers me is how UCLA gets it's minimum number of runs. I have never seen a team so consistently score without a running game and without hitting the ball solidly. I'll give them credit for capitalizing on other team's mistakes (including free passes), but most elite teams generate some runs on their own. You have to be awfully lucky (and have one heck of an elite pitching staff) to consistently win the way the Bruins do). They don't have a single offensive player who scares anybody-- either at the plate or on the bases.

BTW, how many teams-- if any-- in the modern, Super Regional era (since 1998) have run the table through the entire post-season (regionals, Supers, CWS). Pretty amazing feat if UCLA can pull it off.

(06-25-2013 08:25 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 08:17 PM)grol Wrote:  It's 3-0 UCLA in the 3rd. It's over.

And that's what is wrong with the new stadium.

I mean, not saying UCLA's pitching isn't a huge part as well, but with the park playing bigger than the Astrodome, sure makes it easier to hold a 3 run lead when you have an elite staff.

They will win the title winning in all types of ballparks this year. That makes them the best team in my book.

(06-25-2013 08:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  BTW, how many teams-- if any-- in the modern, Super Regional era (since 1998) have run the table through the entire post-season (regionals, Supers, CWS). Pretty amazing feat if UCLA can pull it off.

Didn't Arizona last year?

I have seen five of their games in person at the CWS over the last 4 years. These guys really execute the fundamentals and are tough up the middle. You could see the pressure they were putting on LSU and Miss St.

Even the hidden ball trick a week ago Sunday against LSU was well executed by David Berg and the up the middle gang of the Bruins. How many teams would have tried that in the late innings of a one run game?

We may call them the hot and lucky team, but we'll probably also be calling them "Champs".

Probably the most anti-climatic final since our 14-2 win.

(06-25-2013 08:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 08:25 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 08:17 PM)grol Wrote:  It's 3-0 UCLA in the 3rd. It's over.

And that's what is wrong with the new stadium.

I mean, not saying UCLA's pitching isn't a huge part as well, but with the park playing bigger than the Astrodome, sure makes it easier to hold a 3 run lead when you have an elite staff.

And what's wrong with that? That's the way baseball has been for the past 100 years. What bothers me is how UCLA gets it's minimum number of runs. I have never seen a team so consistently score without a running game and without hitting the ball solidly. I'll give them credit for capitalizing on other team's mistakes (including free passes), but most elite teams generate some runs on their own. You have to be awfully lucky (and have one heck of an elite pitching staff) to consistently win the way the Bruins do). They don't have a single offensive player who scares anybody-- either at the plate or on the bases.

BTW, how many teams-- if any-- in the modern, Super Regional era (since 1998) have run the table through the entire post-season (regionals, Supers, CWS). Pretty amazing feat if UCLA can pull it off.

I give UCLA a lot of credit for finding a way to produce runs. However, we just had the lowest scoring CWS in the metal bat era. For all the steps forward college baseball has taken, sucking the offense out of the grand finale is a huge step back. I'm not saying I want gorilla ball. I'm saying I want balls that are crushed to leave the yard or at least have a chance to get over an outfielder's head. Mississippi State hit 2 balls in Game 1 that were probably out of any of other yard in the country. The Bulldogs would have had a different route to the final if a ball Oregon State hit in the 9th inning with the bases loaded that was hit as solidly as you could hit it and just about everyone thought was gone hadn't come up 3 feet short. Did you see how shallow the outfield was playing at times? It looked ridiculous. They need to bring the fences 10 feet in to adjust for the fact they built a ballpark that is into the wind most of the time and they need to change the ball.

(06-25-2013 09:05 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 08:25 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 08:17 PM)grol Wrote:  It's 3-0 UCLA in the 3rd. It's over.

And that's what is wrong with the new stadium.

I mean, not saying UCLA's pitching isn't a huge part as well, but with the park playing bigger than the Astrodome, sure makes it easier to hold a 3 run lead when you have an elite staff.

They will win the title winning in all types of ballparks this year. That makes them the best team in my book.

Totally agree. Just saying, the idea that we are talking about 3-0 game as over is a bit ridiculous. And while much of that is their pitching, a nice chunk of it is the ballpark.

(06-25-2013 09:21 PM)grol Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 08:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  BTW, how many teams-- if any-- in the modern, Super Regional era (since 1998) have run the table through the entire post-season (regionals, Supers, CWS). Pretty amazing feat if UCLA can pull it off.

Didn't Arizona last year?

Yup, actually it is the 3rd straight year it has happened. South Carolina did it the year before that as well.

UCLA's been capable for decades of winning this title. They've just always had horrible coaching (until Savage got there). They do need to upgrade their park as that also has killed recruiting through the years. 108 NCAA titles now for UCLA (most ever) and that's the first for them in baseball. They were similar to Rice in a number of respects this year (their top starters were 6th and 11th round picks I believe), but perhaps with slightly better fielding? But you can never underestimate the importance of repeated trips to Omaha in a short time.

(06-26-2013 07:01 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  UCLA's been capable for decades of winning this title. They've just always had horrible coaching (until Savage got there). They do need to upgrade their park as that also has killed recruiting through the years. 108 NCAA titles now for UCLA (most ever) and that's the first for them in baseball. They were similar to Rice in a number of respects this year (their top starters were 6th and 11th round picks I believe), but perhaps with slightly better fielding? But you can never underestimate the importance of repeated trips to Omaha in a short time.

I thought the same, similar to Rice, but more consistent when it counted. The repeated trips to Omaha really showed in the final game when it looked like one of the teams belonged, the other was lucky to get there.

Well, that's the end of Baseball for another year....now what baseball fans?

(06-26-2013 07:01 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  UCLA's been capable for decades of winning this title. They've just always had horrible coaching (until Savage got there). They do need to upgrade their park as that also has killed recruiting through the years. 108 NCAA titles now for UCLA (most ever) and that's the first for them in baseball. They were similar to Rice in a number of respects this year (their top starters were 6th and 11th round picks I believe), but perhaps with slightly better fielding? But you can never underestimate the importance of repeated trips to Omaha in a short time.

Similar to Rice only in pitching and defense. Rice was a vastly superior offensive team (as hard as that is to believe) in every way except execution. We even stole more bases than UCLA. We MUST place more emphasis in practice on teaching the sac bunting skills. It cost us the Super-regionals (we should have walked off with a squeeze bunt win in Game 2 in the 9th inning) and numerous games throughout the season. Only 4 - 5 of our guys actually squared around and committed/"sacrificed" themselves in obvious bunting situations (Perrott, Ewing, Hoelscher, Kopycinski, and Byrd by late in the season). Most of the rest would only show the bunt at the last second, and never fully square around. The result was not only consistently poor execution, but often bunting at pitches well out of the strikezone (which makes it that much difficult to lay down a quality bunt).

Note-- I'm not proposing more frequent bunting than we've done the past two seasons (as I, too, think we've been bunting far too frequently with runners on 2B and no outs, or trying to squeeze with a runner on 3B and one of our better hitters due up); rather, we need to better teach and develop the bunting skills of our players.

(06-26-2013 07:24 AM)grol Wrote:  Well, that's the end of Baseball for another year....now what baseball fans?

Summer Ball. BTW, Dittman is being used as a starter this year in Wisconsin. So far he's 0-1 in 2 starts: 8.0 IP, 9 hits, 5 runs, 3 BBs, 11 Ks. Given he's only been pitching for a year now, I like him much better as a 1-inning reliever, where he doesn't have to concern himself with pacing.

(06-26-2013 08:29 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We MUST place more emphasis in practice on teaching the sac bunting skills.

I agree.

(06-26-2013 07:24 AM)grol Wrote:  Well, that's the end of Baseball for another year....now what baseball fans?

MLB ... Summer Leagues ... etc. Baseball's not gone :-)

While I understand the desire to make the college game about executing instead of gorilla ball, I also would think that "purists" would want a ball that is well struck to be rewarded. With the way the bats/ball are and how the ballpark is set up in Omaha, that didn't happen on some shots that were absolutely crushed.