Media shout out

The trib has a nice article from Geoffrey Nudelman focussed on freshmen and their contributions. Enjoy.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story_2nd.php?story_id=128397999212463700

Good article, thanks for sharing!

Nice comments by both Michaela an Erin. Sounds like Michaela wasnt recruited by U of P until late an Erin has a big picture mentality in mind. Maybe thats why she is starting?!!

The O previews the weekend:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pilots/index.ssf/2010/09/penn_state_rutgers_offer_portl.html

Garrett seems to think last year might have been an anomaly and the goalscoring is not a huge issue.

I love this Tribune quote: “If I would have gone anywhere else, it would have been a disappointment,” Capelle says.

Oh look! Our main compadre at the 4 letter network gave us another write up:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=hays_graham&id=5598791

A focus is again on the struggle to get that elusive #1 seed...
(I think the importance of this Bay Area swing cannot be understated)

re: that elusive #1 seed

Looking at the elite group of 5 in the RPI chart (ND, Stanford, BC, UP, NC) I have to think that if the seeding were done today, we would be odd team out once again—UNLESS they were unduly biased by the East-West balance notion, or by guilt over what they've done to us in recent years. Ha ha.

If we beat Stanford this weekend we should end up above them, and plausibly above NC as well on grounds of better result against common opponent. If we lose Saturday, the #1 seed will most likely elude us unless one of those other four teams runs up several ties and losses.

I expect that you are right, dwm.

One of the factors keeping us out of the #1 in past seasons was the lack of wins against others in the top group. We lost to UCLA at home in 2008 and didn't play any of the top teams last year.

This weekend is our chance to change that record.

dwm wrote:re: that elusive #1 seed

Looking at the elite group of 5 in the RPI chart (ND, Stanford, BC, UP, NC) I have to think that if the seeding were done today, we would be odd team out once again—UNLESS they were unduly biased by the East-West balance notion, or by guilt over what they've done to us in recent years. Ha ha.

If we beat Stanford this weekend we should end up above them, and plausibly above NC as well on grounds of better result against common opponent. If we lose Saturday, the #1 seed will most likely elude us unless one of those other four teams runs up several ties and losses.

I'll note that Notre dame, who now leads the RPI due to playing nearly all teams in the 20's to 80's
The highest RPI team they have played so far is #16 Minnesota, and the highest current RPI in their schedule is #11 Louisville. (will that last?)
So they won't be playing any of the front runners.

Also, a couple years ago the seeding committee jumped ND five slots over the leaders because they had a no loss season. UP was the team that got bumped. maybe we get that consideration.


It shows the problem with scheduling top teams and using that as criteria. Often those teams are booked a couple years out. It looks to me like the Penn state was booked right after the 2005 season, since UP contracts a couple/three years out and the first game of this home-and-home was in 2008. I don't think anyone anticipated they wouldn't be ranked, much less nearly out of the top 200.

UCLA was #3 last year, and they were to be Notre Dame's marquis team this year, but:
a) they lost to UCLA
and
b) UCLA isn't so highly rated with 2 losses now to unranked teams

It would be great if the schools/ncaa would agree to hold a "sweet 16" invitational tournament in late Sept of every year.

Here is my idea: The teams that made the sweet 16 in last year's tournament would play at 4 different sites, 4 teams per site. Using teams from last year's tournament isn't ideal, but it would provide schedule certainty far enough in advance to allow teams that didn't make the cut to find other games for the tournament weekend.

Choose the 4 sites based on the 4 teams from the group of 16 with the highest attendance the previous year. The actual pairings for each of the 4 sites could be determined a couple weeks out based on rankings as well as matching teams that will not play each other in regularly scheduled games during the season. I think this would be a great way for the teams to play worthy opponents as well as help sort out questions regarding placement for the current year's post season.

In theory that works, but the likely travel (and the fact that it would be completely unpredictable because you can't really determine who advances) might be a tough sell, especially with the potential for those same 16 teams to be traveling every which way in the playoffs. I mean they do have classes to go to and college life to live too...

dwm wrote:re: that elusive #1 seed

Looking at the elite group of 5 in the RPI chart (ND, Stanford, BC, UP, NC) I have to think that if the seeding were done today, we would be odd team out once again—UNLESS they were unduly biased by the East-West balance notion, or by guilt over what they've done to us in recent years. Ha ha. ....

Actually, if the seeding were done right now, I think there's no question but that the Pilots would have a #1 seed. They're #3 in the Adjusted RPI rankings, with Notre Dame and Stanford ahead and Boston College at #4. UNC is #6. (Arizona State is #5.) True, North Carolina and Boston College tied Stanford, but the games were at Boston College and North Carolina, so neither team should or would get credit for being equal to Stanford. What hurt the Pilots last year was not having many results against Top 25 teams as compared to its competitors for a #1 seed. So far this year, the Pilots have 3 wins over current Top 20 teams -- Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and SMU (do you believe it?) -- which is more than anyone else. So, if the decision were made today, I think it's pretty clear they'd be "in."

But, we're nowhere near far enough into the season for this to be anything but speculation!

Speculation? That's one of our favorite nouns! The "what ifs" help make this forum great. As is the reminder to label these musings for what they are.