Olympic Softball

[IRISHMAFIA]

I wonder how long it will take for somebody to suggest the USA team was taking one for the sport's effort to get back into the Olympics?

It didn't take on post on e-teamz for people to espouse how good the loss was for the sport.

[RKBUmp]

This could have possibly been the last ever softball game in the olympics, does anyone really think that the game would intentionally be thrown just for the sake of possibly getting the sport reinstated? They wanted the game more than ever, just plain got beat. Poor batting, poor game management and maybe a few players that played a few years longer than they should have.

[Dakota]

Or, maybe it is just tough to get a 3 game sweep against close competition. The Japanese team was darn good all around. To expect any team, including Team USA, to beat them three straight was a bit much, especially all the hoopla about how big of an upset this was.

The last game went 9 innings and, except for Bustos 3 run homer, would have gone at least 10.

If anything, the Olympic format needs some thought (should the sport be re-instated in 2016).

They should consider a gold medal series to not have a 1 loss team get the silver and a 2 loss team get the gold, especially when the 2 losses by the gold team were from silver team.

[RKBUmp]

I agree there, doesnt seem very fair that in the medal round a team gets to lose, come back and ultimately play for the gold, yet the team that has no loses goes home with a silver after a single loss. You would at least think that the first 2 losers in the medal round would play each other for the bronze, and that the winners would play for the gold and silver.

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I wonder how long it will take for somebody to suggest the USA team was taking one for the sport's effort to get back into the Olympics?

It didn't take on post on e-teamz for people to espouse how good the loss was for the sport.

I wouldn't suggest it, but for less than a nanosecond the thought did cross my mind when I heard the USA team lost.

[bigsig]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

I agree there, doesnt seem very fair that in the medal round a team gets to lose, come back and ultimately play for the gold, yet the team that has no loses goes home with a silver after a single loss. You would at least think that the first 2 losers in the medal round would play each other for the bronze, and that the winners would play for the gold and silver.

Just the opposite happened in 2000. US lost 3 games and then beat undefeated Japan in the gold game. Can't complain too much.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by bigsig

Just the opposite happened in 2000. US lost 3 games and then beat undefeated Japan in the gold game. Can't complain too much.

Sure I can... it has nothing to do with who won when and it really has nothing to do with "total losses"; the desire to have a single gold medal game is probably TV driven (even though the softball game did not make prime time) and leads to the result of the team with a 1-2 series record being the champion.

Name another major team sport competition where 2 teams can be 1-2 against each other head-to-head in the tournament and have the team with 1 win be the champion.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Name another major team sport competition where 2 teams can be 1-2 against each other head-to-head in the tournament and have the team with 1 win be the champion.

Volleyball.

[JefferMC]

This type of backet is common in olympic sports. Stupid, but common.

I think a standard double elimination of the top 4 teams make a lot more sense. But DE would require 6 or 7 games (and the uncertainty of needing the IF game causes havoc with such things as TV schedules), where as this means 4 games total.

[Dakota]

By "name another ... competition" I meant "another besides Olympic"... Of course I knew the other Olypmic team competitions were similar or identical, and it is the same competition (different sport).

NCAA Baseball (and maybe Softball) had a stupid system similar to this a few years ago, again driven by TV's desire for a single championship game. Thankfully, they have gone to a 3 game championship series format, since either the TV execs or the viewing public is confused by the idea of a double elimination championship and the possible "if" game. This despite the fact that all series have "if" games by definition.

[3SPORT]

Just looked it up in wikipedia. They use the Page Playoff system. Basically used for curling tournaments.

From Wikipedia -
Page playoff

The top four teams advance to the Page playoff. In what's sometimes called the quarter-finals, the first- and second-placed teams and the third- and fourth-placed teams play each other. The winner of the 1 vs. 2 game gets a bye to the final. The loser of the 1 vs. 2 game plays the winner of the 3 vs. 4 game in the semi-final. The winner of the semi-final plays the winner of the 1 vs. 2 game in the final, with the winner of that game winning the competition.

This has the effect of allowing the top two teams to lose a game and still win the tournament, producing a similar effect to a double-elimination tournament. This gives the top two teams a large advantage over the next two

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

...This has the effect of allowing one of the top two teams to lose a game and still win the tournament, producing a similar an effect to not at all like a double-elimination tournament. This gives the top two teams a large advantage over the next two, but can result in a team with a worse won-loss record being declared the champion (as opposed to winning the championship).

There. I fixed it.

Those of you who rely on wiki should know it can be an unreliable source and frequently has articles written by authors who are pushing a particular point of view.

[socalumps]

Sounds like yourself?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by socalumps

Sounds like yourself?

I don't know what your point is beyond the shallow, drive-by kind of trolling, but this quote is from wikepedia about itself:

Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed (see Researching with Wikipedia for more details).

In addition to that I would add, "not to mention advocacy pretending to be objective information." Much of this stuff gets disputed, but even so, it can easily be "corrected" back to the advocate's position. The comment about the kind of playoff format used as being "similar to double elimination" was obviously opinion, and obviously not factual, since it is actually not very much like double elimination at all in very important ways.

[socalumps]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I don't know what your point is beyond the shallow, drive-by kind of trolling, but this quote is from wikepedia about itself:In addition to that I would add, "not to mention advocacy pretending to be objective information." Much of this stuff gets disputed, but even so, it can easily be "corrected" back to the advocate's position. The comment about the kind of playoff format used as being "similar to double elimination" was obviously opinion, and obviously not factual, since it is actually not very much like double elimination at all in very important ways.

I guess my shallow drive-by kind of trolling was that, in my opinion, you excercised the same liberties that you condemed the other poster and wikepedia for exercising.

It just struck me as ironic.....no biggie...i still care as much about you as I always have!

5'10.....180 lbs.