A Sea Of Red

We head to California this weekend to play at UCLA and Long Beach State. Schedule toughens up in this tournament.

San Diego State 10-8
Long Beach State 7-10
Boston University 8-5
UCLA 17-1
Ohio University 11-7

Predictions, ballcoach?

5-0.

(I hear UCLA has a good concession stand, thus no fans will miss first 5 innings of any game, eating at the Los Angles Macados.)

UCLA has taken their softball program seriously for decades.

Do the Long Beach ladies have a Dirtbags-related nickname?

I seem to recall UCLA putting softball players on scholarships in other sports, and got caught by NCAA. They had to return a College World Series trophy.

It would be great to go 4-1 (don't see us beating UCLA). More realistically, my prediction would be 3-2. I'm not sure we have the fire power to score enough runs consistently against better competition.

Other than UCLA, the other teams ain't powerhouss, except one of them does have a good pitcher. I forget which one.

ballcoach15 wrote:I seem to recall UCLA putting softball players on scholarships in other sports, and got caught by NCAA. They had to return a College World Series trophy.

To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of football, there is no rule against players participating in one sport with a scholarship in another (provided of course they actually participate in both). Thanks to Bear Bryant, any athlete who plays football and another sport must count against the scholarship limit for football.

Google UCLA softball NCAA violations.

ballcoach15 wrote:Google UCLA softball NCAA violations.

I don't know what happened at UCLA and I don't care. I don't need to Google anything to know that there is no NCAA rule against a scholarship volleyball or basketball player playing softball too as long as they participate in the sport they have their scholarship in. If they didn't, it's a pretty blatant violation, and pretty stupid to think they could get away with it.

1997

oldflame wrote:

ballcoach15 wrote:Google UCLA softball NCAA violations.

I don't know what happened at UCLA and I don't care. I don't need to Google anything to know that there is no NCAA rule against a scholarship volleyball or basketball player playing softball too as long as they participate in the sport they have their scholarship in. If they didn't, it's a pretty blatant violation, and pretty stupid to think they could get away with it.

Ah The ole bear bryant rule.

I think we go 3-2. SDSU is no slouch, and they score runs like we haven’t shown we can yet.

Purple Haize wrote:1997

I got curious and went ahead and looked it up. The NCAA ruling came down in 97, but the violations actually occurred in 95. They had some softball players who were on soccer scholarships and never played for the soccer team. At least one had a staged "tryout" for soccer. It was facilitated by the associate AD, who was sanctioned. On top of that, their star pitcher was an Australian who enrolled that year, pitched them to the national championship, and immediately returned to Australia to play for the national team. Of course none of this has anything to do with the current UCLA softball program, but it is pretty typical ballcoach to bring it up.

oldflame wrote:

Purple Haize wrote:1997

I got curious and went ahead and looked it up. The NCAA ruling came down in 97, but the violations actually occurred in 95. They had some softball players who were on soccer scholarships and never played for the soccer team. At least one had a staged "tryout" for soccer. It was facilitated by the associate AD, who was sanctioned. On top of that, their star pitcher was an Australian who enrolled that year, pitched them to the national championship, and immediately returned to Australia to play for the national team. Of course none of this has anything to do with the current UCLA softball program, but it is pretty typical ballcoach to bring it up.

And ignore the fact that Bear Bryant was the biggest offender of what is now a tile named after him

oldflame wrote:

Purple Haize wrote:1997

I got curious and went ahead and looked it up. The NCAA ruling came down in 97, but the violations actually occurred in 95. They had some softball players who were on soccer scholarships and never played for the soccer team. At least one had a staged "tryout" for soccer. It was facilitated by the associate AD, who was sanctioned. On top of that, their star pitcher was an Australian who enrolled that year, pitched them to the national championship, and immediately returned to Australia to play for the national team. Of course none of this has anything to do with the current UCLA softball program, but it is pretty typical ballcoach to bring it up.

oldflame, the reason I brought it up, was that someone posted that UCLA has taken their softball seriously for decades. Thus apparently they took it too seriously back in 1995. Granted it has nothing to do with UCLA today................as far as we know.

ballcoach15 wrote:

oldflame wrote:

Purple Haize wrote:1997

I got curious and went ahead and looked it up. The NCAA ruling came down in 97, but the violations actually occurred in 95. They had some softball players who were on soccer scholarships and never played for the soccer team. At least one had a staged "tryout" for soccer. It was facilitated by the associate AD, who was sanctioned. On top of that, their star pitcher was an Australian who enrolled that year, pitched them to the national championship, and immediately returned to Australia to play for the national team. Of course none of this has anything to do with the current UCLA softball program, but it is pretty typical ballcoach to bring it up.

oldflame, the reason I brought it up, was that someone posted that UCLA has taken their softball seriously for decades. Thus apparently they took it too seriously back in 1995. Granted it has nothing to do with UCLA today................as far as we know.

So like an unsharpened pencil.....you have no point

Point could very well be, I never pass up an opportunity to "take a shot" at PAC 12. (or Big 10)

Purple Haize wrote:
So like an unsharpened pencil.....you have no point

and you sir, win the internet for today

Purple Haize wrote:

oldflame wrote:

Purple Haize wrote:1997

I got curious and went ahead and looked it up. The NCAA ruling came down in 97, but the violations actually occurred in 95. They had some softball players who were on soccer scholarships and never played for the soccer team. At least one had a staged "tryout" for soccer. It was facilitated by the associate AD, who was sanctioned. On top of that, their star pitcher was an Australian who enrolled that year, pitched them to the national championship, and immediately returned to Australia to play for the national team. Of course none of this has anything to do with the current UCLA softball program, but it is pretty typical ballcoach to bring it up.

And ignore the fact that Bear Bryant was the biggest offender of what is now a tile named after him

To be fair, it wasn't actually against the rules when Bryant did it. When there was no scholarship limit, he was signing up to 120 players. Sometimes he actually signed players he knew he couldn't use just to keep opponents from getting them. Then when they set the limit, he started putting players on every other kind of scholarship you could think of, ranging from other sports to things like art and music. That's when they made the rule that any athlete who played football and had any kind of scholarship counts against the football limit.

That’s what I meant. He’s the reason the rule was made

ballcoach15 wrote:Point could very well be, I never pass up an opportunity to "take a shot" at PAC 12. (or Big 10)

PAC 12 softball is pretty good. Why take a shot at them?

JK37 wrote:

ballcoach15 wrote:Point could very well be, I never pass up an opportunity to "take a shot" at PAC 12. (or Big 10)

PAC 12 softball is pretty good. Why take a shot at them?

Why would he not? Rationality and logic do not rule his world

JK37 wrote:

ballcoach15 wrote:Point could very well be, I never pass up an opportunity to "take a shot" at PAC 12. (or Big 10)

PAC 12 softball is pretty good. Why take a shot at them?

That is true, but I not like PAC12 (or Big 10). Give me ASUN, SEC and ACC, along with Baylor from Big 12. Heck with rest of them.

ballcoach15 wrote:

JK37 wrote:

ballcoach15 wrote:Point could very well be, I never pass up an opportunity to "take a shot" at PAC 12. (or Big 10)

PAC 12 softball is pretty good. Why take a shot at them?

That is true, but I not like PAC12 (or Big 10). Give me ASUN, SEC and ACC, along with Baylor from Big 12. Heck with rest of them.

But you didn’t answer my question.