1985 CWS format question

[af102]

I was looking at the wikipedia article about the '85 CWS, and noticed something strange about the format (used until 1988). Why did Miami and Arkansas not play? A usual 8 team, double elimination bracket would have pitted the winner of the Miami and Arkansas game against us (after losing to Texas).

I can't find a bracket anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...985_College_World_Series

 

[patdog]

The last undefeated team didn't get a bye in the next round. When the field was down to 4, the matchups for the next round would be set before the 2 remaining undefeated teams played. Since we had already played Arkansas, and would play Texas; and Texas had already played Miami and would play us; the matchups were set for us to play Miami and Texas to play Arkansas. If Texas had lost to Arkansas, they would have gotten a bye to Game 15 where they would play the Game 14 winner (which would have been Arkansas vs. Miami).</p>

 

[jwbigcreek]

I couldn't remember why, but I remembered TX played Ark. I looked it up and the Wiki page explained it. Good old Bobby Thigpen. From the penthouse to the outhouse in 1(?) inning. Got to do some work, so one of you old geezers remind me how many inning elapsed between his GS and him giving up the GW HR. Seems like Miami was leading something like 4-1 and he hit a GS to put us ahead (and then gave up a 2 run shot to lose the game in the 9th). But I can't recall in what inning he hit the GS.

 

[patdog]

hit a grand slam in his first at bat as a Bulldog and also in his last at bat. First one came on a very cold February day against MC. One of the highest balls I've seen when it cleared the fence. He got overlooked with Palmeiro and Clark on the team, but he was avery good power hitter.

 

[Todd4State]

If he had played in MLB as an outfielder, he may have been remembered more as a hitter, and possibly more associated with Clark and Palmeiro. But whatever gets you to the Big Leagues the quickest- and Thigpen came up about as soon as Clark and Palmeiro- they were all at MSU in 1985 and in MLB in 1986. Brantley had to wait until 1988 before the Giants brought him up.

I may be one of the rare people that have always considered Thigpen a part of "Thunder and Lightning"- but I think most people consider that to be just Clark and Palmeiro. John Mitchell wasn't exactly a singles hitter either. But Thigpen was almost as dangerous as Clark and Palmeiro.

Thigpen is actually the RF on the All-Polk team, although I think he would certainly be the closer on the team as well, although Jon Harden is listed as the relief pitcher.

Thigpen actually has a losing record as a pitcher at MSU- mostly in relief of course.

 

[patdog]

he only pitched 1 inning his JR season. He was brought to MSU as a hitter. If Polk had pitched him in 1984, who knows if we might have made it to Omaha that season too.

 

[MaxwellSmart]

Weren't they refered to as "Thunder, Lightning and Rain" before they left? I get your point though, Raffy and Clark were the main focus for most people.

 

[patdog]

I was in school at the time and went to every home game and this is the first time I've ever heard that.

 

[re1297id]

The Texas kid that took out Gene Morgan with a liner up the middlewhen we were looking to go 3-0 and Greg 17n Ellena.

and yes, Thigpen was "Rain" to Will and Raffy's "Thunder and Lightling".

 

[AROB44]

I still think this is the play that cost us winning the whole enchilada. If this hadn't happened, we would have beat Texas and gone on to win our 1st national championship. </p>

 

[Dawgzilla]

we kind of thought it was a joke. We thought he had a blazing fastball, but nothing else, so he was just sort of a novelty act. I still can't believe he became the Major League saves leader.

 

[Dawgzilla]

Perhaps I am remembering this wrong, but I think Miami built their 4-1 lead when Thiggy dropped a fly ball. He chased a ball back to the warning track and had it in his glove, but then he collided with the metal fence at Rosenblatt and dropped the ball. He might have crashed right into one of the seams in the metal. Anyway, he made up for that by crushing the GS, and then later gave up the game winning HR. I don't remember how far apart all the events were, if I'm even remembering it correctly.

I always thought the story of the '85 team would make a decent book. All those preseason hopes and the #1 ranking, and then the trip to Hawaii over spring break where they started on a losing streak. Turned out some of the players had stolen rocks from one of the volcanoes which is said to cause extremely bad luck. After a week of losing, including getting swept by Auburn, they finally hid all the volcanic rocks in the visistors' dugout, and hung lucky tea leaves in the home dugout and broke out of their slump by crushing JSU.

Good times, good times....

 

[coach66]

nm

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

The bracket makes sense up to a point, and then it just seems to get random.

Look at the 1987 CWS, for example. Through Game 13, you have three 3-1 teams remaining (Texas, Stanford, OK St). But since OK St started 3-0, they were guaranteed a spot in the championship game, even though they lost their fourth game to Texas in Game 13. I guess when you have three teams left,you have to decide who plays first somehow. But the new format makes a lot more sense because it doesn't even allow for that possibility.

In fact, under the old format, if you started 3-0 then lost your next game (like OK St in 1987), you force your eventual championship game opponent to play another game while you rest your arms. Granted, it became a one-and-done championship game rather than getting the greater benefit of having to win one of two if you started 4-0 (like Texas in 1985). But a tournament should never be set up so thatyou couldgain an advantagefrom losing a game.</p>

 

[Dawgzilla]

I wish they would go back to the straight 8-team double elimination. You got more variety in the matchups, and the team that finished 3-0 in the winner's bracket did not have an overwhelming advantage toward the championship.

What you have to remember is the team that goes 3-0 is guaranteed a slot in the championship game. When you have a 3-0 team, you have three other teams who are 2-1. Two of the 2-1 teams play each other, while the 3-0 team plays the other 2-1 team. If the 3-0 team wins and gets to 4-0, then will then face the other 3-1 team in the championship game. In the familiar double elimination finale, the 3-1 team would have to win 2 straight games to get the title.

When the 3-0 team loses, as in your 1987 example, they advance to the championship game while the other two 3-1 teams play in a sort of semi-final.

Now ask yourself, would you rather bee undefeated and only have to win one game out of two to get the title, or would you rather rest your best pitcher and have a one game winner-take-all championship? I think most teams would choose to be in the win-one-out-of-two scenario, so its not really an "advantage" to lose that one game.

 

[MaxwellSmart]

I know I heard it on the radio and on TV during the CWS. I also heard it when he got called up to the bigs and was on the mound but that was a long time ago, maybe it wasn't used as much as I thought.

 

[KurtRambis4]

me of exactly how Mitch Moreland was handled.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

Now ask yourself, would you rather bee undefeated and only have to win one game out of two to get the title, or would you rather rest your best pitcher and have a one game winner-take-all championship? I think most teams would choose to be in the win-one-out-of-two scenario, so its not really an "advantage" to lose that one game.

I'drather have two games to win one, as well.The fact that three teams could be left at 3-1 is just anoddity that the old formatcreated.

It seems that a "true" double elimination bracket should be like this. If it was like that in 1985, Miami and Arkansas would have played with MSU getting the winner for a chance to play Texas in the championship (as the original poster said). That seems better than arbitrarily deciding which of three 2-1 teamsgets to face the 3-0 team (I understand they took into consideration who had already played each other, but it's still arbitrary).

I've only followed MSU (and by extension, college) baseball since the late 1990s, so I never witnessed things as they used to be. AndI actually prefer thecurrent format over theprevious one.

 

[Dawgzilla]

The bracket you linked is the way a lot of people believe double elimination is supposed to be played, but it makes little sense. In that format, the winner of the winner's bracket would play TWO fewer games, and then STILL be in a win-one-out-of-two format for the championship. That's a ridiculous advantage, and its why I don't even like 4-team double elimination.

You want something really confusing? You should look up the brackets for the old 6 team double elimination regionals. In that format, you have a 1-0 team playing an 0-1 team in the SECOND round. You can wind up with one 2-0 team, and four 1-1 teams. Quite confusing.

I played a lot of Dixie league baseball as a youth, and all of our 8 team tournaments followed the old CWS format. It was a lot of fun for the players, too.

OTOH, I once played in a corporate volleyball tournament that was 8 team double-elimination. We had four courts so everyone could play at once. My team was 2-0 and lost the winner's bracket final, and then I found out they intended to run the tournament they way you posted, so all the 1 loss teams had to eliminate each other while the 3-0 team sat around. I protested and whipped out the CWS format. Everyone was starting to agree with me, primarily because they realized it would save time. Then the park manager told us he needed our courts and we were limited to one court for the duration of the tournament. The 3-0 team then insisted we stick with the old format, and my team did not have enough energy to win two straight at the end.