These four-hour games with a dozen or more walks don't help college ball's popularity.
College umps need to be a little more generous with the strike zone
- Thread starter allcarolina2
- Start date
Generous my ass. They are flat out missing calls.
I agree as they apparently don't have any idea that it is not where the catcher catches the pitch, but where it actually is when it crosses the plate. And Dang if the guy throws a magnificent curve that just misses the plate by an inch or 2.......Ring it up. It would speed the game up and we would have better action.
The first game showed real bias with giving Knight a generous zone and Hill having to throw down the middle. Yesterday's ump was at least consistent.
If it missed the plate it missed the plate. That’s a ball. I don’t care how awsome the curve was. I agree some changes need to made but not this.
The strike zone is supposed to be from the knees to the letters. They never call a strike that high. A lot call pitches a foot off the corners. If I were a coach, I would ask the ump in the grounds meeting exactly where his strike zone is. If he gets mad, so be it.
Yeah, I he was bad, but he was bad with both sides. So I guess bad + bad = good(?) in a screwed up sense
You want to see batters hit, but you also want the umpire to give a huge strike zone? That is contradictory. If you want to see hitting, then the strike zone needs to be smaller, ie., Something the batter can reach.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
I just think that most borderline calls should go to the pitcher, and pitches above the belt should be strikes. Hitters will swing earlier in the count and put balls in play. Might also consider a pitch clock and a limit on visits by catchers and pitching coaches.
This would make the college game more viewer friendly. ...That and stop putting the camera on old stink-eyeing fatsos and start putting them on smiling young hotties.
This would make the college game more viewer friendly. ...That and stop putting the camera on old stink-eyeing fatsos and start putting them on smiling young hotties.
You want to see batters hit, but you also want the umpire to give a huge strike zone? That is contradictory. If you want to see hitting, then the strike zone needs to be smaller, ie., Something the batter can reach.
I want to see them “swing the bat” a “real” strike zone forces that. HTH
I want to see them “swing the bat” a “real” strike zone forces that. HTH
Why does the pitcher get the benefit of the doubt. To me hits and scoring is what makes the game exciting. I love baseball but get tired of two pitchers going at it with no hits. You should want to increase the hits not increase strike outs. The benefit of the doubt should go to the batter.
Our ump had a huge strike zone early that got narrower and narrower as the game went on. We gave up seven walks total, but six were from the 6th inning on.
I like hits, too, but a bunch of walks is deadly dull to watch if you just want to watch baseball and have no skin in the game. If college baseball is going to thrive, it needs to do something about 4-hour regulation games -- as in, eliminate them. If I'm not an an alum or fan of a team playing, but just enjoy baseball, I need some actual baseball played between commercial breaks.
The batter should feel compelled to swing. Most college pitchers can't paint the black all day long. They make mistakes. And even in the modified-bat era, pitchers are at a distinct disadvantage against aluminum. Little mistakes tend to get hit hard.
I'm also OK with calling the corners tight if the gut-high pitch is a strike, as it's supposed to be. College pitchers shouldn't have to be Greg Maddux or throw 150 times to pitch a great game. If I want to see a bunch of home runs, I'll get to the park early and watch BP. If I want to see compelling walks, I'll watch Downton Abby.
Bonus: One of the most epic things I ever saw in sports was the 7th game of the '91 World Series, when Jack Morris came in to pitch his 10th inning of a scoreless game against my Braves, who lost, and made me cry. Bonus 2: What was the final score of the two most significant, most exciting baseball games the Gamecocks ever won? Hint: same score both games, both extra innings.
The batter should feel compelled to swing. Most college pitchers can't paint the black all day long. They make mistakes. And even in the modified-bat era, pitchers are at a distinct disadvantage against aluminum. Little mistakes tend to get hit hard.
I'm also OK with calling the corners tight if the gut-high pitch is a strike, as it's supposed to be. College pitchers shouldn't have to be Greg Maddux or throw 150 times to pitch a great game. If I want to see a bunch of home runs, I'll get to the park early and watch BP. If I want to see compelling walks, I'll watch Downton Abby.
Bonus: One of the most epic things I ever saw in sports was the 7th game of the '91 World Series, when Jack Morris came in to pitch his 10th inning of a scoreless game against my Braves, who lost, and made me cry. Bonus 2: What was the final score of the two most significant, most exciting baseball games the Gamecocks ever won? Hint: same score both games, both extra innings.
Last edited:
The most added time comes from pitching changes. Last game, we changed 3 times, they changed 3 times. 10 minutes each, 1 extra hour.
I used to think the SEC hated us more but I was wrong it’s more like that cousin you see at reunions that you’re indifferent over
The n see 2A is a whole world of a different issue
Boom, you can't enjoy dueling no-hitters? Then, you're only enjoying a smaller portion of the game. How bored you must have been when Roth was rolling in 2010 and with the defensive efforts against the Gators in 2011.
When it is win or go home, I have no problem with excessive situational pitching changes. You can't bring a benched player back into that game and it becomes chess by attrition.
Game's starting. All disagreements void if Gamecocks otherwise benefit. GO COCKS!!
