College Baseball...unwatchable?

I've gotten a lot closer to that opinion expressed by your friend than I used to be.  I think college baseball is more in need of a 'speed up' than pro baseball was.

I agree with your friend and what justbb has said.  They have a game clock on milb games now and it usually does not get close to running out.

People don't go to watch managers manage and umpires umpire.  That said, given the volatility in the coaching ranks, I can see where some may be paranoid about giving themselves the best chance to win.  My theory, some people take themselves way too seriously.  I don't even like seeing head coaches coach from the third base box.

A few years ago, South Carolina won a couple of college championships.  They were a hard-nosed team and their coach Ray Tanner coached from the dugout.  Indeed I did enjoy watching that team play.  BBCOR bats have also taken some of the excitement out of the college game imho. 

I think wristbands with the signs on them should be banned.  Those things slow the game up more than anything.

Coach flashes a numerical signal, catcher has to look at wristband, find the signal, relay signal to the pitcher...then pitch...rinse and repeat...EVERY pitch.  At least with just hand signals you remove the looking at wristband and finding the signal on the wristband from the equation.

I watch a lot of college baseball, at all levels and my fair share of the pros as well. I must say that I agree with your friend.  The game has become way more about coaches and less about the players. 

Picked Off posted:

The game has become way more about coaches and less about the players. 

Just like college football and basketball!!

Just cut down on the time between pitches, and I'm OK with whomever is calling the pitches. I'd be OK with audio transmission into the catcher (earbuds embedded into the mask?).

Give me pro-level seams and wood bats..

Buzzard05 posted:

I think wristbands with the signs on them should be banned. 

Agree!  Last HS season the coach used wristbands, and we played another team that also used wristbands.

With both coaches calling out numbers to their teams we thought we were at a Bingo game instead of a baseball game 

I have more of an issue with all of the micro managing of the game such as bunting your 3 or 4 hole hitter in the 1st inning than I do with the the tempo. 

Buzzard05 posted:

I think wristbands with the signs on them should be banned.  Those things slow the game up more than anything.

Coach flashes a numerical signal, catcher has to look at wristband, find the signal, relay signal to the pitcher...then pitch...rinse and repeat...EVERY pitch.  At least with just hand signals you remove the looking at wristband and finding the signal on the wristband from the equation.

Oh goodness I was hoping that was just a travel ball thing....secret decoder wristbands, GESH!

What do you get with a seventeen man pitching staff? Yesterday it got the coach to the mound to change pitchers on six consecutive hitters on a lineup that was right, left, right, left, etc.. I was wondering if it was September (expanded MLB rosters) and Tony LaRussa was managing.

Great post, and totally agree. Another interesting component of this is how certain micro-managed yet winning programs don't turn out great pro ballplayers. Have to think its because the players become robots - conditioned to do things automatically in certain situations that may not lend themselves to pro ball. Automatically taking pitches, bunting, etc. 

Just reiterates the point made on this board over & over - if you are lucky enough to have a kid with the ability to play college ball, make sure he / she watches those teams play actual games. Make sure the system is right for the player and their expectations. 

RJM posted:

What do you get with a seventeen man pitching staff? Yesterday it got the coach to the mound to change pitchers on six consecutive hitters on a lineup that was right, left, right, left, etc.. 

And I often wonder if those same coaches even know their hitters' numbers against RHP vs LHP.

presont posted:

Buzzard05 posted:

I think wristbands with the signs on them should be banned. 

Agree!  Last HS season the coach used wristbands, and we played another team that also used wristbands.

With both coaches calling out numbers to their teams we thought we were at a Bingo game instead of a baseball game 

Interesting fact.  We used wristbands for both offense and defense.  We relay signs faster that our opponents who do not.  Might want to consider banning signs if you want the tempo to speed up.

Guess I'm in the minority here. Love me some College Baseball. Living in Big12 country I attend at least 1 game a week. Texas,Tech,TCU,OSU.& course TX&AM... .... Good match up tonight on SEC Network LSU and Mississippi... I'm also semi-retired at an early age and have a lot time to waist, that may be why a like a 3hour game.

joemktg posted:

Picked Off posted:

The game has become way more about coaches and less about the players. 

Just like college football and basketball!!

Just cut down on the time between pitches, and I'm OK with whomever is calling the pitches. I'd be OK with audio transmission into the catcher (earbuds embedded into the mask?).

Give me pro-level seams and wood bats..

Great great point!  Bring on the audio. I hated calling out numbers and using the wristbands. But that is all the rage now. 

It's really become bad. If more HS and travel coaches allowed the players to call their own signs then they would be ahead of the game.

The problem is that you are losing your defense when the game is too slow.  Pitchers need to be taught to throw the ball get it and throw it back, repeat.

Either my son college teaches the pitchers to work fast or he recruits that way because everyone of them pitch quickly. I know my son has always done that

pitch is thrown back to mound. Within 15-20 seconds for most part, next pitch is on way. When pitcher is struggling it might be a bit longer. To TPM point, team defense is really good. We have some outstanding defenders but I do think a portion is because they are on their toes ready. We have had probably 10 games under 2:30 this year. One went 1:45. But that was a 1-0 game. Our pitcher pitched a perfect game, theirs threw a 2 hitter with 2 walks  

I'm in the minority with COMEONBLUE. I'd rather watch a college game than a pro game. I'd rather watch a HS game than a college game, as long as there is some talent there. I love to see a 3 or 4 hole guy unselfishly bunt runners over. Even if the guy is hitting .400 with runners on, the bunt is a much higher percentage play IF they work on bunting. I hate to see a multi millionaire take a giant butt cut on a 2 strike pitch because he don't get paid to hit a ground ball to the right side and score a runner from third. I don't care how long the games take, give me the college game any day. 

The coaches that use the wrist bands aren't worried about how fast the games are going. They are worried about signs getting stolen. Which is impossible with wristbands.

I watch a lot of college baseball in person.  Majority of that being home games for a top ranked ACC team.

I have to agree with the comments on the speed of the game.  Even low scoring, well pitched games run well over 3 hours frequently.

As for bunting - it seems at times as if coaches purposely do whatever they can to keep themselves from having a big inning.  This weekend I watched the number 3 hitter get a single early in a tie game.  Then with no outs - the clean up batter sacrifices him to second??  If you tell me it's high school with a weak hitting #9 batter - fine, I won't put up a fight.  There is zero reason why a clean up hitter in upper level D1 ball should be bunting in that situation. If you don't have the confidence in him as a hitter - get another clean up guy.

infielddad posted:

I was recently talking with a friend who does some broadcasting of college baseball.

His perspective is that too many games and too many coaches are making the games nearly unwatchable, for far too many fans.   The major issue is coaches who micro-manage every pitch, every play, every situation and do it in a way where there is no tempo to any game.

For every batter, in every count, the coach gives a sign and many times the sign is given in a way where it can take anywhere from 15-20 seconds.  It becomes even more sign driven and time consuming when there is a runner on base.  To make his point, he noted a game where there were a number of 3-2 counts with no runners on base...and the coach is still giving signs.  Needless to say the same occurs with calling pitches, with everyone given from the dugout.

The end result is games which can easily last 3.5 hours and more, without any tempo to them and with players "reigned in" rather than playing the game they love in situations which best demonstrate their talents.

This is an awfully good source who provided this input.
Wonder what this community might think?

Great discussion. I've been thinking about this very subject for a while now.  I see college players with some digital gizmo on their arm looking at signs as to what their play or reaction should be. Dumbest thing I ever seen.  This kind of stuff reminds me of coaches asking players to bring note pads to practice.  Goofy!  Happened to my son when he was about 10 or so. I thought it was ridiculous.    I think some college baseball coaches are trying to emulate football coaches. Cut that out!  I say keep baseball traditional and simple.

Zero reason to bunt the leadoff hitter over to 2nd in a tie game??? So what was the 4 hole's average with runners on? Even if it was .500, if he's a decent bunter I would think he has a 75% chance of getting the bunt down. The likelihood of him getting out is higher than the likelihood of him getting a hit. Am I the only one that feels this way?

I don't think that wristbands take a players decisions away. They simply are anot easier way to communicate the same things coaches have communicated for years. The advantage is they can't be stolen. I understand people don't like change though. I agree that it's not the traditional way of baseball, But games evolve and change.

Based on analytics, sac bunting to second actually lowers your odds of scoring.

http://baseballanalysts.com/ar...mpirical_analy_1.php

PWPW posted:

Zero reason to bunt the leadoff hitter over to 2nd in a tie game??? So what was the 4 hole's average with runners on? Even if it was .500, if he's a decent bunter I would think he has a 75% chance of getting the bunt down. The likelihood of him getting out is higher than the likelihood of him getting a hit. Am I the only one that feels this way?

I could link you to the numerous statistical studies that show bunting in that situation is worse than just hitting away, but I'll just sum it up - 

The expected number of runs with a runner at 1st and no outs is greater than the expected number of runs with a runner at 2nd and 1 out.  There is only a small difference if you are talking about scoring one run, but a huge difference for more runs than that.

In other words - bunting in that situation almost gives you a break even chance to score one run - but makes it more likely that will be all you will score.

Unless it's late in the game, and I have shutdown pitching - I don't play for 1 run.

PWPW posted:

Zero reason to bunt the leadoff hitter over to 2nd in a tie game??? So what was the 4 hole's average with runners on? Even if it was .500, if he's a decent bunter I would think he has a 75% chance of getting the bunt down. The likelihood of him getting out is higher than the likelihood of him getting a hit. Am I the only one that feels this way?

PWPW, d-mac and Rob T both specifically mentioned bunting early in games. The average batting average in the ACC is something like .290. Teams average 6-7 runs per game. I agree with those guys that you shouldn't be playing for one run early in the game, especially with the heart of the batting order. In most of the games I watch (D1-D3), teams score in bunches. And the lower the level of play, the less likely your bullpen can hold a late lead.

Yes I understand. I didn't see the part that said "early". And also if the game was tied at 5-5 and runs and hits were coming easily I agree. I'm not sure why but I had in my mind a low scoring tied game. 

I've never seen those earned run tables before. I will say that the ones in the article posted were of MLB hitters over 20 years ago. I would like to see some from recent college games. 

Maybe I'm just old school and need to change. It just seems to me that I'd rather have 2 ABs with a runner in scoring position than 3 without. I'm not above saying I was wrong though! It happened once before.

PWPW posted:

 

Maybe I'm just old school and need to change. It just seems to me that I'd rather have 2 ABs with a runner in scoring position than 3 without. I'm not above saying I was wrong though! It happened once before.

BTW, while I do agree that college games are too long and many are over-managed, and I think there's a lot of room for improvement... I disagree with the opinion that they're unwatchable. I watch them all the time!

I still watch them too - but more of my time is now taken up watching minor league baseball.  9 teams in our state of NC from low-A to triple-A.  Durham Bulls are 20  minutes away - a fabulous venue and atmosphere.

But my increased interest in minor league ball, which is played at a good pace, seems to have accentuated my view of college ball being too slow and that includes watching some very good teams in the Triangle that are new to me (UNC, Duke, NCSU, Campbell, Elon to date).  I will say that I recently saw some games played by Cincinnati and they had a very good pace which impressed me.

Previous comments aside - it's not an "unwatchable" game.  It's still a good experience.

The tickets cost less than going to the movies, and even the food is reasonably priced.  They even have milkshake waitresses if you don't want to leave your seat.

The venue is gorgeous, the views are good, and we get to see some of the best teams in the country play.

On top of it, a college baseball crowd is way more into the game than any crowd at an MLB game.  This season we have sat at times by the "team parents" section and swapped stories with them.  Another game we were sitting next the the girlfriends of some of the players.  They gave us a humorous explanation of how grumpy their guys would be depending on their performance in the game.

There's also the local cheers that you get to pick up.  My favorite at the moment is the "Left, right, left, right" chant that goes up as an opposing player walks to the dugout after a strikeout.

You've also got players that take time to say hi to the kids and seem to actually enjoy signing autographs.

Really, it's a heck of a bargain for the entertainment.

I won't argue against the tempo issue, but I have an individual take. I actually enjoy the HC coaching the game in real time from the dugout steps. I am fortunate though that I can attend many D1 games in person locally as there are two D1 programs in my town. I can sit close enough to the field to listen to the coach doing his thing. And I really enjoy each of the HCs at these two schools (my son is headed off to play for one of them next Fall).

Being able to actually hear the coach doing work with his team gives me 1) a real sense of the game in action, and 2) how that coach likes to work situations. For us as a family, that helped really fill us in on whether the program was a good fit for our son. AND it has increased my baseball IQ, which is a pretty tough task to start with.  

Rob T posted:

On top of it, a college baseball crowd is way more into the game than any crowd at an MLB game.

I agreed with your assessment except for the aforementioned. I've been to more than a few MLB games in different stadiums, and I have to say that the Yankee and Red Sox fan bases are into every game, every inning, every pitch...and very knowledgeable. 

Oh and by the way...I've got UF @ SC on the SEC network this weekend, unless it gets to blow-out proportions. 8500+ in the stands. Puk on bump tonight. It'll be tough not to switch to Nats @ Cards.

PWPW posted:

Maybe I'm just old school and need to change. It just seems to me that I'd rather have 2 ABs with a runner in scoring position than 3 without. I'm not above saying I was wrong though! It happened once before.

 

The old school was wrong. The math says the odds of scoring either way are fairly close. But by giving away an out you're significantly cutting down the odds of a bigger inning.