2022 SB and beyond.

[JMV JustMyView]

Give me 9 Sophie Piskos.

Yeah buddy! Kid hit .333 with limited season reps. She will hit .365 plus next season. This kid has the it factor and plays with her hair on fire. #Sophiedrinksoutthewaterhose

[Grantvb]

See how HR have gone down, but we've seen a slight increase in hits. Runs are down - so it equates to a lower-scoring team. As for the interview - i don't have the exact date and time - but i distinctly remember the comment. Not saying he doesn't like a timely HR, but isn't looking for the HR on every at bat.

[Turbine]

Generally speaking, you don't take transfers for transfer's sake.

The smart move is to take a transfer where you have an identified weakness.

You don't take a transfer where you already have a strength.

Wouldn't be prudent.

jmo

[JMV JustMyView]

Generally speaking, you don't take transfers for transfer's sake.

The smart move is to take a transfer where you have an identified weakness.

You don't take a transfer where you already have a strength.

Wouldn't be prudent.

jmo

I disagree with: you don't take if you already have a strength. If your good enough you will find the field. With Glasco if you can hit you will play on the field (may have to move positions)

[JMV JustMyView]

When you started this thread you stated that you will give your opinion eventually. So, what’s the hold up? Why all of the back and forth to each poster who does share their opinions without your input?

Well here is my take: I would be building yearly teams instead of programs which might be here to stay in college softball for mid majors whether you like it or not. To me that is the only way to keep up with the (free agent) game so to speak. P5 school will cherry pick kids like crazy. In a perfect world I would love to have zero transfers and develop every kid over the course of 4 to 5 years. Those days are gone. So we need to evolve. Glasco isn't promising anyone playing time, but he is promising them that they will be working hard when they enter the program as a incoming or transfer player.

If I was the coach: My job bottom line is to win. So I would create my roster with kids that I felt could help us win ball games regardless of where they come from or what position they play. Coach Candrea at Arizona always recruits athletes not 3rd baseman, 2nd baseman, etc. If you can play then you will play regardless of your position in the field. Coach Glasco has the same mentally as Coach Robe did, recruit the kid to take the place of your current starter. Competition is healthy. To stay competitive you absolutely have to get the best kids available regardless how you get them. With the emergence of the transfer portal in college, it's become an every day occurrence. There is a tremendous amount of pressure for college staff's to win and remain relevant. Coaches can be loyal to their athletes and still allow competition. By the way scholarships are granted year to year, and athletes must compete every year.

If I was a player on the current roster: It would not bother me personally any may even motivate me more, but I still would feel that my skill set, production and work ethic will be better than the current transfer coming in. Remember the cream always rises to the top.

If I was the player transferring in: I would think that I would be brought in to compete to not ride the bench and log major time or be a starter. However I wouldn't expect anything to be promised.

Supporters of the program: Most(not all) of the old timers still think we should recruit all Acadiana kids or just in state kids. Sorry to tell you guys we can't compete by doing that. The game has changed and the Cajuns will have to in order to keep up.

[roarman]

Just a couple of thoughts. First, using Cadrea as an example is not good. He hasn't won a championship in since forever and the game has pretty much passed him by.

Your last point about local fans wanting the team to be built with local players is correct. There's just not enough good ones to effectively build a championship team.

Oklahoma is the number one team in the nation. There's only one player from Oklahoma, much less Norman. Six of their starters are from California and two from Texas. You don't see their fans complaining about their players not being home grown.

[CajunT]

Generally speaking, you don't take transfers for transfer's sake.

The smart move is to take a transfer where you have an identified weakness.

You don't take a transfer where you already have a strength.

Wouldn't be prudent.

jmo

There are a number of reasons to take transfers, the most important one is making your program better. You may have a position that is strong, but suffered injuries during the offseason and you are not certain when the athlete or athletes will return. You may also take a transfer because another athlete has decided to leave for personal reasons and you need depth at that position. You may also take a transfer because the athlete is just flat out better and more experienced than what you have on your current roster.

[CajunT]

Just a couple of thoughts. First, using Cadrea as an example is not good. He hasn't won a championship in since forever and the game has pretty much passed him by.

Your last point about local fans wanting the team to be built with local players is correct. There's just not enough good ones to effectively build a championship team.

Oklahoma is the number one team in the nation. There's only one player from Oklahoma, much less Norman. Six of their starters are from California and two from Texas. You don't see their fans complaining about their players not being home grown.

Heard this for so many years about local HS football players. If the athlete is only getting recruited by state programs, how does that help your program build towards becoming a regional or national power? It's people that have no vision, or goals for the program outside of being able to have in state bragging rights.

[Cajunsmike]

7 kids from texas tech just entered the portal! Soon the ncaa will allow teams to trade players!

I know basketball would not be the only sport to have this occur.

[CajunT]

Please tell that to Nerrisa Myers she could do both do you remember the Katie Smith hit to beat Kentucky in the regionals I could go on and on. We had slappers that could put it in the hole and get triples out of it just saying.

Nerrisa Myers was an outstanding HS athlete. As she became stronger, she could do it all physically including hit for power. That's why she played pro ball. The movement in college ball is to more athletic kids that can run, play defense and develop some power as they mature. Kids that are big and not athletic can help you if they have a great bat, but they give you very little game and roster versatility.

[SlickRick]

Nerrisa Myers was an outstanding HS athlete. As she became stronger, she could do it all physically including hit for power. That's why she played pro ball. The movement in college ball is to more athletic kids that can run, play defense and develop some power as they mature. Kids that are big and not athletic can help you if they have a great bat, but they give you very little game and roster versatility.

Agree T....the softball players of today are overall, more athletically gifted than what we saw just 6-7 years ago. Least that's what my eyes are telling me.

[CajunT]

Agree T....the softball players of today are overall, more athletically gifted than what we saw just 6-7 years ago. Least that's what my eyes are telling me.

Christie Orgeron and Nerrisa Myers are the two best athletes I've seen in the program over the past decade. O'Neil and Bryant are also outstanding athletes. You are seeing the power programs recruit more players like them today.