Snitch World Cup Recap Part VI
Welcome back! In case you missed it, or if you need a refresher, check out part 1 here, part 2 here, part 3 here, part 4 here, or part 5 here. We continue where we left off.
Photo by Isabella Gong/IQA Staff.
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX): Achieved. Texas State was accidentally omitted from the last edition of this column, so we'll cover them here. Entering the tournament, there were a lot of questions about how this squad would fare against middle-of-the-pack teams. They had played well against top Southwestern teams and beaten most of the lower tier squads, but they had not really faced a good - not great - team. Pool 7 provided that opportunity in abundance as they played both QC Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, PA) and Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI). Texas State went 1-1 in those two games, beating Pitt 90*-60 but falling to Michigan State 110*-60. As the 16th-seed in the bracket, they played yet another of those teams, falling 110*-60 to Emerson College (Boston, MA) in the Round of 32. Overall, Texas State took care of business, but only went 1-2 in “toss-up” games.
University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, AR): Overachieved. Arkansas turned in a really strong performance. They went 2-2 in Pool 11, holding quarterfinalist the Lost Boys (Lomita, CA) within snitch range, 90*-40. In the Round of 32, 28th-seeded Arkansas upset fifth-seeded Hofstra University (Hempstead, NY) 70*-30. Although Arkansas led in the Sweet Sixteen against Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ), they were unable to pull off the upset, falling 70*-50. Arkansas' run was surprising to many, as they were barely favored to escape the Southwestern Regional Championship. Although Pool 11 provided ample opportunities for Arkansas, their win over Hofstra was unexpected.
University of California Berkeley (Berkeley, CA): Underachieved. Cal's 1-3 record was the correct one given their talent, but I expected this squad to fare better in each of their contests. I thought they could challenge Virginia Commonwealth University (Richmond, VA) for the third spot in Pool 1, but instead they fell 130*-40. Qwertyians Tijuana (Tijuana, MX) was probably outmatched in this pool, but they managed to stay within snitch range of Berkeley, 110*-60. As for Cal's contests against the top two teams in this pool, 140*-20 to the University of Kansas and 200*-20 to Baylor University are both pretty embarrassing scores. Cal's offense struggled to score, and their defense wasn't much better.
University of California Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA): Achieved. UCLA had a great tournament. Entering as one of the favorites, they made it all the way to the Championship game before falling 190*-80 to the University of Texas-Austin (Austin, TX). Prior to that defeat, UCLA was undefeated, with dominant showings in all of their games. In pool play, UCLA went 4-0 with their narrowest win coming 160*-40 over Bowling Green State University (Bowling Green, OH), who reached the Final Four. In all other pool matches, UCLA scored at least 200 points and surrendered no more than 40. UCLA continued to cruise through bracket play with dominant wins over the Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, NY) 130*-20, Emerson College (Boston, MA) 130*-50, the University of Kansas (Lawrence, KS) 140*-60, and Southwestern Regional Champions Baylor University 200-130*. Despite earning the top overall seed, UCLA could not keep up with Texas in the finals.
University of Florida (Gainesville, FL): Underachieved. After reaching the Championship game at World Cup V, Florida entered the World Cup in their own state as a favorite to make a run through the bracket. Instead, UF managed just one win in Pool 2, a 110*-30 victory over Loyola University Chicago (Chicago, IL), and bowed out in pool play. The seeking game proved to be Florida's downfall as they fell 100*^-90 to Rochester Institute of Technology and 90*-60 to the Silicon Valley Skrewts (Mountain View, CA). Florida's remaining loss came 130*-50 to Pennsylvania State University (University Park, PA).
University of Kansas (Lawrence, KS): Overachieved. Prior to the tournament, eventual semifinalist Baylor University (Waco, TX) was the favorite to top Pool 1. Yet when the dust settled, it was Kansas that topped the group with their only snitch-range match, a 100*-90 victory over Baylor. That victory was hardly the only signature one for Kansas, as they decimated their regional foes with a 120*-70 win over Midwestern Regional Champion Marquette University (Milwaukee, WI) in the Round of 32, and a 120*-60 victory over Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI) in the Sweet Sixteen. Kansas was eventually knocked out in the Elite Eight 140*-60 by the University of California Los Angeles. The biggest question mark surrounding Kansas entering the tournament was their seeking; while it had previously been a weakness, notably at the Midwestern Regional Championship, an overhaul in their seeker game evidently breathed new life into that aspect of their team. Their three wins were over Baylor, who at the Southwestern Regional Championships displayed one of the top seeker games in the country, Michigan State, and Marquette, both of whom showcase strong seeking. Kansas winning a pool is not shocking in itself as they are a very strong team, but overcoming Baylor, who proved themselves to be one of the best teams in the world, is a monumental feat for any team. Kansas' run to the Elite Eight was of course aided by this seeding advantage, but they still had to face two very tough squads to make it as far as they did.