College World Series

[WETSU]

Talking this year now not past, Big 12 is better. Not talking last 10 years, 20, or 30.

How can you prove that? The sec sent 71% of it's teams to the tournament vs 50% of the big 12. That wasn't enough for you. So why should one round of regionals crown the big 12 better? A whole season vs 2-4 games?

 

Now... If the sec wins more super regionals and advance more teams to Omaha than the big 12, how will your argument fair then?

[WETSU]

When you say sent 71% you would expect a better showing. This should be especially true for top SEC teams. So if you send 10 teams and 20% advance and another conference sends 5 and 4 advance (80%) I would say big 12 is better. Their teams performed when it mattered.

 

 

And saying all this I would take Vandy to win it all, what a pitching staff

Only 50% of the big 12 was good enough over a 60+ game season to make the tournament. 71% of the sec was. How can you skip this but think it's okay to compare results of the regionals. You do not think the results of a 60+ game season matter but the result of a couple of games in a little preparation environment are more credible... Like I said. It's even too soon to base that logic because what is the sec puts 100% of it's super region teams in and the big 12 puts none in? What of your logic then?

 

The season should be about the entire season both regular and postseason.

[WETSU]

ANYTHING can happen in the post season. That's why it's fun. The better team can lose. Cinderella stories do happen. Over the course of a season you can't "luck" your way into a tournament. It takes a collection of work throughout an entire season to get this far. Once you are here, anything can happen. Now I'm not taking ANYTHING away from the big 12 teams that advanced. Congrats to them. But that doesn't mean that one weekends performances make up for a season long of the sec being deeper and having better results.

[Lhornfan]

I personally think the RPI needs an overhaul. Right now a team only gets 25% for their wins, while getting 75% for what their opponents and their opponent's opponents do. This is a problem when 25-30 of your games are conference games that you cannot control. What this does is inflate average teams from good conferences while hurting good teams from poor conferences.

 

WETSU - I get what you're saying about the SEC having a team in the championship game since 2007, but we are talking about the best conference, not the best team. I don't know if the BIG XII was the best conference this year, but we can say without a doubt that the BIG XII has had the best tournament thus far. We also cannot compare the baseball tournament to bowl games. When Alabama and Oklahoma were both beat in the BCS game by Utah and Boise respectfully, their simply wasn't the same amount of passion from the two bigger teams. Those teams were disappointed they were not playing in the NC, and it showed when they lost their BCS bowl game. Basketball doesn't work because it is single elimination.

 

I did appreciate the Longhorns and Aggies showing character at the end of the game by coming together and shaking hands. Some of the Longhorns wanted to get back at last night's pitcher and had the Thumb's Down - it just isn't the same is it.

[bordertown]

How can you prove that? The sec sent 71% of it's teams to the tournament vs 50% of the big 12. That wasn't enough for you. So why should one round of regionals crown the big 12 better? A whole season vs 2-4 games?

Now... If the sec wins more super regionals and advance more teams to Omaha than the big 12, how will your argument fair then?

I'm being tricky tacky, but the Big 12 sent 56%. Iowa State does not compete in baseball.

 

In the tournament, the Big12 was 13-4 for a 76% winning percentage. The SEC was 22-17, winning 56% of their games. I agree with you one round does not make the Big 12 better, but they have taken a commanding lead. Looks like the Big 12 will be hosting 3 (maybe 4 if Cal-Irvine wins) Super Regionals versus 1 (Vandy) for SEC. At this point in time, advantage belongs to Big 12.

[WETSU]

I personally think the RPI needs an overhaul. Right now a team only gets 25% for their wins, while getting 75% for what their opponents and their opponent's opponents do. This is a problem when 25-30 of your games are conference games that you cannot control. What this does is inflate average teams from good conferences while hurting good teams from poor conferences.

 

WETSU - I get what you're saying about the SEC having a team in the championship game since 2007, but we are talking about the best conference, not the best team. I don't know if the BIG XII was the best conference this year, but we can say without a doubt that the BIG XII has had the best tournament thus far. We also cannot compare the baseball tournament to bowl games. When Alabama and Oklahoma were both beat in the BCS game by Utah and Boise respectfully, their simply wasn't the same amount of passion from the two bigger teams. Those teams were disappointed they were not playing in the NC, and it showed when they lost their BCS bowl game. Basketball doesn't work because it is single elimination.

 

I did appreciate the Longhorns and Aggies showing character at the end of the game by coming together and shaking hands. Some of the Longhorns wanted to get back at last night's pitcher and had the Thumb's Down - it just isn't the same is it.

I only stated that fact because Btex acted like post season results are all that matter... And that's not results of one team. 4 different sec teams have played in the finals every year since 07. Only 1 big 12 team has since the last time I remember and even that hasn't been at all since 05.

 

You said it best... The results should be about an entire conference. The sec out a higher percentage of teams in the tournament, have a higher conference RPI and SOS, and the tournament isn't over yet so they may have a higher finish in the cws.

[WETSU]

I'm being tricky tacky, but the Big 12 sent 56%. Iowa State does not compete in baseball.

 

In the tournament, the Big12 was 13-4 for a 76% winning percentage. The SEC was 22-17, winning 56% of their games. I agree with you one round does not make the Big 12 better, but they have taken a commanding lead. Looks like the Big 12 will be hosting 3 (maybe 4 if Cal-Irvine wins) Super Regionals versus 1 (Vandy) for SEC. At this point in time, advantage belongs to Big 12.

Again... One weekend doesn't make an entire season. Why is it acceptable to compare regional results when we can't compare season results? Nobody wanted to play the "numbers advancing" card when the sec had more in the tournament but now it's okay? The big is having a better tournament this far. Not gonna lie. But I think season results should weigh just as much into who is the "better conference." The sec got ten freakin teams in the tournament. A record! How can we say that they are not the deepest and best conference based on one weekend?

[Lhornfan]

Only 50% of the big 12 was good enough over a 60+ game season to make the tournament. 71% of the sec was. How can you skip this but think it's okay to compare results of the regionals. You do not think the results of a 60+ game season matter but the result of a couple of games in a little preparation environment are more credible... Like I said. It's even too soon to base that logic because what is the sec puts 100% of it's super region teams in and the big 12 puts none in? What of your logic then?

 

The season should be about the entire season both regular and postseason.

Because 30 of those games plus SEC tournament games are against each other. You throw in midweek games against smaller D1 schools, and most of the SEC and BIG XII are winning those games. This boosts the RPI. If you play the better teams in the smaller D1 conferences, you get even more boost in the RPI. This week when the best 64 teams came together, and teams through their best pitching against other teams best pitching, the games came out different than many imagined. Let's just say that if this was the college basketball bracket, many of us would be in big trouble. But that's what I love about college baseball because there is true parity. You don't have to be big and strong or tall and fast.

[WETSU]

Because 30 of those games plus SEC tournament games are against each other. You throw in midweek games against smaller D1 schools, and most of the SEC and BIG XII are winning those games. This boosts the RPI. If you play the better teams in the smaller D1 conferences, you get even more boost in the RPI. This week when the best 64 teams came together, and teams through their best pitching against other teams best pitching, the games came out different than many imagined. Let's just say that if this was the college basketball bracket, many of us would be in big trouble. But that's what I love about college baseball because there is true parity. You don't have to be big and strong or tall and fast.

Okay your statement is about the game itself. You just admitted this is not the way the brackets most people would have predicted. So therefor we can't base an entire season off of what happens in one weekend where anything can happen. Luck, bad days, umpire questionable calls... Anything can happen in one weekend. You can't get through an entire season that way... I'm not saying that the tournament for individual teams is not important. What I'm saying is that over an entire season the sec is deeper and stronger from top to bottom. It's going to take more than one weekend of upsets to take away from that. Especially when the only head to head matchup of sec big 12 was the last sec team in vs a higher seeded Texas.

[Lhornfan]

I don't know man... that's a lot of upsets to just say that one conference was the best. Again... a lot of parity in college baseball when teams face the best of the other teams.

 

SEC Winners: #1 Vandy and #1 Ole Miss

SEC Losers: #1 LSU, #2 Alabama (lost to #3 Kenessaw), #2 Kentucky, #3 ATM (strong showing), #1 Florida, #2 Arkansas

 

BIG XII Winners: #1 TCU, #2 Texas, #2 Tech, #1 Oklahoma St.

BIG XII Loser: #3 Kansas (only win against Kentucky)

[bordertown]

Again... One weekend doesn't make an entire season. Why is it acceptable to compare regional results when we can't compare season results? Nobody wanted to play the "numbers advancing" card when the sec had more in the tournament but now it's okay? The big is having a better tournament this far. Not gonna lie. But I think season results should weigh just as much into who is the "better conference." The sec got ten freakin teams in the tournament. A record! How can we say that they are not the deepest and best conference based on one weekend?

I will compare two schools non conference schedules. Texas A&M played 31 nonconference games with 5 games against opponents in the tourney (Columbia-1, Sam Houston St -2, Rice-1, Houston-1) and had a 3-2 record. They played 26 games against nonqualifiers. Texas had 28 nonconference games with 12 against opponents in the tourney (Stanford-3, Rice-3, Columbia 3, Dallas Baptist 1, Sam Houston St 1, Houston 1). Texas was 10-2 in these games. Texas was In addition Texas had a 4 game series against Cal, a historically strong program.

 

My point is if we are going to look at the season, we need to look at the teams played. Texas was 15-13 against conference foes, but dominated other NCAA qualifiers 13-3.

 

I am not arguing SEC is a bad conference. I have always viewed 4 conferences as dominating college baseball - SEC, ACC, PAC, & Big 12. On a historical basis these conferences dominated the CWS. But it is obvious from the first round the SEC may have not be the dominate conference, even if Vandy wins it all.

[WETSU]

I will compare two schools non conference schedules. Texas A&M played 31 nonconference games with 5 games against opponents in the tourney (Columbia-1, Sam Houston St -2, Rice-1, Houston-1) and had a 3-2 record. They played 26 games against nonqualifiers. Texas had 28 nonconference games with 12 against opponents in the tourney (Stanford-3, Rice-3, Columbia 3, Dallas Baptist 1, Sam Houston St 1, Houston 1). Texas was 10-2 in these games. Texas was In addition Texas had a 4 game series against Cal, a historically strong program.

 

My point is if we are going to look at the season, we need to look at the teams played. Texas was 15-13 against conference foes, but dominated other NCAA qualifiers 13-3.

 

I am not arguing SEC is a bad conference. I have always viewed 4 conferences as dominating college baseball - SEC, ACC, PAC, & Big 12. On a historical basis these conferences dominated the CWS. But it is obvious from the first round the SEC may have not be the dominate conference, even if Vandy wins it all.

Again... Let's compare what A&M saw in conference vs what Texas saw in conference... You can't just pick and choose what criteria we use. The entire season needs to be taken into account. And in an entire season, A&M and the sec in General had an overall higher RPI and SOS than the big 12. The sec got more teams in the tournament meaning it's deeper than the big 12. Yes the big 12 advanced more to super regionals, but the sec also sent teams. Let's just say that Vandy and Texas advance to Omaha out of all the teams left. So then the two conferences would be even on that regard...

 

So you and everyone else on this board apparently, are willing to throw away the results of the season, supers and cws and only think the decent gauge of how the season went is off of regionals?

[WETSU]

To me I think the conference rankings should be Big 12, SEC, PAC, ACC, American, Big 10.

Okay. I'll bite. Are we talking just off success this year? Over the last 10? Just post season success? All around success? What are the requirements we need to use in order to determine success?

[WETSU]

I think I listed why and in pretty great detail. Again SEC had 8 teams in baseball America top 25. Two advanced, Big 12 had 3 all advanced. You can talk RPI SOS all you want but they played a lot of mid range schools that helped that out then beat up on each other. Big 12 did not have a Mizzu

So you do not want to use the rankings that are done by mathematical equations but are okay with using the rankings of personal opinion? You talk so much about the sec being overrated by people, but you chose to use a human poll to back your argument. There's just so much contradiction in your argument it's hard to agree with.

 

I COMPLETELY agree with you, that the big 12 had a more successful run through the regional. I'm not denying that in the slightest. But you are choosing to use only one stat in one weekend to judge the success of an entire season. Like I said, if you are going to determine who's best just off post season results, at least wait for the post season to be over. The big 12 may hit their share of upsets and lose ever super regional and the sec may send both of their teams to Omaha. Then what will we say? It just doesn't make sense for you to base you entire argument off one weekend. If the big 12 turns around and sends 3-4 to Omaha and the sec only gets one then I will be more inclined to agree with you. But there's still a lot of baseball left and a lot of baseball played to base this argument on the results of one weekend and 3-5 games apiece.

[WETSU]

I listed the non conf schedule of both conferences. How is that listing one weekend? Again as I said if you look at sec outside schedule it was fairly soft. I even gave credit to Florida which is deserved, they played a tougher slate.

Again... What difference does a non conference schedule make when your conference is so tough from top to bottom. The sec already had the toughest SOS and RPI even without non conference games. Why do you continue to use this argument? It's further proving MY point. The sec is deeper and tougher than the big 12. That's why, despite having better non conference games, the SEC jumped them in RPI and SOS. You keep saying they "beat up on each other" in conference play... That's the indication of a deep and tough conference...

 

 

Perhaps your argument is that the top teams in the big 12 are having more post season success than the top teams in the sec. That's much more like what you are arguing... But the stats and points you keep using are just proving that the sec is deeper.

[WETSU]

This year. SEC would be tops last 5 years with maybe PAC being close one year. I am looking at tourney, CWS, and top to bottom. No way to argue last year, it was not really close. Nor can I argue last few years. Just talking this season.

Just talking this season... I'll break it down like this.

Regular season, SEC>Big 12.

Regionals, Big12>SEC.

 

But the seasons not over. So let's revisit this in two weeks. Sound fair?

[WETSU]

Big 12 13-4 in Tourney, SEC 22-16, Every 1 seed in Big 12 advanced, 1 3 seed did not.

SEC had 5 #1 Four #2, One #3. They had 2 advance, both #1s.

 

But I can agree to revist.

 

Looking at next round

Vandy beat Stanford 3-0 I will take Vandy

LU vs Kennesaw DNP LU

Texas vs Houston 1-0 (one run game) ok I will be a homer Texas, but UH is hot

OSU vs UC Irvine DNP OSU but only because UC can throw their ace only once

Tech vs C of C DNP Tech

TCU vs Pepperidge Farm DNP TCU

LLU vs Ole Miss DNP Best match up both these teams smash the ball, LLU

Virgina vs Maryland DNP Virgina

 

I know I picked Big 12 teams, but I cant pick against Texas though UH winning will not be a shock. Tech is just better, TCU more pitching, OSU more pitching but ace for UCI was impressive. TCU has 3 starter with 2.07 ERA or less.

I can see Ole Miss advancing, but i think LLU is just a little deeper pitching.

Your logic looks good. I understand why you would pick the better team to win. It makes sense. Picking teams because they have better pitching and what not...

 

Well LSU, Florida, South Carolina and arguably miss st, were all more talented than the teams in their regional and they got knocked out. Which is why I'm saying anything can happen in the post season. Which again is why I think you are reading way too much into the SEC teams gettin knocked out early. It happens. Especially in a format like how the regionals are played.

 

I agree with every single one of your picks. I do believe the big 12 should be well represented in Omaha. But I mean there are a TON if good teams from every conference that got eliminated. Look at it... Who's missing? PAC 12 power Oregon st who looked great all year. Sec powers Florida, South Carolina and LSU who also were impressive all year. ACC power North Carolina and FSU who probably should have been challenging in a super regional... There were so many good teams knocked out from every conference this year. I think it was just a string of events that rocked the baseball world for a weekend. I do not believe you can without a doubt gather from this weekend that the big 12 is better because they didn't suffer as many losses. No way in hell can you convince me that Texas tech or OSU are better baseball teams than LSU, Oregon st, Florida st or Florida just because they happened to win their regional games over one weekend. I'm not taking anything away from them as a team because winning the regional is great, but I refuse to believe that the ONLY measure of a season takes place oer 3 days...

[Lhornfan]

I keep seeing RPI come up to prove how strong the SEC was this year. There are numerous articles out there that states the RPI needs to be revamped because it uses a 25-50-25 method. This means 75% of a team's RPI doesn't even come from the team itself.

 

And using math, it is easy to see that average to below average teams in better conferences will have their RPI inflated. WETSU brought up the talent at LSU, Florida, South Carolina and MissSt. These teams inflate the RPI of other teams in a good conference because of who they play. Whereas a team like Houston would lose RPI points because their conference is not as strong as the SEC, BIG XII, ACC and PAC.

 

So.... if you want to go by RPI because that is one factor in determining the tournament teams when you get to the end, the SEC would certainly be one of the top if not the top baseball conference.

 

If you want to use a little common sense and see that when the SEC faces teams pitching their best pitchers as well, the SEC failed to move on 80% of the time per the regional tournaments. Midweek pitchers at SEC and BIG XII schools should be better than mid-major D1 schools.

 

I'm not going to just say that the BIG XII was better this year OVERALL than the SEC, but after this past weekend it sure looks like it. Or I guess we can say 80% of the SEC choked.

 

PS - 4 BIG XII schools hosting a super regional - that's 44% of the BIG XII hosting for those that like math. On the other hand 7% of the SEC will be hosting a super.

[Baron]

How can you prove that? The sec sent 71% of it's teams to the tournament vs 50% of the big 12. That wasn't enough for you. So why should one round of regionals crown the big 12 better? A whole season vs 2-4 games?

 

Now... If the sec wins more super regionals and advance more teams to Omaha than the big 12, how will your argument fair then?

I remember back in 2012 when the Big12 sent 9 teams to bowl games. Every aggie on this board scoffed at the very logic you are using in this post.

[WETSU]

I remember back in 2012 when the Big12 sent 9 teams to bowl games. Every aggie on this board scoffed at the very logic you are using in this post.

If you are insinuating in 2012 the big 12 was better the sec in football, then we've got a whole seperate debate for that ;)

 

I'm just saying that there simply no proof other than one weekend of baseball when every major conference had upsets that prooves the big 12 is better than the sec. I'm truly not an sec homer. The sec is dog poop in basketball. The sec is not near as good in academics as many others. The sec is very shady in some of their recruiting tactics. The sec is shady in handling their off the field punishments... I'm all for someone giving legit arguments against the sec. But I simply cannot fathom how anyone believes that just because of one weekend of upsets, the sec is not better than the big 12 in baseball. The top 4 in the big 12, Texas, Tcu, OSU and Tech. You guys legitimately believe they are better overall than LSU, Florida, South Carolina and Vandy? A&M, who was 10th best in the sec, probably is the 4-5 best team in the big 12 this year. The sec may not have won this weekend, but they are extremely deep. I don't care who LSU plays non conference. They are talented. I don't care how many runs Florida scores over two games. They were number 1 team in the country for a while... The sec, like Oregon st and North Carolina Miami and FSU, were upset this weekend. Doesn't mean they were "overrated" just means they got beat on that day. It happens...

 

I don't understand why you guys can't accept that one weekend of baseball doesn't determine an entire season. If Texas had been swept by A&M then George Mason this year, does that mean George Mason and A&M were better teams this year, it just means they had better individual games at the right time. Baseball, moreso than any other sport, is better gauged with a bigger sample size. A&Ms 9 hole hitter had the highest batting average of any player in the country over weekend. Was he the best player? No. He just had the best weekend.

[RedCreek49]

I think I listed why and in pretty great detail. Again SEC had 8 teams in baseball America top 25. Two advanced, Big 12 had 3 all advanced. You can talk RPI SOS all you want but they played a lot of mid range schools that helped that out then beat up on each other. Big 12 did not have a Mizzu

I guess if you are talking about this year you may have some point. However over the last many years the SEC has been more that represented in the final 16 and the World Series, probably more then anyone.

[Coach Rab]

I am VERY disappointed and underwhelmed by LSU this post season. There are always flaws in every team, but Houston in every way that you look at it coming into the post season was the lesser team and proved that they wanted it more than the pro-prospects of LSU.

 

Congrats to Houston and the fans of all of the other schools that advanced.

[dawaba]

On a different note, I see that the NCAA has awarded Texas instead of Houston with the Super Regional. Both the horns and cougars are #2 seeds. But Houston has the better record, so I expected that the next round would be played in Houston. Not so, it seems.

 

Does the NCAA use a formula without bias to choose a site, or does favoritism, politics, money, etc come into play? Perhaps a tougher schedule favors the horns, the inferior record notwithstanding? Does the NCAA even bother to reveal its judgment criteriae?

[Baron]

If you are insinuating in 2012 the big 12 was better the sec in football, then we've got a whole seperate debate for that ;)

 

I'm just saying that there simply no proof other than one weekend of baseball when every major conference had upsets that prooves the big 12 is better than the sec. I'm truly not an sec homer. The sec is dog poop in basketball. The sec is not near as good in academics as many others. The sec is very shady in some of their recruiting tactics. The sec is shady in handling their off the field punishments... I'm all for someone giving legit arguments against the sec. But I simply cannot fathom how anyone believes that just because of one weekend of upsets, the sec is not better than the big 12 in baseball. The top 4 in the big 12, Texas, Tcu, OSU and Tech. You guys legitimately believe they are better overall than LSU, Florida, South Carolina and Vandy? A&M, who was 10th best in the sec, probably is the 4-5 best team in the big 12 this year. The sec may not have won this weekend, but they are extremely deep. I don't care who LSU plays non conference. They are talented. I don't care how many runs Florida scores over two games. They were number 1 team in the country for a while... The sec, like Oregon st and North Carolina Miami and FSU, were upset this weekend. Doesn't mean they were "overrated" just means they got beat on that day. It happens...

 

I don't understand why you guys can't accept that one weekend of baseball doesn't determine an entire season. If Texas had been swept by A&M then George Mason this year, does that mean George Mason and A&M were better teams this year, it just means they had better individual games at the right time. Baseball, moreso than any other sport, is better gauged with a bigger sample size. A&Ms 9 hole hitter had the highest batting average of any player in the country over weekend. Was he the best player? No. He just had the best weekend.

I 'm not insinuating anything. I am plainly stating that you seem to either refute or endorse a certain logic when it's convenient to your argument. Case in point is this thread and the bowl thread of 2012.

[WETSU]

On a different note, I see that the NCAA has awarded Texas instead of Houston with the Super Regional. Both the horns and cougars are #2 seeds. But Houston has the better record, so I expected that the next round would be played in Houston. Not so, it seems.

 

Does the NCAA use a formula without bias to choose a site, or does favoritism, politics, money, etc come into play? Perhaps a tougher schedule favors the horns, the inferior record notwithstanding? Does the NCAA even bother to reveal its judgment criteriae?

It's absolutely about money sometimes.