|
|
Post by beavheart on Jun 12, 2016 21:59:06 GMT -8
Of the 10 west coast teams from 4 conferences to make the field, all on the road, 2 advance.
Of the 17 ACC and SEC teams to make the field, almost all at home, 2 will advance.
Yep. Dominance!
Hate to say it, but time is not making me feel better about how badly we got jobbed.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Jun 13, 2016 3:56:23 GMT -8
In the future, Maybe the committe can figure out how to match SEC teams against each other in Regionals and Super Regionals. Let all 14 teams in. Then they can have 3-4 teams actually make it to Omaha. That Power conference isn't getting it done through conventional wisdom/seeding.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtbeaver on Jun 13, 2016 6:56:06 GMT -8
The narrative will change to "parity" with no acknowledgement of error or bias. When the SEC beats up on one another like we did this year it is sold as a plus for the conference, when we do it it is a weak conference. We need a much better PR machine because the history and records and results sure don't mean much. I am going to be sore for a very long time! And I am going to make some very fun, anti Meggs shirts to make myself feel better.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 13, 2016 7:25:03 GMT -8
I'm not sure I see much difference than March Madness... typically only 3-5 of the top 8 seeds make it to the Elite 8. This year in baseball 3 of the 8 seeds made it. Just because there might be biased or fans are butt hurt their team was not in the field, getting 7-10 teams in does not imply a certain number should make the CWS. It simply means they were 10 of the top 64. The rest is why you play the tournament... stuff happens in a short series. Ask Vandy fans or UCSB who were on very opposite ends of just how fickle life/sports can be.
Bottom line there is always something to gripe about... in or out? seedings? pairings? hosting or not? luck or lack there of? BUT, we were not picked and as much as our fans think they can justify that we got jobbed, the people that count can justify otherwise.
If you're a baseball fan the CWS is a great time... better when OSU is in attendance... but still one of the best sporting events you can attend in person! Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jun 13, 2016 7:37:12 GMT -8
I have to agree. There seems to be this notion that tournaments always give us "the best team," but it's simply not true. Like baseba1111 said, stuff happens. The Giants weren't the best team when they beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl, North Carolina State wasn't better than Houston in 1983, the 2001 Mariners won more games than anyone in history and they got bounced in the first round. It's pretty popular opinion around here that the 2000 football team was the best in the nation that season despite not making the BCS championship game.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeaverG20 on Jun 13, 2016 13:49:06 GMT -8
Of the ACC and SEC teams that got in, where were they seeded? I mean like, the number 4 seed in the Florida regional was probably close to the worst team to get in. If the majority of the SEC and ACC teams were slotted in the top 24-32 range, then I think you can easily expect them to have more teams than this left. If a bunch barely got in, then I would guess you can understand why they didn't survive.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 13, 2016 14:06:36 GMT -8
Of the ACC and SEC teams that got in, where were they seeded? I mean like, the number 4 seed in the Florida regional was probably close to the worst team to get in. If the majority of the SEC and ACC teams were slotted in the top 24-32 range, then I think you can easily expect them to have more teams than this left. If a bunch barely got in, then I would guess you can understand why they didn't survive. Not sure I follow that logic... seeds are based on season long play... anything can happen in a weekend of games. And whether teams are all in top 24-32 means little. Only 8 teams make it to Omaha and other leagues also have teams in that top 24-32. Making the 64 and where you're seeded can give you some advantages, but still have to win 5 (or more) games to get to CWS. |
|
|
|
Post by BeaverG20 on Jun 13, 2016 14:40:46 GMT -8
Of the ACC and SEC teams that got in, where were they seeded? I mean like, the number 4 seed in the Florida regional was probably close to the worst team to get in. If the majority of the SEC and ACC teams were slotted in the top 24-32 range, then I think you can easily expect them to have more teams than this left. If a bunch barely got in, then I would guess you can understand why they didn't survive. Not sure I follow that logic... seeds are based on season long play... anything can happen in a weekend of games. And whether teams are all in top 24-32 means little. Only 8 teams make it to Omaha and other leagues also have teams in that top 24-32. Making the 64 and where you're seeded can give you some advantages, but still have to win 5 (or more) games to get to CWS. I thought that was how tournament seeding worked. The best teams have the easiest road to the finals. From 1 to 64. Is that not how it's done with NCAA baseball? Also, I understand that anything can happen in a weekend of games, but the fact that the ACC has 1 NCAA championship in 50+ years all the while continuously being touted as one of the best baseball conferences cannot be explained away by "50 some odd years of bad weekends". |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 13, 2016 14:44:08 GMT -8
Not sure I follow that logic... seeds are based on season long play... anything can happen in a weekend of games. Why was ASU a #2 seed? HUH??? Because that is where the committee put them. Seeding is far from perfect and guarantees nothing. It is kinda why you still play the tournament! |
|
|
|
Post by BeaverG20 on Jun 13, 2016 14:51:17 GMT -8
Seeding is far from perfect and guarantees nothing. It is kinda why you still play the tournament! That's kinda what people are driving at. Seeding isn't perfect. It shows a bias. An assumption that Conference A and B are significantly better than Conferences C through whatever. When the results don't bare that out, it shows that the formula or criteria used to seed what teams where, with a lot of that seeding relying heavily on "how good the conference is" is flawed. That's why I asked the question as to where the SEC and ACC teams were seeded. They had a lot of teams in, but if a lot of them barely got in, them being eliminated is understandable. If they were highly seeded and didn't survive, then the opinion of the conference was too high. I don't think it's too hard to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 13, 2016 14:53:20 GMT -8
Not sure I follow that logic... seeds are based on season long play... anything can happen in a weekend of games. And whether teams are all in top 24-32 means little. Only 8 teams make it to Omaha and other leagues also have teams in that top 24-32. Making the 64 and where you're seeded can give you some advantages, but still have to win 5 (or more) games to get to CWS. I thought that was how tournament seeding worked. The best teams have the easiest road to the finals. From 1 to 64. Is that not how it's done with NCAA baseball? Tournaments are seeded to certainly give and advantages to higher seeds. But, as we all know the best teams do not win regardless of advantages... home field, bigger stadium, booster $, better recruits, etc. A very good MLB team losses 60-65+ games. A very good, but underrated college team can lose 15-20+ games because they do not have great depth over a 56 game schedule. But in a winners take all weekend series they can have a couple top level studs that can make a difference. Not to mention the unheralded hero that comes out of nowhere... seeding in no way can account for such things. Being at home is an advantage... playing "lower" seeds I guess is an advantage, but those "seedings" are made by idiots in a room so how much credence do you truly give them??? Are there teams at the CWS not really in the top 8? Probably in some ways, but they earned their way there at this point and time and that is how athletics is "measured"... who performs at a specific moment in time. You can argue every year in almost every sport if the two BEST teams are really playing for the championship... except of course when OSU is one of them! |
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Jun 13, 2016 15:07:34 GMT -8
No matter how one looks at it, the SEC results even with a Florida win tonight, are a devestating indictment of the SEC bias. Total overhype. Two and BBQ for the ACC and SEC at the CWS would be perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeaverG20 on Jun 13, 2016 15:14:35 GMT -8
I think beaver fans know pretty well that the hot team can win it all (2007) and a great team can fall flat on their collective asses (2013). I think that the fact that the in the last 10 CWS, a PAC 12 or SEC team has won 8 of them, should draw a little more water for us out here on the left coast. ACC is a fine baseball conference, but year in year out the love they get doesn't show up in the names on the trophy. FSU, Clemson and North Carolina have 21, 12 and 10 appearances respectively in the CWS. 0 titles. They are ranked 1, 2 and 3 for abject failure in the CWS. The ACC is behind PAC-12 (23) SEC (10) Big 10 (6) defunct PCC-CIBA (6) WAC (5) defunct Big 8 (4) and defunct Southwest (4) in titles.
After a while, it becomes more and more obvious that the folks who do the seeding have a bias towards the ACC, and nothing to show for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jun 14, 2016 8:31:35 GMT -8
Seeding is far from perfect and guarantees nothing. It is kinda why you still play the tournament! That's kinda what people are driving at. Seeding isn't perfect. It shows a bias. An assumption that Conference A and B are significantly better than Conferences C through whatever. When the results don't bare that out, it shows that the formula or criteria used to seed what teams where, with a lot of that seeding relying heavily on "how good the conference is" is flawed. That's why I asked the question as to where the SEC and ACC teams were seeded. They had a lot of teams in, but if a lot of them barely got in, them being eliminated is understandable. If they were highly seeded and didn't survive, then the opinion of the conference was too high. I don't think it's too hard to follow. I see what you're getting at, but that's like saying that the NCAA Basketball Tournament seeding is flawed because all the one seeds have only made it to the final four once in 36 years. Any time you roll the ball out on the court/field/etc. something crazy can happen. Players have off nights, one bad match-up can make an 8-seed a 1-seed's kryptonite....a hot pitcher can stymie a fearsome lineup. As long as you're playing a tournament, there is ZERO guarantee the best teams will advance. The only way to crown a "true" champion is to have a league where everyone plays a true round robin and crown the team with the best record at the end with no playoffs. |
|
|
|
Post by BeaverG20 on Jun 14, 2016 10:37:15 GMT -8
To me, it's more like having North Carolina, Duke and NC State receive a 1 or 2 seed almost every year for the last 50 years and none of them ever winning a title. That's the ACC in baseball.
Bad nights happen. Teams get hot and teams go cold, but you cannot ignore the fact that the ACC has lost as many games in the post season as they have. Year after year. They are over rated.
|
|
