|
Post by civiltiger on Jun 29, 2018 13:43:11 GMT -8
Oh yea Utah and wazzu? I would of considered taking you seriously if you mentioned Cal, Arizona or Arizona state. We lost 2 of 3 to Arizona, which should have been in the tournament. ASU and Cal were competitive. You weren't. Well you didn’t mention Arizona, ASU, or Cal. LSU beat Arkansas and Mississippi State 3 of 4. LSU was also 1 and 1 against Florida. The committee chair said that teams with below .500 conference records weren’t really considered for at large bids. So with that only 1 other PAC 12 team was considered to make the tournament, Cal, and their RPI was 72. Not really at large material. Kentucky didn’t make the tournament because their conference record was 13-17 and RPI of around 30. And you dont say LSU lost handily to OSU which won the NC! Shocking I tell you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 14:38:04 GMT -8
Well, LSU made the tournament. I'd say every Pac-12 team except Utah and Wazzu was as good as LSU was this year. You will be good again, but that team this year made the tournament on its reputation, and on the coattails of the other SEC teams. Oh yea Utah and wazzu? I would of considered taking you seriously if you mentioned Cal, Arizona or Arizona state. He's right. Cal sucks.
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Jun 29, 2018 14:43:52 GMT -8
We lost 2 of 3 to Arizona, which should have been in the tournament. ASU and Cal were competitive. You weren't. Well you didn’t mention Arizona, ASU, or Cal. LSU beat Arkansas and Mississippi State 3 of 4. LSU was also 1 and 1 against Florida. The committee chair said that teams with below .500 conference records weren’t really considered for at large bids. So with that only 1 other PAC 12 team was considered to make the tournament, Cal, and their RPI was 72. Not really at large material. Kentucky didn’t make the tournament because their conference record was 13-17 and RPI of around 30. And you dont say LSU lost handily to OSU which won the NC! Shocking I tell you. Arizona played their way out of a spot by totally tanking against Oregon in the final regular season games. That sent their RPI from marginal to oblivion. Washington got in with the worst RPI in years for a team that was not an automatic qualifier. The PAC 12 middle teams need to be better. JMHO. And the lowest teams need to be a lot better in nonconference so they don't tank the RPI for the entire league.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 29, 2018 15:24:10 GMT -8
Well you didn’t mention Arizona, ASU, or Cal. LSU beat Arkansas and Mississippi State 3 of 4. LSU was also 1 and 1 against Florida. The committee chair said that teams with below .500 conference records weren’t really considered for at large bids. So with that only 1 other PAC 12 team was considered to make the tournament, Cal, and their RPI was 72. Not really at large material. Kentucky didn’t make the tournament because their conference record was 13-17 and RPI of around 30. And you dont say LSU lost handily to OSU which won the NC! Shocking I tell you. Arizona played their way out of a spot by totally tanking against Oregon in the final regular season games. That sent their RPI from marginal to oblivion. Washington got in with the worst RPI in years for a team that was not an automatic qualifier. The PAC 12 middle teams need to be better. JMHO. And the lowest teams need to be a lot better in nonconference so they don't tank the RPI for the entire league. The nail in the coffin for Arizona was the Friday loss to Oregon. The Wildcats' real blunder was getting swept in Berkeley in the third-to-last series. Win the series against California, and Arizona is easily in the Tournament.
|
|
|
Post by beavsaregood on Jun 29, 2018 23:09:43 GMT -8
Arizona and CAL should have been in the tourney.
|
|
|
Post by 83benny on Jun 30, 2018 12:49:34 GMT -8
On the other hand, the SEC has made a lot of investments in their baseball programs, as have their fans. They've done a lot for the game having the level of interest that it has. Meanwhile, historic programs like USC and ASU haven't even bothered to keep their programs functioning well. Fortunately Stanford seems to have at least invested in keeping good coaching. UW and hole have made significant investments (the latter seems to have been terribly misspent). So while the SEC gets a lot of love, they are bringing the fans and investing in their programs. Maybe they aren't as good as their press clippings but they are bringing the fans, and those fans want to hear it, so the likes of ESPN would be foolish to not nurture that. There is no doubt in my mind that a larger proportion of the population in the south are sports fans. Sports are much more of a priority for them than many on the west coast. There are still many of us west coasters that are also major sports fanatics, just not in the same proportion to the population as a whole. More fans generally means more money which means more investment into the sports programs. Unless you have a sugar daddy uncle.... Another factor in the SEC vs. Pac-12 discussion is the number of schools. The SEC has fourteen member schools and all play baseball. The Pac-12 has only eleven baseball schools. There's no doubt in my mind that proportionally, the Pac is at least equal to the SEC in most areas of sports. The Pac-12 also has several members that are from areas that are not considered as baseball climates; however Oregon State has proven that one can build a power program in a region of the country not considered the best for baseball weather. I definitely believe there is an east coast bias in the sports world. I've lived for a few years in the DC area and it's very difficult to hear much about west coast sports. It takes a team to reach a pinnacle before they start taking notice. Hopefully the NCAA starts giving OSU (and other Pac-12 schools) more of the benefit of the doubt when consistently winning championships. The 2016 OSU debacle of not being included and only having four Pac-12 schools in 2018 just show how difficult it is to get noticed. Since 2006 the Pac-12 has won five championships, the SEC also five....
|
|
EOBeav
Freshman
Posts: 499
Grad Year: 1989, 2002
|
Post by EOBeav on Jun 30, 2018 13:53:19 GMT -8
I definitely believe there is an east coast bias in the sports world. This is a foregone conclusion. All you had to do was listen to the ESPN announcers for a few minutes and you could hear the East Coast/Pro-SEC bias. Unless you're USC, it's very difficult for a school on the west coast to get any attention from ESPN.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 30, 2018 14:00:30 GMT -8
I definitely believe there is an east coast bias in the sports world. This is a foregone conclusion. All you had to do was listen to the ESPN announcers for a few minutes and you could hear the East Coast/Pro-SEC bias. Unless you're USC, it's very difficult for a school on the west coast to get any attention from ESPN. In the championship series at least I felt the ESPN broadcast team was very pro-OSU. Kyle Peterson is a Stanford guy and both Ravech and Perez seem to take their lead from him.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jul 2, 2018 10:09:40 GMT -8
Sirius XM has ESPNU, and their radio broadcasts covered the CWS extensively. They talked a lot about OSU, and kept going after the championship was won, going on extensively about how difficult it was to win the way they did, how absolutely loaded that team was, and how great it would be to play for coach case.
That said, most people calling in are from the south. That's a big chunk of their audience, and they ultimately have to talk about teams that audience cares about, and Oregon State is not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 2, 2018 22:48:45 GMT -8
Arizona and CAL should have been in the tourney. Who is out?
|
|
|
Post by grackle on Jul 3, 2018 5:53:59 GMT -8
Arizona and CAL should have been in the tourney. Who is out? Had they been in the SEC, rest assured they would have been.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 3, 2018 11:38:12 GMT -8
Had they been in the SEC, rest assured they would have been. No, I meant, who would be out of the tournament in place of a California or an Arizona? I took your post to mean that they were more deserving than another team, so I was wondering, who you thought they should replace. 1-4, the Pac-12 stacks up very well to any conference in the country. I think that Stanford for the majority of the season was better than at the end. Washington had a good ball club. And I think you could make an argument that UCLA should have hosted. However, the Pac-12 5-11 was pretty bad this year. California played Texas A&M at a neutral site. (Frisco is not very neutral, but it is not in College Station.) Texas A&M was up 9-2 before California rallied with three window dressing runs in the ninth. Texas A&M finished 11th in the SEC. California finished fifth in the Pac-12. California swept Arizona, which finished sixth. Arizona was decent at home but got swept on the road by both California and Washington and had a bad road series loss to Utah. Arizona's last six weekends featured a home sweep by Stanford, a road series loss to Utah, a road series sweep by California, and a home series victory over Arizona State in which they were outscored. That just does not scream NCAA Tournament to me. I think that there are arguments that Arizona or California should be in over another team, but I think the SEC 1-10 was very strong and deserving of those spots this year. I think that you can argue seeding and such, but the SEC berths were correct.
|
|