Announcement

**CharlieHog** · June 19, 2008, 09:00 AM

I really don't understand why you are differentiating OOC games from conference games in determining the strength of a team. Good teams are good teams, no matter what conference they are in.

The ACC isn't losing to "decent" teams on a neutral field. Teams aren't "decent" in Omaha. They are the best.

**goshox24** · June 19, 2008, 11:05 AM

I agree with Charlie on this one. You don't make it to Omaha by being decent. Every team in the country has a chance to make it to Omaha. Fresno St. is proving that right now. Those teams deserved to host regionals and supers because they were the best all year in college baseball. Conference season is the most important, that is why everyone throws their best pitchers.

**mattdalt** · June 19, 2008, 11:08 AM

The original poster is maybe suggesting that within the conference, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, the teams in the ACC are highly rated to begin the season, beat some nobodies early on, then enter conference play. where they precede to beat each other. Since they are all highly rated early, meaning the rating is pure speculation, then there is no real chance at evaluation during the in conference part of the season.

This is the same discussion that has occurred regarding RPI and men's college basketball.

EVERYONE knows, it is much harder to fall out of the top 10 than it is to get in the top ten. The voters have egos and do not want to look bad by ranking a team highly, and then having them flame out.

**martymoose** · June 19, 2008, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by CharlieHog

I really don't understand why you are differentiating OOC games from conference games in determining the strength of a team. Good teams are good teams, no matter what conference they are in.

The ACC isn't losing to "decent" teams on a neutral field. Teams aren't "decent" in Omaha. They are the best.

I guess my point was their only good competition was against each other... So how do we know any of these teams were that good to begin with?

Fresno, Stanford and Georgia are supporting this case by easily beating these other teams who are supposed to be superior.

**shockfan89** · June 19, 2008, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by CharlieHog

I really don't understand why you are differentiating OOC games from conference games in determining the strength of a team. Good teams are good teams, no matter what conference they are in.

The ACC isn't losing to "decent" teams on a neutral field. Teams aren't "decent" in Omaha. They are the best.

Charlie - The point being made is that if you only play 3 top 50 teams OOC and then play 20 in your conference that your RPI and SOS is being determined in a greater part on your conference opponents. If everyone in your conference is .500 against OOC top 50 opponents, then maybe your conference is somewhat overrated?

You can't just say x conference is good and y conference isn't if both conference x and y have the same OOC records against top 50 opponents. If conference x was better from top to bottom than conference y than their OOC record vs. top 50 teams should be better also. Furthermore if conference x is that much better and gets 8 or 9 teams in post season play they should have good success in the post season.

There are a couple conference x's that are always considered to be in the top 3 conferences in baseball and usually gets between 6 and 9 teams in regionals and at least a couple national seeds. In the last few years the post season success rate for these conferences have not stood up to the test that they are actually that much, if any, better than other conferences.

**KC Shox** · June 19, 2008, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by CharlieHog

I really don't understand why you are differentiating OOC games from conference games in determining the strength of a team. Good teams are good teams, no matter what conference they are in.

The ACC isn't losing to "decent" teams on a neutral field. Teams aren't "decent" in Omaha. They are the best.

I wouldn't say Fresno State and their 29 losses are one of the best in the CWS. However, teams in the College World Series get there by playing the best ball at the end of the year. But yes, typically speaking, they are good teams.

**CharlieHog** · June 19, 2008, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by KC Shox

Originally posted by CharlieHog

I really don't understand why you are differentiating OOC games from conference games in determining the strength of a team. Good teams are good teams, no matter what conference they are in.

The ACC isn't losing to "decent" teams on a neutral field. Teams aren't "decent" in Omaha. They are the best.

I wouldn't say Fresno State and their 29 losses are one of the best in the CWS. However, teams in the College World Series get there by playing the best ball at the end of the year. But yes, typically speaking, they are good teams.

Sure, that's true for any sport with playoffs.

Fresno State also had a lot of injuries this year so I'd argue that with their team healthy, they are one of the best teams in the country, and they are proving it.

**CharlieHog** · June 19, 2008, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by martymoose

I guess my point was their only good competition was against each other... So how do we know any of these teams were that good to begin with?

Fresno, Stanford and Georgia are supporting this case by easily beating these other teams who are supposed to be superior.

We know they are good because they have made it through to Omaha. They played good teams in the NCAA Tournament, and beat those teams.

**martymoose** · June 19, 2008, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by CharlieHog

Originally posted by martymoose

I guess my point was their only good competition was against each other... So how do we know any of these teams were that good to begin with?

Fresno, Stanford and Georgia are supporting this case by easily beating these other teams who are supposed to be superior.

We know they are good because they have made it through to Omaha. They played good teams in the NCAA Tournament, and beat those teams.

Sure, I understand all that, but advantages are given to the top ranked teams so that they have an "easier" road to Omaha... Such as home field advantage, and easier opponents.

**shockfan89** · June 19, 2008, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by CharlieHog

Originally posted by martymoose

I guess my point was their only good competition was against each other... So how do we know any of these teams were that good to begin with?

Fresno, Stanford and Georgia are supporting this case by easily beating these other teams who are supposed to be superior.

We know they are good because they have made it through to Omaha. They played good teams in the NCAA Tournament, and beat those teams.

As of right now I believe the SEC is 21-18 in post season and that is with two teams still playing. The Big 12 finished at 11-13 and the MVC 4-2.

Code:

Conf Post-season PCT
SEC	  21-18	.538
Big12	11-13   .458
MVC		4-2	 .667
WAC      7-2    .778

There is no doubt the top 2 or 3 teams in the SEC are VERY GOOD and they are showing it. The question I have when looking at the conference winning percentages in post season is should the SEC get 9 teams and the Big12 6 and the MVC and WAC 1 each?

MSU finished 1 game behind WSU and Creighton 3 games back in the MVC and obviously WSU proved they deserved to be there. I think the 2nd place team in the MVC is way more deserving than the 6-9 teams in the SEC and the 2 or 3 last Big 12 teams in. The post season performance has confirmed that!

This is not just an MVC thing. My point is the NCAA needs to allow more teams from "weaker" conferences and fewer teams from the "power" conferences. Isn't Fresno State the only team from the WAC as well? Just more evidence that the NCAA should do a better job of getting "non power conference" schools into regionals.

**SB Shock** · June 19, 2008, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by shockfan89

MSU finished 1 game behind WSU and Creighton 3 games back in the MVC and obviously WSU proved they deserved to be there. I think the 2nd place team in the MVC is way more deserving than the 6-9 teams in the SEC and the 2 or 3 last Big 12 teams in. The post season performance has confirmed that!

Until the MVC conference pushes schools to actually take baseball seriously and to schedule correctly, then the MVC gets what it deserves.

As far as SWMO - they got what they deserved also. They chose to play a patsy non-conference schedule. They didn't earn the right to play in post season.

This is not just an MVC thing. My point is the NCAA needs to allow more teams from "weaker" conferences and fewer teams from the "power" conferences.

I disagree. This is a liberal mentality of entitlement instead or earning your way.

**Born2Shock** · June 19, 2008, 01:15 PM

I think that is Martys point though SB. Why should MSU and WSU play a tough OOC schedule? Maybe we can start out highly ranked, play a bunch of nobodies, and then have a few losses in conference. Therefore, we are an elite conference. The trick here is starting out highly ranked. I am by no means discounted how good some of the teams that are in Omaha are. We all know they are good teams, but would they be there if they were not given the advantages of hosting, etc? Playing on the road is not something these teams do particularly well.

**ABC** · June 19, 2008, 01:19 PM

There is no doubt that self-perpetuation is at play here.

It's like the Ivy League schools. They all hire professors who went to other Ivy League schools. The Ivy League is great b/c all of the professors when to Ivy League. Get it?

I think the RPI and other "objective" measures reflect this and need to be tuned up.

WSU is a great example. Our RPI hasn't been great for a while, yet we're in a regional championship for 8 of 10 years?

**billybud** · June 19, 2008, 01:25 PM

It's the "Hawaii" thing in football...take a team that played a horribly weak schedule (ranked over 120) but that did well against that weak schedule....and presume that they are more deserving of a BCS bowl game than a two loss team. Even if that two loss team played five Top 25 teams and beat three.

It's "who did you play and who did you beat" . RPI is important. Wins aren't just wins...there is a difficulty factor. You earn your way. Triple back twists off the board earn more points than a cannonball.

Announcement

Quality of Teams?

Quality of Teams?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment