Here is where we stand

[William]

Here is where the shockers stand in regards to all-time ncaa tournament play

Most tournament wins all-time through 2006

1 texas 202
2 usc 171
3 miami 162
4 florida st 147
5 arizona st 129
6 oklahoma st 126
7 stanford 120
8 cal st fullerton 120
9 louisiana st 106
10 clemson 91
11 south carolina 84
12 arizona 83
13 miss st 72
14 wichita st 66
15 florida 64
16 oklahoma 61
17 michigan 55
18 rice 54
19 georgia tech 54
20 north carolina 53


All-time winning percentage in tournament play through 2006, 50 games played minnimum

1 louisiana st .721
2 usc .715
3 miami .684
4 arizona st .683
5 texas .673
6 stanford .667
7 california .653
8 rice .651
9 south carolina .632
10 oklahoma st .627
11 alabama .625
12 georgia .623
13 tennessee .620
14 wake forest .611
15 florida st .600
16 arizona .593
17 michigan .591
18 wichita st .579
19 clemson .576
20 southern illinois .565

[shockandawe08]

William, William, William.

Why do you feel the need to do this? And who appointed you the local seeing-eye dog? Is there a point that you are attempting to make?
While you ponder these questions, consider changing your name to "Debbie Downer."
Seriously, the truth shall set you free. :D

P.S. Don't even THINK about coming into MY kitchen....I know how to turn a rooster into a hen..... :yes:

P.P.S. Okay, sorry about that. That was menopause rearing its ugly head. I'm really a peace-loving person once you get to know me. William, buddy, we can still be friends, right? 8)

:wsu_posters:

[Zardoz]

William,
What is your point, do you even have one? Look at FSU rankings per your list, do they have a title? Does WSU? Do you see how stupid your list is. Do you see how stupid this makes you look?

[shox1989]

Where is Nebraska on that list? Where is Arkansas? Where is Missouri? Where is Notre Dame? It looks like we are still THE power amongst the northern and regional schools.

It is pretty impressive that WSU is on that list when we are both a northern school (SIU, Michigan the only other northern schools to make the list) and we didn't have a competitive baseball program at all before 1978.

We got ALL of our wins since 1980. Some of those other teams have been piling up tournament wins for 60 years.

[rayc]

William, here is a link that provides all the relevant stats for comparing teams and conferences across the country on the only playing field that is somewhat level.

http://collegebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1169&CID=680669

To me anyway, the most relevant stat is:

BEST CWS WINNING PERCENTAGE
(Minimum 20 Games, Through 2007)

Southern California 74-26 .740
Minnesota 17-7 .708
Arizona State 59-34 .634
LSU 29-17 .630
Missouri 18-11 .621
Texas 78-53 .595
Wichita State 16-11 .593
Stanford 38-27 .585
Cal State Fullerton 34-25 .576
Miami 46-36 .561

[SHOCKvalue]

Yawn...

[7hottamales]

William, here is a link that provides all the relevant stats for comparing teams and conferences across the country on the only playing field that is somewhat level.

http://collegebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1169&CID=680669

To me anyway, the most relevant stat is:

BEST CWS WINNING PERCENTAGE
(Minimum 20 Games, Through 2007)

Southern California 74-26 .740
Minnesota 17-7 .708
Arizona State 59-34 .634
LSU 29-17 .630
Missouri 18-11 .621
Texas 78-53 .595
Wichita State 16-11 .593
Stanford 38-27 .585
Cal State Fullerton 34-25 .576
Miami 46-36 .561

So Minnesota and Missouri are better baseball schools than WSU? ...and WSU is better than Stanford & Miami? Can we please just stop this nonsense?

[William]

The idea here is to compare programs records against post season level competition and see how we stack up, there were not an abundance of statistics compiled this way, and there are lots of holes in this particular group of stats, but I found them mildly interesting, and to answer earlier questions I have no point, this info is for amusement purposes only.

[WSUwatcher]

Stats

William has certainly earned whatever grief he gets, and given his endless carping and whining it's easy to see why his lists are interpreted as criticism -- when did he ever have something good to say about the Shocks? Seriously, he makes KC look like Pollyanna.

Still, with all that in mind, those rankings look pretty good to me. WSU, for all practical purposes, has really had baseball for just over 30 years now, and they're already 14th in all-time tournament wins, the highest ranked northern school, and indeed the only one in that group except Michigan (who wouldn't even be in there but for success in an earlier pre-Stephenson time? That's pretty impressive.

Much the same is true of the tournament percentage, where again Michigan is helped by some truly ancient history such as CWS championships in 1953 and 1962. (And a small kudo, too, to SIU, which had its time in the sun in the early 70's, again pre-Stephenson.) The Shocks are again in some pretty good company, an observation further validated by the CWS top 10 that rayc added -- who is the only northern program on all three lists?

So, yes, if the point is to say that School A is better at baseball than B because they're a notch higher on a particular list, then of course it's nonsense, 7hot. But if you just look at the lists as facts that speak for themselves, it's hard to conclude anything other than that when it comes to baseball, as I've said before (and our SEC friend Charlie has also stated), WSU is indeed one of the Big Boys. And their status as such is entirely the handiwork of Gene and his staff, which has been a truly extraordinary long-running performance.

[shockandawe08]

Wow. Since you put it THAT way, I feel silly now. And I always thought of myself as an optimist. Excuse me, I have to go research hormone therapy. :wsu_posters:

[rayc]

WSUwatcher:

So, yes, if the point is to say that School A is better at baseball than B because they're a notch higher on a particular list, then of course it's nonsense, 7hot. But if you just look at the lists as facts that speak for themselves, it's hard to conclude anything other than that when it comes to baseball, as I've said before (and our SEC friend Charlie has also stated), WSU is indeed one of the Big Boys. And their status as such is entirely the handiwork of Gene and his staff, which has been a truly extraordinary long-running performance.

Precisely, and the reason I posted the stats.

[t7017s]

Re: Stats

William has certainly earned whatever grief he gets, and given his endless carping and whining it's easy to see why his lists are interpreted as criticism -- when did he ever have something good to say about the Shocks? Seriously, he makes KC look like Pollyanna.

Still, with all that in mind, those rankings look pretty good to me. WSU, for all practical purposes, has really had baseball for just over 30 years now, and they're already 14th in all-time tournament wins, the highest ranked northern school, and indeed the only one in that group except Michigan (who wouldn't even be in there but for success in an earlier pre-Stephenson time? That's pretty impressive.

Much the same is true of the tournament percentage, where again Michigan is helped by some truly ancient history such as CWS championships in 1953 and 1962. (And a small kudo, too, to SIU, which had its time in the sun in the early 70's, again pre-Stephenson.) The Shocks are again in some pretty good company, an observation further validated by the CWS top 10 that rayc added -- who is the only northern program on all three lists?

So, yes, if the point is to say that School A is better at baseball than B because they're a notch higher on a particular list, then of course it's nonsense, 7hot. But if you just look at the lists as facts that speak for themselves, it's hard to conclude anything other than that when it comes to baseball, as I've said before (and our SEC friend Charlie has also stated), WSU is indeed one of the Big Boys. And their status as such is entirely the handiwork of Gene and his staff, which has been a truly extraordinary long-running performance.

Good post. Why does everyone have to read into everything anyone says? Why cant somebody just post something thats interesting without people getting defensive about it or assuming someone is taking a shot at the program or making a "backhanded compliment"? Who cares is the point. fans are fans and they come in all shapes and sizes. I enjoy interesting things and the discussion of them when people are actually willing to talk about them and not fly off the handle. I think the above post is a great contribution.

[ShockerFever]

Re: Stats

William has certainly earned whatever grief he gets, and given his endless carping and whining it's easy to see why his lists are interpreted as criticism -- when did he ever have something good to say about the Shocks? Seriously, he makes KC look like Pollyanna.

Still, with all that in mind, those rankings look pretty good to me. WSU, for all practical purposes, has really had baseball for just over 30 years now, and they're already 14th in all-time tournament wins, the highest ranked northern school, and indeed the only one in that group except Michigan (who wouldn't even be in there but for success in an earlier pre-Stephenson time? That's pretty impressive.

Much the same is true of the tournament percentage, where again Michigan is helped by some truly ancient history such as CWS championships in 1953 and 1962. (And a small kudo, too, to SIU, which had its time in the sun in the early 70's, again pre-Stephenson.) The Shocks are again in some pretty good company, an observation further validated by the CWS top 10 that rayc added -- who is the only northern program on all three lists?

So, yes, if the point is to say that School A is better at baseball than B because they're a notch higher on a particular list, then of course it's nonsense, 7hot. But if you just look at the lists as facts that speak for themselves, it's hard to conclude anything other than that when it comes to baseball, as I've said before (and our SEC friend Charlie has also stated), WSU is indeed one of the Big Boys. And their status as such is entirely the handiwork of Gene and his staff, which has been a truly extraordinary long-running performance.

Good post. Why does everyone have to read into everything anyone says? Why cant somebody just post something thats interesting without people getting defensive about it or assuming someone is taking a shot at the program or making a "backhanded compliment"? Who cares is the point. fans are fans and they come in all shapes and sizes. I enjoy interesting things and the discussion of them when people are actually willing to talk about them and not fly off the handle. I think the above post is a great contribution.

Are you serious?

You don't remember your defensiveness in some of the posts people place on here directed towards you?

Come on now. Don't be Mr. Hypo.