10 YEARS OF THE 64 TEAM TOURNAMENT

[William]

Great work William! What would it take to list the number of H-A-N games in that mix?

Since the tournament expanded, WSU has competed in 9 of the 10 tournaments.

Their records, by location, are as follows:

Home 7-7

Away 4-10

Nuetral 9-2


I only show 20 wins so I must have missed one along the way. I wonder what the breakdown of H-A-N games are from some of the other successful schools.....I wonder if FSU, Miami, Texas, LSU, UNC and USC have played 14 true away games COMBINED?

With all due respect, the regular season dictates where you play your games. The home team should win most of the time not because they are at home but because they are usually better. Our neutral record bears this out because we are usually the 2 seed when not hosting, therefore a neutral game is against a 3 or 4 seed, it should be no surprise that we win those games. What is interesting about this is our home record at 7-7, I believe this is due to the fact that we are often overated because of gawdy records against the valley and get matched up with 2 seeds that are our equal.

ps. you probably didn't count our one super regional win.

[WuDrWu]

I understand that william, but there is a bias, whether you want to admit it or not.


LSU has made the tourney 8 of the 10 years....and hosted EVERY TIME including at least once as a 2. They never had a team not worthy of a host....EVER even as 2?

34-9 home. 0-4 in away Super regionals

Texas has made the tourney every year and has also hosted as a 2 at least once. They also "traveled" to Houston once. I'll count those as away and neutral

25-8 Home 4-2 Neutral and 5-5 away

I'm not saying WSU is as good as these programs. We aren't, period.

However, when you play at home, virtually every year, and in LSU's case, EVERY FLIPPIN' YEAR whether you deserve a #1 or not, the tables are weighted in your favor, and therefore against teams like WSU.

[WuDrWu]

LSU has played 45 home regional games in 10 years and 0 road games and 0 neutral games.


They are good, but not that good.

[William]

LSU has played 45 home regional games in 10 years and 0 road games and 0 neutral games.


They are good, but not that good.

As a ballplayer you don't concern yourself with conspiracy theories, umpiring, field dimensions, or any other crap. You apply yourself to what you the ballplayer can control and compete. Winning at the ncaa level is not easy for anyone, but excuses are worthless. The rules are set up as fairly as they can be and quite frankly teams like fullerton, rice, oregon st., fresno st., and irvine don't seem to be having any problem with them.

[ShockerFever]

I hate LSU as much as anybody, but I have to disagree with ya Doc. They really have been that good. When you win 5 titles in a decade's time, that garners major respect. They've earned what they've gotten.

Kinda like us.. What we did in the late 80's helped ensure this weak conference school in the middle of nowhere to gain regional after regional host in the 1990s. Also add in the fact that LSU draws pretty much better than anyone in the country makes it a no-brainer to host as much as they have. In baseball, it's different. There is no spreading around the love. If you're good and you deserve it, and especially if you fill the seats, you're gonna get it.. and LSU has done that over the last two decades.

Again, I'm not LSU's lovey-dovey side at all, but yes, they're that good.. and they've deserved it. You'd feel the same way if WSU had done the same thing in that time period.

[BostonWu]

So Oregon State, with their two national championships, is in the second tier?

I would say so. They had two awesome years, but they also failed to make the tourney this year. I think you'd have to look at the complete body of work, and not individual seasons (in this particular analysis).

I'm with hays on this one. Who wouldn't take OSU's 2 championships over FSU's overall better winning percentage?

[rayc]

William, your posts in this thread display an absolute total ignorance of statistics. Posts like yours are the reason people say statistics lie, when of course, they don’t. People lie, either deliberately or through ignorance, that cherry pick numbers, assemble, and present them as meaningful statistics.


ShockerFever:
I'm not sure WuDrWu is questioning LSU being good or bad, only that 100% home field advantage against the weaker opponents accorded a national seed will distort a teams record; it will. Otherwise why fight to be a national seed?

William wants to argue that a team's worth is measured only by it's record regardless of the level of competion or where the games are played, unless, of course, he is talking about WSU whose record he always claims is overrated because they play weak opponents and mainly at home. He talks silly talk and makes inane arguements and expects to be taken seriously.

[William]

William, your posts in this thread display an absolute total ignorance of statistics. Posts like yours are the reason people say statistics lie, when of course, they don’t. People lie, either deliberately or through ignorance, that cherry pick numbers, assemble, and present them as meaningful statistics.


ShockerFever:
I'm not sure WuDrWu is questioning LSU being good or bad, only that 100% home field advantage against the weaker opponents accorded a national seed will distort a teams record; it will. Otherwise why fight to be a national seed?

William wants to argue that a team's worth is measured only by it's record regardless of the level of competion or where the games are played, unless, of course, he is talking about WSU whose record he always claims is overrated because they play weak opponents and mainly at home. He talks silly talk and makes inane arguements and expects to be taken seriously.

You sir are off your rocker!

[rayc]

Q.E.F. :)

edited from Q.E.D.

[William]

So Oregon State, with their two national championships, is in the second tier?

I would say so. They had two awesome years, but they also failed to make the tourney this year. I think you'd have to look at the complete body of work, and not individual seasons (in this particular analysis).

I'm with hays on this one. Who wouldn't take OSU's 2 championships over FSU's overall better winning percentage?

actually, oregon st. has a much better winning percentage to go along with the titles, but florida st. is a much better program over the 10 years, they haven't won it all but they definately win more than their share.

[shockandawe08]

William,

And....we're back to WHY do they win "more than their share," which is what I believe WuDrWu was attempting to get through your thick skull. LOL.

[William]

YOU WEAR ME OUT LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[shockandawe08]

William,

I've been told that before.... ;-) :good:

[BostonWu]

So Oregon State, with their two national championships, is in the second tier?

I would say so. They had two awesome years, but they also failed to make the tourney this year. I think you'd have to look at the complete body of work, and not individual seasons (in this particular analysis).

I'm with hays on this one. Who wouldn't take OSU's 2 championships over FSU's overall better winning percentage?

actually, oregon st. has a much better winning percentage to go along with the titles, but florida st. is a much better program over the 10 years, they haven't won it all but they definately win more than their share.

Dude you blow my mind. Program A wins 2 national titles during a period while program B doesn't even make one single appearance to the CWS, yet you calim B is the better program during that period???

[billybud]

You guys are really discussing two separate measures of success....

1...a measure of highest achievement...

Example...a horse that ran 50 times and was in the back in 48 of those races, but was first place twice, is still a two time winner. But not very consistantly good.

2...a measure of consistancy...

...a horse that ran 50 times and placed 45 of those fifty but never won...is a zero time winner...but more consistant.

There is no "right" measure..just different ways to view a horse.