The 2009 BCS Baseball Tournament

[billybud]

and yes..William seems to have some of the same viewpoint that I have about conference tourneys.

The conference races are great for entertainment..and yes, I understand that the reward is the regional....but we pretend that we have all apples..when you have apples and kumquats.

It is much like the football BCS Bowl controversy...we really have 119 teams pretending to be all in the same "category".

There's little to suggest, to me, that the mid-majors can compete with teams from the major conferences. While some mid-majors run through a weak schedule undefeated, they might get left out of the BCS and justifiably so. Here are a few facts to indicate this:

Since the BCS started in 1998, mid-majors have won less then 20% of the games they've played overall when playing major conference teams.

Even at home, these mid-majors have won less then 1 in three of games played against major teams, but on the road have won less than 1 in 7.

Even the better mid-majors, ones with a winning conference record don't win a majority of the games in which the play the weaker majors, ones with a losing conference record and teams that have won mid-major championships win barely 1 in 3 games in which they play major teams.

From 1998-2005, Mid-majors that finished undefeated in their conference lost a majority of the games they played against major conference teams. These teams, in fact, lost over 1 in 3 games they played against major conference teams that finished with a .333 or less conference record.

Mid-majors that have finished ranked in the AP poll have even lost over 1/3 of their games against major teams that finished unranked or lower ranked then them. Also, mid-majors that finished ranked have only won 1 in 3 games they played against majors that finished ranked, indicating that mid-majors tend to have to do less to get ranked.

Of the mid-majors that finished undefeated since 1998, only Utah and Boise St. gave any indication they could beat the better major conference teams, and they deservedly got a BCS bid.

[billybud]

Shockfan...

Re ACC...yeah...but how many times have ACC teams advanced through the reionals and super regionals to make the top 8?

Maybe, like the last couple of years, the ACC team finished #2 in the nation...but the fact that they whipped good teams in the regionals and supers is a prooof of competitiveness.

Maybe not at the #1 level...but at the #2 level and surely at a level to make the CWS...

In the last ten CWS's..the ACC has played in three final games and lost all three...but they did make 3 of 10 (5 of 10 if you count Miami who is now ACC but was not when they played).

[shockfan89_]

Shockfan...

Re ACC...yeah...but how many times have ACC teams advanced through the reionals and super regionals to make the top 8?

Maybe, like the last couple of years, the ACC team finished #2 in the nation...but the fact that they whipped good teams in the regionals and supers is a prooof of competitiveness.

Maybe not at the #1 level...but at the #2 level and surely at a level to make the CWS...

If a conference gets 8 teams into a regional they should have one team in the CWS EVERY YEAR or it is proof too many got in. The entire reason for allowing that many teams from one conference is that they were that much better than everyone else.

If you have 8+ teams in a 64-team regional and don't advance one of those teams to the 8 team CWS, the chances are you were way over represented. Especially if you have 1 or 2 national seeds out of the 8+ teams.

[ShockerFever]

and yes..William seems to have some of the same viewpoint that I have about conference tourneys.

And he was rightly shot down. Thankfully, you're not up at the top so your opinion doesn't matter.

The conference races are great for entertainment..and yes, I understand that the reward is the regional....but we pretend that we have all apples..when you have apples and kumquats.

I'd watch apples and rotten pears any day over mediocre oranges.

There's little to suggest, to me, that the mid-majors can compete with teams from the major conferences. While some mid-majors run through a weak schedule undefeated, they might get left out of the BCS and justifiably so. Here are a few facts to indicate this:

Since the BCS started in 1998, mid-majors have won less then 20% of the games they've played overall when playing major conference teams.

Even at home, these mid-majors have won less then 1 in three of games played against major teams, but on the road have won less than 1 in 7.

Even the better mid-majors, ones with a winning conference record don't win a majority of the games in which the play the weaker majors, ones with a losing conference record and teams that have won mid-major championships win barely 1 in 3 games in which they play major teams.

From 1998-2005, Mid-majors that finished undefeated in their conference lost a majority of the games they played against major conference teams. These teams, in fact, lost over 1 in 3 games they played against major conference teams that finished with a .333 or less conference record.

Mid-majors that have finished ranked in the AP poll have even lost over 1/3 of their games against major teams that finished unranked or lower ranked then them. Also, mid-majors that finished ranked have only won 1 in 3 games they played against majors that finished ranked, indicating that mid-majors tend to have to do less to get ranked.

Of the mid-majors that finished undefeated since 1998, only Utah and Boise St. gave any indication they could beat the better major conference teams, and they deservedly got a BCS bid.

Did you seriously just bring out the BCS football statbook in an argument about college baseball? Please tell me you really aren't that shallow.

I get it. You're from a BCS conference. Your mind is set in stone. You want the entire tournament to be a BCS Crapfest. You totally ignored everything I stated in my previous post regarding taxation with representation. There's a reason you did that. You can't argue against it or you'd be arguing against the same principles this country was founded on.

How many ACC schools have won CWS titles? When you find that number, then compare it to the number of mid-majors who have won a CWS title. I think you'll be shocked by the outcome.

One thing I do know is you give Tomahawk Chop fans a really bad rap. I sincerely hope the majority of your fanbase isn't as shallow as you are, but I'm not willing to put any money down that they are.

[ShockerFever]

Shockfan...

Re ACC...yeah...but how many times have ACC teams advanced through the reionals and super regionals to make the top 8?

Maybe, like the last couple of years, the ACC team finished #2 in the nation...but the fact that they whipped good teams in the regionals and supers is a prooof of competitiveness.

Maybe not at the #1 level...but at the #2 level and surely at a level to make the CWS...

If a conference gets 8 teams into a regional they should have one team in the CWS EVERY YEAR or it is proof too many got in. The entire reason for allowing that many teams from one conference is that they were that much better than everyone else.

If you have 8+ teams in a 64-team regional and don't advance one of those teams to the 8 team CWS, the chances are you were way over represented. Especially if you have 1 or 2 national seeds out of the 8+ teams.

EXACTLY. This guy is too shallow to understand this though. Also consider all of these regionals and super regionals are on the home fields of all of their teams. They get a cakewalk to the CWS every year and they still choke.

I love his response to the CWS titles fact.. "yeah"..

[billybud]

The Supers are the proof in the pudding...

It is difficult to advance to the CWS without having to get by a good team..whether in regional or super.

The supers are like a "honesty" test. Unlike football, where Hawaii played in the BCS without a win over a end ranked team (and got whacked by Georgia), in baseball, a team must beat a good team to advance to the CWS.

FSU will not advance...because depth of pitching is such a factor in these games...and FSU rarely has the depth of great pitching necessary to go the distance.

[billybud]

Shockfever...I run across guys like you who, rather than discuss points, insult. it is usually an indicator of a personality type.

Shockfan...I agree...getting 8 teams in ought to buy you a ticket to the CWS. If it doesn't, throw that RPI out the window...the conference was over rated.

[ShockerFever]

You can't answer any of my questions because you have no answers. And any answers you can come up with are damaging to your case.

I'll take that as a W.


GO GEORGIA!

[SpanglerFan316]

The Supers are the proof in the pudding...

It is difficult to advance to the CWS without having to get by a good team..whether in regional or super.

The supers are like a "honesty" test. Unlike football, where Hawaii played in the BCS without a win over a end ranked team (and got whacked by Georgia), in baseball, a team must beat a good team to advance to the CWS.

FSU will not advance...because depth of pitching is such a factor in these games...and FSU rarely has the depth of great pitching necessary to go the distance.

I don't consider playing a superregional at Florida State to a "honesty" test. (Look at the fence; was that a homerun or not?)

[ShockerFever]

The Supers are the proof in the pudding...

It is difficult to advance to the CWS without having to get by a good team..whether in regional or super.

The supers are like a "honesty" test. Unlike football, where Hawaii played in the BCS without a win over a end ranked team (and got whacked by Georgia), in baseball, a team must beat a good team to advance to the CWS.

FSU will not advance...because depth of pitching is such a factor in these games...and FSU rarely has the depth of great pitching necessary to go the distance.

I don't consider playing a superregional at Florida State to a "honesty" test. (Look at the fence; was that a homerun or not?)

LMAO. :good:

[SpanglerFan316]

In the last ten CWS's..the ACC has played in three final games and lost all three...but they did make 3 of 10 (5 of 10 if you count Miami who is now ACC but was not when they played).

Heck, WSU has three losses in the CWS title game (+ one win) all by itself. ;-)

[ShockerFever]

In the last ten CWS's..the ACC has played in three final games and lost all three...but they did make 3 of 10 (5 of 10 if you count Miami who is now ACC but was not when they played).

Heck, WSU has three losses in the CWS title game (+ one win) all by itself. ;-)

Touche.

I'm even more perplexed and amazed on how important an itty, bitty mid-major message board is to a big and bada$$ed ACC fan.

[billybud]

Finding the best teams to play, with 64 spots, is impossible with the representative system that we now have.

What some want, I think, is what is called "norming".

How a team does against its peers (defined as the conference schedule) vs how another team does against its peers is not a measure that makes sense to me...not when you are purportedly providing some kind of way to measure that apple against that orange...and talk about "rewarding" for being a smaller program means affirmative action, that is, action not neccesarily supported by performance (performance being a measure of that team's strength vs all IA team strength).

If you are just considering teams with the primary focus on how they do with their schedule, than SOS is a minor player. Sure, its fine to recognize teams that achieve in their particular sphere...but when the "sphere" being compared is the total of IA, than a system needs to rank all IA teams on the same parameters. Apples that beat 13 teams in the end ranked Top 50 vs Oranges that may play no team in the top 100.

Wins are not just wins. You should get a whole lot more points for degree of difficulty when doing a triple twisting full Gainer than you do with a Cannonball.

And the Supreme Court has "norming" on it's schedule. Employment, like baseball, has its norming.

A group of white firefighters has protested the use of norming in testing for promotional slots. It has been a practice to separate test scores by racial group so that one is only graded against those who are in the same category. A ninety for one group may be the same as a 75 for another group. So, when you rank applicants, the applicants are ranked not on how they performed on their tests against the total group of applicants, but on how they performed against applicants of their same demographic. A 90, 75, 70, 85, 80 might be the actual order...with some ranked higher than individuals who actually had higher scores.

More than you wnated to hear...sorry guys.

[ShockerFever]

There is just no hope with you.

Thankfully, your idea will never happen.



And what are your suggestions for picking the Top 64?

So, basically, you're all for eliminating 2/3 of the Division I conferences out there. Because under your fresh idea, they would have ZERO chance at your playground.

[shockfan89_]

billy - You're missing the point. Nobody wants to give mid-majors the nod over a power conference team just because they are a small conference.

The real question is should teams in power confrences get as many bids? Right now the RPI is used selectively by the committee. I don't think there is a great way in baseball to determine this but I will tell you the thing that frustrates me the most is that it isn't consistent. This is what leads to the perception that the power conferences are getting the nod. What does a Rhode Island have to do to get in? What does an ORU have to do to host? When would a team that wins the MVC get an at large over the 8th place finisher in the Big 12? Those questions can't be answered or the answer changes depending on the committee.