Cohen hypo...

[Tripp McNeely]

Some buddies and I were debating this the other day...if Cohen was not an alum, and assuming that we're not in the field of 64 this year (fairly safe assumption), how hot would his seat be at the end of the year? As is, I see 0% chance of him getting fired, if those assumptions come true. If he were not an alum...I could see an outside shot (25%(ish)) of him being let go at the end of the year, and if not after this season, conditions similar to "making a super" etc. or else him being canned after next year.

Now, with Mullen having similar (maybe slightly less) success, we're ready to build a statue, but should we not expect more?? With our new stadium, current facilities, Cohen's salary, fan support, tradition, the SEC, etc., I'm not sure there is a coach outside of the top 5-10 programs in the country that we couldn't steal.

Am I wrong???

[smootness]

Alum or not, there should be a 0% chance of him being fired.

And alum or not, that should start to increase next year.

[Coach34]

He played for the National Title 2 seasons ago
Round of 32 last year

You dont fire that guy after this year no matter WHO it is

[confucius say]

What they said. Any of our fans who think there should be even a 25% chance of him getting fired has lost their mind. We just played for a national title and have a top 5-10 class coming in.

[MsStateBaseball]

Number 4 ranked class per PG before MLB draft coming in fall, 2016 class is rapidly being a top 10 class. He is doing a damn fine job signing players, a little late but the elite players are buying in and signing. He should be given two more years.

[sleepy dawg]

ditto to everyone except the topic starter. You are dead wrong Tripp.

[Todd4State]

Some buddies and I were debating this the other day...if Cohen was not an alum, and assuming that we're not in the field of 64 this year (fairly safe assumption), how hot would his seat be at the end of the year? As is, I see 0% chance of him getting fired, if those assumptions come true. If he were not an alum...I could see an outside shot (25%(ish)) of him being let go at the end of the year, and if not after this season, conditions similar to "making a super" etc. or else him being canned after next year.

Now, with Mullen having similar (maybe slightly less) success, we're ready to build a statue, but should we not expect more?? With our new stadium, current facilities, Cohen's salary, fan support, tradition, the SEC, etc., I'm not sure there is a coach outside of the top 5-10 programs in the country that we couldn't steal.

Am I wrong???

It's not just the Omaha appearance. We have two SR appearances, four regionals in a row, and a SEC Tournament Championship. And we're about to start putting alumni from the Cohen era into MLB pretty soon- Renfroe, Lindgren, Graveman, and maybe with a strong year Stratton.

[lfl]

Some buddies and I were debating this the other day...if Cohen was not an alum, and assuming that we're not in the field of 64 this year (fairly safe assumption), how hot would his seat be at the end of the year? As is, I see 0% chance of him getting fired, if those assumptions come true. If he were not an alum...I could see an outside shot (25%(ish)) of him being let go at the end of the year, and if not after this season, conditions similar to "making a super" etc. or else him being canned after next year.

Now, with Mullen having similar (maybe slightly less) success, we're ready to build a statue, but should we not expect more?? With our new stadium, current facilities, Cohen's salary, fan support, tradition, the SEC, etc., I'm not sure there is a coach outside of the top 5-10 programs in the country that we couldn't steal.

Am I wrong???

Go back and look at what Smoke Laval did at LSU. He had great success his first three years at LSU (Super followed by 2 CWS). However, he then went 40-22 (18-12) in 2005, losing in the regional final, and 35-24 (13-17) in 2006 with no post-season, and was fired/resigned.

If Cohen misses the post-season two years in a row, he should be gone. That said, I think he'll be here several more years.

[Coach34]

If Cohen misses the post-season two years in a row, he should be gone.


At this point in his tenure? Absolutely. No problem with that at all. No excuses. You get a pass for one- not two in a row

[Smitty]

There regular season tells the tale of the program. "Making a super" should not be part of the equation at all.

[Todd4State]

There regular season tells the tale of the program. "Making a super" should not be part of the equation at all.

Ummm.....yes it should. That pretty much means that you are an elite team in the country by todays standard.

[msstate7]

He played for the National Title 2 seasons ago
Round of 32 last year

You dont fire that guy after this year no matter WHO it is

Auburn fired chizik 2 years after a natty (chick-fil-a bowl year after). How'd it work out for them?


Not saying Cohen should be fired...

[Smitty]

Ummm.....yes it should. That pretty much means that you are an elite team in the country by todays standard.

"Make a super this year of you're out"…… No, no that shouldn't be the case ever. Don't try to be argumentative just for it's own sake.

I'd rather be a national seed and run into bad luck losing a regional than luck up as a 3 seed and lose out in a super.. The state of the program would be better under the first option. Programs aren't judged by 3 days of play.

[engie]

Programs are only judged on 3 days of play. No one will remember the Vandy team that was the best in regular season sec history. They'll remember the next one that wasn't as good overall but won a title. No one remembers the Mariners team that won about 120(hell I don't remember the year or the exact number). They remember who wins titles.

Both are important obviously. But if I'm choosing deep runs in Omaha vs 40+ regular season wins, I'm taking the postseason success every time. But you are going to spin it as much as you possibly can -- so spin away. Nvm that by win percentage that season two years ago was what? the 3rd best? In MSU history. But you'll break that down further and say we didn't win enough games in conference, basically just being a rat on a wheel where satisfaction is unattainable.

[maroonmania]

Go back and look at what Smoke Laval did at LSU. He had great success his first three years at LSU (Super followed by 2 CWS). However, he then went 40-22 (18-12) in 2005, losing in the regional final, and 35-24 (13-17) in 2006 with no post-season, and was fired/resigned.

If Cohen misses the post-season two years in a row, he should be gone. That said, I think he'll be here several more years.

Well, we aren't LSU for starters. We would often like to think we are to their level but the on field accomplishments just aren't there for us like they are for LSU. Whatever their patience is for pulling the trigger on a head baseball coach, ours should be much, much more.

[maroonmania]

Programs are only judged on 3 days of play. No one will remember the Vandy team that was the best in regular season sec history. They'll remember the next one that wasn't as good overall but won a title. No one remembers the Mariners team that won about 120(hell I don't remember the year or the exact number). They remember who wins titles.

Both are important obviously. But if I'm choosing deep runs in Omaha vs 40+ regular season wins, I'm taking the postseason success every time. But you are going to spin it as much as you possibly can -- so spin away. Nvm that by win percentage that season two years ago was what? the 3rd best? In MSU history. But you'll break that down further and say we didn't win enough games in conference, basically just being a rat on a wheel where satisfaction is unattainable.

That's not totally true. Yes, getting to Omaha is the biggest thing in college baseball but winning SEC titles, particularly the SEC championship that is won during the regular season, is a big accomplishment that's certainly worth remembering. I certainly remember that we have NOT won one since 1989 and I'm not real thrilled about it. I always got ill when folks talked about Stans program and poo pooed everything we ever accomplished in the SEC just because we didn't make any big NCAA tourney runs under him. That day in Tuscaloosa when we won an outright SEC championship in 2004 will always remain one of my best MSU basketball memories regardless of what we have or have not done in the NCAA tourney.

[engie]

So go thru and name me who won sec titles each year in the last decade or two from memory... And I'll try the same for winning the cws... And we'll see who ends up with the most correct answers...

You skipped right over the part where I said that both are important huh? The fact of the matter is -- "regular season accomplishments" in this case is being used simply as a tool to downplay Cohen's accomplishments here so far and that is bullshit. People can wish that we had done more in the regular seasons certainly -- in fact everyone here does -- but let's not pretend his seat wouldn't be hotter if he was winning 40+ and hosting every year without having sniffed Omaha yet. He'd be catching way more hell -- and people would be using Kentucky against him as well.

The regular season is only important in getting to host/be a national seed and in doing enough to make the tournament. Everyone here would like to win a regular season title -- but only if it includes a postseason run as well. If I get to choose between a regular season title that will be forgotten by 13 fanbases in the conference by the time the sec tourney starts -- or another week in Omaha that hardly anyone will forget -- I'm choosing the latter every time.

[Really Clark?]

That's not totally true. Yes, getting to Omaha is the biggest thing in college baseball but winning SEC titles, particularly the SEC championship that is won during the regular season, is a big accomplishment that's certainly worth remembering. I certainly remember that we have NOT won one since 1989 and I'm not real thrilled about it. I always got ill when folks talked about Stans program and poo pooed everything we ever accomplished in the SEC just because we didn't make any big NCAA tourney runs under him. That day in Tuscaloosa when we won an outright SEC championship in 2004 will always remain one of my best MSU basketball memories regardless of what we have or have not done in the NCAA tourney.

I disagree and I think you might also with a particular case study. From 1991-2005 Atlanta Braves won 14 division titles but only won 1 World Series. So was the Braves or the Yankees the best team during that period? New York had 9 divisional wins so the Braves were the best team by far. Right?

I have a bit of the Billy Bean mindset about this. You are only as good as your last game. And unless you have made a playoff run as a player or coach and you ended with the last game as a win (meaning you have won it all) then you can't appreciate how much more of an accomplishment you feel you have made over winning a regular season title. You see it discussed and disected in the mental aspects of championship runs about peaking at the right time, playing your best at the right time, etc. since 2008, the LA Dodgers have won more divisions but SF has the rings. Which team is considered better during this time?

[Coach34]

Auburn fired chizik 2 years after a natty (chick-fil-a bowl year after). How'd it work out for them?


Not saying Cohen should be fired...

Thats because Auburn and everybody else knew why Chizik had any success in the first place- so they replaced him with the reason

[Tbonewannabe]

He played for the National Title 2 seasons ago
Round of 32 last year

You dont fire that guy after this year no matter WHO it is

Also is getting top 5-10 recruiting classes now. We have a team built for last year's style of play. We need to give them a year to course correct.

[Political Hack]

It's the equivalent of telling your all time winningest coach that he'd better make the tournament or he's fired next season.

[Coach34]

Any firing talk is absolutely ridiculous and comes from the people that just simply hate Cohen- for whatever reason. Nobody is happy about this season or our play. His methods are maddening at times. But he has led us to the most successful season in our history- as well as rebuilt the program Polk let crumble to shit. If we miss the Tourney this year- Keenum needs to jump his ass and tell him to tighten up- It happens, but not twice in a row at Mississippi State when we aren't rebuilding. Rebuilding is long over

[maroonmania]

So go thru and name me who won sec titles each year in the last decade or two from memory... And I'll try the same for winning the cws... And we'll see who ends up with the most correct answers...

You skipped right over the part where I said that both are important huh? The fact of the matter is -- "regular season accomplishments" in this case is being used simply as a tool to downplay Cohen's accomplishments here so far and that is bullshit. People can wish that we had done more in the regular seasons certainly -- in fact everyone here does -- but let's not pretend his seat wouldn't be hotter if he was winning 40+ and hosting every year without having sniffed Omaha yet. He'd be catching way more hell -- and people would be using Kentucky against him as well.

The regular season is only important in getting to host/be a national seed and in doing enough to make the tournament. Everyone here would like to win a regular season title -- but only if it includes a postseason run as well. If I get to choose between a regular season title that will be forgotten by 13 fanbases in the conference by the time the sec tourney starts -- or another week in Omaha that hardly anyone will forget -- I'm choosing the latter every time.

You appeared to totally miss my point. I agree that CWS titles are more important than SEC titles, that's a no brainer, but to be honest, outside of the last 2 or 3 years the vast majority of people, including me, couldn't name you who won EITHER a CWS title OR an SEC title in any exact year in college baseball. I know LSU has won a slew of both over the past 25 years and I know Vandy won the CWS title last year and the SEC title the year before that. I also know UCLA won the CWS title 2 years ago because we played them. And like I said, the main thing is I know we have NOT won an SEC title since 1989 and that is somewhat embarrassing to me for a school that puts as much emphasis on baseball as we do. My point was though that I am not willing to totally 100% disregard regular season accomplishments in favor of making a tourney run in baseball or basketball. Hopefully I'm not alone in that. And for example, I KNOW we won the 2004 SEC basketball title VERY vividly and we have a banner hanging in our rafters for it but I couldn't tell you the winner and year of most of the basketball national champions between 2004 and 2014.

[preachermatt83]

At this point in his tenure? Absolutely. No problem with that at all. No excuses. You get a pass for one- not two in a row

This!!! Not fired this yr for missing post season but if he misses two in a row, he gone

[maroonmania]

I disagree and I think you might also with a particular case study. From 1991-2005 Atlanta Braves won 14 division titles but only won 1 World Series. So was the Braves or the Yankees the best team during that period? New York had 9 divisional wins so the Braves were the best team by far. Right?

I have a bit of the Billy Bean mindset about this. You are only as good as your last game. And unless you have made a playoff run as a player or coach and you ended with the last game as a win (meaning you have won it all) then you can't appreciate how much more of an accomplishment you feel you have made over winning a regular season title. You see it discussed and disected in the mental aspects of championship runs about peaking at the right time, playing your best at the right time, etc. since 2008, the LA Dodgers have won more divisions but SF has the rings. Which team is considered better during this time?

While I don't see MLB and college baseball in any way comparing apples to apples I would certainly agree that if we had won 14 SEC regular season titles over the past 25 years, yet had failed to ever even make it to Omaha, then yes I would likely feel differently. Being totally honest thought, right now with the strength of the SEC, its much tougher for us to win a regular season SEC title than it is to just make Omaha. Now winning the whole thing is different, but we haven't pulled that off either.

[maroonmania]

Also is getting top 5-10 recruiting classes now. We have a team built for last year's style of play. We need to give them a year to course correct.

Exactly, we are now starting to bring in classes even much higher ranked than Cohen himself has ever gotten to MSU before. It would be stupid not to see how much of that talent comes to campus and the impact it has on our team before putting the heat to Cohen. Heck, if Rick Ray had signed a Top 10 class this year and had a Top 10 class committed for next year, I would have been more than willing to ride it out with him even with all of his losing records so far.

[Really Clark?]

While I don't see MLB and college baseball in any way comparing apples to apples I would certainly agree that if we had won 14 SEC regular season titles over the past 25 years, yet had failed to ever even make it to Omaha, then yes I would likely feel differently. Being totally honest thought, right now with the strength of the SEC, its much tougher for us to win a regular season SEC title than it is to just make Omaha. Now winning the whole thing is different, but we haven't pulled that off either.

The mindset is the same whether little league or pro. It's a different feeling winning the title or just qualifing for worlds vs winning the conference or district. No matter the level I've played or coach at its a different sense of accomplishment over winning the regular season. Not that its not something to be proud of but after the first one that goal is done and you are still fighting for the title. Whether that's state championship or World Series.

[engie]

I can name at least the last 13 baseball national champions by year off the top of my head... I can't go back but 3 maybe 4 years for the sec baseball title...

[War Machine Dawg]

He played for the National Title 2 seasons ago
Round of 32 last year

You dont fire that guy after this year no matter WHO it is

Yep. As pissed off as I am with The Meddler about "The Pattern" and his inability to understand the importance of the regular season, there is no way you can justify firing him after this season. But he should feel some serious heat coming into next season, should we miss the NCAAT this year. He gets ONE mulligan to fire Mingione and replace him with a legit badass hitting coach during the offseason. And if we suck again next season......

[maroonmania]

The mindset is the same whether little league or pro. It's a different feeling winning the title or just qualifing for worlds vs winning the conference or district. No matter the level I've played or coach at its a different sense of accomplishment over winning the regular season. Not that its not something to be proud of but after the first one that goal is done and you are still fighting for the title. Whether that's state championship or World Series.

So, sounds like we are certainly in agreement that winning a NC would mean a LOT more than winning an SEC championship. But if you are saying just MAKING a regional is more important than winning an SEC championship, then I guess that's where I would differ. Sure, anyone is excited to make a regional because that's the only way you have a CHANCE to win a NC. But if you get the chance and then do nothing with it, it doesn't mean much. Of course if you win the SEC you are going to get in the regional anyway, so for that its not an either/or. A player being part of any MSU baseball team that won an SEC championship would have much more of a legacy than one that was part of a team that just made a regional. Plus, we are talking about winning the best college baseball league in the country, not the Sun Belt or something.

[Smitty]

Programs are only judged on 3 days of play. .

Teams are... Programs aren't. Longevity, best shot of being there year in and year out.. Competing for conference titles (not conference tournament) Thats how you judge the state of the program.

LSU's baseball program never fell behind Ole Miss' program just because Ole Miss had a better finish last year.

[Really Clark?]

So, sounds like we are certainly in agreement that winning a NC would mean a LOT more than winning an SEC championship. But if you are saying just MAKING a regional is more important than winning an SEC championship, then I guess that's where I would differ. Sure, anyone is excited to make a regional because that's the only way you have a CHANCE to win a NC. But if you get the chance and then do nothing with it, it doesn't mean much. Of course if you win the SEC you are going to get in the regional anyway, so for that its not an either/or. A player being part of any MSU baseball team that won an SEC championship would have much more of a legacy than one that was part of a team that just made a regional. Plus, we are talking about winning the best college baseball league in the country, not the Sun Belt or something.

I didn't say just making the regional is better. We are talking about making a post season run. Making the World Series is better though. Not that winning the regular season title is not great but if you don't at least make it out of the regionals (and if you are winning the SEC you had better make it to CWS) then that leaves the players, coaches, and FANS with a failure at the end of the year. It's like this, would you rather win district in high school but not make the state title game or finish 3rd in district but play for the state title? I'm taking option two, a run during the most pressure and exciting part of the season is more impressive and gives a greater sense of achievement. Win district and you should be making a run at least for a few rounds and if you play in a strong district (like the SEC) then you had better be at least playing in the semifinals.

[maroonmania]

Yep. As pissed off as I am with The Meddler about "The Pattern" and his inability to understand the importance of the regular season, there is no way you can justify firing him after this season. But he should feel some serious heat coming into next season, should we miss the NCAAT this year. He gets ONE mulligan to fire Mingione and replace him with a legit badass hitting coach during the offseason. And if we suck again next season......

Apparently Cohen just has the same mindset as many on this board so this really shouldn't be a problem. Just sleepwalk through the regular season and scrape into a regional and all is well.

[maroonmania]

I can name at least the last 13 baseball national champions by year off the top of my head... I can't go back but 3 maybe 4 years for the sec baseball title...

National championship > SEC championship. Concur, and nobody will disagree with that. I will say though that if you can rattle off the last 13 college baseball NCs by year then you are probably in about the .001% of college sports fans.

[maroonmania]

I didn't say just making the regional is better. We are talking about making a post season run. Making the World Series is better though. Not that winning the regular season title is not great but if you don't at least make it out of the regionals (and if you are winning the SEC you had better make it to CWS) then that leaves the players, coaches, and FANS with a failure at the end of the year. It's like this, would you rather win district in high school but not make the state title game or finish 3rd in district but play for the state title? I'm taking option two, a run during the most pressure and exciting part of the season is more impressive and gives a greater sense of achievement. Win district and you should be making a run at least for a few rounds and if you play in a strong district (like the SEC) then you had better be at least playing in the semifinals.

Are you following this dialogue? Engie's original statement that I responded to was emphatic in saying "Programs are ONLY judged on 3 days of play". THAT is what I disagreed with and the premise that the regular season doesn't mean anything because supposedly nobody remembers it. SEC titles DO mean something, they don't mean what a NC means or even what a CWS appearance means, but that doesn't make them meaningless.

[Smitty]

I didn't say just making the regional is better. We are talking about making a post season run. Making the World Series is better though. Not that winning the regular season title is not great but if you don't at least make it out of the regionals (and if you are winning the SEC you had better make it to CWS) then that leaves the players, coaches, and FANS with a failure at the end of the year. It's like this, would you rather win district in high school but not make the state title game or finish 3rd in district but play for the state title? I'm taking option two, a run during the most pressure and exciting part of the season is more impressive and gives a greater sense of achievement. Win district and you should be making a run at least for a few rounds and if you play in a strong district (like the SEC) then you had better be at least playing in the semifinals.

Its apples and oranges here.... Of course anyone would RATHER make a deeper postseason run if that is the options given for a given year... What we would rather do in a given year and how you judge the state of a program are completely separate issues.

[Really Clark?]

Its apples and oranges here.... Of course anyone would RATHER make a deeper postseason run if that is the options given for a given year... What we would rather do in a given year and how you judge the state of a program are completely separate issues.

I'm not talking about just a given year. Which organization has been better since 2008, Dodgers or Giants? One has more division wins and one has more titles with some average season thrown in between their titles. The Giants are considered having the better organization, especially when you look at each budget.

[Really Clark?]

Are you following this dialogue? Engie's original statement that I responded to was emphatic in saying "Programs are ONLY judged on 3 days of play". THAT is what I disagreed with and the premise that the regular season doesn't mean anything because supposedly nobody remembers it. SEC titles DO mean something, they don't mean what a NC means or even what a CWS appearance means, but that doesn't make them meaningless.

"But if I'm choosing deep runs in Omaha vs 40+ regular season wins, I'm taking the postseason success every time." That was also in his post and I'm talking about the middle area. Winning the SEC regular season is great but if you don't back that up with a run then it a hollow feeling. Especially when the SEC puts several teams in the CWS each year. Even a regular season title with a super regional loss leaves the season with somewhat a failure.

[maroonmania]

"But if I'm choosing deep runs in Omaha vs 40+ regular season wins, I'm taking the postseason success every time." That was also in his post and I'm talking about the middle area. Winning the SEC regular season is great but if you don't back that up with a run then it a hollow feeling. Especially when the SEC puts several teams in the CWS each year. Even a regular season title with a super regional loss leaves the season with somewhat a failure.

Ok, I believe we are in general agreement, I just don't want the regular season performance downplayed like it has no importance. I think this topic has probably run its course.

[Political Hack]

Making Omaha > Winning SEC Tournament

[Alldawg]

Number 4 ranked class per PG before MLB draft coming in fall, 2016 class is rapidly being a top 10 class. He is doing a damn fine job signing players, a little late but the elite players are buying in and signing. He should be given two more years.

Waiting on C34 to start the campaign on Cohen. He has it in for the coaches that can recruit but not do much with them.

[Smitty]

Making Omaha > Winning SEC Tournament

No shit. The SEC tournament means nothing. Who are you even trying to point this out to?

Losing a regional as a national seed 47 win team > losing a Super as a 3 seed in terms of the overall state of the program, player development, recruiting, etc.

[Todd4State]

That's not totally true. Yes, getting to Omaha is the biggest thing in college baseball but winning SEC titles, particularly the SEC championship that is won during the regular season, is a big accomplishment that's certainly worth remembering. I certainly remember that we have NOT won one since 1989 and I'm not real thrilled about it. I always got ill when folks talked about Stans program and poo pooed everything we ever accomplished in the SEC just because we didn't make any big NCAA tourney runs under him. That day in Tuscaloosa when we won an outright SEC championship in 2004 will always remain one of my best MSU basketball memories regardless of what we have or have not done in the NCAA tourney.

An SEC Championship is still a championship.

[Todd4State]

Teams are... Programs aren't. Longevity, best shot of being there year in and year out.. Competing for conference titles (not conference tournament) Thats how you judge the state of the program.

LSU's baseball program never fell behind Ole Miss' program just because Ole Miss had a better finish last year.

You obviously missed the Smoke Laval era at LSU. It's not just conference titles that you judge a program by- it's the postseason and the postseason carries more weight. That's why teams put their World Championships in the most prominent place- and more prominently displayed than any other championship.

I'm not surprised that Billy Beane's biggest fan is trying to convince everyone that the regular season is more important than the postseason considering Beane's track record in the postseason.

[Coach34]

Waiting on C34 to start the campaign on Cohen. He has it in for the coaches that can recruit but not do much with them.

uhhhhh- we played for a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. Cohen has more than shown he can do the job. There are ups and downs in coaching.

Just dont have 2 down years in a row coaching State baseball

[Coach34]

You obviously missed the Smoke Laval era at LSU. It's not just conference titles that you judge a program by- it's the postseason and the postseason carries more weight. That's why teams put their World Championships in the most prominent place- and more prominently displayed than any other championship.

I'm not surprised that Billy Beane's biggest fan is trying to convince everyone that the regular season is more important than the postseason considering Beane's track record in the postseason.

In basketball and baseball- the regular season is all about seeding for the NCAA Tourney. Very little more. Your program is judged on NCAA Tourney appearances and success in that Tourney

[Todd4State]

In basketball and baseball- the regular season is all about seeding for the NCAA Tourney. Very little more. Your program is judged on NCAA Tourney appearances and success in that Tourney

Exactly. Like our 1985 team and 2013 team are remembered more than our 1989 team that holds the school record for wins- and it's because both went further in the postseason. That's what recruits look for in baseball- how many times have you made it to Omaha and a SR? Because to make it that far, you have to be in position to make it that far- even if you get hot you have to have a good regular season to get in- so having a good regular season is already implied from an outsiders perspective.

[dawgs]

Programs are only judged on 3 days of play. No one will remember the Vandy team that was the best in regular season sec history. They'll remember the next one that wasn't as good overall but won a title. No one remembers the Mariners team that won about 120(hell I don't remember the year or the exact number). They remember who wins titles.

Both are important obviously. But if I'm choosing deep runs in Omaha vs 40+ regular season wins, I'm taking the postseason success every time. But you are going to spin it as much as you possibly can -- so spin away. Nvm that by win percentage that season two years ago was what? the 3rd best? In MSU history. But you'll break that down further and say we didn't win enough games in conference, basically just being a rat on a wheel where satisfaction is unattainable.

What he means is that by being a national seed, it's an indication of sustainability in the program, whereas having a hot weekend isn't sustainable. For instance, people don't necessarily remember that vandy had the best even sec record a few years ago, but by being that good, it was indicative that the program was in a place to compete for a title most seasons and look what happened, they won it last year.

I would rather us host most years and be in the national seed discussion more often than not because that's indicative that the program is ready to be a real threat to make a postseason run every year.

[dawgs]

In basketball and baseball- the regular season is all about seeding for the NCAA Tourney. Very little more. Your program is judged on NCAA Tourney appearances and success in that Tourney

BUT the better you are in the regular season, the better shot you have at having post season success. We may have made some postseason runs under Cohen, but we aren't putting ourselves in the best position to continue to make postseason runs (hosting most seasons, national seed ~25% of the time). I don't think anyone is downplaying our 2013 run, but i would feel a lot better about another 2013-like run if we were consistently hosting/competing for the sec instead of finishing around .500 and hoping for a good matchup as. 2 or 3 seed.

[Really Clark?]

BUT the better you are in the regular season, the better shot you have at having post season success. We may have made some postseason runs under Cohen, but we aren't putting ourselves in the best position to continue to make postseason runs (hosting most seasons, national seed ~25% of the time). I don't think anyone is downplaying our 2013 run, but i would feel a lot better about another 2013-like run if we were consistently hosting/competing for the sec instead of finishing around .500 and hoping for a good matchup as. 2 or 3 seed.

When usually less than half of the national seeds (which includes 2-3 SEC teams each year) actually make it to the CWS then I have to disagree with your statement. Now you do want to be a 1 or 2 seed in a regional but you can do that by finishing in the top 8 in this league.

[State82]

There are ups and downs in coaching. Just dont have 2 down years in a row coaching State baseball

Yep. I'm as miffed as anyone about our current situation and there are no excuses for it happening. However, the top baseball program in the country, the LSU Tigers, have missed NCAA Regional play 3 times in the last 10 years. Twice under Mainaeri. So as unhappy as I am with Cohen et al right now, I'm waiting and watching as patiently as I can to see how the whole thing plays out for the next 14 months. I agree that, if we miss regional play this year as I suspect we will, a little sit down will be in order with Cohen, Stricklin and Keenum. Especially with a monumental construction project hanging in the balance.

[War Machine Dawg]

What he means is that by being a national seed, it's an indication of sustainability in the program, whereas having a hot weekend isn't sustainable. For instance, people don't necessarily remember that vandy had the best even sec record a few years ago, but by being that good, it was indicative that the program was in a place to compete for a title most seasons and look what happened, they won it last year.

I would rather us host most years and be in the national seed discussion more often than not because that's indicative that the program is ready to be a real threat to make a postseason run every year.

http://i.imgur.com/cuCPKY3.gif

[Coach34]

BUT the better you are in the regular season, the better shot you have at having post season success. We may have made some postseason runs under Cohen, but we aren't putting ourselves in the best position to continue to make postseason runs (hosting most seasons, national seed ~25% of the time). I don't think anyone is downplaying our 2013 run, but i would feel a lot better about another 2013-like run if we were consistently hosting/competing for the sec instead of finishing around .500 and hoping for a good matchup as. 2 or 3 seed.

So you mean the better you are the better chance you have of advancing in postseason??? Well damn, mystery solved. Bottom line is still postseason- not regular season. Only twice in the last 5 years have as many as half the national seeds even made it to Omaha- so being a national seed is no guarantee of postseason success.

2014- 2
2013- 3
2012- 4
2011- 6
2010- 3

[dawgs]

So you mean the better you are the better chance you have of advancing in postseason??? Well damn, mystery solved. Bottom line is still postseason- not regular season. Only twice in the last 5 years have as many as half the national seeds even made it to Omaha- so being a national seed is no guarantee of postseason success.

2014- 2
2013- 3
2012- 4
2011- 6
2010- 3

Should we run the % of non-national seeds to make the CWS?

2014 - 6 of 56
2013 - 5 of 56
2012 - 4 of 56
2011 - 2 of 56
2010 - 5 of 56

I'll take the odds of being a national seed. It's like recruiting, every 5* doesn't become a stud and some 3* guys become NFL HOFers, but the rates of success of the 5* guys is much higher than the rates of success of the 3* guys. Not every national seed makes the CWS, and some 3 seeds make title runs (or a 4 seed Fresno at), but the higher the seed, the better odds of success.

[Really Clark?]

Should we run the % of non-national seeds to make the CWS?

2014 - 6 of 56
2013 - 5 of 56
2012 - 4 of 56
2011 - 2 of 56
2010 - 5 of 56

I'll take the odds of being a national seed. It's like recruiting, every 5* doesn't become a stud and some 3* guys become NFL HOFers, but the rates of success of the 5* guys is much higher than the rates of success of the 3* guys. Not every national seed makes the CWS, and some 3 seeds make title runs (or a 4 seed Fresno at), but the higher the seed, the better odds of success.

I disagree with looking at the stat that way. The national top 8 seeds are part of the field anyway so their percentage is even lower. You can't exclude them and say 2 of the top 8 make it so you have a better chance. The stat would be like 2 of the 64 teams that make it are top 8 seeds while 6 of the 64 teams are not national seeds make it to the CWS. The field has to include the national seeds. By breaking them out of the total number of teams you are making it a very misleading stat.

[dawgs]

I disagree with looking at the stat that way. The national top 8 seeds are part of the field anyway so their percentage is even lower. You can't exclude them and say 2 of the top 8 make it so you have a better chance. The stat would be like 2 of the 64 teams that make it are top 8 seeds while 6 of the 64 teams are not national seeds make it to the CWS. The field has to include the national seeds. By breaking them out of the total number of teams you are making it a very misleading stat.

But national seeds only make up 8 of the 64 teams, whereas non-national seeds make up 56 of the 64 teams. In other words there's a hell of a lot more opportunities for a non-national team to make the CWS than for a national seed to make it. You're way of looking at it is like people who say that recruiting is a complete crapshoot because half the 1st round picks in the draft are 0-3* guys. Well yeah, there are only 30 or so 5* and 200 or so 4* recruits a year, but there's thousands of 0-3* guys.

[Really Clark?]

But national seeds only make up 8 of the 64 teams, whereas non-national seeds make up 56 of the 64 teams. In other words there's a hell of a lot more opportunities for a non-national team to make the CWS than for a national seed to make it. You're way of looking at it is like people who say that recruiting is a complete crapshoot because half the 1st round picks in the draft are 0-3* guys. Well yeah, there are only 30 or so 5* and 200 or so 4* recruits a year, but there's thousands of 0-3* guys.

But they are part of the 64 team field. You don't remove them from the ratio. Just like your 5* example you would not remove them from the total number of first round picks. You would say x number of 5* atheletes were drafted in the first round or you would say of the y number of 5* athletes x number was drafted in the first round. Either way you are using the total number of first round picks or the total number of 5* to complete the ratio.

[Coach34]

We argue all day- the regular still is just about seeding for the NCAA Tourney.

Finishing 4th in the SEC and making it to Omaha is > winning the SEC and losing your regional

since rebuilding the program- Cohen has finished in the final 16, 32, 2nd, and 32...this year is a letdown. Recruiting is picking up though and everybody is on the same page that Cohen better not have another bad year next year. NCAA's or bust

[starkvegasdawg]

I'm not on the fire Cohen train...yet...but I will be if he doesn't quit trying to be the Albert Einstein of coaches. Baseball is not a complicated game and he needs to quit acting like it is. In his incessant desire to be a controlling micromanager he is stifling the players on his team. And his hard headedness keeps him from admitting some of what he's doing is wrong and changing it. No more bunting in the first inning unless you're trying for a hit. It's ok to play for a two run inning. Put your best nine out there every game. This isn't little league. Everybody doesn't have to play. Once you pick your best players stick with it so they can build some comfort and consistency.

[dawgs]

But they are part of the 64 team field. You don't remove them from the ratio. Just like your 5* example you would not remove them from the total number of first round picks. You would say x number of 5* atheletes were drafted in the first round or you would say of the y number of 5* athletes x number was drafted in the first round. Either way you are using the total number of first round picks or the total number of 5* to complete the ratio.

So if you are shooting 3 pointers against Reggie miller. He makes 8 of 10, but you make 9 of 100, you are better than Reggie miller because you made 9 3 pointers instead of 8???

Look, going to the recruiting/drafting example, if 10 5* from a class are drafted in the 1st round, that's about 1/3 of the 5* in that class drafted in the 1st round. If 20 non-5* from a class are drafted in the 1st round, that's still a very very small % of the non-5* that were drafted in the 1st round, even though the counting numbers favor the non-5* recruits.

Ratios, how do they work?

[Really Clark?]

So if you are shooting 3 pointers against Reggie miller. He makes 8 of 10, but you make 9 of 100, you are better than Reggie miller because you made 9 3 pointers instead of 8???

Look, going to the recruiting/drafting example, if 10 5* from a class are drafted in the 1st round, that's about 1/3 of the 5* in that class drafted in the 1st round. If 20 non-5* from a class are drafted in the 1st round, that's still a very very small % of the non-5* that were drafted in the 1st round, even though the counting numbers favor the non-5* recruits.

Ratios, how do they work?

No. Look the national seeds are not exempt from playing in the full 64 team field. So you have to include them in the ratio. They have the same chance as anyone else to make the CWS. Yes teams in the top half of the field have better ODDS of making the CWS but every team has the exact same chance. And being the national top 8 statistically doesn't mean you have the best odds of making the CWS. In fact seeds 9-17 probably have as good of odds as the top 8. Under you theory the top seed has the best odds of winning the CWS (only one of 8 teams has the #1 overall seed) and we not that is not true at all. The top 8 has to be included in the full field percentage.

[dawgs]

You don't don't what you are talking about. National seeds have 8 chances to make the CWS. Non-national seeds have 56 chances to make it. If you have 56 chances to make 3 pointers, you might make more than the best shooter in the world that gets 8 shots, but that doesn't make you a better shooter.

[Todd4State]

You don't don't what you are talking about. National seeds have 8 chances to make the CWS. Non-national seeds have 56 chances to make it. If you have 56 chances to make 3 pointers, you might make more than the best shooter in the world that gets 8 shots, but that doesn't make you a better shooter.

What?

That's completely wrong on so many levels.

Technically there are four team pods and in general, you have a percentage of making it through that pod based on the other teams in that pod and how good they are. And that percentage is going to vary- so I'm not going to even attempt to put a number on something that could range from 1% to probably 85%.

The thing is you have a committee that rates everybody- but there is no guarantee that they will get it right or be fair to everyone. They might make us a three seed- but we may match up very well with the other teams in our pod. You may be a National Seed, but they may stick someone that has the top pick in the draft as the four seed, and two other teams that are hot in the pod.

The most important thing is to get in because then you have a chance.

[dawgs]

What?

That's completely wrong on so many levels.

Technically there are four team pods and in general, you have a percentage of making it through that pod based on the other teams in that pod and how good they are. And that percentage is going to vary- so I'm not going to even attempt to put a number on something that could range from 1% to probably 85%.

The thing is you have a committee that rates everybody- but there is no guarantee that they will get it right or be fair to everyone. They might make us a three seed- but we may match up very well with the other teams in our pod. You may be a National Seed, but they may stick someone that has the top pick in the draft as the four seed, and two other teams that are hot in the pod.

The most important thing is to get in because then you have a chance.

Getting in is better than not getting in

Hosting is better than just getting in

National seed is better than just hosting

There is really no debate here. Your best odds of making it to the CWS and probably winning the whole thing is to be a national seed. It's also probably the best indicator of the program being positioned for long term success, which is where this discussion started. If you are a national seed, that's a better indicator of the program than making 1 CWS run for a 2-4 seed.

[Really Clark?]

You don't don't what you are talking about. National seeds have 8 chances to make the CWS. Non-national seeds have 56 chances to make it. If you have 56 chances to make 3 pointers, you might make more than the best shooter in the world that gets 8 shots, but that doesn't make you a better shooter.

That's not true at all. The top 8 do not just have 8 chances to make it to the CWS. That only works if the national seeds just play themselves and they take the top 2 or 3 teams from that group to the CWS and then the remaining 56 teams fight for the remaining 5-6 spots. That is what you are saying in your scenario. Incorrect. The top 8 have to play in the same brackets as the other 56 teams. And the remaining 56 teams don't have to play 56 games (take 56 3 point shots) to decide if they make it either. That makes no sense. You are wanting to say that the top 8 seeds have a 2/8 chance or 1/4 or 25% chance to make the CWS. They do not. They have the same 1/64 chance as everyone else.

[dawgs]

That's not true at all. The top 8 do not just have 8 chances to make it to the CWS. That only works if the national seeds just play themselves and they take the top 2 or 3 teams from that group to the CWS and then the remaining 56 teams fight for the remaining 5-6 spots. That is what you are saying in your scenario. Incorrect. The top 8 have to play in the same brackets as the other 56 teams. And the remaining 56 teams don't have to play 56 games (take 56 3 point shots) to decide if they make it either. That makes no sense. You are wanting to say that the top 8 seeds have a 2/8 chance or 1/4 or 25% chance to make the CWS. They do not. They have the same 1/64 chance as everyone else.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm not a damn idiot. You are looking at a pure random draw type situation. I'm saying based on history, national seeds have a better chance of making the CWS than a non-national seed.

[Really Clark?]

Getting in is better than not getting in

Hosting is better than just getting in

National seed is better than just hosting

There is really no debate here. Your best odds of making it to the CWS and probably winning the whole thing is to be a national seed. It's also probably the best indicator of the program being positioned for long term success, which is where this discussion started. If you are a national seed, that's a better indicator of the program than making 1 CWS run for a 2-4 seed.


You are trying to equate Vegas odds of who will win against the actual chance of someone making it to the CWS. That is two different things. But for you info, in the last decade only 2 national seeds have won the CWS. Only 2. Now as coach said the better seeding means you get a better draw, that is no argument, but they have the exact same chance as every other team. Their odds are better to make it to a super regional but after that they have less than 50% chance of making the CWS (at that point in the round of 16) the last several years. The regular season and conference tourney helps seeds the teams. But in a pure mathmatical ratio, they have the same 1/64 chance.

[dawgs]

You are trying to equate Vegas odds of who will win against the actual chance of someone making it to the CWS. That is two different things. But for you info, in the last decade only 2 national seeds have won the CWS. Only 2. Now as coach said the better seeding means you get a better draw, that is no argument, but they have the exact same chance as every other team. Their odds are better to make it to a super regional but after that they have less than 50% chance of making the CWS (at that point in the round of 16) the last several years. The regular season and conference tourney helps seeds the teams. But in a pure mathmatical ratio, they have the same 1/64 chance.

What are you talking about? A 4 seed isn't a 1 in 64 chance to win the title. Your whole thought process just ignores how good the teams are. National seeds are better teams, and therefore a higher % of national seeds make to the CWS than the % of non-national seeds.

[Really Clark?]

What are you talking about? A 4 seed isn't a 1 in 64 chance to win the title. Your whole thought process just ignores how good the teams are. National seeds are better teams, and therefore a higher % of national seeds make to the CWS than the % of non-national seeds.

You keep looking at this from the view that the top 8 has a different path and they do not. Just because they had a great regular season, they get a higher seeding that gives them an easier path to super regionals does not mean they have a better chance to make the CWS. At the beginning of the season every team has a chance to make the playoffs. They have to play well enough to get in but everybody has the same chance. Once teams have made the playoffs it starts over. Granted the better teams gets the better seeding but they have to still win to make super regional. The top 64 makes the regionals but everyone starts the season with the same chance to get there. If you want to say that the national seeds have the best odds of making a super regional, I would agree by virtue of the seeding process. But their chances are the same as everyone else's. Two different things. And once you get to supers the odds change dramatically with parody over the last decade. That is why anybody left during supers has about the same 50/50 odds. Look at it this way, under your process if you take it to the end, then you think that the #1 seed has a better chance of winning than anyone else. The last 15 years no #1 team has won. That's taking out your logic to the final game and it doesn't hold true. Only 2,#2 seeds have won in the last 15 years. You have 9 non national seeds winning the CWS in the last 15 years. With those numbers being so lopsided for this long, the case can be made that being ranked in the top 8 is not advantageous to winning the title. The last five years the #1 hasn't even played for the title and I think only 2 of the top 4 seeds have played for the title. Being the national seed doesn't even guarantee you will make a super regional.

[dawgs]

You keep looking at this from the view that the top 8 has a different path and they do not. Just because they had a great regular season, they get a higher seeding that gives them an easier path to super regionals does not mean they have a better chance to make the CWS. At the beginning of the season every team has a chance to make the playoffs. They have to play well enough to get in but everybody has the same chance. Once teams have made the playoffs it starts over. Granted the better teams gets the better seeding but they have to still win to make super regional. The top 64 makes the regionals but everyone starts the season with the same chance to get there. If you want to say that the national seeds have the best odds of making a super regional, I would agree by virtue of the seeding process. But their chances are the same as everyone else's. Two different things. And once you get to supers the odds change dramatically with parody over the last decade. That is why anybody left during supers has about the same 50/50 odds. Look at it this way, under your process if you take it to the end, then you think that the #1 seed has a better chance of winning than anyone else. The last 15 years no #1 team has won. That's taking out your logic to the final game and it doesn't hold true. Only 2,#2 seeds have won in the last 15 years. You have 9 non national seeds winning the CWS in the last 15 years. With those numbers being so lopsided for this long, the case can be made that being ranked in the top 8 is not advantageous to winning the title. The last five years the #1 hasn't even played for the title and I think only 2 of the top 4 seeds have played for the title. Being the national seed doesn't even guarantee you will make a super regional.

No one ever said anything about guarantees. All that's been said is that being a national seed is your best route to the CWS and that being a national seed is a better indicator of sustained program quality than being a 3 seed and making a CWS run. Statistics support this.

[Smitty]

Dawgs is speaking common sense and yall are looking really ****ing stupid on this.

[Coach34]

Dawgs is speaking common sense and yall are looking really ****ing stupid on this.

the only advantage of being a national seed is home field. Thats all its good for.

aGAIN- postseason is what matters. Regular season is for seeding

[Really Clark?]

No one ever said anything about guarantees. All that's been said is that being a national seed is your best route to the CWS and that being a national seed is a better indicator of sustained program quality than being a 3 seed and making a CWS run. Statistics support this.

The debate hinged on the fact you want to seperate the top 8 seeds from the rest of the field and you can not do that. That was the part of your post I disagreed with. Your stat is wrong and draws an incorrect conclusion to fit what you believe. And when you look at the actual numbers over the last 15 years, it supports that your stat is incorrect. They have to be included with the entire field. If you want to break down regionals, supers, CWS, and titles I can go along with you saying that they have the best odds of making the supers. Same chance as everyone else but better odds. But after that it's 50/50 to make CWS and of the remaining teams in the CWS, the non national seeds by far have the best chance to not just win but to even play for the title. And now with as much parody is with the teams over the last five years the national seeds are mean even less. Only 1 title. Only 7 of the top 4 national seeds making the semifinals while 9 non national seeds made the semi's. You have had only 3 top 4 teams even play for the title with 5 non national seeds play for the title. In fact if you spend time really looking I bet the teams seeded 9-16 have actually faired better in terms of making the CWS and winning the title over the last decade.

[Really Clark?]

Dawgs is speaking common sense and yall are looking really ****ing stupid on this.

Common sense? You can't break out the national seeds from the rest of the field to make a stat. They have to be included with all of the teams because they are not exempt from playing games. He is confusing who has the best odds vs everybody having the same chance. Two different things. And once you get past regionals the non national seeds actually do better in qualifing for CWS or winning it.

[dawgs]

Does this really boil down to me using the term chance instead of odds? Did I even use the term chance instead of odds? Geez, some of you people.

[Really Clark?]

Does this really boil down to me using the term chance instead of odds? Did I even use the term chance instead of odds? Geez, some of you people.

Yeah. When you try to erroneously make a stat to inflate what the national seeding means then you might need to clarify. Especially since the other #1 seeds fair as well in qualifing and the non national seeds actually preform better at the CWS.

[dawgs]

Yeah. When you try to erroneously make a stat to inflate what the national seeding means then you might need to clarify. Especially since the other #1 seeds fair as well in qualifing and the non national seeds actually preform better at the CWS.

No one tried to erroneously say anything. All that was ever said was the chances/odds/likelihood/percentage/whatever of making the CWS is higher for national seeds than non-national seeds. Prove that's an incorrect statement.

[I seen it dawg]

Ok I'll do it...wiki is your friend...these are number of national seeds that made CWS from 2014 back to 99 when format was instituted. I literally found this in 2 minutes.

2,3,4,6,3,5,6,3,5,5,4,5,5,7,4,7

57% of the time national seeds get in. 52.5% the last 10 years and 45% the last 5.Basically a slightly better chance making it as a national seed but not statistically significant that last 10 years. Would have to say probably the slight better chance attributed to being home team for supers. Although the last 5 I guess you could say teams are just good and it doesn't matter. 45% is less than half still. Everybody is wrong and everybody is right.

In addition a national seed has won 7 out of 16 CWS. What's very telling is a national seed has only won 2 out of the last 11 CWS. Parity rules.

[Smitty]

You're still comparing 8 to 56

The top 8 get in more than the bottom 56. THAT is telling. The "regular season pretty much doesn't matter" crowd is so wrong here it's not even funny. Sure maybe half the field isn't national seeds. That puts the non-national seed teams competing with 55 others for 4 spots..... Meaning your odds of getting in, having the postseason success which is the goal, showing sustainability and a no doubt great state of the program lies in the REGULAR SEASON by becoming and competing for hosts and national seeds.

If there were only 16 teams in the tournament then you people's national seed vs non national seed argument would hold water. But when comparing 8 to 56 as Dawgs pointed out and you people not understanding is ridiculous.

[Smitty]

If you are a national seed you have a 57% odds of making Omaha.

If you are a 2 seed you have a ________ %
If you are a 3 seed you have a _________%

This is the point.

[Coach34]

If you are a national seed you have a 57% odds of making Omaha.


But only 45% in the last 5 years

As I Seen It Said- parity rules. The advantage is home field during a Super- but the last 5 years says even that advantage is dissapating. We'll see if that trend continues this Summer.

[Smitty]

But only 45% in the last 5 years

As I Seen It Said- parity rules. The advantage is home field during a Super- but the last 5 years says even that advantage is dissapating. We'll see if that trend continues this Summer.

Thats still nearly half of the field made up of a select group of EIGHT teams… Where the other side is not another eight but FIFTY-SIX.

[Coach34]

Only 2 of the last 11 champs have been national seeds....you dont want to win the NC... Cohen does

[Smitty]

There have been 1024 teams that have been in the tournament since 1999. 128 make the College World Series. Out of these 128…

100 have been 1 seeds.
17 have been 2 seeds.
9 have been 3 seeds.
2 have been 4 seeds.

Of the CWS participants,

78% are 1 seeds.
13% are 2 seeds.
7% are 3 seeds.
1.6% are 4 seeds.

Regular season success sets you up SO MUCH MORE for postseason success. It's not just about "getting in" and "seeding".

[dawgs]

I'm just happy there's 1 other person that understands. Thanks smitty.

[dawgs]

But only 45% in the last 5 years

As I Seen It Said- parity rules. The advantage is home field during a Super- but the last 5 years says even that advantage is dissapating. We'll see if that trend continues this Summer.

Put 64 people in a room. 8 people will win a drawing for $1M. They pull 8 random people to move into another room. 3-4 of the $1M dollar winners will come from those 8 people and 4-5 winners will come from the 56 people left in the original room. If you want to win $1M, which room is your best chance?

If we expand this exercise to include all 1 seeds, not just national seeds, you are now pulling 16 people out of the room, and 6-7 of the $1M winners will come from that group. The other 1-2 winners will come from the 48 people remaining in the original room. Which room do you want to be in?

[Coach34]

I'm not sure what you guys dont understand:

Nobody is saying we dont want to be good- but the program is JUDGED on the postseason. The regular season is for seeding- just as you two have pointed out.

Whats the best way to Omaha? Get to a Super Regional
Whats the best way to get to Super Regional? Host a regional.
Whats the best way to host a regional? Finish in the top 4-5 of the SEC

This shit aint hard

[Backspin]

I'm not sure what you guys dont understand:

Nobody is saying we dont want to be good- but the program is JUDGED on the postseason. The regular season is for seeding- just as you two have pointed out.

Whats the best way to Omaha? Get to a Super Regional
Whats the best way to get to Super Regional? Host a regional.
Whats the best way to host a regional? Finish in the top 4-5 of the SEC

This shit aint hard

Coach 34 just nailed it. Plain and simple. It's important that you play well enough in the regular season to position yourself to 1. reach the post season 2. at least host a regional while peaking toward the end of the season through player development.

[Smitty]

Both are important obviously. But if I'm choosing deep runs in Omaha vs 40+ regular season wins, I'm taking the postseason success every time

What you aren't getting is that the latter gives a much higher chance than the former. Your quote establishes that it is pretty much just as likely to make deep runs as a 2 seed than as a 40+ win 1 seed. Which is Dawgs and my point. You want deep runs in Omaha, you better damn well hope for 40+ regular season wins. It's not an either/or, its a correlation idea.



but let's not pretend his seat wouldn't be hotter if he was winning 40+ and hosting every year without having sniffed Omaha yet. He'd be catching way more hel

Again, if he was hosting every year he would probably have similar postseason numbers.. see hosting in 2013 leading to Omaha 2013. Again, it's correlation not either/or. 78% 1 seeds in Omaha.


From 1991-2005 Atlanta Braves won 14 division titles but only won 1 World Series.

From 1991-2005 the Toronto Blue Jays had 3 division titles and 2 World Series. Who was a better team/organization over those years, Atlanta or Toronto?…. Atlanta, by far.


Winning the SEC regular season is great but if you don't back that up with a run then it a hollow feeling
Obviously, but thats not the point. The point is Winning the SEC, hosting, gives you a much higher chance of making Omaha. You dismiss the regular season too much as if we can just flip a switch and "make a run" as a 2 or 3 seed. The numbers say making Omaha is very unlikely if you don't host.


I'm not surprised that Billy Beane's biggest fan is trying to convince everyone that the regular season is more important than the postseason considering Beane's track record in the postseason.
I'm not surprised you can't understand the point, you really think we are talking about whats more memorable. Dawgs and I are about 5 grade levels above that.


how many times have you made it to Omaha and a SR? Because to make it that far, you have to be in position to make it that far- even if you get hot you have to have a good regular season to get in- so having a good regular season is already implied from an outsiders perspective.
Getting in, getting in, getting in… Means less when the numbers are run. Getting in, great…. Hosting, 78% of Omaha.


In fact seeds 9-16 probably have as good of odds as the top 8.
Hahaha


National seeds have 8 chances to make the CWS.

What? That's completely wrong on so many levels.
Again, you really do not understand statistical discussions Todd.. 8 national seeds.. 8 shots of Omaha among them.. Simple.


the only advantage of being a national seed is home field. Thats all its good for. aGAIN- postseason is what matters. Regular season is for seeding
As we have seen, this is completely wrong. Your SEED directly correlates to your SUCCESS. 78% in Omaha.

The inability for some of you to understand the statistical points made here is really scary. I mean not being able to wrap your head around it simply is astounding.

[Really Clark?]

Dawgs even in your example above you are still pulling out 8 people to have a seperate drawing. That has been the debate we have been having. In this scenario and by not including the national seeds with the whole full field, the only way that stat works is if you have the top 8 teams play each other for x number of spots into the CWS and the remaining 56 teams play each other for y number of spots into CWS. You can not do that. The brackets are not set up that way. I don't know why you can't understand that scenario is not accurate to the actual brackets. To do a complete analysis of each sub group; national seeds, the next group of 1 seeds (that keeps getting thrown into the national seeds which is incorrect), the two seeds, three seeds, and four seeds and divide that by the entire 64 team field. Honestly I think the most accurate way because of the way the tournament is set up, after regionals then you look at the percentages again from the remaining 16 teams (you are playing a 2 out of three series against just one opponent) and then again once you have the CWS field set. You can't do a straight comparison because of the format of the tournament. You have to include the national seeds with the entire field because they are not exempt from play except just themselves to determine which one of them makes the CWS. That is your example and is incorrect.

It's like this, x number of national seeds make the super regionals from the field of 64. Then from the field of 16 in the super regional participants, x number of national seeds make the CWS. Then in the CWS, of the 8 participants x number of national seeds win, play for title, make semi, etc. what ever you are trying to determine. But your scenario is not an accurate representation of the chances teams have to make the CWS or especially win it.

[Smitty]

Everything we've been saying is why the seat should be heating up some.. Regardless of his 2013 run, he is not putting us in the position of postseason success! One host since the rebuild was over in 2011. We've seen hosting and the regular season is VERY IMPORTANT (78%).

Cohen does not have some magical potion where he has a special ability to "get hot" and make runs where others can't. Thats a damn meme that needs to be put to bed. Sure we have 2011, but we also have 2012 and 2014….

The whole reason the mindset is that Cohen has this special ability is because he had to suck early in seasons in order to "change" and improve.

[Smitty]

Dawgs even in your example above you are still pulling out 8 people to have a seperate drawing.

The reason that analogy is used is BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RESULTS SAYING THOSE TEAMS MAKE OMAHA AT THOSE RATES!!!! You don't understand and thats fine, but you truly do not get it.

[engie]

Turning the page a little bit -- Without going to the trouble to cross check the data, it seems non-national seed #1s have a greater chance of winning the whole thing by a fairly significant order of magnitude in the super regional era. I'll go out on a limb and presume that's largely attributable to greater adversity faced in the postseason prior to arriving in Omaha by having to win a road SR against a team a committee that gets more wrong than right said was better than you...

[Smitty]

Turning the page a little bit -- Without going to the trouble to cross check the data, it seems non-national seed #1s have a greater chance of winning the whole thing by a fairly significant order of magnitude in the super regional era. I'll go out on a limb and presume that's largely attributable to greater adversity faced in the postseason prior to arriving in Omaha by having to win a road SR against a team a committee that gets more wrong than right said was better than you...

Or a small sample size… And for the grammar police (Clark) it would be better odds than better chances.

[Coach34]

if we miss the NCAA Tourney- the heat will turn up. There's no doubt about it. We keep making regionals? He'll be here as long as he wants

[Really Clark?]

The reason that analogy is used is BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RESULTS SAYING THOSE TEAMS MAKE OMAHA AT THOSE RATES!!!! You don't understand and thats fine, but you truly do not get it.

I can't help that you don't understand that you can't take the 8 teams from the WHOLE and make a stat that says x number of 8 teams make the CWS. They are not exempt from playing OTHER teams and are a part of the entire 64 team field. They have to be included with the entire field. Because of the way the tourney is run you CANNOT make a direct correlation that way. It is wrong and skews the percentages. The national seeds cannot be looked at seperately away from the rest of the field. And it's more appropriate to look at the numbers at the regional, super, and CWS level to get a accurate stat. You are the one that refuses to understand that the national seeds don't olay jut themselves but that is how dawgs scenario is played out. It is wrong.

[Really Clark?]

Or a small sample size… And for the grammar police (Clark) it would be better odds than better chances.


How bout the last 15 years? That's not a small sample size.

[engie]

I think everyone agrees they would prefer to be a national seed and get 2 extra weekends in Starkville. It does give the "easiest" path to Omaha, if that's the ultimate goal... Especially for teams with a venue that has the ability to awe strike and intimidate teams. But if the ultimate goal is to win it all -- it doesn't seem that path is any better or even as good as being a regional host that wins on the road in the supers...

[maroonmania]

I'm not sure what you guys dont understand:

Nobody is saying we dont want to be good- but the program is JUDGED on the postseason. The regular season is for seeding- just as you two have pointed out.

Whats the best way to Omaha? Get to a Super Regional
Whats the best way to get to Super Regional? Host a regional.
Whats the best way to host a regional? Finish in the top 4-5 of the SEC



Actually to give yourself the absolute best chance in post-season its:

Whats the best way to Omaha? Host a Super Regional
Whats the best way to get to Super Regional? Host a regional.
Whats the best way to host a regional and Super Regional? Finish in the top 2-3 of the SEC

So no, you don't have to win the SEC to set yourself up for post-season, but the closer you can get to it the better off you are.

[Smitty]

How bout the last 15 years? That's not a small sample size.

Won the CWS and hosted a Super - 2014, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999

Won the CWS and didn't host a Super - 2013, 2010, 2008, 2005


12 CWS winners hosted a Super-Regional
4 CWS winners didn't host.

Often the non-national seed national champion still hosted a Super-Regional against a team that took out a National Seed. That kind of goes against Engie's hypothesis.

[Tbonewannabe]

if we miss the NCAA Tourney- the heat will turn up. There's no doubt about it. We keep making regionals? He'll be here as long as he wants

I think if we are a 2 or 3 seed somewhere and don't get to a Super that will get old pretty fast. You wanted Stans gone for that exact same thing only we are arguably one of the top fan base program in the country.

I am definitely in the camp of Cohen getting another year. If we look like the same for the next year or two and squeak into a regional, that is not good enough for me.

[Smitty]

I think if we are a 2 or 3 seed somewhere and don't get to a Super that will get old pretty fast. You wanted Stans gone for that exact same thing only we are arguably one of the top fan base program in the country.

I am definitely in the camp of Cohen getting another year. If we look like the same for the next year or two and squeak into a regional, that is not good enough for me.

Exactly. "Make regionals, keep job" is not good enough. Host regionals, keep job is.

[Really Clark?]

Won the CWS and hosted a Super - 2014, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999

Won the CWS and didn't host a Super - 2013, 2010, 2008, 2005


12 CWS winners hosted a Super-Regional
4 CWS winners didn't host.

Often the non-national seed national champion still hosted a Super-Regional against a team that took out a National Seed. That kind of goes against Engie's hypothesis.

The debate was the national seeds vs non national. The top 8 not all #1 seeds at each regional. You are changing it to make the numbers look better by only looking at who hosted and won. Look at participants at the supers. Only about half of the national seeds win and there have been only 5 national seeds have won over the last 15 years and no #1 overall.

[Tbonewannabe]

The debate was the national seeds vs non national. The top 8 not all #1 seeds at each regional. You are changing it to make the numbers look better by only looking at who hosted and won. Look at participants at the supers. Only about half of the national seeds win and there have been only 5 national seeds have won over the last 15 years and no #1 overall.

A couple of years ago in basketball was one of the few times all #1 seeds made it to the final four. I would say being a #1 seed is a lot better than being an 8 or 9 seed even though they all rarely get to the finals.

[dawgs]

Good lord, I give up, Clark. You're wrong and being bullheaded with your thinking here, but I can't explain it any plainer to you.

[Really Clark?]

Good lord, I give up, Clark. You're wrong and being bullheaded with your thinking here, but I can't explain it any plainer to you.

It goes both ways, being hard headed Dawgs. And you are not right. I spelled it out earlier. You can't not analysis and determine the percentage while pulling a part of the teams away from the whole. They have to be included in the entire sample since they play those games as well. They don't have their own little tournament to decide which of them goes to the CWS. You refuse to see that.

[dawgs]

It goes both ways, being hard headed Dawgs. And you are not right. I spelled it out earlier. You can't not analysis and determine the percentage while pulling a part of the teams away from the whole. They have to be included in the entire sample since they play those games as well. They don't have their own little tournament to decide which of them goes to the CWS. You refuse to see that.

What's the % of national seeds that made the CWS since they went to the super regional system?

What's the % of non-national seeds that made the CWS since they went to the super regional system?

Those are 2 questions with factual answers that not a single person can disagree with because they are facts we can all look up. When you come back with the answers I'll try 1 last time to walk you through the understanding that national seeds have a better chance/odds/likelihood/advantage/(fill in preferred terminology to indicate a national seed is a better bet to make it to the CWS here) of making the CWS.

[Smitty]

According to Clark no statistical analysis can be done on anything.

Can we see which side of the SEC wins more bowl games? Clark says "No because they are all in the SEC you can't!11!"

Does Jake Vickerson hit righties or lefties better? Clark says "You can't take some pitchers out of the whole!1!11!"

Do April showers bring May flowers? Clark says "You can't just look at one month out of the year!!11!1!11!1!!!"

[Coach34]

I think if we are a 2 or 3 seed somewhere and don't get to a Super that will get old pretty fast. You wanted Stans gone for that exact same thing only we are arguably one of the top fan base program in the country.

I am definitely in the camp of Cohen getting another year. If we look like the same for the next year or two and squeak into a regional, that is not good enough for me.

We played for the NC just 2 years ago- so the equating him to Stands BS is already out the window. Cohen has shown he make a run. We have played in Supers in 2 of the last 4 seasons. 2 of the last 4. Im not happy with this season either- but in no way, shape, or form is his job on the line this year. It's going to take him missing 2 straight NCAA's or maybe 5 straight years with no Super for him to lose his job.

[Really Clark?]

Look guys. For the last time and I'm going to leave it after this because we are not going to agree. Because of the format of the tournament, and at times you have used examples that only works if the top 8 were seperate and playing themselves only, I disagree with the premise of taking the national seeds making a direct correlation. You go from a tradition bracket format to a single elimination series back to bracket style. That changes the way you have to look at the stats. And it's not really that big of a differnece with the national seeds (although it is less) but with the non national seeds it does. If you break down between groups, and I think I've said this as well as others AND you take it to the final conclusion, being a generic #1 seed, not necessarily a national seed, is as advantageous since actually playing in the semifinals games and up to the final winner, the national seeds have not faired well. Why is that? Because the format of the tournament changes.

We are also both being hard headed about some basic probability and statistic thoughts. Simply in the Bernoulli trial, you have two out comes of each game, win or lose. Therefore the probablity is for each team to have the exact chance. 1 and 1 or 50/50. Until you actually play the game then that is what hold true and is indisputable, mathematical. Once you play the game (experiment) in a Bernoulli trial, then you can use the Binomial formula to calculate the statistic. Now since we have historical data, obviously the experiment has already been completed to this point (trends do change the stats but the probablity is always the same, 1/1 ratio per game no matter who plays its the outcome that gives you the stat). Now if you want to look at each pod bracket seperately as a double elimination style small bracket, I agree that it will be more complicated mathematically but would be more accurate. But you still have only two outcomes in each game, win or lose. That is probablity or chance each team has. Because of the experiment, history you can make the statistic. Now since the super regional format is in the middle of the tournament however, the experiment changes to a best 2 out of 3 series. Therefore your probality has to compensate for that change. If you held a traditional style single elimantion bracket all the way through then I would agree with you more but that is not what is played. That's why, especially recently with parody, the stat is changed to favor the rest of the field over the national seeds. IMO.

Like I said this is my last post on it, I wont rebut what is posted afterward, but this is why I completely disagree with your premise that can make a direct correlation.

[Smitty]

Lets say just theoretically there were 64 teams in a baseball league. 8 teams used Easton bats, 56 teams used Adidas bats.

Out of the top 8 teams in home runs hit, four were Easton teams and 4 were Adidas teams. What Clark is saying is that there's no difference between them because it's 4 and 4. That really is what you are saying and why it's so nonsensical.

[dawgs]

Look guys. For the last time and I'm going to leave it after this because we are not going to agree. Because of the format of the tournament, and at times you have used examples that only works if the top 8 were seperate and playing themselves only, I disagree with the premise of taking the national seeds making a direct correlation. You go from a tradition bracket format to a single elimination series back to bracket style. That changes the way you have to look at the stats. And it's not really that big of a differnece with the national seeds (although it is less) but with the non national seeds it does. If you break down between groups, and I think I've said this as well as others AND you take it to the final conclusion, being a generic #1 seed, not necessarily a national seed, is as advantageous since actually playing in the semifinals games and up to the final winner, the national seeds have not faired well. Why is that? Because the format of the tournament changes.

We are also both being hard headed about some basic probability and statistic thoughts. Simply in the Bernoulli trial, you have two out comes of each game, win or lose. Therefore the probablity is for each team to have the exact chance. 1 and 1 or 50/50. Until you actually play the game then that is what hold true and is indisputable, mathematical. Once you play the game (experiment) in a Bernoulli trial, then you can use the Binomial formula to calculate the statistic. Now since we have historical data, obviously the experiment has already been completed to this point (trends do change the stats but the probablity is always the same, 1/1 ratio per game no matter who plays its the outcome that gives you the stat). Now if you want to look at each pod bracket seperately as a double elimination style small bracket, I agree that it will be more complicated mathematically but would be more accurate. But you still have only two outcomes in each game, win or lose. That is probablity or chance each team has. Because of the experiment, history you can make the statistic. Now since the super regional format is in the middle of the tournament however, the experiment changes to a best 2 out of 3 series. Therefore your probality has to compensate for that change. If you held a traditional style single elimantion bracket all the way through then I would agree with you more but that is not what is played. That's why, especially recently with parody, the stat is changed to favor the rest of the field over the national seeds. IMO.

Like I said this is my last post on it, I wont rebut what is posted afterward, but this is why I completely disagree with your premise that can make a direct correlation.

You didn't answer my questions.

[dawgs]

Lets say just theoretically there were 64 teams in a baseball league. 8 teams used Easton bats, 56 teams used Adidas bats.

Out of the top 8 teams in home runs hit, four were Easton teams and 4 were Adidas teams. What Clark is saying is that there's no difference between them because it's 4 and 4. That really is what you are saying and why it's so nonsensical.

Ha, right. And I know there's variables like maybe Adidas sponsors teams with less power or in bigger parks, and you can argue that 1 seeds/national seeds are better teams than the rest of the field and they have home field advantage for at least part of the postseason, so they should make the CWS at higher rates, and that's true too. That's why I want us to be 1 seeds/national seeds, because history shows that they tend to have the most success. Doesn't mean Stoney brook or Fresno st can't happen, but historical data suggests that's the exceptions, not the rules.

[Smitty]

Ha, right. And I know there's variables like maybe Adidas sponsors teams with less power or in bigger parks, and you can argue that 1 seeds/national seeds are better teams than the rest of the field and they have home field advantage for at least part of the postseason, so they should make the CWS at higher rates, and that's true too. That's why I want us to be 1 seeds/national seeds, because history shows that they tend to have the most success. Doesn't mean Stoney brook or Fresno st can't happen, but historical data suggests that's the exceptions, not the rules.

But that goes against Cohen's magical potion that he can get teams to turn it on near the end... 2012 and 2014 were epic failures that nobody points to when the end of the year potion talk begins

[confucius say]

Well that was enlightening. This is what I learned. 1) college baseball is like the nba, all about what you do in the postseason; 2) statistically, the best way to have success in the postseason is to play at home in the postseason

[Really Clark?]

You didn't answer my questions.

From the super regional point:

57.8 national seeds and 42.2 non national seeds since going to super regionals. The last 10 years 52.5 national seeds and 47.5 non national seeds. The last 5 years 45% national seeds and 55% non nationa seeds. See the trend.

Now as far as qualifing for the super regionals the percentage is much greater. On average 6 per year make it to super regionals and since the regionals are a traditional type of bracket format that is continuous to the super regional point then you can say 6 out of 8 national seeds make it to supers and 10 out of 56 make from the remaining teams. That is correct but from that point you have to adjust the statistic because of the change in format.

[Really Clark?]

Lets say just theoretically there were 64 teams in a baseball league. 8 teams used Easton bats, 56 teams used Adidas bats.

Out of the top 8 teams in home runs hit, four were Easton teams and 4 were Adidas teams. What Clark is saying is that there's no difference between them because it's 4 and 4. That really is what you are saying and why it's so nonsensical.


Totally different and is apples and oranges comparison. If you take you example and say after x number of opportunities we will take the highest 16 home run totals then you go head to head with one player or team and the best 2 out of 3 move on to final 8 then it would be the same. Because of the a completely different format in the middle of the tournament you can't make a straight comparison. The field and rules of competion changes.

[dawgs]

From the super regional point:

57.8 national seeds and 42.2 non national seeds since going to super regionals. The last 10 years 52.5 national seeds and 47.5 non national seeds. The last 5 years 45% national seeds and 55% non nationa seeds. See the trend.

Now as far as qualifing for the super regionals the percentage is much greater. On average 6 per year make it to super regionals and since the regionals are a traditional type of bracket format that is continuous to the super regional point then you can say 6 out of 8 national seeds make it to supers and 10 out of 56 make from the remaining teams. That is correct but from that point you have to adjust the statistic because of the change in format.

So in the past 5 years roughly 3-4 national seeds per season have made the CWS and roughly 29-30 non-national seeds have made the CWS per season?

[dawgs]

Totally different and is apples and oranges comparison. If you take you example and say after x number of opportunities we will take the highest 16 home run totals then you go head to head with one player or team and the best 2 out of 3 move on to final 8 then it would be the same. Because of the a completely different format in the middle of the tournament you can't make a straight comparison. The field and rules of competion changes.

It doesn't matter the format, what matters is that at the end of the day, the higher the seed (1 seed or national seeds draw the distinction wherever you choose) makes it to the CWS at a much higher rate than non-1 seeds/non-national seeds. Whether it's double elimination, best 2 of 3, a combo of all of the above, it's doesn't matter, we are looking at the end data.

[Really Clark?]

So in the past 5 years roughly 3-4 national seeds per season have made the CWS and roughly 29-30 non-national seeds have made the CWS per season?

No. What I am saying is you can't go from the regional field and say x number of national seeds make the CWS and x number of therefore the percentage is x/8 for nationals and y/56 for everyone else make the CWS because the super regional changes the probablity and statistics dramitically. If it was basketball single elimination, then I would agree with you. But they don't play a best 2 of 3 against one opponent right in the middle and they obviously don't wipe out losses at each level. Which we do in CWS tournament. It is too great of a change the the pure probablity (chance) mathematically and the statistics has proven that. You have to consider each stage seperately because of this big change in the probability at the super regional level. If we still had the old format of 8 6 team regionals that go straight to CWS what you are saying would be true. But that dramitic change at the super regional level makes you have to start over with the analysis at the 16 team level. Which with the parody trend is a reason the field has the advantage right now.

[dawgs]

No. What I am saying is you can't go from the regional field and say x number of national seeds make the CWS and x number of therefore the percentage is x/8 for nationals and y/56 for everyone else make the CWS because the super regional changes the probablity and statistics dramitically. If it was basketball single elimination, then I would agree with you. But they don't play a best 2 of 3 against one opponent right in the middle and they obviously don't wipe out losses at each level. Which we do in CWS tournament. It is too great of a change the the pure probablity (chance) mathematically and the statistics has proven that. You have to consider each stage seperately because of this big change in the probability at the super regional level. If we still had the old format of 8 6 team regionals that go straight to CWS what you are saying would be true. But that dramitic change at the super regional level makes you have to start over with the analysis at the 16 team level. Which with the parody trend is a reason the field has the advantage right now.

Actually you can because there's 15 years of data showing the rates of national seeds making the CWS and non-national seeds making the CWS. You are giving us the % of the CWS field made up of national seeds and non-national seeds. I'm telling you that's a misleading statistics because there's only 8 national seeds and 56 non-national seeds competing for 8 spots. Inevitably not every national seed will get 1 of the 8 CWS spots, HOWEVER even if only 45% of the CWS participants are national seeds (as you stated for the past 5 years), that's still indicative that there's a huge advantage to being a national seed. It's doesn't matter how they get there (single elimination, double elimination, 2 out of 3, whatever), the point is that at the end of the ****ing day, over the past 5 years, 45% of the national seeds are in the CWS.

It's like you took an intro to stats class and now think you know everything and are completely overthinking this.

[Really Clark?]

So is Boyd wrong to? He breaks it down each year with his probabilities at the beginning of the regional, at the super regional, and World Series level. He even has a statement at the start of the regional level of probabilities "Obviously, there's no way to predict the location of the super-regionals at this point, so I'm assuming that the higher seed will host and assuming no advantage for equally-seeded non-#1 teams." He then revises again at the super level and then again at the World Series level. He doesn't do a straight comparison. Obviously, he is taking many more things into account (home field, tournament experience which I don't think he weighs any difference between the regional play and super regional play, etc) but his premise is similar.