You not going to thank me for bringing the thread back up so you could get your licks in?Quote:
Originally Posted by shannondawg
Printable View
You not going to thank me for bringing the thread back up so you could get your licks in?Quote:
Originally Posted by shannondawg
This is actually a fair point, and really the first that's been made in this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
But I'm not arguing just to argue. The bottom line is that it's just as easy for the top __ programs in college basketball to make the tournament as it is for that number of programs in baseball. It's just that in baseball, we have a better program (and the SEC has more good programs as a whole overall), so it's easier for us in baseball.
It is far easier for Duke to make the tournament in basketball than it is for them to make it in baseball. Because their basketball program is better than their baseball program. That's what it comes down to.
As a follow-up to the RPI argument, while it is a fair point and though the RPI certainly isn't perfect, it's designed to try to take away what you're talking about. The idea is that if you are truly a team at a certain level, your RPI will reflect that no matter the opponents...because if you're playing a bunch of bad opponents, you will win all your games.
For example, were we as good a basketball team as we are a baseball team, our RPI would not be terrible because we would win just about all of our conference games, and we would schedule more difficult OOC opponents, and our RPI would be just fine. But when you are playing bad teams and not winning, then you yourself are probably a bad team and aren't good enough to make the Tournament.
Double elimination dictates that the WORSE teams should have less of a chance at advancing. In baseball JSU would've advanced and ULL would've been out this year, but since it was double elimination and ULL (the better team) got another shot, the better team went further. In a one-game, "knock-out" type tourney, the probability is a lot higher that the best teams won't advance. Therefore worse teams, and more teams have a better chance at making a run in basketball, not so sure why that's so hard to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
And to your other point, basketball has 50 or so more DI teams, another reason why it's harder in basketball.
Add to that the fact that most cold weather baseball teams don't have the same advantages that warm weather teams do, and you basically cut the field of teams you're competing with for the 64 spots in half.
In basketball the Southern teams don't have that advantage, kids aren't going to avoid going to certain schools in the North because they know they'll never be able to compete because of competitive disadvantages.
Are you trying to tell me the SAME NUMBER of teams have made the NCAA tourney in both sports? That the same number has made the round of 32? I did the research as well, and in basketball, more teams have made the field of 64, and more teams have made the round of 32 (by a significant margin). The fact that so many more teams have advanced that far means that there are many more teams that have the ability to compete in basketball
the likelihood of an underdog upsetting a powerhouse in baseball has to be much lower than basketball. It's a multi-win, multi-loss advancement/elimination format. Entirely different IMO and can't be compared in terms of which is "tougher."
From a prestige standpoint though, CWS = Final Four.
Wrong. It IS opinion, bc it's not the same team every game in baseball. Pitchers mean everything, as do Matchups of your bats with opposing pitchers. So there are no stats to prove anything unless you have pitched the same pitcher every night all year. It's different in basketball. It's opinion, whether Engie wants to tell people it's not or not. There is no proof it's easier or harder... It's easier in baseball in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
What I said was very, very clear. Why are you twisting it?
My point has been singularly the difficulty of making the round of 16. Upsets happen in a single game in basketball, sure. But they self-correct the deeper you go, and the round of 16 is dominated by roughly the same number of "haves" in basketball as it is in baseball -- proving the simple math already done
Are you seriously trying to make a macro argument with this micro data?Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
This is simple math that you are overcomplicating to fit an idea you had on the front end.
This is a great point. There may be some early upsets in the basketball tourney- but your Sweet 16 is always Power-Conference heavyQuote:
Originally Posted by engie
14 of the Sweet 16 in 2014 were Power Conference teams
13 of 16 in 2013...
A # 4 seed has won the national championship in baseball. The equivalent of a 13-16 seed in hoops. Name a basketball team that's won a national championship that was below a 8 seed? Which is the equivalent of a 2 seed in baseball. I actually can't remember an 8 seed winning it either.
shit- name the last time a power conference team didnt win the title- in basketball?Quote:
Originally Posted by Homedawg
Y'all are lumping SEC basketball in with the Power Conference stats and the last several years it's been far from that. We are a top heavy conference in basketball. Outside of four teams the rest have a more difficult task to get in than the baseball teams. I get that if you're good than you're good and you'll do it anyways but this argument isn't about that it's about the average teams. Average SEC baseball gets you into the tournament and average SEC basketball does not get you in. Once you're in either tournament you have a "punchers chance" just like the other 63 do. The committee will put a cap on SEC basketball entrees. They'll say they don't but that's simply not true. Going into the basketball selection process they already know that there's no way they'll allow 6 SEC basketball teams in. Same in baseball except that number is 11 or 12. So if you finish 11-7 in SEC play in basketball and all your losses are against the top 4 teams you're shit out of luck. The committee won't put you in. Not true in baseball. You finish top 10 in the SEC in baseball and you're in.
and to add to that point I made:Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
the power conferences only get about 50% of the bids- but they almost always make-up 75% or more of the Sweet 16
MSU isn't in the Power Conferences in the committee's eyes. They separate Florida, Kentucky, Mizzou and Tennessee in basketball from the rest of us 10. They do and you know they do. The other 10 of us have a much steeper hill to climb to get in in basketball. We just do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Thats not true at all. We were a 2 seed in 2004 for crying out loud. And STILL shit the bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
It comes down to the fact that SEC baseball = Big East basketball (and yes I know the Big East is no more)
SEC basketball doesnt have as many good programs as SEC baseball does. It's not harder for SEC teams to make the Sweet 16 in basketball because basketball is tougher- it's harder because SEC basketball just doesnt have as many good programs.
I said in the last few years that SEC basketball has really tumbled. Not 2004. In 2004 the SEC was ranked as a much tougher basketball conference. Now we fall behind the Mountain West. Thanks for making my point in the bolded part. If MSU is the 5th best basketball team in the SEC and only losses to the top 4 SEC teams and win every other game we still won't get into the tournament because our RPI would be too low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
That's usually because our OOC schedule was embarassing. If State and some of the other SEC schools would play a big boy OOC- then that wouldnt be a problemQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Yup very true and it will take all the teams working together to strengthen their OOC schedules and actually winning those games to get the SEC out of this reoccurring hole it is in in basketball. I do believe Slive has emphasized this and is holding all the schools accountable to schedule more difficult OOC schedules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
You are, again, overcomplicating something simple. If you are one of the best 40 teams in basketball in a given year, guess what? You are in the tournament. Even at it's worse, the league doesn't and hasn't prevented decent teams from making the tournament. The league gets 10 in in baseball because 10 deserve to be in based on their body of work. The league gets 4 in in basketball for the same reason. The committee doesn't "cap" squat -- and the SEC hasn't had teams unfairly left out either. If we had, we would have won the NIT a few times in the past 8 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Even as "down" as the SEC has been recently, there is still a clear divide between us and the midmajor conferences. Though I fully expect the former Big 6 to be a Big 7 now though with the Big East/American split and expansions. There was a big 5 in baseball -- and could be argued as a Big 4 or Big 6 depending on the Big East and West Coast Conference on any given year.
"power conferences" are less relevant in baseball though. Cal St Fullerton and Rice come to mind. Baseball has some mid majors with great tradition. Basketball and football don't really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
It's more difficult for an SEC basketball team to be in the top 40 in RPI in basketball than it is in baseball outside the top 4 teams. The number 5 team in the SEC will be in the top 40 in baseball but won't be in basketball. Even without losing any other games during the season except to the top 4 teams in the SEC that basketball team will not be in the top 40. Why? Because the number 6 team in the Big East, ACC, B1G, Pac12, AAC, and Big 12 will be above them plus the #2 team in the mid-majors and all the teams ranked higher in their respective leagues. Nothing can be done about that right now unless ALL the SEC teams start scheduling top 25 OOC schedules and actually win those games.
Baseball has 2 or 3 elite midmajors. That's some combination of Rice, Fullerton, Irvine, Wichita St, Tulane...Quote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack
Basketball had 4 or 5 prior to the last round of expansion. That's some combination of Memphis, Butler, Gonzaga, VCU, Wichita St, Temple...
Where is your disconnect here?
Yeah -- about 0.7% more difficult -- as already shown in this thread and the other one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
That's because the #5 team in baseball IS one of the 40 best teams in the country, while the #5 team in baskeball has been debatable lately. RPI isn't "punishing" SEC teams. SUCKING is punishing SEC teams.Quote:
The number 5 team in the SEC will be in the top 40 in baseball but won't be in basketball.
BS. RPI isn't a discriminatory formula.Quote:
Even without losing any other games during the season except to the top 4 teams in the SEC that basketball team will not be in the top 40.
And they will be ranked above them because they are BETTER than them.Quote:
Because the number 6 team in the Big East, ACC, B1G, Pac12, AAC, and Big 12 will be above them plus the #2 team in the mid-majors and all the teams ranked higher in their respective leagues.
All that needs to happen is for the teams to improve. The rest of it, RPI and such, takes care of itself.Quote:
Nothing can be done about that right now unless ALL the SEC teams start scheduling top 25 OOC schedules and actually win those games.
Nope it is much more difficult for the #5 team in the SEC in basketball to make the tournament than it is for the rest of the Power 6 conferences and the exact opposite is true in baseball. MSU has almost no control over the conferences strength in RPI. Do me a favor and add up all the SEC entries for the NCAA tournament for the last ten years in basketball and baseball and compare it to the rest of the Power6 conferences. You'll quickly see it is easier to make the NCAA tournament for an SEC baseball team than it is for an SEC basketball team.
I would interpret that to mean that the SEC is simply better at baseball than at basketball. Its not like we have a bunch of deserving basketball teams getting left out of the tournament every year. Nor do we have a bunch of undeserving baseball teams going to the tournament every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwolf
Dawg61 is just disconnecting from reality per the norm...
Because the SEC truly isn't a very good basketball league and doesn't have very many good basketball teams. That is why the #5 team in the SEC has a difficult time making the tournament - because if they were truly a definite tournament team, they would be better than the #5 team in the current SEC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
If 10 of 14 make a tournament of 64 and 4 of 14 make a tournament of 64 which tournament is more difficult to get to 16? Engie's answer "the Big East got 8". It's more difficult for MSU to make the NCAA basketball tournament than the baseball tournament. Just is. How many times Arizona and Michigan made the sweet 16 has nothing to do with it.
This is just not a logical argument. If the SEC suddenly has 8 great basketball teams next year, I can assure you they will get 8 teams into the tournament. You're taking the fact that the SEC doesn't currently have a lot of good basketball teams and using that to make the argument that the Tournament is biased against the SEC. It doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Is it easier for Mississippi State to make the tournament in baseball than it is for Ohio State? It is currently, but only because we have a better program. At the beginning of the year, without looking at the teams' rosters, both teams have the same chance. If Ohio State were as good as we've been the last few years, they would own the Big 10 and would easily make the tournament. But they aren't as good. It has nothing to do with B10 vs. SEC.
How does Indiana keep making the tournament? They're a good team; it isn't harder for them because they're in the Big 10. They're better than everyone else in the Big 10, so it's fairly simple for them - just keep beating everybody in that conference (like you should b/c you're better than all of them), and you get in.
Not necessarily. That #5 team could only lose to 1-4 the entire season and have zero other losses the rest of the season including OOC and most likely will not get into the tournament. That's just the #5 team. Still got 6-10 getting in in baseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
You've gotta be kidding me. Let's say they play 5 games against those 4 teams - they go 13-5 in the SEC and only lose 5 games all year, and you're telling me they're not in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Worst-case scenario, they happen to play those 4 teams a total of 8 games. 1) They still go 10-8 in the SEC and only have 8 losses; probably going to get into the tournament no matter what.
And if they go 0-8 against those 4, there's probably a huge gap between #4 and #5. And even still, if those 4 are so good, their RPIs will all be plenty high, and those losses won't hurt as much; their RPI will still probably be enough to get in. Unless they schedule a bunch of teams with a 250 RPI in the OOC schedule, and that's on them. That has nothing to do with the SEC at that point.
You can literally say the same about any other conference. If a team is the #5 team in the ACC but happens to play the top 4 teams a total of 8 times and loses all of them, their ACC record won't look great. And if they schedule a bunch of 250-RPI teams OOC, guess what? They're not making the tournament.
You don't have a logical bone in your body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
No you're wrong. There's factors hurting the Ohio State in baseball just like there is hurting MSU in baseball. Ohio State has to DESTROY the Big Ten in baseball to get in just like MSU has to do in the SEC in basketball. But the conferences aren't terrible so forcing a team to go 25-5 in basketball is still hard as fu*k to do because our competition isn't that bad.
It's like asking Golfer A to shoot a 72 from the back tees to get in and Golfer B to shoot a 64 from the front tees to get in. It's still difficult as fu*k to shoot a 64.
Stupidity on display for the world to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
How many Big East teams made the Sweet 16 though?**Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
You don't understand a damn thing about what RPI actually does do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Yep. It's DISCRIMINATION!!!1!1 The committee in basketball is DISCRIMINATING against deserving SEC teams!!1!1 Only made 1 championship game in the Nit in the last 8 years(a loss)? Just a big conspiracy to keep out worthy SEC teams!11!1!1
Our competition in basketball doesn't seem that bad because we are bad. If we were as good in basketball as we are in baseball, going 11-5 in conference wouldn't seem difficult at all. You're not forcing a team to do anything. It's all based on how good your competition is. If all the SEC teams were suddenly much better next year, we wouldn't have to go 11-5 to get in.
Your golfer analogy is insane. The actual analogy would be one golfer who hits his drives 375 and another who hits his 275. And the goal for both of them is simply to shoot a lower score than the other. Yes, it is easier for the golfer who drives it 100 yards further to win...because he's better. There is no inherent bias against the golfer who doesn't hit it as far.
Indiana went 21-3 in the Big 10 this year. Indiana was a good team, they were not a great team. They went 21-3 in the Big 10 because the Big 10 is not good. Had they been in the SEC, they probably would have been something like 16-14 in conference. Guess what? Both accomplish the same thing - either way, they're definitely in the NCAA tournament. No, they couldn't get in at 16-14 in the Big 10. But if they had gone 16-14 in the Big 10, they wouldn't be very good.
I know it's more difficult for MSU to make the basketball tournament than the baseball tournament. That part escapes you. How many Big East teams made it though? That's what matters.**
Last 10 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Big East - 74 teams in, 174 games played. Teams play an avg of 2.351gms
B1G - 58 teams in, 147 games played. Teams play an avg of 2.534gms
Big12 - 56 teams in, 127 games played. Teams play an avg of 2.268gms
ACC - 52 teams in, 122 games played. Teams play an avg of 2.346gms
SEC - 44 teams in, 113 games played. Teams play an avg of 2.568gms
Pac12 - 44 teams in, 103 games played. Teams play an avg of 2.341gms
A10 - 31 teams in, 57 games played. Teams play an avg of 1.84gms
Mountain West - 27 teams in, 44 games played. Teams play an avg of 1.63gms
CUsa - 16 teams in, 36 games played. Teams play an avg of 2.25gms
Horizon - 10 teams in, 27 games played. Teams play an avg of 2.7gms
The SEC is NOT a big 6 basketball league!!!1!1! Just played over double the number of tournament games as the next league in the pecking order.
What in this data shows the SEC getting screwed?
And in both cases, their RPI would have been nearly the same. Because that's the goal of RPI -- to determine and rank how good a team actually is, regardless of the competition they face.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness