Indiana isn't the problem for the B1G. Indiana gets in. The problem for the B1G is the #3-4 teams trying to get in. Would MSU go 21-3 in the B1G this year? No fu*king way and you're lying if you say we would.
Printable View
Indiana isn't the problem for the B1G. Indiana gets in. The problem for the B1G is the #3-4 teams trying to get in. Would MSU go 21-3 in the B1G this year? No fu*king way and you're lying if you say we would.
You've lost it. Yes, State would have destroyed the Big 10. The Big 10 doesn't get many teams in the tournament because they don't have many good teams worthy of being in the tournament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
I used Indiana because they're one of the only ones worthy. If Ohio State was as good as we are, or as good as any tournament-worthy SEC team, they wouldn't be a problem, either; they would be in. Because they would have dominated that conference.
Indiana dominated the conference because they're good.
I honestly have no idea what you're arguing anymore. 'Indiana isn't the problem, they get in'....uh, yes. Not because they're Indiana, but because they're good.
ETA: You know how we throttled Missouri, Auburn, and Tennessee? Went a combined 8-1 against them? Well, hello Big 10.
You're going back too far and all you're doing is counting Kentucky, Florida and Tennessee basically over and over and over. That has nothing to do with it being more difficult to get into the tournament for the current #5 team today than it was in 2004. The SEC has tumbled in conference rankings from today to what it was in 2004. Counting how many wins it got in the 2004 tournament does nothing.
Because. there. aren't. as. many. good. teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
The conference has tumbled in conference rankings because the conference isn't as good. The conference isn't as good because there aren't as many good teams. The conference gets fewer teams in the tournament because there aren't as many good teams.
Do you honestly believe the reason the SEC gets fewer teams in now than before is because everyone has just decided the SEC isn't as good? That there are just as many worthy teams as there were then, but bias is excluding them?
Yea State would do well in the B1G but I don't know about destroy. 24 games means we run up against 8 #1 starters and our offense is dogshit so I think 16-8, 15-9 is probably about our record. We wouldn't get in. Glad we are in the SEC for baseball. Wish we were in the B1G for basketball.
No I think it's more difficult to get into the NCAA tournament for basketball for an SEC school than it is for baseball.
Facepalm. I honestly don't know what to say to you at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
We ran up against Missouri and Tennessee's #1 starters, too. It didn't matter. Why? Because our offense looks worse because we're in the SEC. Big 10 pitchers, even #1 starters, on average, are nowhere near as good as in the SEC.
I'm done with this argument. It can't be stated any more plainly than it has been. You literally think conference reputation gets underserving teams in and leaves deserving ones out. You believe our team this year, which was good enough to win 18 SEC games, wouldn't get in the tournament were we in the Big 10. You believe an 18-12 SEC team is equitable to a 15-9 Big 10 team. I can't help you.
Never said conference reputation gets undeserving teams in. You did. I just simply said it's a more difficult feat to get into the NCAA tournament in basketball than in baseball for an SEC school.
I don't know why I keep coming back to this, but you said we wouldn't get in as a Big 10 team, but we clearly were deserving as an SEC team. So though you may not realize it, you are in fact stating that conference reputation leaves deserving teams out, and the obvious deduction is that undeserving teams also get in for the same reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
And your statement that it is more difficult for an SEC basketball team to get in than an SEC baseball team, without any discussion of individual team quality, also says as much.
And your belief that the #5 SEC team won't get in, regardless of how good they actually are, also says as much.
That is your argument. You just didn't realize it until now.
And what smoot and everyone else is trying to say is that is because the teams playing in the SEC in basketball aren't that great, whereas in baseball they are great. The conference gets less teams in for basketball because we have less worthy teams.
This statement has been given to him 10 times already... He doesn't possess the logic to comprehend it...Quote:
Originally Posted by jalakin
No you're just not getting what I'm attempting very poorly to say. You are completely ignoring the "upset factor" or "punchers chance" or whatever you want to call it. On any given day the worse team can pull the upset. It happens all the time. MSU loses to Holy Cross. Shit like that. Indiana doesn't get the luxury of the upset loss on their schedule. They must destroy the B1G to get in and they did. But that makes it more difficult for them. They can not afford the luxury of having off days or upset losses. That's why it's more difficult for the #5 team in SEC basketball. Their resume must be pristine vs 8-14. No room for "upset factor" or they get eliminated and the team from the stronger power conference gets in.
Dawg61, do you believe a 10-8 ACC basketball team is roughly equitable to a 10-8 SEC basketball team, given the current state of the two conferences?
I've already statistically accounted for the "upset factor" and shown it to exist in each of the two sports roughly equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
And? The better team doesn't always win in any sport known to man. That's why games are played instead of just deciding who is better in pregame warmups and giving them the W.Quote:
On any given day the worse team can pull the upset. It happens all the time. MSU loses to Holy Cross. Shit like that.
Really? So, you are telling me that they didn't lose to #188 Utah, #164 Jacksonville, #110 Michigan, #184 Morehead St, and #116 Minnesota THIS YEAR? I just dreamed those up, right? They actually never happened. Did you halfass think maybe you should crosscheck before using them as the staple of your position?Quote:
Indiana doesn't get the luxury of the upset loss on their schedule. They must destroy the B1G to get in and they did. But that makes it more difficult for them. They can not afford the luxury of having off days or upset losses.
This is bullshit. If these SEC teams that "got screwed" for having "no margin for error" were so damn good and deserving, why did ZERO of them make the NIT Elite 8? 32 team NIT with 4 SEC teams and ZERO of them make the Elite 8. SURE, they "got screwed" by the system -- had nothing to do with them being UNDESERVING TEAMS...Quote:
That's why it's more difficult for the #5 team in SEC basketball. Their resume must be pristine vs 8-14. No room for "upset factor" or they get eliminated and the team from the stronger power conference gets in.
Why do I get the feeling this is a baited question? The answer is no and the 10-8 SEC team wouldn't get in unless they are a Kentucky or Florida but the ACC team would most likely and I'm fine with that. The one I am not fine with is the 12-6 SEC team not getting in when the 10-8 ACC team does. Honestly I'd just like the basketball tournament to expand to 96 teams and give the top 32 a first round bye. Then I can shut the fu*k up about which is more difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Indiana went 21-3 and won the B1G regular season and conference tournament. Why would I need to "crosscheck" their schedule? Nice to see you've made the NIT Final Four as your determining factor on the teams that should of gotten in. Teams that feel slighted usually don't give a **** about winning the NIT and they just lose and go home.
Wasn't a baited question, just honestly wanted to know. So you obviously believe there actually is a difference in the quality of a conference like the ACC and the SEC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
And I may or may not be fine with a 12-6 SEC team not making it over a 10-8 ACC team, depending on how good the conferences were that year. Obviously I think you would be ok with a 10-8 ACC team making it over a 12-6 Atlantic Sun team, so obviously it's all relative. If there was a year in which the SEC was truly bad, with hardly any decent teams, and a team went 12-6, that doesn't automatically make them worthy to me. If they didn't prove anything in the OOC, I would be ok with that team being left out.
I think the point you're trying to make is that it is harder for an SEC basketball team that is .500 (9-9) to make it than an SEC baseball team who is .500 (15-15). And you're correct. But our argument is that it is easier to go 9-9 in basketball in the SEC than it is to go 15-15 in baseball. And I think you would agree with that, based on the fact that you do believe it is harder to go 10-8 in the SEC than 10-8 in the ACC.
And if a team is slipping up against weak teams (your Big 10 vs. SEC baseball argument) and also not beating any good teams, then I don't believe that team is worthy. If a team slips up against a couple of weak teams but also beats some good teams, they might be. If a team doesn't slip up against any weak teams, even if they don't really beat many good teams, and just about runs the table, no matter the competition, then they're probably worthy as well.
It's all about what you do on the field. The teams who are worthy prove it, no matter the competition. The same is true for those who aren't worthy. If you're playing weak competition and not just about running the table, you didn't prove yourself worthy. If you're playing good competition and getting beat consistently, you didn't prove yourself worthy.
But the level of competition doesn't make it harder or easier for a truly worthy team to get in. They'll prove it either way.
How do you account for Nebraska getting in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
So, your argument is propped up by an autobid? One that actually had a half dozen bad losses that YOU said they "couldn't afford"? Dawg61 pls.
Well thought out message, thank you. The teams that make it in are not the problem and I'm not necessarily saying there is a problem YET but let me ask you a question Smoot. Which in your opinion is more difficult to do, be a 12-6 SEC basketball team and not make the tournament or be a 14-16 SEC baseball team and make the tournament (we had 2 14-16 teams make it this year)?
There is no fair method to answer that question. It depends on a million possible factors, not the least of which is a TREMENDOUS variance in conference SOS now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
If a 14-16 SEC baseball team has an RPI in the 60s, they should be left at home. The two this year had RPIs of #21 and #31. Obviously good enough to make the tournament.
If a 12-6 basketball team has an RPI in the 60s, they should be left at home. Georgia deserved to be left at home at #72, while Kentucky deserved to make it at #7. Also, how Tennessee deserved to make it at 11-7 with an RPI of 37.
The core problem here is you failing to understand what RPI is attempting to do and how it is accomplished...
Why is this suddenly morphing into a B1G baseball discussion? Indiana went 21-3 dude. A .875 winning percentage looks way better than a few upset losses. Then they won their fu*king conference tournament. They are in. Twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
I'm not saying I necessarily have a problem with how the baseball and basketball teams are selected I am just saying it is more difficult to be teams 1-4 in SEC basketball than it is to be teams 7-10 in SEC baseball. Let's get off the B1G baseball please, I don't really care to get balls deep in that conference's baseball situation.
And again, you are breaking it down relative to the conference(which doesn't matter) instead of relative to the country(which is what gets you in or out).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
No the core problem is that I have an OPINION that you don't agree with. That's fine. My opinion is that it is more difficult to make the NCAA tournament in basketball than in baseball for an SEC school. We don't and won't agree on everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
You ****ed up now**Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
It all depends on the quality of the conference in that given year. If the SEC was as bad as it's ever been in basketball and an absolute bear in baseball, it might be easier to get into the baseball tourney at 14-16.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
If the SEC was decent in basketball and not as good as normal in baseball, it would absolutely be easier to make it in at 12-6 in basketball.
I don't believe, btw, that it's tougher to be 1-4 in basketball than 7-10 in baseball. I think we have more good baseball programs than we do basketball programs. The #7 program in baseball has already done the work to establish themselves as a good baseball program; they aren't granted that simply by being in the SEC. Just as the #6 basketball program is only an average basketball program, they haven't been able to build themselves up as a good program yet; again, they aren't denied anything just because they're in the SEC.
Then how does the team that goes 12-6 and only losses to the top 4 teams get in? Teams 6-14 will have bad RPI's and won't help them. They must then schedule a top 25 OOC and win those games to get in. A tougher task than the #10 team in baseball must accomplish.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
If those top 4 teams are all really, really good, then they don't have to go crazy OOC to get in. If any of those top 4 aren't all that great, then #5 probably isn't that great, either, even at 12-6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
I promise you if they have 6 losses against top 20 RPI teams and beat everybody else in conference, and then schedule halfway decent in the non-conference schedule and don't slip up, they'll be fine.
Hope so because if by some miracle in the next 4 years we can finish #5 in basketball I fear that we will not be fine and we'll get left in the cold but why worry about that because that ain't happening any year soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Lock it up!!11!1Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
When in history has this happened? That team gets in 100% of the time assuming they didn't go sub 500 in the noncon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
You are STILL not understanding RPI and how it relates in all of this. Instead delving into theoretical situations that have never happened a single time in the history of the conference.
Let me ask you another question, Dawg61. Do you think it's harder for Florida to make the NCAA Tournament in basketball than it is for Tennessee to make it in baseball?
Bad comparison. Florida has been dominant in basketball since Donovan took over. They are a top 10 maybe top 5 basketball program. Tennessee doesn't give a shit about baseball. They are attempting to act like they give a shit by hiring Serrano and I do expect them to be back in very soon. They also went to Omaha in 2005. Bad comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
It's not a bad comparison. It proves that you can't make blanket statements without looking at the quality of individual teams/leagues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
It is easier for Florida to make the tournament in basketball because they're a better basketball program. In reality, though, both programs have the same chance. It's easier for South Carolina to make it in baseball than it is for them to make it in basketball.
But it proves that if you're good enough in basketball, you can easily make the tournament, just like good baseball programs easily make the tournament. There are just far more Florida's in the SEC in baseball than there are in basketball.
Thanks for wasting half a day to prove my point. There are far more Florida's in the SEC in baseball than there are in basketball making it FAR MORE EASIER TO MAKE THE NCAA TOURNAMENT IN BASEBALL THAN IN BASKETBALL FOR AN SEC SCHOOL. It is much easier to build a great baseball program in the SEC than a basketball program. That's it. That's all I'm saying. To make the NCAA tournament FOR AN SEC TEAM ONLY is much easier in baseball than it is in basketball. Someone grab a shotgun and shoot my head off please.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Yet another facepalm. That is not your point. It is easier for a good program to make it than for a bad program. The fact that there are more good baseball programs is the reason more SEC teams make it in baseball, not because it's inherently easier. As Florida has proven, if you are good in basketball, it is just as easy for you to make it from the SEC. But you have to be good. There are not many good programs in the SEC in basketball. In the past, there were more good basketball programs in the SEC, thus why more teams made the tournament every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
So, let me ask this - is it easy for Georgia to make the NCAA tournament in baseball? Clearly it isn't. Why? They're in the SEC, it should be easy. Oh, right, because they themselves are not good. That's all it comes down to - conference affiliation means nothing when it's time to pick the teams who make it in.
Georgia in the last ten years has made the NCAA baseball tournament 5 times and made it to Omaha 3 TIMES!! Including being the National Runner Up in 2008. Georgia in basketball has been to the NCAA tournament twice in the last ten years and one of those they had to win the SEC Tournament to get the auto-bid. It's easier to make it in baseball for SEC schools. Just agree with me please and we can end this debate. Forever.
Well, my example sucked haha. But no, it is not inherently easier for anyone to make the tournament in baseball over basketball. It all comes down to how good the team is, as has been said a million times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
triple facepalmQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
68 of 349 make the basketball tourney. That's 19.5% of teams that make the tournament.
64 of 302 make the baseball tourney. That's 21.1% of teams that make the tournament.
It's 1.6% easier to make the tournament in baseball. There. Proof that "it's easier in baseball."
Both tournaments involve about the 50 best teams and a bunch of autobids. 50 BEST TEAMS. That's the key word. Overcomplicating it down to individual situations is negligible and redundant. Every time the SEC had one of the 50 best teams, they got in the basketball and baseball tournaments, with about an equal number of legitimate gripes in each sport.
How in the mother-****ing-**** is this thread still going????
Lol I'm partial to blame here, sorryQuote:
Originally Posted by Coach34