Calling it now - we're going to Omaha

I expect nothing less than a NC! Or FIRE LEMONIS!

I still believe in the team. The original post in this thread said we'll wreck another team's Regional, and that's exactly what we're going to do next week!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

I still believe in the team. The original post in this thread said we'll wreck another team's Regional, and that's exactly what we're going to do next week!

---

Hopefully we get matched with Kentucky’s Regional for a Super. Beating the Clown Show would be fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

I still believe in the team. The original post in this thread said we'll wreck another team's Regional, and that's exactly what we're going to do next week!

---

I concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

Hopefully we get matched with Kentucky’s Regional for a Super. Beating the Clown Show would be fun

---

This is what I want also.

We aren't playing good ball outside of pitching. I don't think we even make a super unless we get a great draw.

If we get sent to East Carolina (#15?), paired with Kentucky (#2?), I think basically everyone is going to pick us to go to Omaha.

Especially if Indiana State gets sent to Kentucky's regional as the 2, we might be hosting them in Starkville in the Supers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Say what you will about Lemonis, but this team seems to have the intangible "it factor" for a deep tournament run. One of the top national seeds is going to be pissed to draw us as their 2 seed, and even more pissed when Khal & Loo win the first 2 games and we just figure out how to win the Regional from there. Then those 2 win us the Super in 2 games.

If real life were a tv show, I would say this has been foreshadowed, maybe too much, by the writers.

---

Man, you sure know how to stir the pot . . . . . this is about as far from reality as we are from Mars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

If we get sent to East Carolina (#15?), paired with Kentucky (#2?), I think basically everyone is going to pick us to go to Omaha.

Especially if Indiana State gets sent to Kentucky's regional as the 2, we might be hosting them in Starkville in the Supers.

---

Why do you think we'd be picked over a top seed? Especially when we aren't playing well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooterpoot

Why do you think we'd be picked over a top seed? Especially when we aren't playing well.

---

How do you figure we "aren't playing well" ? We won 4 of our last 5 series, with the 5th being against a top 5 team on the road, and even that one slipped through our fingers. We just played well at the SEC Tournament too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

How do you figure we "aren't playing well" ? We won 4 of our last 5 series, with the 5th being against a top 5 team on the road, and even that one slipped through our fingers. We just played well at the SEC Tournament too.

---

We didn't win a series against any of the top 4 teams in the SEC (only played two). Our bats are terrible and our pen isn't great either. We rely on two starting pitchers and a couple hitters basically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooterpoot

We didn't win a series against any of the top 4 teams in the SEC (only played two). Our bats are terrible and our pen isn't great either.

---

And yet we're widely perceived to be a top 15 team by the "experts" even with our bad losses, we just screwed up our schedule and kneecapped ourselves into a worse RPI than our general perception.

Nonetheless we can get to Omaha anyway by paying the iron price, and I like our chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

And yet we're widely perceived to be a top 15 team by the "experts" even with our bad losses, we just screwed up our schedule and kneecapped ourselves into a worse RPI than our general perception.

Nonetheless we can get to Omaha anyway by paying the iron price, and I like our chances.

---

Our RPI wasn't top 15 and we didn't play like a top 15 team. Experts were pretty split on us. I repeatedly told people it was an up hill battle to host. Two tourney wins put us on the bubble. Our overall sos was 10th out of 14 teams in the league. Our non conference rpi was 3rd worst in the top 30.

Why do people even mention non conference RPI?

Total RPI is all that matters.

Non Conf RPI is invented nonsense for teams from crappy conferences.

Why pretend that is something? Makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheewgumm

Why do people even mention non conference RPI?

Total RPI is all that matters.

Non Conf RPI is invented nonsense for teams from crappy conferences.

Why pretend that is something? Makes no sense.

---

It shows you the effects of playing those low level teams and losing. Our total RPI was killed by those teams/losses. Our RPI was 25 instead of being in the teens. What? Only 4 SEC teams had a lower RPI and we lost series to two of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooterpoot

It shows you the effects of playing those low level teams and losing. Our total RPI was killed by those teams/losses. Our RPI was 25 instead of being in the teens. What? Only 4 SEC teams had a lower RPI and we lost series to two of those.

---

Which doesn't matter anyway because the committee showed that balancing out conferences and location was more important than RPI once you got past top 8. This year they also seemed to put some weight on conference tourney performance as well.

Say what you want about Q4 loses - yes they hurt, but they did not really matter - as the committee showed they really didn't care about strength of schedule either. We played 30 Q1 games. Only Bama, SC, and UK played more (so not a weak sec schedule as some want to claim). We won more Q1 games than a number of hosts even played. Arizona played 12 and went 3-9; UCSB played 10 and went 3-7; EC played 7 and went 5-2; UNC played 17 and went 8-9; Clemson played 18 and went 10-8; FSU played 16 and went 8-8. The committee basically said "we don't want the SEC to dominate again, so spread the hosts out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

Which doesn't matter anyway because the committee showed that balancing out conferences and location was more important than RPI once you got past top 8. This year they also seemed to put some weight on conference tourney performance as well.

Say what you want about Q4 loses - yes they hurt, but they did not really matter - as the committee showed they really didn't care about strength of schedule either. We played 30 Q1 games. Only Bama, SC, and UK played more (so not a weak sec schedule as some want to claim). We won more Q1 games than a number of hosts even played. Arizona played 12 and went 3-9; UCSB played 10 and went 3-7; EC played 7 and went 5-2; UNC played 17 and went 8-9; Clemson played 18 and went 10-8; FSU played 16 and went 8-8. The committee basically said "we don't want the SEC to dominate again, so spread the hosts out.

---

If we have an RPi in the teens, we're hosting. After missing regionals every year since winning a natty, year three isn't hosting. That's pretty damn unacceptable if our program is the great program so many here believe it is. People keep wanting to blame someone when the real reason is in our dugout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooterpoot

If we have an RPi in the teens, we're hosting. After missing regionals every year since winning a natty, year three isn't hosting. That's pretty damn unacceptable if our program is the great program so many here believe it is. People keep wanting to blame someone when the real reason is in our dugout.

---

Well - ultimately it just all comes down to wins. Regardless of schedule the more you win the less room for error on these things. I don't disagree with that at all.

At the same time I think the committee threw a lot of that out in their final 3-4 host selections and it became about "balance" and not "who has the best resume."

Except in typical committee fashion, "balancing geography" mattered sometimes, but they still didn't let the only Northern candidate, a conference champion with a top 10 RPI, host.

Maybe the selectors don't know geography that well and think of Kentucky as a Northern state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Except in typical committee fashion, "balancing geography" mattered sometimes, but they still didn't let the only Northern candidate, a conference champion with a top 10 RPI, host.

Maybe the selectors don't know geography that well and think of Kentucky as a Northern state?

---

I honestly think "balance" this year meant things like "let's pitch one to the PAC12 for old times sake" and "hey, ECU's been close and their guy is on the committee- that's a good way to keep another SEC team out".