BiancoBury gonna BiancoBury

[shannondawg]

Nice try. Coach!

You not going to thank me for bringing the thread back up so you could get your licks in?

[smootness]

It makes it more difficult when 10 of the 14 teams have worse than 80 RPIs. The biggest factor the committee uses in determining who gets in is rpi. You're just arguing to argue at this point which is nothing new with you smootness. You'd argue the sky isn't blue and the grass isn't green. It's more difficult to make the NCAA tournament for an SEC basketball team than it is for an SEC baseball team because the league as a whole has shit rpi numbers that pull everyone down.

This is actually a fair point, and really the first that's been made in this argument.

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.

[smootness]

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.

[whatever]

How does being double elimination make anything "easier"? You've simply got to win 2 basketball games in 3 days to get there. That's it. There's alot more "15/16 seeds" in baseball that have an ace that can beat you on any given day too...

It's not an opinion thing -- it's math. There is a 16/302 chance of getting it done in baseball -- and a 16/349 chance in basketball. A difference of 0.7% in difficulty.

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.

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

[Political Hack]

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.

[CadaverDawg]

How does being double elimination make anything "easier"? You've simply got to win 2 basketball games in 3 days to get there. That's it. There's alot more "15/16 seeds" in baseball that have an ace that can beat you on any given day too...

It's not an opinion thing -- it's math. There is a 16/302 chance of getting it done in baseball -- and a 16/349 chance in basketball. A difference of 0.7% in difficulty.

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.

[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

[engie]

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.

Are you seriously trying to make a macro argument with this micro data?

This is simple math that you are overcomplicating to fit an idea you had on the front end.

[Coach34]

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

This is a great point. There may be some early upsets in the basketball tourney- but your Sweet 16 is always Power-Conference heavy

14 of the Sweet 16 in 2014 were Power Conference teams
13 of 16 in 2013...

[Homedawg]

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.

[Coach34]

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?

[Dawg61]

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.

[Coach34]

This is a great point. There may be some early upsets in the basketball tourney- but your Sweet 16 is always Power-Conference heavy

14 of the Sweet 16 in 2014 were Power Conference teams
13 of 16 in 2013...

and to add to that point I made:

the power conferences only get about 50% of the bids- but they almost always make-up 75% or more of the Sweet 16

[Dawg61]

and to add to that point I made:

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.

[Coach34]

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.

Thats not true at all. We were a 2 seed in 2004 for crying out loud. And STILL shit the bed.

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.

[Dawg61]

Thats not true at all. We were a 2 seed in 2004 for crying out loud. And STILL shit the bed.

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.

[Coach34]

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.

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 problem

[Dawg61]

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 problem

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.

[engie]

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.

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.

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.

[Political Hack]

This is a great point. There may be some early upsets in the basketball tourney- but your Sweet 16 is always Power-Conference heavy

14 of the Sweet 16 in 2014 were Power Conference teams
13 of 16 in 2013...

"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.