Mythbusting: The Ease of Postseason Advancement in Baseball vs Basketball

[Dawg61]

The SEC typically has 8 or 9 teams make the tournament in baseball . The SEC typically has 3 or 4 teams make the tournament in basketball . That's what makes it a
tougher accomplishment is getting an invitation to compete for a natl title

We have ourselves a BINGO

[engie]

The SEC typically has 8 or 9 teams make the tournament in baseball . The SEC typically has 3 or 4 teams make the tournament in basketball . That's what makes it a
tougher accomplishment is getting an invitation to compete for a natl title

Not this dumb ass argument again.

The SEC has had zero top 16 or top 32 teams left out of the basketball tournament in my lifetime. Teams that deserve to go dancing get to go dancing. The reason we get fewer teams in is because the teams suck. Not because there is some rule restricting SEC teams from getting into the tournament.

[CadaverDawg]

Not this dumb ass argument again.

The SEC has had zero top 16 or top 32 teams left out of the basketball tournament in my lifetime. Teams that deserve to go dancing get to go dancing. The reason we get fewer teams in is because the teams suck. Not because there is some rule restricting SEC teams from getting into the tournament.

Not necessarily. Our baseball teams(SEC) have a reputation for being good, so we get benefit of the doubt a lot of times. Meanwhile our (SEC) basketball has a negative rep, so it has the reverse effect sometimes if they're choosing between Big 10 vs SEC with similar resumes. So you're right that we're usually getting our good teams in, but to deny reputation and the fact that humans select the teams so it's not an exact science, is just not true. And it definitely cannot be proven.

[CadaverDawg]

The SEC typically has 8 or 9 teams make the tournament in baseball . The SEC typically has 3 or 4 teams make the tournament in basketball . That's what makes it a
tougher accomplishment is getting an invitation to compete for a natl title

How dare you challenge the all knowing****

[engie]

How dare you challenge the all knowing****

Without bringing anything to the table statistically. Just what "you think"...

Yep, I'd say the statistics owned your argument. Just like I told you they would on the front end.

[CadaverDawg]

Without bringing anything to the table statistically. Just what "you think"...

Yep, I'd say the statistics owned your argument. Just like I told you they would on the front end.

Lighten up Sally. Maybe because we're all discussing it instead of spending hours on end researching this shit like you are. Ever think that some of us aren't "arguing", just "discussing"? Everything ever discussed doesn't have a proven right or wrong answer, despite you thinking it does.

Way to "own me" with stats though, d-bag.

[engie]

Not necessarily. Our baseball teams have a reputation for being good, so we get benefit of the doubt a lot of times.

Like when? When did we "get the benefit of the doubt" and then go on to make a Super Regional or Omaha trip?

Meanwhile our basketball has a negative rep, so it has the reverse effect sometimes if they're choosing between Big 10 vs SEC with similar resumes.

So, you are modifying your argument to "the field of 64" now that you don't have a leg to stand on with the initial argument of the final 16? That's convenient. Fact is -- if we were on the bubble and got "screwed" by not getting into the NCAAs -- why the hell couldn't we win the NIT? We made what? One NIT final 4 under STansbury? OBVIOUSLY, even in those years, we weren't EVEN the best team that got left out... MUCH LESS one of the top 16 teams in the country(or top 32)...

So you're right that we're usually getting our good teams in, but to deny reputation and the fact that humans select the teams so it's not an exact science, is just not true. And it definitely cannot be proven.

Convenient moving of goalposts.

[engie]

Lighten up Sally. Maybe because we're all discussing it instead of spending hours on end researching this shit like you are. Ever think that some of us aren't "arguing", just "discussing"? Everything ever discussed doesn't have a proven right or wrong answer, despite you thinking it does.

Way to "own me" with stats though, d-bag.

Sure -- some things don't. This argument does though. And you were the one that started it in the first place arguing against something I said that I had already statistically proven by saying that I couldn't "prove" it -- when I COULD AND DID.

But, like the bunting thing, a bunch of people here will argue in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence that goes against your position...

[CadaverDawg]

Like when? When did we "get the benefit of the doubt" and then go on to make a Super Regional or Omaha trip?


So, you are modifying your argument to "the field of 64" now that you don't have a leg to stand on with the initial argument of the final 16? That's convenient. Fact is -- if we were on the bubble and got "screwed" by not getting into the NCAAs -- why the hell couldn't we win the NIT? We made what? One NIT final 4 under STansbury? OBVIOUSLY, even in those years, we weren't EVEN the best team that got left out... MUCH LESS one of the top 16 teams in the country(or top 32)...


Convenient moving of goalposts.

Jesus. I was discussing getting in bc you can't make the sweet 16 without getting in. Forget it, you're doing the typical Engie shit that kills threads bc nobody can simply discuss things without you going full blown retard trying to break every single word down. You're a piece of work

[CadaverDawg]

Sure -- some things don't. This argument does though. And you were the one that started it in the first place arguing against something I said that I had already statistically proven by saying that I couldn't "prove" it -- when I COULD AND DID.

But, like the bunting thing, a bunch of people here will argue in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence that goes against your position...

You're a joke. You didn't prove shit. It's just that nobody argues with you bc you turn into "know it all" "never wrong", Engie. Same shit different thread. Congrats on your internet domination.

[Dawg61]

Wow so teams have to win the NIT to prove they deserved to get into the tournament? The year we got raped by the lane violation vs Kentucky and lost the SEC Championship in OT and then didn't get into the tournament we needed to then go on and win the NIT to prove we should of gotten in? Nice Engielogic

[engie]

Wow so teams have to win the NIT to prove they deserved to get into the tournament? The year we got raped by the lane violation vs Kentucky and lost the SEC Championship in OT and then didn't get into the tournament we needed to then go on and win the NIT to prove we should of gotten in? Nice Engielogic

You mean the year that we lost to Rider, Richmond, Western Kentucky, and went 9-7 in a weak SEC -- with an RPI of #62? That's the one you chose to prop up your position as a "deserving team"?

Yes. The best team to get left out of the tournament should win the NIT in principle.

[engie]

Jesus. I was discussing getting in bc you can't make the sweet 16 without getting in. Forget it, you're doing the typical Engie shit that kills threads bc nobody can simply discuss things without you going full blown retard trying to break every single word down. You're a piece of work

Those that "barely get in" don't generally make the Sweet 16 anyway. "I'm a piece of work" = you shouldn't have called me out yesterday -- on something I mentioned in my first post on the topic I had taken interest in previously -- with no preconceived notion -- and already proven to be roughly identical in difficulty. You then argued that something that is EASILY provable in fact isn't and went off on tangents about pitchers and matchups.

So, yes, "I'm a piece of work" = "Cadaver has his panties in a wad because he argues on emotion without backing it in logic or researching the topic he wishes to "debate", so when the numbers game gets played, he pokes fun at someone that produces that number that prove him wrong".

[engie]

You're a joke. You didn't prove shit. It's just that nobody argues with you bc you turn into "know it all" "never wrong", Engie. Same shit different thread. Congrats on your internet domination.

Thanks. Means alot.

Congrats to you too on twisting your way out of admitting you are wrong -- again -- while bringing nothing -- and despite abundant evidence in the OP backing my position. Where is your evidence? "But different pitchers" -- Cadaver PLS.

[CadaverDawg]

Those that "barely get in" don't generally make the Sweet 16 anyway. "I'm a piece of work" = you shouldn't have called me out yesterday -- on something I mentioned in my first post on the topic I had taken interest in previously -- with no preconceived notion -- already proven to be roughly identical. You then argued that something that is EASILY provable in fact isn't.

So, yes, "I'm a piece of work" = "Cadaver has his panties in a wad because he argues on emotion without backing it in logic, so when the numbers game gets played, he runs and hides -- and pokes fun at someone that produces that number that prove him wrong".

You didn't prove shit. And no, Cadaver doesn't have anything in a wad, bc nobody takes shit as seriously as you. You are such an angry person. You really should relax a little. The way you breakdown everyone's posts and call out guys like the "HailState" guy for simply having a differing opinion, is borderline creepy. You aren't proving anything by just picking stats that meet YOUR argument....there just aren't any other argumentative, "Internet egos", that can't stand being wrong on here that are willing to spend days on end looking up useless stats to try and prove a non-provable point, in hopes that they can pound their chest and claim message board domination, like you. Hope you're proud

[engie]

You didn't prove shit. And no, Cadaver doesn't have anything in a wad, bc nobody takes shit as seriously as you. You are such an angry person. You really should relax a little. The way you breakdown everyone's posts and call out guys like the "HailState" guy for simply having a differing opinion, is borderline creepy. You aren't proving anything by just picking stats that meet YOUR argument....there just aren't any other argumentative, "Internet egos", that can't stand being wrong on here that are willing to spend days on end looking up useless stats to try and prove a non-provable point, in hopes that they can pound their chest and claim message board domination, like you. Hope you're proud

K.

Another non-provable point proven.

And yes, I am proud. I hope you are as well -- in starting arguments based on nothing, bringing nothing, then talking about others that "can't stand being wrong" -- while not admitting that the numbers say YOU ARE WRONG already in something accepted by 95% of the message board as factual. Oh -- they are "meaningless and say nothing" -- I forgot. That's not hypocritical at all.

[CadaverDawg]

K.

Another non-provable point proven.

And yes, I am proud. I hope you are as well -- in starting arguments based on nothing, bringing nothing, then talking about others that "can't stand being wrong" -- while not admitting that the numbers say YOU ARE WRONG already. Oh -- they are "meaningless" -- I forgot. Pot meet kettle.

God you're embarrassing. Nothing you said proved me wrong. And again, the only arguing being done is by You. Everyone else is trying to discuss topics without having internet badass come and try to run their opinion in the ground and trying to tell them they're stupid. Ha, but keep thinking you're perfect by all means... You aren't fooling anybody though.

Thread closed. Carry it on in the other thread with someone who still feels like dealing with you.

[CadaverDawg]

The End