forums

Mississippi State

MStateDawg said:
The field is not selected in a vacuum. It is affected by the other candidates available in any given year. If you break up with your girlfriend who is 250 because a different girl who weighs 150 is willing to date you, then that is totally reasonable. With the baseball tournament, some years all the bubble candidates are all 250. Other years they vary in weight.

Also, this is an awful analogy. My apologies to anyone here who is lovin on them big girls.
Click to expand...
@Paranos
 
Advertisement
Canes2082 said:
Honestly Texas state...you really think a team with a below 500 record in conference play deserves in?
Click to expand...
I haven't given my opinion on it one way or the other. The only argument I've made is that the quality of teams on the bubble vary from year to year and that a single criteria used to included/exclude a team one year might not be the same criteria used to include/exclude a team the following year.

Is the committee supposed to pick the best teams or the most deserving teams? I'm honestly not sure what their directive is.
 
MStateDawg said:
For argument's sake, which team(s) do you think should have received an at-large bid above Florida?
Click to expand...

I would've put Texas St in over them. Solid metrics, won their regular season title. They got punished for 0-2 in their tourney but they still have a strong profile, better than BYU. Although obviously TCU is who I'd have out 1st

My problem with UF is last year Ray Tanner went on a rant when explaining Kentucky's snub, saying a team that goes 13-17 then loses the opener in their tourney doesnt deserve to get in, regardless of the rest of their resume.

That's the biggest issue with the committee, there's no consistency from year-to-year in their decision-making
 
Advertisement
MStateDawg said:
I haven't given my opinion on it one way or the other. The only argument I've made is that the quality of teams on the bubble vary from year to year and that a single criteria used to included/exclude a team one year might not be the same criteria used to include/exclude a team the following year.

Is the committee supposed to pick the best teams or the most deserving teams? I'm honestly not sure what their directive is.
Click to expand...

I do agree with the bubble teams changing year to year and how it impacts the teams but still a losing record in conference play should be an exclusion criteria
 
TheRichtShow said:
I would've put Texas St in over them. Solid metrics, won their regular season title. They got punished for 0-2 in their tourney but they still have a strong profile, better than BYU. Although obviously TCU is who I'd have out 1st

My problem with UF is last year Ray Tanner went on a rant when explaining Kentucky's snub, saying a team that goes 13-17 then loses the opener in their tourney doesnt deserve to get in, regardless of the rest of their resume.

That's the biggest issue with the committee, there's no consistency from year-to-year in their decision-making
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point I was making. I would go a step farther and say the committee should rank these teams 1-64 and place them in regionals accordingly. #1 gets #64 #2 gets #63 and so on. Transparency is the only way the committee can be held accountable. There is no reason the #17 ranked team and the #5 team get matched up together. There is also no reason an entire regional should be teams from one state. Ive been saying that for years about the basketball tourney as well. This shouldn’t be subjective in any way
 
Jaromir Jagr said:
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...
No I'm not.playing at miss st isn't as tough as omaha is.yes the crowd at miss st is more vocal for the home team.theres more pressure playing in omaha.playing at miss st will pay great dividend to this young team.win miss st regional this team will have the confidence to win where ever they play.if your a competitor the toughest road is always the best way to go.
 
Twhizman said:
No I'm not.playing at miss st isn't as tough as omaha is.yes the crowd at miss st is more vocal for the home team.theres more pressure playing in omaha.playing at miss st will pay great dividend to this young team.win miss st regional this team will have the confidence to win where ever they play.if your a competitor the toughest road is always the best way to go.
Click to expand...

There is no comparison between Omaha and Mississippi State. You even admit it yourself. If we win at Mississippi State, we can win anywhere. Why? Because Mississippi State is a tougher place to play.
 
Advertisement
NC_Canes_11 said:
This is exactly the point I was making. I would go a step farther and say the committee should rank these teams 1-64 and place them in regionals accordingly. #1 gets #64 #2 gets #63 and so on. Transparency is the only way the committee can be held accountable. There is no reason the #17 ranked team and the #5 team get matched up together. There is also no reason an entire regional should be teams from one state. Ive been saying that for years about the basketball tourney as well. This shouldn’t be subjective in any way
Click to expand...

That's a little bit of overkill. If FIU is in the tournament and Miami is hosting, it doesn't make sense to put them on a plane to Oregon just because they're the 46-seed instead of the 47-seed.
 
Jaromir Jagr said:
That's a little bit of overkill. If FIU is in the tournament and Miami is hosting, it doesn't make sense to put them on a plane to Oregon just because they're the 46-seed instead of the 47-seed.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean it’s just my opinion and a way to keep everybody honest. I believe it’ll lead to more chalk throughout most regionals, but if you are a top seed you earned that. That’s why you play all those games to get seeded.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
I get what you mean it’s just my opinion and a way to keep everybody honest. I believe it’ll lead to more chalk throughout most regionals, but if you are a top seed you earned that. That’s why you play all those games to get seeded.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you said all the way through 64. There is no difference between 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64, so it only makes sense to put them in the closest regional, when possible. And really, who is to say that we are actually #17? Baseball teams are too close to be able to differentiate between 17 and 22, for example.
 
Jaromir Jagr said:
Yeah but you said all the way through 64. There is no difference between 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64, so it only makes sense to put them in the closest regional, when possible. And really, who is to say that we are actually #17? Baseball teams are too close to be able to differentiate between 17 and 22, for example.
Click to expand...

I know it’s splitting hairs but it’s crazy how we were right outside of hosting and end up at a National seed. That shouldn’t sit well with any team that it happens too. Especially considering the draws teams worse than us got. I just think it’s a bigger issue than this year. It’s becoming like the CFP, where a committee has full stop decision making with no accountability. It’s all about the “eye test” and not the resume
 
Advertisement
Jaromir Jagr said:
Yeah but you said all the way through 64. There is no difference between 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64, so it only makes sense to put them in the closest regional, when possible. And really, who is to say that we are actually #17? Baseball teams are too close to be able to differentiate between 17 and 22, for example.
Click to expand...


I agree with most of this, but if the committee decided both Illinois and Miami were going to be 2 seeds playing in the state of Mississippi, it would have made a heck of a lot more sense to put Miami in Oxford and Illinois in Starkville, not the other way around, as the committee did.
 
Hotel Ibis said:
I agree with most of this, but if the committee decided both Illinois and Miami were going to be 2 seeds playing in the state of Mississippi, it would have made a heck of a lot more sense to put Miami in Oxford and Illinois in Starkville, not the other way around, as the committee did.
Click to expand...

Okay, why would that make more sense?
 
Advertisement
NC_Canes_11 said:
This is exactly the point I was making. I would go a step farther and say the committee should rank these teams 1-64 and place them in regionals accordingly. #1 gets #64 #2 gets #63 and so on. Transparency is the only way the committee can be held accountable. There is no reason the #17 ranked team and the #5 team get matched up together. There is also no reason an entire regional should be teams from one state. Ive been saying that for years about the basketball tourney as well. This shouldn’t be subjective in any way
Click to expand...

How can it not be subjective? The only way it would be "objective" would be if it were based on conference standings, but even that would be problematic due to differences in the quality of conferences.
 
MStateDawg said:
Isn't this the same method of selecting every single NCAA sanctioned postseason tournament?


It's always been that way for all sports. I don't think it's "becoming" more so than just continuing.
Click to expand...

Ive always thought the baseball committee was the best of all sports in being fair. In the last couple years they’ve strayed away from that with their regional, historical, and brand name favoritism. Maybe it’s just the CFP making me pay more attention to this than I previously had. I just think more transparency and accountability is needed
 
ALLoverCANE said:
How can it not be subjective? The only way it would be "objective" would be if it were based on conference standings, but even that would be problematic due to differences in the quality of conferences.
Click to expand...

Objective as in guidelines to make the tournament. Full rankings to explain matchups and so on. I want resumes to matter more than they did this year
 
Jaromir Jagr said:
Okay, why would that make more sense?
Click to expand...

The metrics (rpi, rankings, etc.) consistently show MSU as a top 5 team and Ole Miss somewhere around 15 to 20, and Miami also around 15 to 20 and Illinois around 30. Simple bracketing principles when 16 teams get seeded as the same number would indicate a high 1 seed gets a low 2 seed and a low 1 seed gets a high 2 seed.

If you're going to say geography trumps that, fine, but both Miami and Illinois were sent to the same geographic area.

But it's game day, so time to stop being argumentative, and time to win some games.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top