forums

The Past Decade: Revealed

Brian Piccolo said:
canesproponent said:
ou had a strong point during July 2013, but now you are simply being moronic.
Click to expand...

The fragile psyches of Jagr and his crew have never gotten over 2012.

The same arguments they were making then (which might have been well received) look downright silly today. Still complaining about stuff from 4 years ago is delusional.
Click to expand...

4 years ago? We were eliminated by a lower seed in 2016, 2014, and 2013.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
BWCD said:
Right, because the stakes are higher.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't make the game any different than a regular season game. It just carries higher stakes.

This is why I say you're stupid because I've said this like three times and you've never been able to come up with anything except the same repeated line about stakes.

Yeah, we get it. It has higher stakes.

Care to tell us why the game itself should carry more weight in valuing a teams ability for that season?
 
Last edited:
Here's what I love about the randomness claim: They wait until after the CWS to decide if it was random or not. Miami won as a national seed? Not random. A lower seed wins? Random.
 
BWCD said:
From a statistical POV like yours, you're correct. Here in the real world
Click to expand...

So statistics are not in the real world?

A perfect illustration of fanboy delusions.

Statistics just measure things in the real world. You can choose to ignore them if you want (and all of you bozos have clearly chosen to).
 
BWCD said:
Here in the real world where we take into account things like context, history, and how the product on the field looks with our own two eyes...
Click to expand...

What does history have to do with two games against Arizona and UC Santa Barbara?
 
Advertisement
cane since birth said:
Regardless he still getting owned and all he has is insults
Click to expand...

One fanboy stroking another.

Jagr said this year's team would be nowhere near a national seed and would be battling for a host spot.

He was literally wrong about every single thing he said. From start to finish.
 
canesproponent said:
Bell Hop - The ONLY correct fact that you quoted is 2 games in Omaha in 10 years. The rest is false.
Click to expand...

I prefer Firefighter/Paramedic and yes, I have a degree in paramedics and currently working on my nursing degree because FYI competition is so high that to get hired in Florida you need a degree.
 
Advertisement
Jaromir Jagr said:
We've won 2 games in Omaha in 10 years.
We haven't beaten a #1 seed in 8 years.
We have been upset by a lower seed 12 times.
We have beaten a higher seed 0 times.
Click to expand...

Laughably cobbled together numbers.

Other than your first claim who cares about those numbers?

Who judges their program on the number of higher seeds they beat? Especially when the goal is to be a 1-seed all the time?

Your measurements are complete garbage.
 
Jaromir Jagr said:
Here's what I love about the randomness claim: They wait until after the CWS to decide if it was random or not. Miami won as a national seed? Not random. A lower seed wins? Random.
Click to expand...

Since the best team is supposed to win no explanation is necessary.

When the worst team in NCAA history to win a championship wins the College World Series then, yes, that's random.

When Arizona wins the College World Series, misses the tournament three years in a row and then potentially wins the College World Series again, yes, that's random.
 
Advertisement
Brian Piccolo said:
BWCD said:
Right, because the stakes are higher.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't make the game any different than a regular season game. It just carries higher stakes.

This is why I say you're stupid because I've said this like three times and you've never been able to come up with anything except the same repeated line about stakes.

Yeah, we get it. It has higher stakes.

Care to tell us why the game itself should carry more weight in valuing a teams ability for that season?
Click to expand...
I'm not valuing a whole season. I'm valuing our performance in Omaha these past 2 years, and our value has been exactly ****.

See...that's where you've got me mixed up with everyone else. Some may be using Omaha (as you see it) as an excuse to call the whole season less than stellar, or even a failure - I am not doing that. The regular season results were great. I'm happy with them. I wish we had won the ACC Tourney and not struggled against BC in the Supers, but everything before Omaha I'm OK with.

Omaha weighs more in my mind because that is every team in the nation's goal...to get there and to win the **** thing, and the way we have performed there these past 2 years is disturbing. I say we failed to perform on the big stage, and that falls at the skipper's feet, as it does in every other sport ever created. You say it's just randomness. I get why you're claiming randomness with all of your quoted stats...but it's still a dumbazz argument.

I seriously wonder if we asked Morris himself if he could have done anything differently, if he would answer with yes or at least maybe, or if he would take the approach of Omaha just being random and the format being horrible, as you do? While I may be critical of Morris, I don't think he'd ever be dumb enough to tell the media that Omaha is just too random and that the format sucks.

You know what's funny? You and your bytch-boy keep citing sample sizes and such. Had we been successful at Omaha the past 2 years, the "sample size" would be much bigger on the gross and percentage bases both...and the whole **** conversation would be moot because we'd be at least to the 2nd weekend instead of 1-2/0-2-BBQ.

Also...had we won Omaha this year, according to you, we still wouldn't have been the best team in the country. According to you, U*** was probably the best team. I just can't imagine how salty you would have been watching our team celebrate a national title without being your de-facto "best team". You would have been the one prick in the stands or at home wearing orange/green with your arms crossed saying "well, yeah they won a random tournament, but U*** was the best team". And then the fans around you would have lynched you for spouting such stupidity.
 
Brian Piccolo said:
BWCD said:
Here in the real world where we take into account things like context, history, and how the product on the field looks with our own two eyes...
Click to expand...

What does history have to do with two games against Arizona and UC Santa Barbara?
Click to expand...
Take the recent history in the larger sample size called the regular season that you like to cite so much...we beat teams much better than both of those squads. Odds tell us that we should have won both of those games if we were the team the regular season told us that we were.

We didn't, and that's not "randomness", that's called laying a ******* egg (twice) on the big stage.
 
Brian Piccolo said:
BWCD said:
You guys point at cherry-picked statistics and randomness as "reasons" to back up your arguments.
Click to expand...

A charge you have not supported a single time.
Click to expand...
Not to your satisfaction, no. I think it's pretty visible to everyone else that your stats fit your argument just so, and that you have no way of actually talking about what happened on the field, or what Morris could have done differently.

No one comes onto the baseball board (other than your Statz-brobronent) to ask the question, "hey - someone give me a statistical breakdown of why we lost that game". They want to know why it happened. Sometimes stats help paint the picture, but it's not the same as seeing it with your own two eyes and observing why we lost.
 
One last try. In NCAA baseball, you play ~66-games (roughly). The goal is to secure a Super Regional because they end up in Omaha approximately 40% of the time. The next goal is to secure at least a Regional.

We may not have beaten a higher seed in a given year because our best teams were already seeded #1 , which is why your argument is so preposterous.

If you want to debunk the "proponents". I suggest comparing Morris to other coaches. Do Morris' #1 -seeded teams perform better or worse than other coaches? How often does Morris attain a National Seed vis-a-vis other coaches? Morris ALWAYS makes the tournament and do the other coaches make it as often?

Between 2009 and 2013, Morris undoubtedly declined from his lofty perch. The problem that you have is that despite a 4.87 scholarship reduction, he has produced the second best team in the country two years in a row.

Omaha is arguably the most random sporting event in the world, but you do not possess the requisite education to comprehend it. That is your problem bell-hop, not mine. One more thing hockey-gnome, I do not mind having a loser on the board, so feel free to remain.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top