Author Topic: #3 SDSU vs #2 UVA - NCAA Regional  (Read 5526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Blueliner

  • Posts: 166
Re: #3 SDSU vs #2 UVA - NCAA Regional
« Reply #75: June 02, 2009, 02:25:19 AM »
It matters a lot that they get there.  The CWS is the pinnacle of the sport.  The ACC and SEC put in the most teams, by far than any other conference in the country.  That tells me more about the conference strength than who actually wins the tournament.  Rice and Fullerton are two annual teams in Omaha, but both conferences really aren't that good.  I'll be kind and call them mediocre.  Irvine's come along the last couple of years to challenge Fullerton, but other than that, of late, there hasn't been much else.  Those bad leagues that each have very good teams that happen to play there.  A team that can routinely put multiple teams (and not the same teams over and over) is the better conference.  The Pac 10 is a very good conference, but even that doesn't match up with the ACC and SEC.

Since 2000, here's the conference representations (I added Miami to the ACC even though they just started playing ACC league play a few years ago, since they're in the conference now, I totaled them there.  I did not inculde conferences that only sent one or two teams over that time span like the Sun Belt or Missouri Valley):

sec - 16
acc - 16
pac 10 -  13
big 12 - 9
big west - 6
cusa - 6

Sorry but including Miami now isn't right.  They were indy before going into the ACC.  They were not a member of the Big East for baseball. 

And I hardly call 3 more teams by both the ACC and SEC, "by far" 

I don't know if you noticed but West Coast teams are routinely matched up against each other before the CWS so they knock each other out before.  But ACC and SEC schools have an ACC route (All CupCakes) to the CWS.

Online DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21911
Re: #3 SDSU vs #2 UVA - NCAA Regional
« Reply #76: June 02, 2009, 09:23:43 AM »
Sorry but including Miami now isn't right.  They were indy before going into the ACC.  They were not a member of the Big East for baseball. 

And I hardly call 3 more teams by both the ACC and SEC, "by far" 

I don't know if you noticed but West Coast teams are routinely matched up against each other before the CWS so they knock each other out before.  But ACC and SEC schools have an ACC route (All CupCakes) to the CWS.
I follow college baseball as close as anyone on here and I guarantee I've been to more CWS games than anyone else on this board. 

I know all about Miami and since they were independent, that's why I had no problem adding them to the ACC, but either way, it bolsters my argument.  The argument that was being made was South vs. West Coast, not conference vs. conference.  The South puts more than double the teams from the west.  That's the point.  That's where the best ball is being played right now and for the past decade.  That's not to say there aren't some excellent programs on the west coast because there are, but the majority are in the South right now.

As for the west coast teams getting paired up in the regionals, that happens in the south too.  Baseball, does a fairly good job keeping regionals regional  (There are exceptions, I know.  See: Virginia, BC and Wash. St.).  I'm trying to find the west coast schools that were legit title contenders that were paired up in the regionals though.  There are an awful lot of southern schools playing southern schools in the Supers after playing a lot of southern schools in the regionals.

Re: #3 SDSU vs #2 UVA - NCAA Regional
« Reply #77: June 02, 2009, 08:28:30 PM »
I don't know if you noticed but West Coast teams are routinely matched up against each other before the CWS so they knock each other out before.  But ACC and SEC schools have an ACC route (All CupCakes) to the CWS.
Do you have any actual evidence of this?

I mean, I have watched the CWS for 20+ years now and am laughing at this notion that West-Coast teams play West-Coast teams while ACC/SEC schools have cupcakes to the CWS.

So, instead of trotting out 20 years of evidence to refute that, why not show us what you got to back this up?

Obviously it will include years of evidence