|
|
Post by Bruinstyle2001® on May 18, 2009 10:50:48 GMT -6
In case you are wondering, here is the list of teams that have made it to every NCAA tournament for the past 7 years (which I commented on earlier in another thread). If you want me to start from a different year, I could gladly do that, but you will pretty much wind up with the same teams (maybe a few more mixed in that dropped off a year or two -- South Alabama, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, etc).
Teams Reaching Regionals 2002-2008
Rice - 6 super, 5 CWS, 1 title
Cal State Fullerton - 6 super, 4 CWS, 1 title
Miami - 6 super, 4 CWS, 0 title
South Carolina - 5 super, 3 CWS, 0 title
Florida State - 5 super, 1 CWS, 0 title
Texas - 4 super, 4 CWS, 2 title
North Carolina - 4 super, 3 CWS, 0 title
Arizona State - 4 super, 2 CWS, 0 title
----------------------------------------
Arkansas - 2 super, 1 CWS, 0 title
Wichita State - 2 super, 0 CWS, 0 title
Oral Roberts - 1 super, 0 CWS, 0 title
Remaining Teams from Starting Year
2002: 64
2003: 39
2004: 26
2005: 22
2006: 16
2007: 12
2008: 11
2009: ?? (most likely will be 10 w/ Wichita State dropping out)
Thoughts when I look at this list:
* It truly is a who's who of baseball for the past decade. While there might be a little separation from the first 8 to the last 3, it shows you who has been consistent since some notable names (FL, Bama, Georgia, Oregon State, etc) are missing.
* I feel really bad for FSU fans. It seems like they get gifted a regional with no real solid competition most years (largely because geographically there is not very good compeition), but can't get out of the super round against better competition -- got out last year by playing Wichita State.
* Texas has 2 titles and thus likely should be placed ahead of FSU but they have struggled late and just haven't got out of their regional lately.
* North Carolina's rise to baseball power really only happened in the last few years. Most of the earlier years in this streak you will see them having 2 or 3 seeds and then suddenly they came on strong. Seems to show that recruiting one incredible recruiting class (full of pitchers in their case) can make a huge difference of they get to school. We just had a similar highly ranked class two straight year so we will get to see how it pays dividends in the next season and year after.
* I wonder how the new roster size rules and inability to transfer without penalty will halt some of these streaks. There will likely be some drop off in elite teams, so we might see some streaks end.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeplate on May 18, 2009 10:59:38 GMT -6
I've noticed from reading several boards that alot of people forget that one of those 2 supers was during Norm's last year, not Dave's 1st.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruinstyle2001® on May 18, 2009 11:04:09 GMT -6
Alas, not those of us that started watching the Hogs back when there was only a 48-team regional and could name you every regional we played in since Baum Stadium was created.
Dave was busy taking a Nebraska team to Omaha in 2002.
2002 was selected because it is the start of our straight regional run -- which was the point raised in an earlier thread -- how rare it is to even make a regional that many times consecutively. It is an incredible measure of consistency that few teams have because there can be such a big dropoff -- see OSU, OU, Georgia, Florida, LSU, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeplate on May 18, 2009 11:21:04 GMT -6
Alas, not those of us that started watching the Hogs back when there was only a 48-team regional and could name you every regional we played in since Baum Stadium was created. Dave was busy taking a Nebraska team to Omaha in 2002. 2002 was selected because it is the start of our straight regional run -- which was the point raised in an earlier thread -- how rare it is to even make a regional that many times consecutively. It is an incredible measure of consistency that few teams have because there can be such a big dropoff -- see OSU, OU, Georgia, Florida, LSU, etc. HeathHog has now updated the other post for the DVH years and finds that there are 16 teams that have made a Regional in each of the past 6 seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 18, 2009 11:22:59 GMT -6
Like any other sport in any other place, increased results mean increased expectations. This includes during a season and over the course of years. After we beat OU and Texas in basketball, expectations were raised. Now that we have established our baseball program on this level, fans naturally want to be in that next level (the level above the line).
I do think it's notable that we, along with WSU and Oral Roberts have had the least success of the bunch in the post-season. WSU and Oral Roberts can be explained through the fact that they are by far the best programs in their terrible conferences and should make the tournament every year based on that. That does not mean that they have great teams every year.
Why have we played well enough in the regular season, in a real conference, to make the post-season, but then do not have the success of other teams once we get there? It's a relatively small sample size I guess, but probably large enough to draw some conclusions. I know DVH and the rest of the staff have to be wondering this as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by CountPorkula on May 18, 2009 11:52:25 GMT -6
the ridiculousness of the APR and the new transfer rules are going to cause big disparity in baseball. especially since players are now going to opt to go to JUCO since there are more options now for those players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruinstyle2001® on May 18, 2009 12:47:13 GMT -6
Like any other sport in any other place, increased results mean increased expectations. This includes during a season and over the course of years. After we beat OU and Texas in basketball, expectations were raised. Now that we have established our baseball program on this level, fans naturally want to be in that next level (the level above the line). I do think it's notable that we, along with WSU and Oral Roberts have had the least success of the bunch in the post-season. WSU and Oral Roberts can be explained through the fact that they are by far the best programs in their terrible conferences and should make the tournament every year based on that. That does not mean that they have great teams every year. Why have we played well enough in the regular season, in a real conference, to make the post-season, but then do not have the success of other teams once we get there? It's a relatively small sample size I guess, but probably large enough to draw some conclusions. I know DVH and the rest of the staff have to be wondering this as well. But the thing that gets missed in your assessment is the disparity between the teams on that list. Here is the conference breakdown: Big West - 1 (Cal State Fullerton) Pac 10 - 1 (Arizona State) CUSA/WAC - 1 (Rice) ACC - 3 (Miami, UNC, Florida State) SEC - 2 (South Carolina, Arkansas) Big 12 - 1 (Texas) ---------------------------------- MVC - 1 (Wichita State) Summit - 1 (ORU) While we can explain away the last two teams, what we generally see is the best team(s) from the conference over that span. Generally, it is ones that are finishing near the top every year. However, the SEC's two representatives are most likely not what we would necessarily expect -- arguments could be made either way. The SEC representatives are the most consistent teams over this span. It makes you wonder what separates the SEC from those other teams above the line. My guess is these other teams experience less competition within their conferences in recruiting, but I can't say for certain. It makes sense when you consider think that CSUF, ASU, and Texas can probably cherry pick who they want. It makes further sense that the SEC competes against each other for recruits and thus most teams experience "down years" where they might not make the postseason one year (Georgia, Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, etc.). Who knows? When we are gauging the success and the difference is just one or two more super appearances, I am not sure we are terribly far off and it might be the difference of who hosts the super -- see boyd's world for stats on hosting in supers as an inherent advantage. Postseason success in baseball is so much different when the regionals test something different than supers and the geography and quality of teams neighbor affects the strength of the regional field. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 18, 2009 12:56:05 GMT -6
Well, we would have hosted a super regional in 2007, but we did not win our regional.
Besides all of that, I think most fans would rather have greater success at an intermittent rate (like Georgia and LSU and Oregon State to name a few) than the consistent level of success we have maintained since 2002.
|
|
|
|
Post by dacooks on May 18, 2009 13:17:18 GMT -6
Well, we would have hosted a super regional in 2007, but we did not win our regional. Besides of all of that, I think most fans would rather have greater success at an intermittent rate (like Georgia and LSU and Oregon State to name a few) than the consistent level of success we have maintained since 2002. Agreed. Similarly, the length of a hitting streak pales in comparison to a season-long batting average..... A .400 slugger more often than not IS an "intermittent" hitter. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruinstyle2001® on May 18, 2009 13:29:50 GMT -6
Well, we would have hosted a super regional in 2007, but we did not win our regional. Besides of all of that, I think most fans would rather have greater success at an intermittent rate (like Georgia and LSU and Oregon State to name a few) than the consistent level of success we have maintained since 2002. You are telling me if we had sat at home for two years (like LSU did) people wouldn't be calling all the more for change? Or if we had a team that went a CWS the year before sat at home with pretty much the same team the next year (and quite possibly the best closer in the nation in Fields) like Georgia did over this stretch people would be okay with it? As many have put it, they expect to be in a regional every year. In practice, it is extremely rare (11/300 = 3.67%). I am not convinced people would be okay with us sitting at home one or two years just to get to an extra super or CWS over a six year span. As Boyd's most recent analysis shows in numbers, the most successful teams in the postseason are more successful in large part because of the experience they gain from playing games in the previous postseason. The two biggest factors he found were home field advantage and previous years experience in postseason. Sitting at home any given year does not help those factors --- and these are the factors you see in those top teams on the list. |
|
