If Georgia wins tommorrow...

[8dog]

the conference would have 2/9 teams move on after it comprised less than 20% of the 1-3 seeds in the field. 5 of 9 teams made it to the championship round. So there is a chance that the conference didn't perform nearly as poorly as believed.

 

[Paper Dog]

Georgia will try to make it .500 tomorrow night

 

[patdog]

getting only 2 teams to the super regionals when you had by far the most teams of any conference in the tournament isn't a good showing. And my bet is Georgia Tech wins tomorrow to leave the SEC with only 1 team in the supers. They've taken 3 of 5 from Georgia so far this season.

 

[8dog]

the committee acknowledged that we are strong in nos. only. They gave us a lot of 2 and 3 seeds. Those teams aren't supposed to get to Supers in theory. I mean Im not surprised at all that KY, Ark or Bama didn't make it to supers. But that doesn't mean they didn't deserve a bid.

 

[patdog]

But we all know the PAC 10 is a weaker conference. <sarcasm></p>

 

[patdog]

And that's reflected in the fact we only got 2 #1 seeds and will only advance 1 or 2 teams to the CWS. I compared the SEC's record to the PAC 10's record and it's not even close. I'd be willing to be that most, if not all, of the other power conference have better records than the SEC too.
</p>
Edited to add: I just checked the ACC's record. They're 15-4.

 

[dawgatUSM]

the committee acknowledged that we are strong in nos. only. They gave us a lot of 2 and 3 seeds. Those teams aren't supposed to get to Supers in theory. I mean Im not surprised at all that KY, Ark or Bama didn't make it to supers. But that doesn't mean they didn't deserve a bid.

My thoughts exactly. They were all deserving of a bid much more than anyone else that should have been considered
</p>

 

[patdog]

2 #1 seeds - 1 or 2 regional winners.
3 #2 seeds - 3 or 4 2nd place finishes.
4 #3 seeds - 2 3rd place finishes.
0 #4 seeds - 2 4th place finishes.

But the fact the seedings didn't expect the SEC to do much better than it has doesn't excuse the fact the SEC has pretty much sucked this postseason. To use a basketball analogy, if your team is only expected to finish about .500 and you go 14-15, it doesn't change the fact that you sucked.

 

[Coach34]

thats still showing strength...And if Georgia wins, that would be both Number 1's advancing and showing how important it is to be a 1-seed

 

[excrementoccurs]

I couldn't believe that "The Best College Baseball In The Country" was actually written inside the dugouts at Hoover. The SEC isn't the best baseball in the country. Not this year or all-time.

 

[Coach34]

I couldn't believe that "The Best College Baseball In The Country" was actually written inside the dugouts at Hoover. The SEC isn't the best baseball in the country. Not this year or all-time.

you obviously missed the 1990's</p>

 

[RobertF50]

but they're mostly all by USC a long time ago. Sounds like most years until recently it has been a one team conference like football.

 

[Paper Dog]

Alabama, Florida, Arkansas and Vanderbilt did not make it to the regional finals round

 

[patdog]

you obviously missed the 1990's

In case you missed it, the 1990's ended 8 years ago. The SEC today is nothing like the SEC of the 1990s in baseball. </p>

 

[patdog]

I've said all along that the only conference that could even argue that it has the depth of the SEC was the PAC 10. But the fact is there have been very few super regional and CWS type teams in the SEC the past few years. In 2005, the SEC sent 2 teams to the CWS. In 2006 and 2007, it sent only 1 each year. And then only 1 or 2 to even a super regional this year.

Edited to add: It's actually 5 teams in the last 32 for the SEC, or 42% of the conference. The PAC 10 had 4 teams in the last 32, or 44% of the conference.

 

[patdog]

but they're mostly all by USC a long time ago. Sounds like most years until recently it has been a one team conference like football.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. So far this century, the PAC 10 has 9 CWS appearances to the SEC's 10, despite the fact the PAC 10 has 3 fewer teams. They also have 2 championships and 2 runners up to the SEC's 0 championships and 2 runners up during that time period. Last year a team with a losing PAC 10 record won the national title. That doesn't happen in a 1-team conference. This year, according to Boyd's ISR rankings the PAC 10 is the best conference top to bottom. And the difference between the PAC 10 and the #2 conference is greater than the difference between the #2 conference and the #6 conference. In other words, it's not only the best conference out there top to bottom, there's really no other conference that's even close.</p>

 

[Stormrider81]

and then point to the 90's as the glory days of SEC baseball when all of 83% of the SEC's claim to dominance in that decade rests in the hands of one team, LSU. Had LSU not had a great run the SEC would be in the midst of an 18 year national title drought. That isn't to marginalize the SEC or LSU's 90's run, but in all honesty our conference's strength in baseball has been and continues to be depth and fan support. When it comes to winning titles we've come woefully short. Compare that to football where the conference is deep and that depth often knocks teams out of the title game, yet SEC teams have won the last two BCS national titles, and 3 of the last 5.</p>

 

[8dog]

The ACC is an outstanding conference and they haven't produced a nat'l champion in some ridiculous no. of years.

 

[bulldogs726]

ACC I dont think has ever produced a national champion. North Carolina is trying hard though