Although they have not reached the mountaintop, TCU has made three CWS appearances in a row and five of the last eight.
Is this the top D1 program right now? Thoughts?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
TCU certainly belongs in the discussion of most consistently excellent teams this decade, but I'm not sure there is such thing as "the top D1 program." It's a vague term.
Teams that have won championships or made reached multiple CWS finals or won 55+ games in a year might have compelling claims of their own.
Swampboy posted:TCU certainly belongs in the discussion of most consistently excellent teams this decade, but I'm not sure there is such thing as "the top D1 program." It's a vague term.
Teams that have won championships or made reached multiple CWS finals or won 55+ games in a year might have compelling claims of their own.
Agreed!
hshuler posted:Although they have not reached the mountaintop, TCU has made three CWS appearances in a row and five of the last eight.
Is this the top D1 program right now? Thoughts?
I believe this would be TCU's 4th year in a row.
I think you have to reach the mountaintop to be the Top Dog. A great program but I remain convinced the SEC has the best programs in the nation
I don't get to see TCU enough, the SEC is on TV all the time...that is kind of the benchmark league.
I guess if they go win one this year, they being TCU, would be able to make one hell of an argument
Oregon State made Vandy look pretty weak over the weekend, for whatever that is worth.
Louisville handled Kentucky with similar ease...
Texas A&M, and LSU are in and Florida might get in....6 Teams in the top 16 is just flat out the best conference
With the SEC Network in place, that conference is the Top Dog....great teams will come & go, but to me the very best is in the SEC....just my opinion
3and2Fastball posted:Texas A&M, and LSU are in and Florida might get in....6 Teams in the top 16 is just flat out the best conference
With the SEC Network in place, that conference is the Top Dog....great teams will come & go, but to me the very best is in the SEC....just my opinion
it is impossible to argue against the depth of the conference, it is ridiculously deep. I am not sure this year they have an elite team as much as in some years past. I guess we will learn a lot in the near future!
6 of final 16 wow.
hshuler posted:Although they have not reached the mountaintop, TCU has made three CWS appearances in a row and five of the last eight.
Is this the top D1 program right now? Thoughts?
Depends on chosen measurements and timeline. Wins? Profitability? Number of MLB draft picks? The number of CWS appearances over the past eight years?
Define the criteria.
I just go by Conference RPI, which takes into account all of the teams (whether on TV or not) and all inter conference play. The Big 12 was ever so slightly ahead of the SEC this year:
Florida's win over Wake Forest yesterday means they've been to Omaha six times in the last eight years, and eleven of the last twenty.
TCU imo is an elite program and has to be in the discussion as "One" of the elite baseball programs in the nation. Come on they have earned it.
2019Dad posted:I just go by Conference RPI, which takes into account all of the teams (whether on TV or not) and all inter conference play. The Big 12 was ever so slightly ahead of the SEC this year:
I have no dog in the "who is the baddest conference" fight--my son's conference RPI was in the middle of the pack--but reducing the question to a single factor will look like cherry picking to whoever is in second or third place.
Conference RPI is a prime example. Why should it be the only factor in comparing a 9-team conference to a 14-team conference, especially when all of the difference and then some is attributable to the 14th place team in the SEC, whose RPI is 78 places worse than the next worst team in either conference. What if we just compared the top five? Scoring it like a cross country meet, SEC (2+4+9+13+18=46) would win decisively over the Big 12 (6+8+16+20+25=75). Comparing the top nine would make the SEC look even more dominant (46+21+30+33+36=166 vs. 75+29+48+66+98=316).
But if you start looking beyond the simple conference RPI, you have to include the ACC in the discussion because their top five are even better than the SEC's (3+5+7+10+15=40).
There were some people yesterday who thought the Florida-Wake Forest game (a close game in an extremely close-fought super regional) was a valid proxy for the ACC-SEC rivalry because the winner's conference would have three teams in Omaha and the loser's conference would have "only" two.
Any attempt to determine the "top" team or conference will fail to persuade adherents of the also-rans because it will inevitably rely on arbitrarily selected or weighted measures or time frames or factors.
I would say each of the teams in the CWS finals this year are "elite" programs. This is the first time in a while that the field is full of "blue bloods". I realize some of the programs may not be historical powerhouses, but if we look at the last 10-15 years, I think all of these programs would be considered a "top" program. I think its kind of hard to say who is THE top program as it changes year to year. I am excited for this CWS and think we will see some very highly competitive games.
Swampboy is WAY more analytical than me. I just kinda go by the eye test and results of the programs over a span of years, not just a snapshot in time.
Swampboy posted:2019Dad posted:I just go by Conference RPI, which takes into account all of the teams (whether on TV or not) and all inter conference play. The Big 12 was ever so slightly ahead of the SEC this year:
I have no dog in the "who is the baddest conference" fight--my son's conference RPI was in the middle of the pack--but reducing the question to a single factor will look like cherry picking to whoever is in second or third place.
Conference RPI is a prime example. Why should it be the only factor in comparing a 9-team conference to a 14-team conference, especially when all of the difference and then some is attributable to the 14th place team in the SEC, whose RPI is 78 places worse than the next worst team in either conference. What if we just compared the top five? Scoring it like a cross country meet, SEC (2+4+9+13+18=46) would win decisively over the Big 12 (6+8+16+20+25=75). Comparing the top nine would make the SEC look even more dominant (46+21+30+33+36=166 vs. 75+29+48+66+98=316).
But if you start looking beyond the simple conference RPI, you have to include the ACC in the discussion because their top five are even better than the SEC's (3+5+7+10+15=40).
There were some people yesterday who thought the Florida-Wake Forest game (a close game in an extremely close-fought super regional) was a valid proxy for the ACC-SEC rivalry because the winner's conference would have three teams in Omaha and the loser's conference would have only two.
Any attempt to determine the "top" team or conference will fail to persuade adherents of the also-rans because it will inevitably rely on arbitrarily selected or weighted measures or time frames or factors.
I also don't have a dog in this fight . . . but:
- The "single factor" I cited includes all of the D1 games (games against lower divisions aren't counted) played by every team in the conference.
- Because of the comprehensiveness, I don't think Conference RPI cherry picks. I do however, think excluding out the bottom teams is the worst kind of cherry picking possible -- comparing the entire Big 12 (all nine teams) against less than two-thirds of the SEC (9 out of 14) is laughable, IMO. Every conference looks better if you exclude out the bottom teams. Or the five bottom teams in this case.
- The reason the 14th team in the SEC should be included -- and not excluded -- in any analysis of the SEC is because that 14th team is actually part of the SEC. Saying that the worst SEC team is much worse than the worst Big 12 team is not an argument in favor of the SEC, it's an argument against it. The fact that every Big 12 team had a winning record is a sign of conference strength.
Now, if the argument were that the top end of the SEC is better than the top end of any other conference, then I think there is a strong case. No argument here (just look at the 3 of the final 8).
2019 question for you? Do you think Tennessee wouldn't near the top of the Big 10, instead of the bottom of the SEC? That is one of the RPI problems.
2019Dad posted:Swampboy posted:2019Dad posted:I just go by Conference RPI, which takes into account all of the teams (whether on TV or not) and all inter conference play. The Big 12 was ever so slightly ahead of the SEC this year:
I have no dog in the "who is the baddest conference" fight--my son's conference RPI was in the middle of the pack--but reducing the question to a single factor will look like cherry picking to whoever is in second or third place.
Conference RPI is a prime example. Why should it be the only factor in comparing a 9-team conference to a 14-team conference, especially when all of the difference and then some is attributable to the 14th place team in the SEC, whose RPI is 78 places worse than the next worst team in either conference. What if we just compared the top five? Scoring it like a cross country meet, SEC (2+4+9+13+18=46) would win decisively over the Big 12 (6+8+16+20+25=75). Comparing the top nine would make the SEC look even more dominant (46+21+30+33+36=166 vs. 75+29+48+66+98=316).
But if you start looking beyond the simple conference RPI, you have to include the ACC in the discussion because their top five are even better than the SEC's (3+5+7+10+15=40).
There were some people yesterday who thought the Florida-Wake Forest game (a close game in an extremely close-fought super regional) was a valid proxy for the ACC-SEC rivalry because the winner's conference would have three teams in Omaha and the loser's conference would have only two.
Any attempt to determine the "top" team or conference will fail to persuade adherents of the also-rans because it will inevitably rely on arbitrarily selected or weighted measures or time frames or factors.
I also don't have a dog in this fight . . . but:
- The "single factor" I cited includes all of the D1 games (games against lower divisions aren't counted) played by every team in the conference.
- Because of the comprehensiveness, I don't think Conference RPI cherry picks. I do however, think excluding out the bottom teams is the worst kind of cherry picking possible -- comparing the entire Big 12 (all nine teams) against less than two-thirds of the SEC (9 out of 14) is laughable, IMO. Every conference looks better if you exclude out the bottom teams. Or the five bottom teams in this case.
- The reason the 14th team in the SEC should be included -- and not excluded -- in any analysis of the SEC is because that 14th team is actually part of the SEC. Saying that the worst SEC team is much worse than the worst Big 12 team is not an argument in favor of the SEC, it's an argument against it.The fact that every Big 12 team had a winning record is a sign of conference strength.
Now, if the argument were that the top end of the SEC is better than the top end of any other conference, then I think there is a strong case. No argument here (just look at the 3 of the final 8).
2019dad, not trying to be obtuse, but this could also mean the conference as a whole was kinda weak. I realize I am biased and I DO have a dog in the fight. I will just say that year in and year out, the SEC is the strongest league overall. I also think the ACC, PAC-12 and Big-12 are very good conferences. That, in no way, doesn't mean that I think the SEC is so dominant that they will win the NCAA every year. Again, I realize I am biased, but it's just my .02.
My favorite time of year, conference tournaments, regionals, super regionals, CWS. Always feel disconnected from MLB through these weeks. TCU has incredible assistant coaches and veteran players. That has been their constant the last 4 years, impact underclassmen being led by 3/4 year guys being led by the coaching staff. They have been very stable with those variables. Will be very interesting to see how long they can keep it rolling. Saarloos is a future HC and Mosiello is as good as it gets. Their "formula" works, from recruiting to development it has been a very impressive run for them. Schlossnagle gets a ton of deserved credit for implementing his plan and it working, the program is solid with his leadership.
Of course it's cherry picking.
It's cherry picking a methodology that grasps for objectivity where there is none, that attempts to settle with an algorithm something that wasn't settled on the field, and that ignores other important considerations.
RPI is a politically negotiated NCAA formula that over-weights road wins and has a number of other statistical weaknesses. That's why both Warren Nolan and Boydsworld developed their own alternate less-political algorithms (Nolan Power Index and Iterative Strength Rankings)--both happen to show the Big 12 on top this year, but they don't always line up.
Another problem with all of these algorithms is their sensitivity to factors no serious observer thinks are significant. The RPI differences between the top conferences are so minuscule that they come down to opponent's opponent's records, pretending it matters whether you beat the RPI 180 team or RPI 200 team, or midweek games when coaches deliberately employ pitchers who aren't ready for conference play or schedule opponents based on geographic proximity. RPI is designed to strain at gnats.
And yes, conference size does need to be considered. The SEC has 13 teams with RPI's better than the ninth place Big 12 team, the ACC has ten.
Your cherry-picked methodology also ignores the grind of a 30-game conference schedule played over ten straight weekends without being able schedule a weekend against a mid-major or lower in the middle of the season.
Finally, it ignores what happens when the big boys get together in June. TCU may well win it all, but they're the only Big 12 team that reached the super regionals. Of the five Big 12 teams that lost in the regionals, four of them were eliminated by schools not in Power Five conferences.
That which is easily measured is not always what is important.
tanndonn posted:My favorite time of year, conference tournaments, regionals, super regionals, CWS. Always feel disconnected from MLB through these weeks. TCU has incredible assistant coaches and veteran players. That has been their constant the last 4 years, impact underclassmen being led by 3/4 year guys being led by the coaching staff. They have been very stable with those variables. Will be very interesting to see how long they can keep it rolling. Saarloos is a future HC and Mosiello is as good as it gets. Their "formula" works, from recruiting to development it has been a very impressive run for them. Schlossnagle gets a ton of deserved credit for implementing his plan and it working, the program is solid with his leadership.
TCU does a really good job of persuading (or choosing) recruits that will turn down high MLB draft slots.
Through May 24 (i.e., end of regular season), the Big 12 had a combined 31-17 mark against the SEC, ACC and Pac-12. http://newsok.com/article/5550310
Of course, if the other conferences exclude their bottom teams, that number would change.
As far as the CWS Final 8 is concerned -- yes, the SEC has 3 of the final 8 this year, whereas the Big 12 has only 1. However, I don't recall anyone arguing last year that the Big 12 was a better conference in 2016, when the Big 12 had 3 teams in the Final 8 last year, and the SEC had only 1. If the number of Final 8 teams -- when the big boys come out to play -- is the true standard, OK, then the SEC wins 2017 and the Big 12 won 2016.
Does TCU offer need based aid like Vandy and Stanford to get more kids money?
It's private and expensive, even more reason to emphasize how important grades are and being able to cover the remaining tuition costs, academic money is very important. 25% in athletic money is huge, but leaves an even "huger" balance at a private. Don't know about the need based aid, they don't have the endowment money of Vanderbilt. The secondary signability they deal with is whether they can get the kids they want on campus without having to sacrifice their 11.7
tanndonn posted:It's private and expensive, even more reason to emphasize how important grades are and being able to cover the remaining tuition costs, academic money is very important. 25% in athletic money is huge, but leaves an even "huger" balance at a private. Don't know about the need based aid, they don't have the endowment money of Vanderbilt. The secondary signability they deal with is whether they can get the kids they want on campus without having to sacrifice their 11.7
Being private in baseball can be a positive or a negative. Stanford and Vanderbilt have big advantages. DBU has the CLS scholarship. I know the previous Baylor coach was very vocal about how difficult it was to recruit with offering 25% and kids still had to pay 40k. I figured TCU must have something in place for baseball players to get some extra money to be able to recruit like they do. If not, then what they are doing is even more impressive.
2019,
I'm not arguing about which team or conference is at the top. I announced my agnosticism on the question at the top of this thread.
I'm arguing that such arguments are always inconclusive, and you're proving my point by pulling up supporting evidence that undermines your earlier advocacy of the primacy of RPI.
For example, you assert that RPI is king, but then you foreswear consistency by reminding us that 3 Big 12 teams reached the CWS last year (a factor you consider unimpressive this year when the SEC did it). But as soon as you talk about last year, I have to ask about last year's RPI--because of all the reasons you say RPI is so important.
And guess what? Last year, Big 12 was 3rd in conference RPI, and they were further behind last year's RPI leader ACC than this year's fifth place is behind the Big 12 today. In fact, over the last decade or more, the Big 12 been second in conference RPI once and first this year. Further, the Big 12's margin over the second place conference this year is the narrowest since 2012. But now, at least for the present, suddenly RPI is conclusive.
And that's what happens when you search for data in support of a hypothesis. You find it. And that's called cherry picking. It never persuades anyone who has a conflicting hypothesis, because those people are busy digging up their own confirmations.
And so fans of other conferences will blow off your data and offer their own about how many different teams have reached Omaha this decade, or how many championships they've won, or some other piece of information selected for the sole reason of the conclusion it supports.
And never does anyone who doesn't care about the outcome take the trouble to define "best" or "top" in a neutral fashion without an eye toward the result.
And so you end up with stalemates. ACC and Big 12 each have a first and a third in conference RPI over the past two years, and the SEC has two seconds. You can't untie that knot. All you can say is they're all tightly grouped at the top.
Ditto for whether TCU is the "top" team. They have a persuasive claim, and so do a handful of other schools. That's why there isn't a single "top" team except the moment a champion is crowned.
Swampboy posted:2019,
I'm not arguing about which team or conference is at the top. I announced my agnosticism on the question at the top of this thread.
I'm arguing that such arguments are always inconclusive, and you're proving my point by pulling up supporting evidence that undermines your earlier advocacy of the primacy of RPI.
For example, you assert that RPI is king, but then you foreswear consistency by reminding us that 3 Big 12 teams reached the CWS last year (a factor you consider unimpressive this year when the SEC did it). But as soon as you talk about last year, I have to ask about last year's RPI--because of all the reasons you say RPI is so important.
And guess what? Last year, Big 12 was 3rd in conference RPI, and they were further behind last year's RPI leader ACC than this year's fifth place is behind the Big 12 today. In fact, over the last decade or more, the Big 12 been second in conference RPI once and first this year. Further, the Big 12's margin over the second place conference this year is the narrowest since 2012. But now, at least for the present, suddenly RPI is conclusive.
And that's what happens when you search for data in support of a hypothesis. You find it. And that's called cherry picking. It never persuades anyone who has a conflicting hypothesis, because those people are busy digging up their own confirmations.
And so fans of other conferences will blow off your data and offer their own about how many different teams have reached Omaha this decade, or how many championships they've won, or some other piece of information selected for the sole reason of the conclusion it supports.
And never does anyone who doesn't care about the outcome take the trouble to define "best" or "top" in a neutral fashion without an eye toward the result.
And so you end up with stalemates. ACC and Big 12 each have a first and a third in conference RPI over the past two years, and the SEC has two seconds. You can't untie that knot. All you can say is they're all tightly grouped at the top.
Ditto for whether TCU is the "top" team. They have a persuasive claim, and so do a handful of other schools. That's why there isn't a single "top" team except the moment a champion is crowned.
Not true. I didn't search for data in support of a hypothesis. I couldn't care less about the Big 12. I have no ties to any of the schools or the region. I live in California and grew up and went to school in the Northeast. Contrary to your assertion, I didn't "search for data in support of a hypothesis."
I simply would go by RPI because it most closely (not perfectly, but more closely than other measures, IMO) represents what happened on the field, with all of the teams, in all of the D1 conferences. If you want to say that the top conferences are closely grouped, you'll get no argument here. In my initial post I said that the Big 12 was "ever so slightly ahead" of the SEC this year. The conference RPI is a reflection of what happens on the field, with all of the teams. Not the Top 5 in the ACC, or any sub-category of teams. All of the teams.
Your data about the last 10 years or the past two years or last year -- when I wouldn't argue that the Big 12 was the best conference despite landing three teams in the final 8 -- is irrelevant to which conference was the best in 2017.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about the Final 8 in 2016 and 2017. I consider it largely meaningless in determining the best conference -- top to bottom -- for the entire season. My statement was "I don't recall anyone arguing last year that the Big 12 was a better conference in 2016, when the Big 12 had 3 teams in the Final 8 last year, and the SEC had only 1. If the number of Final 8 teams -- when the big boys come out to play -- is the true standard, OK, then the SEC wins 2017 and the Big 12 won 2016." Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I wasn't arguing that that should indeed be the standard. My point was that the SEC advocates bringing up that point this year would not have -- and didn't -- say the same thing last year. I wasn't "forswearing consistency", I was gently deriding the idea that the number of teams in the Final 8 is the appropriate measure of the top conference.
As reflected in conference RPI, the Big 12's record against the ACC, SEC, and PAC-12 of 31-17 is pretty impressive for 2017. Maybe not conclusive. But pretty damn impressive.
And I'll go on the record for 2018: whichever conference has the highest conference RPI for 2018 will, in my opinion, have the best claim in 2018 for being the best baseball conference in that year. Not the only claim. Not the exclusive claim. But IMO the best claim. Certainly we can agree to disagree. But whatever your view of the appropriate standard is -- conference head to head record, top 5 or top 3 teams, CWS performance, whatever -- I think it is reasonable to ask that the same standard be applied year to year.
2019Dad posted:As reflected in conference RPI, the Big 12's record against the ACC, SEC, and PAC-12 of 31-17 is pretty impressive for 2017. Maybe not conclusive. But pretty damn impressive.
Classic cherry picking.
About 60% of those games were against the Pac-12, which was down this year with only three teams posting an RPI better than 60.
Lumping in the dominant record the Big-12 racked up against Pac-12 also-rans is like the guy who hit one free throw the night Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 and is reported to have joked for the rest of his life about "the night me and Wilt teamed up for 101 points between the two of us."
The Big-12 still looks good in the small sample consisting mostly of early season tournaments and midweek games they played against SEC and ACC (above .500 vs. SEC, below .500 vs. ACC), but it's pretty far short of "pretty damn impressive."
Oh, and this particular stat was plucked before the NCAA regionals, where the non-TCU teams didn't do so well.
Swampboy posted:2019Dad posted:As reflected in conference RPI, the Big 12's record against the ACC, SEC, and PAC-12 of 31-17 is pretty impressive for 2017. Maybe not conclusive. But pretty damn impressive.
Classic cherry picking.
About 60% of those games were against the Pac-12, which was down this year with only three teams posting an RPI better than 60.
Lumping in the dominant record the Big-12 racked up against Pac-12 also-rans is like the guy who hit one free throw the night Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 and is reported to have joked for the rest of his life about "the night me and Wilt teamed up for 101 points between the two of us."
The Big-12 still looks good in the small sample consisting mostly of early season tournaments and midweek games they played against SEC and ACC (above .500 vs. SEC, below .500 vs. ACC), but it's pretty far short of "pretty damn impressive."
Oh, and this particular stat was plucked before the NCAA regionals, where the non-TCU teams didn't do so well.
I have to say, picking out two lines in a 25-line post, and starting your response with the words "classic cherry picking" is very funny. Kudos.
d-mac posted:Does TCU offer need based aid like Vandy and Stanford to get more kids money?
TCU is not a "Need Blind" school.
TCU's catcher, Evan Skoug, went in the 7th round to the White Sox, and three TCU commits were drafted on the first day:
d-mac posted:Does TCU offer need based aid like Vandy and Stanford to get more kids money?
Yes, TCU offers need based aid, but significantly less than Vandy.