quote:

---

Yes. Agreed. The bad calls could have benefitted either side.

---

Most Ags will balk at this notion.

There sure are a lot of assumptions being made in this thread.

When did Aggies become such poor losers?

quote:

---

That is never a claim I made.

---

Sure reads that way:

quote:

---

Recalculate with A&M as the National seed that was erroneously given to TCU.

---

You are essentially asking somebody to hypothesize about what might have happened if things had worked differently than they did. Making assumptions.

quote:

---

You are assuming things happen exactly the same at a different park. I am not.

I am only pointing out that the team with the better resume was not awarded the better seed. That changes things... From where you sleep,
to what you eat, to the morning routine, to the game environment.
Especially when your own Athletic Director discredits a 50 win season.

---

Here you clearly state that you think simply because a different park is involved, the outcome is automatically going to be different. There is absolutely zero way you can prove that or state it with any accuracy.

We all think that A&M should have gotten the national seed over some of the teams that did - but there is also a lot ore that goes into deciding those seeds than any of us are let in on as well. Bottom line is that we didn't get the seed, and bottom line is that even if we had gotten the seed there is absolutely zero guarantee that things go any different than they did. Pretty simple really.

You dislike TCU, nothing wrong with that. You are bitter that A&M didn't pull it off, nothing wrong with that. You are mad that the seeding didn't go the way we though it should have - A&M shouldn't have crapped the bed at the end of the season. None of that changes what reality is, nor does it change the fact that your hypothetical dream of what should have been would have produced any different results.

Where did I say the outcome would definitely be different? Obviously it wasn't "clearly" stated if I didn't say such foolishness. Are you saying it would absolutely remain the same?

TCU was given TAMUs national seed, Hyman stated as much. It's up to TCU and Vanderbilt to cuss out the committee for the MoSt blunder. That's the spot one of them should have seen.

A&M did better than TCU in the season. Period. If the committee wants to look at part of the season then shorten the damn thing.

TAMU also did better than TCU at the very end... So where is the sample range if you only take part of the season? Why not just take 10 random games from each teams schedule and compare that? You'd have a few 10-0s and a few 0-10s. Opponents wouldn't matter, nor would SoS or RPI. Just win them all and your random sampling has a better chance of looking good.

The bottom line is that the reason we were snubbed this year was not applied a few years back or we would have hosted then...

How the **** can it not be consistent?

quote:

---

I stated in another thread that the system is ****ed, and I stand behind that. The national seed system and the method at which they are selected is beyond broken.

---

Looks to me to be based strongly on geographic diversity and getting different sections of the country in the CWS, selling tickets to fans (keep locations within driving distance and with geographic rivals) and keeping travel expenses low.

Then don't advertise it as a championship.

Amen...

At super regional level, the money will be there. It's not about travel expenses... Otherwise how do explain Virginia and Maryland getting shipped to the west coast? The ncaa lucked out in the super with both those teams advancing and really cutting down travel. But looking through the regionals, the travel argument doesn't hold water, so why subject the teams in the supers to it?

quote:

---

Amen...

At super regional level, the money will be there. It's not about travel expenses... Otherwise how do explain Virginia and Maryland getting shipped to the west coast? The ncaa lucked out in the super with both those teams advancing and really cutting down travel. But looking through the regionals, the travel argument doesn't hold water, so why subject the teams in the supers to it?

---

By and large, I think the matchups make sense geographically. The NCAA will never be able to and doesn't portend to make a perfectly geographic bracket.

It just isn't going to happen when you've got isolated regions/schools like Southern California or some of those conference winners from the small northeast conferences, or an extra team like Maryland.

That's not me approving of the larger selection process but I'm about to travel and that's all I've got time for.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Amen...

At super regional level, the money will be there. It's not about travel expenses... Otherwise how do explain Virginia and Maryland getting shipped to the west coast? The ncaa lucked out in the super with both those teams advancing and really cutting down travel. But looking through the regionals, the travel argument doesn't hold water, so why subject the teams in the supers to it?

---

By and large, I think the matchups make sense geographically. The NCAA will never be able to and doesn't portend to make a perfectly geographic bracket.

It just isn't going to happen when you've got isolated regions/schools like Southern California or some of those conference winners from the small northeast conferences, or an extra team like Maryland.

That's not me approving of the larger selection process but I'm about to travel and that's all I've got time for.

---

I'm advocating them getting away from the geographically favorable brackets to go to something more along the lines of rewarding the better teams for their play... Regardless of geography

the story here is how Mainieri did less with more with this Bregman group of players over the past 3 years. There was enough talent to almost fill out a US national team 1 thru 9 in the batting order.

but LSU really did not play that well (or dominate) in their regional or SR. Similar to A&M...the Tiger offense peaked in April / early May

Its obvious where they spent their scholarship money, and it wasn't on the mound. Their lack of consistent pitching outside of Lange and Poche is what doomed them this year.

quote:

---

the story here is how Mainieri did less with more with this Bregman group of players over the past 3 years. There was enough talent to almost fill out a US national team 1 thru 9 in the batting order.

but LSU really did not play that well (or dominate) in their regional or SR. Similar to A&M...the Tiger offense peaked in April / early May

---

TCU had better pitching, period. TCU still might have better pitching than anyone else.

the irony...looking ahead to 2016, LSU probably has the best starting rotation in the SEC West with Lange and Poche (or at least when looking at projected returning starters)

For sure. They will have a great rotation that is a year older and wiser. They've got a hard throwing kid out of Texas coming in next year too as a fish.

Our rotation won't be any slouch either. Should be interesting to see how everything shapes up heading into late April next year.