They screwed up ROYALLY tonight. This season is gonna tail spin!!!!!

Edit.. I took my pills a few minutes ago and they are kiiiiiickin in.. I feel like I just grabbed a thousand balloons and am just floating over the city. You know like flying accept its with balloons. Did we win tonight? Back to these balloons.

Just so we are clear, you think the 4seed Davidson was a top16 team that year?

Look, I already said we did as we were suppose to and took care of them in the supers. Favorable matchups aren't the fault of the victor. But be realistic, Davidson was not "TCU".

For the record, I doubt Davidson could get a win in Omaha either.

Without looking it up, do you know the last time we had a win in Omaha? (It's gonna depress you.) Yet we are in a league with national champions and runners up and we are consistently struggling (and we should be.) We shouldn't expect to sweep #5 team in the country, but we shouldn't have multi-error games. We can't have sub-.200 batters in our lineup. And we won't go far if our relief pitching and closers can't strike out guys.

The Debt said:

---

Just so we are clear, you think the 4seed Davidson was a top16 team that year?

Look, I already said we did as we were suppose to and took care of them in the supers. Favorable matchups aren't the fault of the victor. But be realistic, Davidson was not "TCU".

For the record, I doubt Davidson could get a win in Omaha either.

Without looking it up, do you know the last time we had a win in Omaha? (It's gonna depress you.) Yet we are in a league with national champions and runners up and we are consistently struggling (and we should be.) We shouldn't expect to sweep #5 team in the country, but we shouldn't have multi-error games. We can't have sub-.200 batters in our lineup. And we won't go far if our relief pitching and closers can't strike out guys.

---

Well, they got there, so yes. I didn't think they would, but they eared that spot. Good for them. They proved people wrong.

If we went off of what people thought, we would skip the whole damn season and send the preseason top 8 to the cws and be done with it.

histag10 said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Just so we are clear, you think the 4seed Davidson was a top16 team that year?

Look, I already said we did as we were suppose to and took care of them in the supers. Favorable matchups aren't the fault of the victor. But be realistic, Davidson was not "TCU".

For the record, I doubt Davidson could get a win in Omaha either.

Without looking it up, do you know the last time we had a win in Omaha? (It's gonna depress you.) Yet we are in a league with national champions and runners up and we are consistently struggling (and we should be.) We shouldn't expect to sweep #5 team in the country, but we shouldn't have multi-error games. We can't have sub-.200 batters in our lineup. And we won't go far if our relief pitching and closers can't strike out guys.

---

Well, they got there, so yes. I didn't think they would, but they eared that spot. Good for them. They proved people wrong.

If we went off of what people thought, we would skip the whole damn season and send the preseason top 8 to the cws and be done with it.

---

Yeaaaaahhhh you see he can use the "it's baseball, it happens" argument when he wants. You can't, though.

By that logic the aggie team that got to Omaha was better than the teams that lost to TCU in the supers the previous 2 years.

And I FULLY disagree with that assertion.

The Debt said:

---

By that logic the aggie team that got to Omaha was better than the teams that lost to TCU in the supers the previous 2 years.

And I FULLY disagree with that assertion.

---

Top 16 teams in 1 year do not necessarily mean the same top 16 in later years.

You can't say "top 16 teams" and then start picking and choosing teams from dfifferent seasons.

The year we made Omaha we were a top 16 team. The years we didn't, we weren't. Maybe the competition was tougher those years.

Edit to add that top 16 teams does not necessarily mean best 16 teams. It just means you won the right games at the right time in the right places.

histag10 said:

---

The Debt said:

---

By that logic the aggie team that got to Omaha was better than the teams that lost to TCU in the supers the previous 2 years.

And I FULLY disagree with that assertion.

---

Top 16 teams in 1 year do not necessarily mean the same top 16 in later years.

You can't say "top 16 teams" and then start picking and choosing teams from dfifferent seasons.

The year we made Omaha we were a top 16 team. The years we didn't, we weren't. Maybe the competition was tougher those years.

---

Top 8*

Meh. Using his talking point of "top 16"

Aggie said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Without looking it up, do you know the last time we had a win in Omaha? (It's gonna depress you.)

---

Opening round of the '93 CWS
5-1 over Kansas.

0-8 since that game

---

Bingo. We haven't had a single win since before the popularization of email technology and Selena was still alive.

Even that win was a 1seed (us) versus an 8seed. "Yay we took care of an inferior team!" Then lost the next 2.

"Ah! But remember the time we made it to Omaha after we started conference play 0-5! We are so fkin awesome!"

Ah, yes. We're back to the arbitrary "wins in Omaha, not going to Omaha" metric.

I can't wait til we win a game there and the goalposts will move again to "well we haven't won it all there". Lmao

histag10 said:

---

The Debt said:

---

By that logic the aggie team that got to Omaha was better than the teams that lost to TCU in the supers the previous 2 years.

And I FULLY disagree with that assertion.

---

Top 16 teams in 1 year do not necessarily mean the same top 16 in later years.

You can't say "top 16 teams" and then start picking and choosing teams from dfifferent seasons.

The year we made Omaha we were a top 16 team. The years we didn't, we weren't. Maybe the competition was tougher those years.

---

You probably mean top 8 the years we made Omaha.

Anyways, I don't think one regional weekend in June defines who really has the best teams and who is really the best 16 teams. Now, I agree that the NCAA tournament is, by and large, what people pay attention to and winning then is the primary goal. Texas A&M made the CWS last year and A&M deserves credit for that and I'd never sit here and try to tear apart a season when A&M went to Omaha.

But I would wholly reject that one or two weekends in June accurately reflect the top 16 or top 8 teams in the nation.

histag10 said:

---

Meh. Using his talking point of "top 16"

---

Well supers have 16 teams. You believe those are the best teams in the country because "they got there".

Further you believe the aggie teams that died in Lupton were not top 8 teams.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

histag10 said:

---

The Debt said:

---

By that logic the aggie team that got to Omaha was better than the teams that lost to TCU in the supers the previous 2 years.

And I FULLY disagree with that assertion.

---

Top 16 teams in 1 year do not necessarily mean the same top 16 in later years.

You can't say "top 16 teams" and then start picking and choosing teams from dfifferent seasons.

The year we made Omaha we were a top 16 team. The years we didn't, we weren't. Maybe the competition was tougher those years.

---

You probably mean top 8 the years we made Omaha.

Anyways, I don't think one regional weekend in June defines who really has the best teams and who is really the best 16 teams. Now, I agree that the NCAA tournament is, by and large, what people pay attention to and winning then is the primary goal. Texas A&M made the CWS last year and A&M deserves credit for that and I'd never sit here and try to tear apart a season when A&M went to Omaha.

But I would wholly reject that one or two weekends in June accurately reflect the top 16 or top 8 teams in the nation.

---

That's a fair post... I'll agree with most of it.

Then again, the overwhelming potbanger talking points were that "it doesn't matter how great a team we were because we didn't get to Omaha". But then that changed when we did make Omaha with a "lesser" team.

Aggies2009 said:

---

Ah, yes. We're back to the arbitrary "wins in Omaha, not going to Omaha" metric.

I can't wait til we win a game there and the goalposts will move again to "well we haven't won it all there". Lmao

---

Only losers are happy just to be invited.

Ya know what. The day we aren't the first team to leave Omaha, is the day I will be the happiest pumper on this board. But until that day...

Quote:

---

That's a fair post... I'll agree with most of it.

Then again, the overwhelming potbanger talking points were that "it doesn't matter how great a team we were because we didn't get to Omaha". But then that changed when we did make Omaha with a "lesser" team.

---

If someone here makes that argument, by all means argue with them about it, but save me some time and don't trick me into reading a response to something I didn't say.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The Debt said:
Just so we are clear, you think the 4seed Davidson was a top16 team that year?

---

For the entire season, no but they somehow had enough talent to sweep through the regional in which they were sent and did not luck out by not having to face North Carolina. They beat the Tar Heels twice on their own field.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Look, I already said we did as we were suppose to and took care of them in the supers. Favorable matchups aren't the fault of the victor. But be realistic, Davidson was not "TCU".

---

No but they twice beat a team that had a better regular season than TCU.

---

What exactly is your point?

---

He believes in the transitive property of sports.

Davidson beat #2, we beat davidson, therefore we are better than #2.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a fair post... I'll agree with most of it.

Then again, the overwhelming potbanger talking points were that "it doesn't matter how great a team we were because we didn't get to Omaha". But then that changed when we did make Omaha with a "lesser" team.

---

If someone here makes that argument, by all means argue with them about it, but save me some time and don't trick me into reading a response to something I didn't say.

---

Kind of like where you omitted the part of my post where ij basically said the same thing as you? Top 16 =/= best 16

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a fair post... I'll agree with most of it.

Then again, the overwhelming potbanger talking points were that "it doesn't matter how great a team we were because we didn't get to Omaha". But then that changed when we did make Omaha with a "lesser" team.

---

If someone here makes that argument, by all means argue with them about it, but save me some time and don't trick me into reading a response to something I didn't say.

---

The common sense would dictate that that part of my post wasn't directed at you, wouldn't it? I do specifically remember you saying after 2015 that we had a great season. At least you're consistent on that.

histag10 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a fair post... I'll agree with most of it.

Then again, the overwhelming potbanger talking points were that "it doesn't matter how great a team we were because we didn't get to Omaha". But then that changed when we did make Omaha with a "lesser" team.

---

If someone here makes that argument, by all means argue with them about it, but save me some time and don't trick me into reading a response to something I didn't say.

---

Kind of like where you omitted the part of my post where ij basically said the same thing as you? Top 16 =/= best 16

---

If I left something in the following where you "basically say" the "best 16" teams in a given year aren't the "top 16", then it was entirely unintentional.

Quote:

---

Top 16 teams in 1 year do not necessarily mean the same top 16 in later years.

You can't say "top 16 teams" and then start picking and choosing teams from dfifferent seasons.

The year we made Omaha we were a top 16 team. The years we didn't, we weren't. Maybe the competition was tougher those years.

---

Yet somehow four games into a 30 game conference slate is already defining the Ags season, Considering how the Ags started the SEC last season (and looked far far worse) you would think some would step back from the cliff a bit.

Ah, the ol' "you didn't see my after the fact edit" trick.

jkag89 said:

---

Yet somehow four games into a 30 game conference slate is already defining the Ags season, Considering how the Ags started the SEC last season (and looked far far worse) you would think some would step back from the cliff a bit.

---

Reminiscent of Maroon Dawn?