We were also capable of winning 2 or 3 against Kansas earlier in the season, but didn't. It happens. Suck it up and move on.
WVU - Lexington Regional
- Thread starter MountaineerWV
- Start date
I challenge you to simply answer these questions without changing the subject.
Why is the baseball record measured in individual games if who won the series is how you measure head to head? If we analyze everything by series in the Big 12, OSU is 5-3, WVU 6-2, and Texas 6-2. By that standard WVU still shares with Texas, yet still loses the tie breaker given Texas won the series with WVU (I think that is illogical and inconsistent and you are cherry picking data to fit your pre determined outcome while my rationale is consistent)
Had WVU won one game against Texas, then WVU, OSU, and UT would all still be 1-1 in terms of series wins vs the other and all 3 would be 3-3 vs each other in terms of total games played, yet WVU would be declared outright champions. If you would accept this, then how do you rationalize using different metrics? (I say if total wins and losses is what we were using to establish who wins or shares the regular season title, then that is what we should use to determine tie breakers)
Suppose WVU had been 4-2 vs OSU and Texas, including a 3-0 sweep of Texas, while sharing the same overall conference record. In that event, can you honestly say you would not disagree with Texas fans saying they are equal to WVU and the record on the field proves it? (I'd say they are full of **** and its objectively false by the season sweep despite the same overall record)
Had the above scenario played out, would you have been happier with the way the season ended? If so, how can you rationalize that everyone sharing the title are equal to one another, but preferring how some teams got there over others? (I say there isn't a rationalization and the result of getting the 1 seed by having the most wins vs those you tied with is the best outcome and thus the best team of those sharing the title)
Please try to focus and not keep moving the goal posts. You made a statement. I made a case.
You are moving the goal posts. Because the Big 12 says "Co-Champs" and you are denying it. Thus, it's you. Fact is that THREE teams tied for same record. ALL THREE held tie-breakers against another. Thus, that is what they decide to do is award co-champions.
Now, answer this, why is it so hard for you to accept that? Oh, I get it.....because you don't want WVU to have success......instead you enjoy the fall rather than the rise.
And there you go again refusing to engage in my responses to YOUR criticism. I NEVER said the Big 12 didn't say WVU was co champs with Texas and OSU. That is a fact and you absolutely know it. I said that declaration appears to be an arbitrary designation that the Big 12 does not clarify or justify in light of how they seeded the Tournament. I said if the Big 12 easily seeded Texas 1, OSU 2, and WVU 3 based upon head to head records of 4-2, 3-3, and 2-4 then it appears that despite the co-champion designation, they have ranked them on different footing.
Now you explain why you want to use overall number of wins as the metric to measure conference standings, but then series analysis for head to head comparisons? If you use conference win totals as I have explained, WVU shares the same number of wins as UT and OSU, yet holds the least wins (2) vs the others. If you use series wins as i have explained, WVU shares with UT at 6-2, but loses the head to head to the Longhorns. I've given you the floor to explain, but it if you don't the obvious conclusion is you are cherry picking the data to fit your inconsistent position.
Truth is you know I am right when saying shared champions are not always equal. You know that WVU sharing the title is not as good as winning it alone. Nor is WVU sharing a tie, but having the worse head to head record vs the other co champions, as good as WVU having the best record vs the other co champions. That is why you refuse to actually explain why those statements are wrong.
WVU won 2 of 3 from OSU. Had the Big 12 chose a different arbitrary tie breaker WVU would have been seeded 2 in the tourney.
The whole point of the tie breaker is seeding the tourney. In the regular season all teams played the same amount of games and tied for the lead.
WVU won the regular season title. I'm sorry that upsets you. Get over it.
You hate on WVU baseball because they didn't win the title outright. My point has always been that WVU is the legit co-champions of the Big 12, and that you want to only focus on making it an "illegitimate" accomplishment. Everyone else sees that is what you are doing. Now please, stop claiming you are a "fan".
Head to head wins and losses is not an arbitrary tie breaker. It is the traditional tie breaker. For example in the MLB the tie breaker for pennants are as follows:
"If Team X and Team Y tie for the top spot in the division and Team X went 10-8 against Team Y, then Team X is the division champion. If Teams X, Y and Z all finish tied at the top, then the team with the best combined winning percentage against the two other clubs would be the division champ."
In this case, there is no sharing. The team that comes out ahead by these rules is the division winner and takes the pennant. That is intuitive and makes sense. To not declare the team that comes out ahead in that scenario the overall winner is not intuitive and that is why without explanation it seems declaring shared division winner status is arbitrary without further explanation. It is exactly how the Big 12 figured the seeding, but no explanation for why they don't use it to declare the overall winner in the same manner as the MLB.
I understand when the head to head match up comparisons cannot figure out the winner that it truly is a shared championship and other tie breakers are necessary arbitrations to figure the spoils.
Take Big 12 basketball. One year I recall an actual scenario or maybe a discussed scenario with the last conference games still pending where WVU finished tied for 2nd best regular season record. Had WVU been 2-0 vs the team it tied with, WVU would easily be the 2 seed and intuitively people would view WVU as the stand alone 2nd place team in the conference.
Instead WVU was 1-1 with that team and tie breakers then devolved to records against the other Big 12 teams in sequential order of best to worst record. If I recall both teams had the same record vs the top Big 12 team, but WVU had the better record vs the 4th best team granting WVU the 2 seed. In that scenario it makes intuituve sense to view the 2nd spot as truly tied and recognize that the seeding required arbitrary measures.
Hence why it logically reasons like WVU actually finished 3rd at 2-4 vs the other co-champions this season. It would feel more like a true shared championship if WVU and one of the other co-champions were both 4-2 vs their co-champion counter parts, but an arbitrary rule like since the other team won both series 2-1 vs the other co-champions instead of WVU sweeping 1 series and losing the other 1-2 that the other team gets the 1 seed.
Last edited:
So you disagree with MLB who decides the pennant winners based on the same way the Big 12 seeds the tournament? They do not declare co champions. Do you think 3 teams are equal if they have the same regular season conference record and yet one of them is 0-6 vs the others and one is 6-0 vs the others? If you do, how do you defend that conclusion? If you do not, then you must agree that just having the label of shared title does not mean all those that share are equal.
I know the answer which is you actually do not believe the stance you are pushing. You are just clinging to your feelings that you know you cannot logically justify because you are overly reactionary.
You clearly just don't want to accept facts.
WVU won the championship. You keep using the word logic but you are not using logic.
Head to head matchups is an arbitrary tie breaker. If head to head was the tie breaker WVU would have finished 2nd.
None of that accounts for the actual fact that all 3 teams played the same conference teams and tied for the title.
You need to learn to accept reality and stop trying to find excuses to argue.
How do head to head match ups result in a tie for WVU and WVU at second? Only way I see WVU as tied for second is if you use series wins as the measure. In that case, WVU is tied for first with Texas winning 6 of 8 series vs Big 12 opponents and comes in second by having lost the series to Texas. OSU is 3rd having won 5 Big 12 series.
By overall wins, as we know, WVU ties with OSU and Texas at 15-9. WVU gets 3rd based upon going 2-4 in 6 games with the others, OSU at 3-3 comes 2nd, and Texas wins it all at 4-2.
What I am saying is the MLB uses the same method to declare who wins pennants, not shares them, as the Big 12 seeds the tournament. I don't recall any chest thumping or shared pennants in the Big Show. So outside of the Big 12 declaration, why is it different in college when by the exact same method as used by the MLB, WVU would be considered 3rd and not the winner of it's division? Most baseball fans across the world would agree with the MLB, as I do, because the on the field wins and losses by direct comparison tells the story. Explain how the break down of records of each team that tied vs the other teams they tied with is arbitrary as that is the first tie breaker used in EVERY other major team competitive sport? I say that every other team sport does it because it is the logical and intuitive way to differentiate 2 teams with the same overall record vs the same pool of teams.
If the results of head to head matchups can't solve it, then I would say you could argue other methods to create distinctions would be more arbitrary.
Hence suppose you have 3 Big 12 football teams finishing 7-2 in conference where first team is 2-0 vs the other 2 with the 7-2 record, the second team is 1-1, and the third team is 0-2. Would you not agree that despite the Big 12 declaring shared championship that the 2-0 team has proven to be the better of the 3 and the 0-2 team was not just arbitrarily excluded from the conference championship game but justifiably excluded by theor performance on the field?
Now let's say all 3 of the 7-2 teams are 1-1 vs the other 7-2 record holders and then you have to who goes to the championship game by the record vs the next best conference record holder who is 6-3. Then you could argue that all equally share the title and it is more of an arbitrary, even if not completely arbitrary, distinction to exclude the one team in that scenario who lost to the team with the second best conference record. It is necessary, but arbitrary, which is why it is only used after the logical evaluation of how teams preformed against each other head to head fails.
Last edited:
Logic.
Use it.
If head to head was the tie breaker WVU finished ahead of OK State based on head to head.
Now have a good day
We all understand. You don't want WVU to have the championship. I hear Pitt's message board is clear right now, how about you visit it for the next 30 years.
This is Big 12 not MLB. Big 12 declares ties in regular season of teams have the same record at seasons end. Ask TCU who tied Baylor for football Big 12 regular season I think it was 2014 (could be wrong on the year). Big 12 declared co champions.
It's really simple. Now you use tie breaker for seeding in tournament for basketball, baseball, soccer. Football is tie breaker if necessary for conference championship.
Even Big East claimed shared titles. With the highest ranked team moving on.
I did use it. When 3 teams tie with the same record then the COMBINED record of each team vs the other 2 is used to determine the winner of the division. You are just analyzing OSU and WVU as if Texas is not involved. By your reckoning, OSU will have a legitimate beef with why they are 3rd after beating the team you declared top of the conference 2-1. This is why combined record is what both the MLB and the Big 12 use as it is the logical method in the event of a 3 way tie. See I explain in great detail how I come to my conclusions and why I do not agree with yours. Can you do the same?
Last edited:
This team sucks....lost six in a row...total embarrassment...been outscored 50-19 in those six games.
WVU is always going to WVU.
WVU is always going to WVU.
We keep going around in circles. I am not saying the Big 12 is not declaring shared championships and issuing co-champion titles. I am asking the rhetorical question of does that automatically mean all the teams the Big 12 declares co-champions are on equal footing in terms of on field performance? I say it is rhetorical because we know it does not. You even agreed with me in 2018 that WVU didn't finish 3rd in the Big 12 as Bucky was claiming to defend his pal Holgs. Rather you reckoned that WVU was 4th as, despite being tied with ISU in overall conference record, WVU getting absolutely smashed by the Cyclones made them an unequal 3rd. Most everyone would agree that in a scenario where 3 baseball teams all finished tied for overall conference record with the tie breaker showing team one being 6-0 vs the other 2, team two being 3-3 vs the other 2, and team 3 being 0-6 vs the other 2 that team one has the better resume than team three. The Big 12 would still use the exact same shared championship title in that event. Like I said, some times they are equal resumes. But if you think they are equal, the Big 12 declaration alone is not a defense as we have established there are instances where that declaration is issued to obviously unequal resumes.
Continue to lie to yourself all you want. You know that had WVU finished the season the same way Texas had that you would feel much better about the way the season ended for WVU despite the Big 12 saying you shouldn't by slapping the co-champion title on both seasons. That alone proves my primary point which is that not all members who carry a shared championship title are automatically equal. Based upon that, it opens the door to consider if WVU doesn't have the weakest resume of the other co-champions. I am right and you know it which is why you refuse to actually engage with the arguments being made. You also know that I, and others, were right to be disappointed in how a golden opportunity was missed at the end of the regular season when the stakes were laid bare. You just didn't like us saying this obvious truth out loud so now here we are with you lying about what other fans are saying or impugning motive. Good day old man, I grow weary of destroying someone who conducts himself as a buffoon by not coherently laying out his position and then defending the critiques of that position.
Last edited:
Some of you sound like the couple “fans” sitting behind me tonight. Complaining about every pitch and how if it were YOU that you’d fix the problems.
We didn’t play well at all. But the other team took advantage of every mistake. It happens.
We didn’t play well at all. But the other team took advantage of every mistake. It happens.
It's happened a lot lately. Worst time of the year to fall apart. Still a good season, but it could've been so much more. Mazey has raised the bar considerably from the Van Zant years, and for that I am appreciative.
Oh no no no. None of that recognizing and speaking about negative things. Only positive things like your last statement is allowed. We have childish splitting posters around where two things cannot be true at once. Any acknowledgement of something negative means you are a hater and not a real fan.
Only positives? Nah. You can be critical. But saying things like “they choked” and downgrading their accomplishments this season is different. Kind of like how you and others keep saying.
You can screw right off with that as you were on the attack the MOMENT someone posted about how getting swept by Texas was an underachieving cap to what could've been a magical season.
It wasn't "underachieving". It's called sports. It happens. The SEASON is what you look at, and it was/is very much a success. I know that upsets you. So why just stop pretending to be a fan, and just openly admit you only want WVU to struggle and be bad.
I want WVU to have success. Sure I'd love for it to be undefeated national championships all the time, but that is beyond reason. Winning the Big 12 regular season championship was well within reason. Hosting a regional was well within reason. Not being ousted in the Big 12 tournament was well within reason this year. Recognizing that WVU is capable of something and being disappointed when they fall short, in blow out fashion against Texas to boot, is a very reasonable fan response.
A trip to Omaha would be huge, making it out of the regional is a tough task, but not it would be reasonable if WVU doesn't. And that would be true if they were regional host. Thankfully they achieved the well within reason task of not being the first team eliminated.
Thanks for proving my point. An arbitrary tie breaker doesn't prove anything.
Logic.
Use it.
Loser.
1-7 is not the way you end a great season. Hit their slump at the wrong time of the year. WVU is 12-28 overall record in the NCAAs. WVU is 3-4 as a No. 2 seed all-time.
The thing to do now is go out and improve next season on what you did great this year.
The thing to do now is go out and improve next season on what you did great this year.
And they'll have to do it again next year. Unless you are good with losing in the Regional every year.
When was last time they made it back to back seasons? 60 years ago?
Take your *** hat attitude and shove it.
Oh. I forgot. We lost. You are going to be negative and blast everything. Please. Continue.
I'll give this one more shot in good faith and I hope you will actually engage the point. If you have 9 teams in a conference playing the same number of games vs each of the other teams then the way we determine the conference winner is by overall record vs the other 8 conference teams. So if the best record is 20-4 and the next best record is 17-7, the team with the 20-4 record is considered the winner. That would be true even if the 20-4 team lost the series to the 17-7 team by 2 or even 3 games. Is that an arbitrary way of determining the conference winner or is it logical to say that the on the field results objectively prove that the 20-4 record holder is the undisputed winner of the 9 team conference?
That is the exact method that would have concluded that if WVU had won 1 game against Texas and been the only team with a 16-8 conference record then WVU would be conference champion alone despite losing to Texas 1-2 in that head to head series. If you think that is not arbitrary, then it logically follows that you should be able to use the same method when the number of teams being compared is 3 instead of 9. Literally the only difference is the number of teams being compared.
Now the onus is on you to explain why you say one method is arbitrary when comparing 9 teams to each other, but not 3.
Any method of tie breaker is arbitrary because the conference could choose any method they want to choose.
Instead they award co-championships to everyone with the best record.
WVU. Your 2023 Big 12 Champs.
Fact.
You didn't address the point. You do not appear, as you have not explicitly stated otherwise, to believe that the method the Big 12 uses to discriminate which team is the champion amongst the 9 baseball conference members is just an arbitrary conclusion drawn by the conference. If this is true, then it actually appears to be more of an arbitrary decision to NOT use that same method to discriminate amongst the 3 shared regular season champions. Especially given the conference does use this exact method to determine the seeding of the conference tournament. Again thus my conclusion is it appears to be MORE of an arbitrary decision to declare co-champions rather than being consistent in using the same method the Big 12 employs to declare Baylor, Kansas, and Texas Tech are definitely not also co-champions to those tied at the top.
Had WVU won 1 against Texas and OSU swept OU, then both WVU and OSU would be declared co champions at 16-7 conference record. WVU gets the 1 seed by being 2-1 vs OSU in that scenario. According to your and the Big 12 logic, that outcome is EXACTLY the same as what actually happened. If you would have preferred this outcome to what actually happened, then you are agreeing that not all co-champions are equal just because the Big 12 declares it so.
I'm consistent and would say in the above scenario that WVU would be the definitive champions of the Big 12, no matter what the conference declares, and OSU is just taking a participation trophy if they try to say they performed equally to WVU in the regular season.
Didn't see any negative response in my post. It's your hate of people having an opinion that doesn't match yours. Kiss my *** you piece of ****.
So, you never typed the following? After I stated that what you had said is exactly what we had done this year (building on last year)? Remember, it is YOU that continuously blasted people's opinions during basketball season. Remember that? (of course you do)
"Take your *** hat attitude and shove it."
No matter how many books you write you are wrong.
Whether you like it or not WVU is the Big East champ.
Deal with it don't.
Latest
-
01
WV Sports
How Kamari Wilson's different stops prepared him for WVU
-
02
WV Sports
Ross Hodge sees the next step for Miles Sadler
-
03
WV Sports
West Virginia fall camp is here. Join WVSports.com for 75% off
-
04
WV Sports
Projecting West Virginia basketball's starting five: volume 2
-
05
WV Sports
What DJ Epps' walk-on path taught him before arriving at WVU