Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!
You still didn't answer my questions. More of your rpi data, to support your rpi accuracy argument.
Hosting had more to do with the RPI accuracy, as you state it, than the accuracy of the rpi. Non-hosting SEC teams did crap in the regional round. None of them made the regional finals. In the super regionals, the SEC went 2-7 v. non-SEC opponents. I would conclude that they were overrated from those results.
Big 12 won two regionals, and went to the regional finals in two others, playing the hosting teams toe-to-toe, including an if-needed game with the number one seed. Then they won two super regionals, both on the road.
The above tells me that the Big 12 outperformed the SEC, which tells me the rpi overrated the SEC. I don't care what rpi data you want to cite, those results override them.
Now, in the WCWS, OU and Baylor are two of the three lowest RPI rated teams. Do you think they will go out first?
But I can see you're never going to give credence to other arguments, because you're omniscient.
I swear, you should go into politics. You've got the M.O. mastered.
Wrong. I specifically answered everyone of your questions by providing results of games played instead of worthless opinions. I just did not try to argue without using fact and stating only ones feelings.
Multiple times I have stated I too think home field is a positive factor in determining winners but most definitely not the primary determining factor you state it is. I say pitching, hitting and fielding are the primary determinants. You can throw in a little luck as well.
I further stated that if there is going to be a home site advantage to accommodate TV moguls and put fans in the seats that advantage should go to the top rated not the lower rated teams.
I have previously stated that the Big 12 was the surprise of the tournament but I still see the Pac 12 as the best conference in the tournament with #2(rpi) Oregon, #3 UCLA and #4 Washington still alive in the WCWS.
While the committee's seeding differ the rpi amazingly has its #1, #2, #3, #4, #8 teams still in the tournament. Along with the #10, #12 and #14 team. Amazingly the biggest surprise per the rpi is LSU, a SEC team.
The SEC has performed about on par winning all the match ups they were expected to win except Auburn and losing all the mach ups they were supposed to lose except LSU's win over FSU. The rpi projected 3 SEC teams in WCWS and the SEC has 3 teams in the WCWS.
Yes, I think Baylor and the loser of the LSU vs A&M loser's game will be the first two out as it is impossible for OU and Baylor to be the first two out. One team from each side of the bracket will be the first two out.
I see winning the WCWS as similar to winning a marathon unless you can open with 3 wins and give your ace a couple days rest before playing the finals. In my opinion UCLA, Washington and Baylor are too dependent on their ace to win a marathon WCWS.
I see the favorites as Florida, OU and Oregon probably in that order. Florida has too much pitching, OU is the most complete team and Oregon's top two pitchers are freshmen that I see succumbing to the pressure of their first WCWS.
But my opinion about who is going to win is somewhat like yours neither is worth a crap. My mind says you pick Florida, my heart says OU. But both could easily be gone by the second or third day.
Over the last 10 years the #1 or #2 seeds has won 5 tournaments, the #3 and #4 seeds have won 2 tournaments the #5-#8 seeds have won 3 tournament. No team seeded below #8 has won the tournament. A strong testament to the accuracy of the rpi.
Picking 70% of the champions using 4 picks from a field of 64 for 10 years is much more than just acceptable prognostication.
Hopefully #10 OU will be the first.
