Started By
Message
re: How would you rank SEC Baseball programs historically by success?
Posted on 5/6/24 at 8:41 am to AUTiger789
Posted on 5/6/24 at 8:41 am to AUTiger789
That is not bad.
You'd probably need to add more levels to it.
Off the cuff something like this:
1 Point for Appearance
2 Points for Super
3 Points for WS
4 Points for Runner Up
10 Points for a title
Bonus if you win your conference(+1) or host a regional(+1).
You'd probably need to add more levels to it.
Off the cuff something like this:
1 Point for Appearance
2 Points for Super
3 Points for WS
4 Points for Runner Up
10 Points for a title
Bonus if you win your conference(+1) or host a regional(+1).
This post was edited on 5/6/24 at 8:42 am
2
Posted on 5/6/24 at 9:12 am to Farmer1906
quote:
Point for Appearance
2 Points for Super
3 Points for WS
4 Points for Runner Up
10 Points for a title
This. Some factor of not just going 2 and Q in Omaha
Posted on 5/6/24 at 12:00 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
Off the cuff something like this:
1 Point for Appearance
2 Points for Super
3 Points for WS
4 Points for Runner Up
10 Points for a title
The problem with a lot of this is it would give more credit for being better recently rather than historically. Supers didn't come about until 1999, and that was also the first season the tournament expanded to 64 teams.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News