VT

Advertisement
They're not in the top 25. That's all I've got.
 
Anyone know if they are any good? We've swept them the last three series and have won 11 straight if my research was correct, but they usually play us pretty tough. I hope the guys don't come out flat after last weekend's emotional series.
Picked to finish 6th in the Coastal. They’re the only one of our first seven weekend opponents that isn’t ranked this week by D1Baseball (no ranked teams after that until the last two weeks).
 
WE BEEN KICKING DAT ***.

They haven't played us as competitively the past few years. Just aint he same team as under Beamer and Foster.
 
Almost no program north of the Carolinas is worth anything in baseball. Oregon State won a couple but it doesn't get that cold out here. Cold climates = lousy baseball programs.
 
Advertisement
Almost no program north of the Carolinas is worth anything in baseball. Oregon State won a couple but it doesn't get that cold out here. Cold climates = lousy baseball programs.
While I tend to agree with you generally, Michigan fans would disagree (in '19 anyway).
 
Picked to finish 6th in the Coastal. They’re the only one of our first seven weekend opponents that isn’t ranked this week by D1Baseball (no ranked teams after that until the last two weeks).
That's crazy, but I guess the SEC programs are facing the same competition. The RPIs should be through the roof for the top SEC and ACC teams this year come playoff time.
 
Almost no program north of the Carolinas is worth anything in baseball. Oregon State won a couple but it doesn't get that cold out here. Cold climates = lousy baseball programs.
As a whole yes, but UVA & UL are both north of the carolinas geographically. As a matter of fact UVA is like top 5 with most players on MLB rosters I believe.

Either way, the ACC & the SEC pretty much dominate college baseball.
 
While I tend to agree with you generally, Michigan fans would disagree (in '19 anyway).

I was ASTONISHED to see them ranked. But they're nothing as a baseball program. Ohio State lands in the polls every once in awhile too, but again, they're akin to Oregon in football, with less postseason appearances.
 
Advertisement
As a whole yes, but UVA & UL are both north of the carolinas geographically. As a matter of fact UVA is like top 5 with most players on MLB rosters I believe.

Either way, the ACC & the SEC pretty much dominate college baseball.

Agreed, but you know what I meant. And I wouldn't call Louisville that great of a baseball program yet. Just like in football, they've had some modest success, but they're new kids on the block.
 
Agreed, but you know what I meant. And I wouldn't call Louisville that great of a baseball program yet. Just like in football, they've had some modest success, but they're new kids on the block.
If your looking at the last decade, I'd agree..but UL had a solid team right now and definitely did last season.
 
If your looking at the last decade, I'd agree..but UL had a solid team right now and definitely did last season.

I find it a bit odd that people seem to conflate a program with "current/recent state of a team." A program has a sustained history of success and has won a few championships, while routinely being in the hunt for one. A team can be good right now (or highly ranked, in which case it doesn't matter at all this early in the season), but it really means nothing.

Louisville (football) a few years back and Greg Schiano's Rutgers are perfect examples. They were good for a minute. They're abysmal programs.

Louisville baseball has been on the rise lately, having made Omaha a few times in the last 15 years. Their first postseason APPEARANCE was in 2002. But they have zero rings, and have not sustained even the success they've had for decades. Being solid right now doesn't make them a good program. Win a ring or two with a few more appearances in Omaha in the next decade and OK we'll reconsider.
 
I find it a bit odd that people seem to conflate a program with "current/recent state of a team." A program has a sustained history of success and has won a few championships, while routinely being in the hunt for one. A team can be good right now (or highly ranked, in which case it doesn't matter at all this early in the season), but it really means nothing.

Louisville (football) a few years back and Greg Schiano's Rutgers are perfect examples. They were good for a minute. They're abysmal programs.

Louisville baseball has been on the rise lately, having made Omaha a few times in the last 15 years. Their first postseason APPEARANCE was in 2002. But they have zero rings, and have not sustained even the success they've had for decades. Being solid right now doesn't make them a good program. Win a ring or two with a few more appearances in Omaha in the next decade and OK we'll reconsider.

Baseball is a little tricky when it comes to determining how “great” a program is. You have to remember how hard it is to win a championship in this sport. Would you call Florida a great program? They have one title. Vandy is a perennial contender now with a couple chips, but not much history. What about FSU with zero? They are gonna break our postseason streak, just can’t finish (choke artists). I mean even Fresno St and Coastal have one.

IMO a head coaches tenure at a program has more to do with judging the state of the program than its overall history. McDonnell at Louisville has them at an elite level. O’Sullivan at UF the same. Corbin at Vandy. Dedeaux back in the day at USC had a dynasty and they’ve been lost ever since. ASU, UCLA, and basically every west Coast team outside of Oregon St are all history and no recency.

We are one of the exceptions that have had multiple HOFers lead the program for decades now. You are correct in that’s what truly sets A few programs apart. But right now I would consider Louisville, UF and Vandy top 5-10 programs right now. It’s just so tough to win it all, let alone multiple titles.
 
Advertisement
Baseball is a little tricky when it comes to determining how “great” a program is. You have to remember how hard it is to win a championship in this sport. Would you call Florida a great program? They have one title. Vandy is a perennial contender now with a couple chips, but not much history. What about FSU with zero? They are gonna break our postseason streak, just can’t finish (choke artists). I mean even Fresno St and Coastal have one.

IMO a head coaches tenure at a program has more to do with judging the state of the program than its overall history. McDonnell at Louisville has them at an elite level. O’Sullivan at UF the same. Corbin at Vandy. Dedeaux back in the day at USC had a dynasty and they’ve been lost ever since. ASU, UCLA, and basically every west Coast team outside of Oregon St are all history and no recency.

We are one of the exceptions that have had multiple HOFers lead the program for decades now. You are correct in that’s what truly sets A few programs apart. But right now I would consider Louisville, UF and Vandy top 5-10 programs right now. It’s just so tough to win it all, let alone multiple titles.

Valid points but I'd totally disagree. I think there are a few elite programs and that's about it. No, I would not call Florida a great program. I definitely wouldn't call FSU a great program. I think when you have that much sustained success without winning a ring it's more of an indictment on the program not being able to get over that hump. Florida was that way for a long time too. Again, I'd call those teams. A program wins under multiple coaches.

Not saying you're wrong, just my perspective on it.
 
Valid points but I'd totally disagree. I think there are a few elite programs and that's about it. No, I would not call Florida a great program. I definitely wouldn't call FSU a great program. I think when you have that much sustained success without winning a ring it's more of an indictment on the program not being able to get over that hump. Florida was that way for a long time too. Again, I'd call those teams. A program wins under multiple coaches.

Not saying you're wrong, just my perspective on it.

I get what you’re saying and it makes sense. I’m just more on the side of coaching tenures and CWS appearances making programs. Mainly bc head guys tend to stay for so long and teams seeming to be so cyclical until they get an elite guy at head coach.

But I’m 100% on your side about sustained success over decades and multiple coaches, plus championships, puts you in a completely different category.
 
I get what you’re saying and it makes sense. I’m just more on the side of coaching tenures and CWS appearances making programs. Mainly bc head guys tend to stay for so long and teams seeming to be so cyclical until they get an elite guy at head coach.

But I’m 100% on your side about sustained success over decades and multiple coaches, plus championships, puts you in a completely different category.

I think Notre Dame right now is a great example. Take out what they did in the 40's when there were no scholly limitations and only white guys could play. They won a ring they didn't deserve in '88 and have perpetually been highly ranked due to their pedigree, but $#!+ the bed in big games. I can't remember the last dominant guy they put into the NFL. To me, that makes for not a very good program.
 
Advertisement
They won a ring they didn't deserve in '88 and have perpetually been highly ranked due to their pedigree, but $#!+ the bed in big games.
They don't **** the bed.

They're just not better than the elite teams that they play in the playoff and/or New Years bowls.
 
I think Notre Dame right now is a great example. Take out what they did in the 40's when there were no scholly limitations and only white guys could play. They won a ring they didn't deserve in '88 and have perpetually been highly ranked due to their pedigree, but $#!+ the bed in big games. I can't remember the last dominant guy they put into the NFL. To me, that makes for not a very good program.
Yep that’s what happens in short season sports like football. Preseason hype drives polls, and schedules are made to be winnable. At least in basketball and baseball the longer seasons and postseasons weed out the frauds before the Final Four and CWS.
 
I think Notre Dame right now is a great example. Take out what they did in the 40's when there were no scholly limitations and only white guys could play. They won a ring they didn't deserve in '88 and have perpetually been highly ranked due to their pedigree, but $#!+ the bed in big games. I can't remember the last dominant guy they put into the NFL. To me, that makes for not a very good program.

If Florida doesn't have a great baseball program and Notre Dame's football program isn't very good, then there aren't many good programs in either sport. We certainly don't qualify in either one going by those standards.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top