Though Kentucky probably shouldn't have been on a top 40 program list, I think I was swayed by the big state famous college that has had a couple of great recruiting classes lately.
That is a reasonable answer and that is where all my questions were coming from about player rankings. I had a tiny hunch that perhaps some of your selections may have been influenced at least in part by the recruiting rankings. I agree Kentucky has had some nationally ranked classes of late. Did not help them make regionals last year however. Since 2001 they have made 1 regional and produced 1 40 plus win season all in 2006. They were below .500 from 2001-2004 and now of course there is a new sheriff in town. Since 2001, Coastal has produced 2 50 win teams, 4 40+ win teams, and a 30-27 team in 2006. Other than 2006, they made regionals each year since 2001. Granted it is harder to produce wins in the SEC. That is offset by the light weights that are played out of conference. Similarly, Coastal's conference record is buoyed somewhat by the tough out of confernce schedule they play. I am just using these two teams as an example. I could care less if Coastal makes the list.
It is simple to describe the top conferences and I would assume any astute 9th grader could do it without controversy. They are the SEC, Pac10, ACC, Big 12, and Conference USA. Cal State Fullerton's conference is right there as well. I agree that Long Beach State is at minimum top 40 and likely much higher. Lest we start thinking their talent is so overwhelming however, remember that an unranked school from Chicago (UIC) knocked them out of regionals last year.
Everyone rolled their eyes at the Big 10 last year but Minnesota knocked off USD and Michigan defeated the #1 national seed from the SEC. Ohio State also produced top draft choices the past two years. The talent differences between the top 64 schools or so are not that great imho. Depth is where the major schools (top 10 to 25) tend to dominate however. In other words, David can defeat Goliath in one game but it is tough to do for a series.
I will say for the 10th time, I never wanted to say anything in this thread. I don't want to be on the list. I stand by PG's original list. But it seems like the hits just keep coming.
quote:
When your kid is a sophomore in high school, has his first big varsity season and someone tells him he is good enough to play in college (or maybe even get drafted), does he say, I want to go to Coastal Carolina?
No.
OldVaman - Was your kid good enough to play there? How do you know what some kid might think? Coastal has had 14 kids drafted since 2005 - why wouldn't some kid want to go there if he was a pro prospect? When they were on ESPN last spring with the palm trees blowing in the ocean breeze in Myrtle Beach, you don't think some kid would want to go there?
quote:
They might lose out on their dream schools and go to places like Coastal Carolina.
It would be most appreciated if you would keep these type of comments to yourself next time. I am guessing what the rebuttal will be here and that is that you were only kidding and that I should lighten up
I'm not sure that I really think there are "40" top college programs to begin with. I believe that people can make a case for about 20-25 top programs. In my mind, to be a top program, you have to look at many things that have been mentioned including longevity of the program. I believe after the top 20-25, you could have a list of about 20 schools that would be in constant flux year after year with people being able to offer a valid argument for their team to be in that last 20.
As far as KY, I do not consider them a top program. If you take the formula that I mentioned above, it would be possible to make an argument to put them in the last 20 over the last couple of years. However, with my definition of a true "top program", my hometown team wouldn't make that list.
I think one of the things that this thread demonstrates is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What is a "top program" for one and a dream school wouldn't be for your neighbor. That's no different than if we had a discussion about what's the best SUV, camera, vacation spot, etc. We all bring our own experiences and biases to the discussion.
Posts: 5352 | Location: Kentucky | Registered: December 30, 2004
Is there really such a thing as a "top 40 program"?
If so are there only 40 teams?
I've been thinking about this and it seems like it almost has to be more than 40 teams. Even the yearly rankings will end up including more teams than those listed initially.
So where do we draw the line between the top level, mid major, lower tier DI colleges? Or is that just another mystery. What is a mid major college? Can someone give an example?
The more I think about the top 40 designation, the more apparent it is that there are lots of colleges in addition to the ones named that belong. How about Creighton? Houston? Stetson? BYU? the list can go on for quite a ways. Will Oregon be designated a top 40 when they start playing?
Anyway, DI baseball is the highest level, yet there are smaller colleges who are just as good as some of the DIs. Despite what anyone thinks, there could be a future Major League player at most any college, any level.
BTW, there is a player who is talented enough to play for any college in the country and he decided to graduate early this year and sign with a college. His choice... Coastal Carolina! I think it was a good choice!
Please take a good look at what is going on at the U of San Diego.
Posts: 4811 | Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa | Registered: December 27, 2002
Interesting question about major and mid-major or other categories. The way it was explained to me was there was generally some correlation between the size of the school involved and the designation of major or mid-major. I have heard of several schools in the Big South for example referred to as mid-majors and the student body sizes range from about 1800 to about 20,000. We all know there is more to it than this though. For instance, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, and Notre Dame have small student bodies yet are designated majors by virtue of the competitiveness of their programs and especially their conference. Thus, it seems to me that mid-major generally refers to a stronger program in a weaker conference and major generally refers to the power conferences. That still does not end the story though. I think we all agree that Duke in basketball and Boston College in football qualify as majors. Where do they fall in the spectrum of baseball however? They are both in a major conference yet does their historical performance merit calling their baseball programs major? Just asking the question and not trying to cast aspersions. Wichita State is another interesting one. I have heard them referred both ways. Based off their historical performance, they seem like a clear cut major to me. It seems to me that some schools choose to be majors in some sports, mid-majors in other sports, and lower division teams in still yet other sports.
Originally posted by Dad04: PG was looking for opinions of what makes a "top 40 team". Performance over a few seasons might be one measurement. Being a numbers person, I sort of like Boyds list of who is a top 40 team.
I saw it as the same way that Dad04 did, PG made a list and asked for our opinions as to who we might change in this list and why and he in return gave his reasons why he didn't consider schools mentioned after. This was all meant, IMO, to be a fun thread now turned ugly. I too follow Boyd Nation and think that his 10 year ISR is a good benchmark for top 50 teams, but there are some that prefer SOS or RPI as benchmarks. He goes strictly by the numbers. Strength of conference, for many, plays a big part in lists, so I understand why it was included in PG's. For me personally I would refer to a team that continually makes the 64 field, then the 32, then the 16, leaving out the final 8, as that is virtually for most schools (any conference) a huge task. Sometimes luck plays a big part, but pitching is the key factor. Being in Myrtle Beach for the regional, any team could have advanced to the next step, they were all that good, but in the end, pitching made the difference, not that our starters were that spectacular, but the arms from the other team appeared very tired and not enough waiting in the wings. St. John's was a tough team to beat. I also witnessed the same the year before and the year before that, O r a l Roberts, IMO was probably the scariest team we have ever faced on the field. For a small program, they got the moxy it takes to compete against the best. But I wouldn't consider them a top 40 by any stretch.
Some schools have down years, some have up, the idea is consistancy over a period of time. Recruiting may or may not come into the equation for many, who you recruit does affect your program indirectly, so does who you draft out of your program.So does your facilities. All of these may or may not add up to someone who is a top 40 or not. As far as rankings, I do beleive in each publication you read, there is a lot of human evaluation that goes into choosing who gets on the top 25,40, 50 and who doesn't. In the end it has to be proven on the field and that is all that counts in the final top 25,40,50. Based on performance not a "gut" feeling. A great incentive for a team that feels cheated in pre rankings, if it bothers you, prove them wrong, just like Oregon.
Posts: 10719 | Location: South Florida | Registered: July 28, 2003
The designation of large, mid, small, etc. is based upon the class system within the D1 (A, AA), not size of student body and I think is based upon what sports offered?
Posts: 10719 | Location: South Florida | Registered: July 28, 2003
I didn't mean for that original list to be anything official. Didn't even spend anytime researching. In some ways it worked as I thought and people started mentioning other programs not listed.
We try to work with all the colleges. I talk to lots of college coaches who understand who they are and where there program fits in the pecking order. Can't tell you how many times I've heard, "we don't have a chance he is being recruited by all the big boys".
None of that means a program can't become a national power. Gilmore has done it, San Diego did it, Creighton has done it before, St Johns has done it. Lots of colleges have done it.
I have great respect for every college unless someone proves they don't deserve respect. I love Austin Peay! Great coach! He is from Iowa, of course!
In our state U of Iowa is A BIG Major. Yet, I couldn't name them a top 40 team. Hopefully that will change at some point. They have great coaches.
I'm not the right person to go around ranking colleges.
Someone sent me an email saying "You're a know it all". They didn't know me.
I replied... "Well I should know a lot or else there have been many wasted years in my life. But there's still a lot more that I don't know than what I do"
Maybe this thread is an example of that.
I do hope more people bring up other colleges that they think might belong. College coaches, please don't be offended by anything said, because I know not what I say!
Posts: 4811 | Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa | Registered: December 27, 2002
Originally posted by ClevelandDad: I will say for the 10th time, I never wanted to say anything in this thread. I don't want to be on the list. I stand by PG's original list. But it seems like the hits just keep coming.
quote:
When your kid is a sophomore in high school, has his first big varsity season and someone tells him he is good enough to play in college (or maybe even get drafted), does he say, I want to go to Coastal Carolina?
No.
OldVaman - Was your kid good enough to play there? How do you know what some kid might think? Coastal has had 14 kids drafted since 2005 - why wouldn't some kid want to go there if he was a pro prospect? When they were on ESPN last spring with the palm trees blowing in the ocean breeze in Myrtle Beach, you don't think some kid would want to go there?
quote:
They might lose out on their dream schools and go to places like Coastal Carolina.
It would be most appreciated if you would keep these type of comments to yourself next time. I am guessing what the rebuttal will be here and that is that you were only kidding and that I should lighten up
In support, I would say that there are numerous talented boys in the NC, SC, GA area that would absolutely love to play for Coastal. Probably even some that "dream" of it.
Posts: 313 | Location: Charlotte, NC, USA | Registered: June 27, 2003
PG, No problem, you and I have had our differences, but I don't see your topic as anything but harmless and not meant to insult anyone.
I am a strong supporter of the Coastal program and what Caoch Gilmore has tried to achieve. I would send my son there is a flash if given the opportunity and that was the right fit for him. As far as the Big South, I think some coaches ought to take lessons from Coach Gilmore. This will improve their ranking in conference strength which in turn improves schools like Coastals rankings. Who you play and who you beat on the weekends (when facing the best pitchers in the staff) is very important.
Pre season rankings has a lot to do with expectations that has in turn a lot to do with coaches and how they have to focus their team. I can tell you from my experience that coming in ranked in the top spot in the country means there is no way to go up, only down. That's tough. Not having as high expectations, takes a lot of pressure off the coach and his team. Just ask the new UF head coach. With not as high expectations, but always in the mix, this situation gives any coach a chance to run a more relaxed program and focus on what needs to be done to improve for a better ranking in the end.
Again, despite anyone's opinion, it's not where you start, it's where you finish.
Posts: 10719 | Location: South Florida | Registered: July 28, 2003
You have an amazing grasp of the obvious. And yes, you do need to lighten up.
But since you clearly want me to be serious, Yes, my son was good enough to play at Coastal Carolina. No, he did not go there.
But I stand by what I said about dream schools. Coastal Carolina is a good school with a fine baseball program. But I submit the overwhemling majority of high school players in South Carolina, with the possible exception of Conway, dream first of playing at South Carolina or Clemson before considering Coastal.
That, to me, is the point of this not-meant-be-be-serious exercise. Ask a kid in Virginia and he's going to mention U.Va. and Virginia Tech (and Tech certainly is not Top 40 baseball program by most reasonable measures). William and Mary, a destination school by any definition, doesn't make the cut. Kids from Virginia go to Coastal Carolina, and very happily, but it probably isn't their dream school in their sophomore year.
Go state by state. That will answer your question. Those answers might surprise you. Only upon deeper investigation do schools like Coastal Carolina come to the forefront.
Is it reality in terms of facilities, competition, schedule, etc.? Well, no. But the Top 40 are those schools talked about in the sophomore year, before the recruiting process really begins.
I think we can honestly expand this topic to include more programs than forty while still maintaining the spirit of what a top forty program ought to be about. Another mid-major that has not been mentioned is College of Charleston. They went to super regionals in 2006 when they upset host Kentucky. They are almost always a regional contender. There really are many outstanding programs out there such as many of the Florida schools that were mentioned before. East Carolina has a beautiful stadium and very supportive fan base.
At a minimum, a team that makes regionals just about every year can argue they ought to at least be considered top 64 in the country. I think when you analyze the top 64 say from last year, one will see talent spread throughout the lineups. The top 10 or 15 programs will usually win out because of depth as TPM pointed out. For example, every time one of our good hitters came up in the later innings, Clemson would just run another guy out there (lefty or righty) throwing low to mid 90's. I think we faced in one game a second rounder, two third rounders, a fourth rounder and a fifth rounder from last years draft. We also probably faced two potential high rounders from this year's draft in the next game. It is hard to match up against that but these are the type of challenges these kids are looking for
