History Post: One win from playing for a team national championship

[615dawg]

MSU has never played for a team national championship in any sport. We've won several individual national titles in track, tennis, etc., and won a couple of club sport national titles. But MSU has never played for a team NCAA championship.

We've come within one win of playing for such on four occasions.

1985 - Baseball
Started the CWS 2-0, lost to Texas and Miami to finish 2-2 and place third.

1994 - Men's Tennis
Had a great run to the Final Four but lost to Southern Cal in the semifinals.

1996 - Basketball
Made a run to the Final Four before losing to Syracuse in the national semifinal

1998 - Men's Tennis
Went to the Final Four before losing to Stanford.

The 1966 and 1967 tennis teams finished third, but the placement was more like track and field style than team match play.

 

[57stratdawg]

If we win it, we're going to push it as the State's first team NCAA championship. It's just too perfect, a jab at OM and celebration of MSU? I bet we're already working on T-shirts for that. I thought they might have had a Tennis team win a NCAA championship a few year back?

 

[jeremyrbrown]

In 1985, we were two wins away from playing for the NC. After Texas beat us, they had to play Arkansas before they played Miami.

 

[patdog]

But even if Texas had lost to Arkansas, they would have gotten a bye into the final game. By beating Arkansas, they put themselves in a situation where Miami would have had to beat them twice to win it. But if they had lost to Arkansas, they would have faced the Arkansas-Miami winner for the title. Going in to the Texas game, both MSU and Texas were 1 win away from playing for the national title. When we lost that game, Texas was going to play for the title win or lose against Arkansas, while we moved to 3 wins away from the national title.

 

[jeremyrbrown]

Ahh... I see. Weird format.

 

[BogeyGolfer.sixpack]

With the current system, a team can be undefeated....

heading into the Nat. Champ series and win the first game and be 4-0 in the overall tourney and have to beat the same team again having two losses, if said team had played through the loser's bracket. Fair or unfair?

 

[patdog]

Agree. The old format was much fairer and better in all ways. The new format is more games and more days in Omaha. Easy to see which advantage trumps the other.

 

[SWFLDawg]

the CWS is exactly the Regional/Super Regional Format now. I think it is more fair than years ago when I think it was CBS had a contract for the championship game, so it was double elimination until the final which was winner take all. So an undefeated team who gets beat by a one loss team in the final sorta gets screwed.

 

[The Peeper]

If I understand the statement & question, wouldn't both teams end w/ 2 defeats anyway? Only difference is one played through the losers bracket w/ 1 defeat, got another in the Champ. Series then wins the last 2 in the Champ. Series so both teams end up w/ same record. Matter of fact, you could make the argument the team that went through the losers bracket to win it played a harder road to win it and deserves it as much or more?

 

[57stratdawg]

Agree. The old format was much fairer and better in all ways. The new format is more games and more days in Omaha. Easy to see which advantage trumps the other.

The new format is all about getting to the Championship Series which is basically a Super Regionalzilla.

 

[harrydawg.sixpack]

Bo said this morning that we are 17'd......I just caught the last part of it but an excited State fan called and basically said that MSU was in great shape (even mentioned Vegas odds) and
Bo basically called him delusional and hung up on him........Bo would not last a week in Baton Rouge.

 

[615dawg]

But Texas was in the national championship regardless under the rules at the time. Beating Arkansas meant that they had to be beaten twice in the national championship If Texas would have lost, Arkansas would have played Miami and the winner would have played Texas for the national championship in a single game. Since Texas won, Miami had to beat Texas twice. If we would have beaten Texas, we would have been afforded that luxury.

It was a strange bracket back then.

 

[af102]

I tried to find the actual bracket from that year (or any of the years they used that format), but I couldn't. Does anyone know why they made it really complicated instead of just doing an 8 team double elimination bracket? If that had been the format, we would have played the winner of Arkansas and Miami. The winner of that game would have had to beat Texas twice for the title. Wikipedia notes that the Texas/Ark and MSU/Miami round was called the "Final Four" even though it wasn't a straight 4 team, single elimination bracket.

 

[615dawg]

Imagine this year's CWS.

The match ups would be as follows:

MSU vs. UCLA - Winner to national championship game.
North Carolina vs. NC STate - Loser Eliminated
Oregon State vs. Indiana - Loser Eliminated.

Imagine that the first team listed wins. NC State and Indiana are out.

Final Four
MSU
UCLA
North Carolina
Oregon State

MSU would play North Carolina - UNC is eliminated if they lose.
UCLA would play Oregon State - loser is eliminated

If MSU beat UNC, MSU would play the UCLA/Oregon State winner having to lose twice.
If UNC beat MSU, UNC would play the UCLA/Oregon State winner and that winner would play MSU in a single game championship.

In 1985, we won our first two and the bracket looked like this:
2-0 game: MSU vs. Texas
2-1 teams: Arkansas and Miami

We were up 4-0 on Texas but ended up losing 12-7. Texas played Arkansas because we had already beaten Arkansas. So we got Miami and Miami beat us. Texas beat Arkansas, so Miami had to beat Texas twice, and they did.

 

[bulldogbaja]

Is this right??? For the D1 schools anyway?

ETA: According to Wikipedia, the NCAA does not endorse a national champion in football. So technically this would be true, even given OM's one football NC in '60. Kinda cheap though.

 

[Arloguthrie]

I heard that. Bo refused to concede that MSU with no losses sits in a better position than a team with one loss. Sure, anything can happen, which was his point, but his statements were idiotic and condescending even by lax Bo Bounds standards. I've never heard a host who shows more contempt for his callers. It's not like the caller was saying MSU was a lock; he was just saying MSU was in good position.

 

[57stratdawg]

I don't know if it's true or not, I'm just thinking outload. I would fully expect to see billboards saying "Mississippi's first NCAA Title! This is our STATE!"