05-27-2019, 08:52 AM
Sure would be nice to advance after this coming weekend
Baseball postseason outlook
05-27-2019, 09:07 AM
Ugh. Brutal. We got an 11 seed and our regional is paired opposite of 6 seed Mississppi State. First things first, though, need to get out of the regional.
Ugh. Brutal. We got an 11 seed and our regional is paired opposite of 6 seed Mississppi State. First things first, though, need to get out of the regional.
I guess RPI wins the day. When we were unveiled as the #11 seed, the ESPN announcers noted that we had been a top 5 team all season. Disrespect? Batting fuel? Omaha go, we must.
We've got a tough regional. Sac St., Fresno St., and UCSB are no walk overs. We will need to come to play from the jump.
Quote:If we can make it to the ground, we'll take the next chance. And the next. On and on until we win ... or the chances are spent.
JYN ERSO, Rogue One
We've got a tough regional. Sac St., Fresno St., and UCSB are no walk overs. We will need to come to play from the jump.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
I guess RPI wins the day. When we were unveiled as the #11 seed, the ESPN announcers noted that we had been a top 5 team all season. Disrespect? Batting fuel? Omaha go, we must.
We've got a tough regional. Sac St., Fresno St., and UCSB are no walk overs. We will need to come to play from the jump.
Quote:If we can make it to the ground, we'll take the next chance. And the next. On and on until we win ... or the chances are spent.
JYN ERSO, Rogue One
We've got a tough regional. Sac St., Fresno St., and UCSB are no walk overs. We will need to come to play from the jump.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
05-27-2019, 09:44 AM
So UCLA gets the overall #1 seed coming from the stated toughest conference but the 41-11 Stanford Cardinal cannot ride their coat tails into the top 8. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Our current ranking is #4. This should light a fire in our players. This is epic motivational fuel. Just mow them down Stanford.
Our current ranking is #4. This should light a fire in our players. This is epic motivational fuel. Just mow them down Stanford.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
So UCLA gets the overall #1 seed coming from the stated toughest conference but the 41-11 Stanford Cardinal cannot ride their coat tails into the top 8. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Our current ranking is #4. This should light a fire in our players. This is epic motivational fuel. Just mow them down Stanford.
Our current ranking is #4. This should light a fire in our players. This is epic motivational fuel. Just mow them down Stanford.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
05-27-2019, 10:35 AM
I’m not surprised we didn’t get a top 8 seed. Everything we had read from national publications over the past few weeks indicated that we wouldn’t. Even still, the way things unfolded was frustrating. Obviously, the prospect of going to Mississippi State, which was projected to be the #3 seed, and playing in front of 15,000 cowbell crazed fanatics is not appealing.
Even with respect to our own regional, it’s not an easy path. All four teams are from CA, so everyone will be rested and comfortable. UCSB is a very good club that was close to hosting its own regional. Fresno State is also a solid club that played us very close in April. At least this year, we got a properly seeded #4. Sacramento State has a formidable Friday night starter but nothing like Wright State who had 4th round draft pick Ryan Weiss. Austin Roberts is 4-4 with a 3.18 ERA, 70.2 IP, 61 hits, 25 ER, 83 Ks, 29 BB.
The highlight of the selection show for me was when ESPN host Matt Schick asked selection committee chair/South Carolina AD Roy Tanner why Stanford was seeded #11 despite being ranked in the top 5 for most of the season. Tanner: “What’s that? I can’t hear you, I think my earpiece isn’t working.” That says it all right there.
Even with respect to our own regional, it’s not an easy path. All four teams are from CA, so everyone will be rested and comfortable. UCSB is a very good club that was close to hosting its own regional. Fresno State is also a solid club that played us very close in April. At least this year, we got a properly seeded #4. Sacramento State has a formidable Friday night starter but nothing like Wright State who had 4th round draft pick Ryan Weiss. Austin Roberts is 4-4 with a 3.18 ERA, 70.2 IP, 61 hits, 25 ER, 83 Ks, 29 BB.
The highlight of the selection show for me was when ESPN host Matt Schick asked selection committee chair/South Carolina AD Roy Tanner why Stanford was seeded #11 despite being ranked in the top 5 for most of the season. Tanner: “What’s that? I can’t hear you, I think my earpiece isn’t working.” That says it all right there.
I’m not surprised we didn’t get a top 8 seed. Everything we had read from national publications over the past few weeks indicated that we wouldn’t. Even still, the way things unfolded was frustrating. Obviously, the prospect of going to Mississippi State, which was projected to be the #3 seed, and playing in front of 15,000 cowbell crazed fanatics is not appealing.
Even with respect to our own regional, it’s not an easy path. All four teams are from CA, so everyone will be rested and comfortable. UCSB is a very good club that was close to hosting its own regional. Fresno State is also a solid club that played us very close in April. At least this year, we got a properly seeded #4. Sacramento State has a formidable Friday night starter but nothing like Wright State who had 4th round draft pick Ryan Weiss. Austin Roberts is 4-4 with a 3.18 ERA, 70.2 IP, 61 hits, 25 ER, 83 Ks, 29 BB.
The highlight of the selection show for me was when ESPN host Matt Schick asked selection committee chair/South Carolina AD Roy Tanner why Stanford was seeded #11 despite being ranked in the top 5 for most of the season. Tanner: “What’s that? I can’t hear you, I think my earpiece isn’t working.” That says it all right there.
Even with respect to our own regional, it’s not an easy path. All four teams are from CA, so everyone will be rested and comfortable. UCSB is a very good club that was close to hosting its own regional. Fresno State is also a solid club that played us very close in April. At least this year, we got a properly seeded #4. Sacramento State has a formidable Friday night starter but nothing like Wright State who had 4th round draft pick Ryan Weiss. Austin Roberts is 4-4 with a 3.18 ERA, 70.2 IP, 61 hits, 25 ER, 83 Ks, 29 BB.
The highlight of the selection show for me was when ESPN host Matt Schick asked selection committee chair/South Carolina AD Roy Tanner why Stanford was seeded #11 despite being ranked in the top 5 for most of the season. Tanner: “What’s that? I can’t hear you, I think my earpiece isn’t working.” That says it all right there.
(05-27-2019, 10:35 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: I’m not surprised we didn’t get a top 8 seed. Everything we had read from national publications over the past few weeks indicated that we wouldn’t. Even still, the way things unfolded was frustrating.
I am not surprised either. I am mostly disappointed by the blind use of the RPI despite everybody knowing it is both a terrible power ranking and biased against regions with fewer teams. In fact, according to Baseball America, the committee's one move off of pure reliance on the RPI was looking at record vs top 50 ... in the RPI.
This offends my sense of logic and proper use of numbers more than my offense at Stanford being snubbed.
In RPI, Stanford is currently either #9 or #10 (I just saw both rankings supposedly as of this morning). With everything else Stanford has (see polls and other computer rankings) that ought to be enough for a top 8. It wasn't.
In other cases, particularly with respect to the west coast issues, teams got some accommodation despite RPI.
While it doesn't matter much, UCLA was given the benefit of the doubt over Vandy despite trailing them in RPI.
Oregon State (RPI #22 or 20) got some benefit of the doubt in getting to host, as did Mississippi (RPI #22/21).
At the bubble end, I am not sure if I think UA should have made it in, but had they made it they would have been extremely dangerous. They've won 10 straight, mostly by big scores and looked very solid.
The surprise entry is TCU, which apparently got in because of their Big 12 tournament run. There are many teams who can feel slighted by that one.
---------
In our regional ...
Our #2 seed, UCSB, possibly lost a chance to host by dropping 2 of 3 to Cal Poly last weekend. Before that they had won 13 in a row. They really are a hard team to gauge; they have the second highest winning percentage in the country but their schedule was a little weak and the Big West was down this year. I suspect they are in our regional to keep it regional.
You're right that Fresno is a tough team, though I don't see anything fantastic on their resume outside of their overall record (38-14-1). Possibly their highlight was traveling to Tennessee and losing a close series 1-2. They did beat a good UNLV team 6 out of 8 and split 2-2 with UO in Eugene. Both Baseball America and D1 Baseball had them projected them as a #2 seed
And, yeah, Sac State is generally capable. They took one in a series at UCLA, took down cal, and have won 8 of their last 10.
(05-27-2019, 10:35 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: I’m not surprised we didn’t get a top 8 seed. Everything we had read from national publications over the past few weeks indicated that we wouldn’t. Even still, the way things unfolded was frustrating.
I am not surprised either. I am mostly disappointed by the blind use of the RPI despite everybody knowing it is both a terrible power ranking and biased against regions with fewer teams. In fact, according to Baseball America, the committee's one move off of pure reliance on the RPI was looking at record vs top 50 ... in the RPI.
This offends my sense of logic and proper use of numbers more than my offense at Stanford being snubbed.
In RPI, Stanford is currently either #9 or #10 (I just saw both rankings supposedly as of this morning). With everything else Stanford has (see polls and other computer rankings) that ought to be enough for a top 8. It wasn't.
In other cases, particularly with respect to the west coast issues, teams got some accommodation despite RPI.
While it doesn't matter much, UCLA was given the benefit of the doubt over Vandy despite trailing them in RPI.
Oregon State (RPI #22 or 20) got some benefit of the doubt in getting to host, as did Mississippi (RPI #22/21).
At the bubble end, I am not sure if I think UA should have made it in, but had they made it they would have been extremely dangerous. They've won 10 straight, mostly by big scores and looked very solid.
The surprise entry is TCU, which apparently got in because of their Big 12 tournament run. There are many teams who can feel slighted by that one.
---------
In our regional ...
Our #2 seed, UCSB, possibly lost a chance to host by dropping 2 of 3 to Cal Poly last weekend. Before that they had won 13 in a row. They really are a hard team to gauge; they have the second highest winning percentage in the country but their schedule was a little weak and the Big West was down this year. I suspect they are in our regional to keep it regional.
You're right that Fresno is a tough team, though I don't see anything fantastic on their resume outside of their overall record (38-14-1). Possibly their highlight was traveling to Tennessee and losing a close series 1-2. They did beat a good UNLV team 6 out of 8 and split 2-2 with UO in Eugene. Both Baseball America and D1 Baseball had them projected them as a #2 seed
And, yeah, Sac State is generally capable. They took one in a series at UCLA, took down cal, and have won 8 of their last 10.
(05-27-2019, 09:10 AM)martyup Wrote: When we were unveiled as the #11 seed, the ESPN announcers noted that we had been a top 5 team all season. Disrespect? Batting fuel?
I don't think a #11 seed is unreasonable, given our SOS, RPI and recent history as a Top #8 seed (yes, small sample sizes, but not even making to the if necessary game in successive years as first a #8 national seed, and then a #2 national seed, is a very poor showing).
If we make a super regional/CWS, that would be important validation of our status as an elite program in both the regular season and postseason.
(05-27-2019, 09:10 AM)martyup Wrote: When we were unveiled as the #11 seed, the ESPN announcers noted that we had been a top 5 team all season. Disrespect? Batting fuel?
I don't think a #11 seed is unreasonable, given our SOS, RPI and recent history as a Top #8 seed (yes, small sample sizes, but not even making to the if necessary game in successive years as first a #8 national seed, and then a #2 national seed, is a very poor showing).
If we make a super regional/CWS, that would be important validation of our status as an elite program in both the regular season and postseason.
(05-27-2019, 01:05 PM)d4cohn Wrote: I don't think a #11 seed is unreasonable, given our SOS, RPI and recent history as a Top #8 seed
It does not matter all that much, as you have to win either way. While the previous years are irrelevant to this year's seeding, they do show that getting seeded in the top 8 doesn't get you to Omaha.
The women's tennis team has shown repeatedly that if you are the best, you just go out and win.
However, I think a #11 see is unreasonable.
Our RPI is 10th. It is both by far the poorest ranking the team has and the least reliable ranking system out there.
The following is what the Massey Composite index has compiled.
https://www.masseyratings.com/cbase/compare.htm
In other computer rankings we are 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5.
In polls or human rankings we are 3, 3, 3, 3.
Our strength of schedule by Boyd Nation's ISR is 19th toughest in the country. That's not quite as tough as Vandy's 17th, but ahead of Mississippi State's 35th.
Massey has us at #11 SOS.
http://boydsworld.com/baseball/isr/currentisr.html
https://www.masseyratings.com/cbase/ncaa-d1/ratings
I haven't seen an anyone analyzing the strength of teams across the nation that doesn't think Stanford is among the top 8, just lots who thought Stanford would not get a top 8 seed because of the RPI.
(05-27-2019, 01:05 PM)d4cohn Wrote: I don't think a #11 seed is unreasonable, given our SOS, RPI and recent history as a Top #8 seed
It does not matter all that much, as you have to win either way. While the previous years are irrelevant to this year's seeding, they do show that getting seeded in the top 8 doesn't get you to Omaha.
The women's tennis team has shown repeatedly that if you are the best, you just go out and win.
However, I think a #11 see is unreasonable.
Our RPI is 10th. It is both by far the poorest ranking the team has and the least reliable ranking system out there.
The following is what the Massey Composite index has compiled.
https://www.masseyratings.com/cbase/compare.htm
In other computer rankings we are 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5.
In polls or human rankings we are 3, 3, 3, 3.
Our strength of schedule by Boyd Nation's ISR is 19th toughest in the country. That's not quite as tough as Vandy's 17th, but ahead of Mississippi State's 35th.
Massey has us at #11 SOS.
http://boydsworld.com/baseball/isr/currentisr.html
https://www.masseyratings.com/cbase/ncaa-d1/ratings
I haven't seen an anyone analyzing the strength of teams across the nation that doesn't think Stanford is among the top 8, just lots who thought Stanford would not get a top 8 seed because of the RPI.
05-27-2019, 05:33 PM
Stanford Matt that was classic when the committee chairman wouldn’t respond
05-27-2019, 10:19 PM
(05-27-2019, 01:05 PM)d4cohn Wrote: I don't think a #11 seed is unreasonable, given our SOS, RPI and recent history as a Top #8 seed (yes, small sample sizes, but not even making to the if necessary game in successive years as first a #8 national seed, and then a #2 national seed, is a very poor showing).
If we make a super regional/CWS, that would be important validation of our status as an elite program in both the regular season and postseason.
Recent history is irrelevant. A large fraction of the team wasn't playing when we flamed out, and as you note this is a small sample anyways.
I agree with CTCard. A #10 seeding would have been reasonable, if the committee had chosen to follow RPI strictly. But RPI is the worst metric for Stanford, one that is biased against schools in the West, and that is a known flaw. Both polls and computer ratings have us better than 10th. So, my question for the committee, is if they felt it reasonable to deviate from RPI, how on God's green earth did they decide to downgrade us, and what was the justification for a team to leapfrog us in the rankings?
That was the unreasonable part.
BC
(05-27-2019, 01:05 PM)d4cohn Wrote: I don't think a #11 seed is unreasonable, given our SOS, RPI and recent history as a Top #8 seed (yes, small sample sizes, but not even making to the if necessary game in successive years as first a #8 national seed, and then a #2 national seed, is a very poor showing).
If we make a super regional/CWS, that would be important validation of our status as an elite program in both the regular season and postseason.
Recent history is irrelevant. A large fraction of the team wasn't playing when we flamed out, and as you note this is a small sample anyways.
I agree with CTCard. A #10 seeding would have been reasonable, if the committee had chosen to follow RPI strictly. But RPI is the worst metric for Stanford, one that is biased against schools in the West, and that is a known flaw. Both polls and computer ratings have us better than 10th. So, my question for the committee, is if they felt it reasonable to deviate from RPI, how on God's green earth did they decide to downgrade us, and what was the justification for a team to leapfrog us in the rankings?
That was the unreasonable part.
BC
05-28-2019, 08:08 AM
I'm not going to dwell on the seeding downgrade or last year or next week. The focus needs to be on the now and being the only team of four not to lose twice by Monday.
Stanford will be the favorite and rightfully so. It has a talent and experience advantage over the other three teams in the regional and the Cardinal players are super motivated AND HEALTHY. There are a lot of elite arms in the regional but I think Stanford sets the tone in the opening game and rakes and establishes the momentum to get through the regional without a loss.
Look for Stowers in the leadoff spot and Dash to power us to victories!
Stanford will be the favorite and rightfully so. It has a talent and experience advantage over the other three teams in the regional and the Cardinal players are super motivated AND HEALTHY. There are a lot of elite arms in the regional but I think Stanford sets the tone in the opening game and rakes and establishes the momentum to get through the regional without a loss.
Look for Stowers in the leadoff spot and Dash to power us to victories!
I'm not going to dwell on the seeding downgrade or last year or next week. The focus needs to be on the now and being the only team of four not to lose twice by Monday.
Stanford will be the favorite and rightfully so. It has a talent and experience advantage over the other three teams in the regional and the Cardinal players are super motivated AND HEALTHY. There are a lot of elite arms in the regional but I think Stanford sets the tone in the opening game and rakes and establishes the momentum to get through the regional without a loss.
Look for Stowers in the leadoff spot and Dash to power us to victories!
Stanford will be the favorite and rightfully so. It has a talent and experience advantage over the other three teams in the regional and the Cardinal players are super motivated AND HEALTHY. There are a lot of elite arms in the regional but I think Stanford sets the tone in the opening game and rakes and establishes the momentum to get through the regional without a loss.
Look for Stowers in the leadoff spot and Dash to power us to victories!
05-28-2019, 09:11 AM
Let's be real here. The SEC teams have bigger stadiums and draw more fans. TV ratings really don't factor in because TV games can be played anywhere. I would be shocked if home attendance and ability to make money that way isn't a large factor in the seedings.
Let's be real here. The SEC teams have bigger stadiums and draw more fans. TV ratings really don't factor in because TV games can be played anywhere. I would be shocked if home attendance and ability to make money that way isn't a large factor in the seedings.
(05-28-2019, 09:00 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: Seven SEC team in the seeded sixteen.
Their combined conference record against those team:
4-7.
Three Pac 12 teams in the seeded sixteen.
Their record against those teams:
8-5.
Who is they/their?
Oh, maybe I got it.
You are saying that the seven SEC hosts are 4-7 against all other hosts while the three Pac 12 hosts are 8-5 against all other hosts?
The most surprising thing about that is how few games the SEC teams have played against other hosts considering that just about half were within their own league.
Let's see, does that work?
I have Stanford 2-3 (1-1 vs OSU, 1-2 vs UCLA)
UCLA 10-3 (2-1 Ga Tech, 1-0 Ok St, 3-0 East Carolina, 2-1 OSU, 2-1 Stanford, )
OSU 4-7 (2-1 WVU, 1-2 UCLA, 1-1 Stanford, 0-3 Ok St)
Total = 16 - 13
Or, taking out the conference games (which are inherently 0.500 if you include both sides) then I get 8-5.
So, looks like I got it but I have to retract the statement about the small number of games for the SEC contingent - except it still kind of true with only 11 such games among 7 teams.
(05-28-2019, 09:11 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Let's be real here. The SEC teams have bigger stadiums and draw more fans. TV ratings really don't factor in because TV games can be played anywhere. I would be shocked if home attendance and ability to make money that way isn't a large factor in the seedings.
Well, at least some years ago attendance and guarantees provided played a role in choosing host sites but not in seeding. Thus there were times when games were played at the home of a team not seeded #1 for the regional.
I don't know what is officially in place today. While I believe there is still a separate process for bidding to host a regional, I don't know if it is officially tied to seeding or not. This year every one of the first round 1 seeds is hosting.
I don't know what is "real", but the seeding committees and the financial people are separated enough I doubt prospective attendance has a big effect on seeding.
(05-28-2019, 09:00 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: Seven SEC team in the seeded sixteen.
Their combined conference record against those team:
4-7.
Three Pac 12 teams in the seeded sixteen.
Their record against those teams:
8-5.
Who is they/their?
Oh, maybe I got it.
You are saying that the seven SEC hosts are 4-7 against all other hosts while the three Pac 12 hosts are 8-5 against all other hosts?
The most surprising thing about that is how few games the SEC teams have played against other hosts considering that just about half were within their own league.
Let's see, does that work?
I have Stanford 2-3 (1-1 vs OSU, 1-2 vs UCLA)
UCLA 10-3 (2-1 Ga Tech, 1-0 Ok St, 3-0 East Carolina, 2-1 OSU, 2-1 Stanford, )
OSU 4-7 (2-1 WVU, 1-2 UCLA, 1-1 Stanford, 0-3 Ok St)
Total = 16 - 13
Or, taking out the conference games (which are inherently 0.500 if you include both sides) then I get 8-5.
So, looks like I got it but I have to retract the statement about the small number of games for the SEC contingent - except it still kind of true with only 11 such games among 7 teams.
(05-28-2019, 09:11 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Let's be real here. The SEC teams have bigger stadiums and draw more fans. TV ratings really don't factor in because TV games can be played anywhere. I would be shocked if home attendance and ability to make money that way isn't a large factor in the seedings.
Well, at least some years ago attendance and guarantees provided played a role in choosing host sites but not in seeding. Thus there were times when games were played at the home of a team not seeded #1 for the regional.
I don't know what is officially in place today. While I believe there is still a separate process for bidding to host a regional, I don't know if it is officially tied to seeding or not. This year every one of the first round 1 seeds is hosting.
I don't know what is "real", but the seeding committees and the financial people are separated enough I doubt prospective attendance has a big effect on seeding.
(05-28-2019, 09:11 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Let's be real here. The SEC teams have bigger stadiums and draw more fans. TV ratings really don't factor in because TV games can be played anywhere. I would be shocked if home attendance and ability to make money that way isn't a large factor in the seedings.
You may as well assert that they seeded the teams based on the color of their uniforms or something else. Neither is listed in the criteria.
[Edit: 5/28 Updating to a newer NCAA Participant Manual that lists the committee members including the previously "TBD" person.]
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/champio...Manual.pdf (Oct 2018)
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/champio...Manual.pdf (Apr 2019?)
Quote:At-large teams will be assigned to the various regionals by the Division I Baseball Committee. The committee will seed the
top 16 national seeds. The 16 No. 1 teams will not be assigned to the same regional. Whenever possible, other teams will
be assigned to regionals using the closest possible geographical consideration. However, teams may be moved outside
their regions, if necessary, to balance the bracket numerically, or if the proximity to an opponent outside the region would be
comparable and a better competitive matchup would occur.
...
[regarding at-large selections - not in the newer Participant document]
In addition, the committee also uses the Rating Percentage Index (RPI), a computer program that provides the committee
with (1) the institution’s Division I winning percentage, (2) opponents’ average winning percentage and (3) opponents’
opponents’ average winning percentage. The RPI is an additional tool used in the evaluation of at-large teams. Please
note that the adjusted RPI takes into account a bonus/penalty structure. For more specific questions, please contact [person] at [phone number].
The committee may consider comparative data of individual teams, including, but not limited to, overall record; Division I
record; overall RPI rank; nonconference record and RPI rank; conference regular-season record and conference tournament
results; road record and RPI; last 15 games’ record; its record against teams ranked 1-25, 26-50, 51-100, 101-150 and below
150 in the RPI; head-to-head record; common opponents’ record; and input from regional advisory committees.
...
National Committee
Current members of the committee are:
SOUTHEAST REGION
Jeff Altier
Director of Athletics
Stetson University
EAST REGION
Dave Blank
Director of Athletics
Elon University
MIDWEST REGION
Mike Bobinski
Director of Athletics
Purdue University
SOUTHEAST REGION
Mike Buddie
Director of Athletics
Furman University
SOUTH REGION
Chris Del Conte
Director of Athletics
University of Texas at Austin
SOUTH REGION
Joe Karlgaard
Director of Athletics
Rice University
WEST REGION
TBD
Desiree Reed-Francois
Director of Athletics
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
EAST REGION
Benjamin Shove
Associate Commissioner for Sports Services
Northeast Conference
SOUTHEAST REGION
Ray Tanner, chair
Director of Athletics
University of South Carolina, Columbia
WEST REGION
Marianne Vydra
Deputy Director of Athletics for Administration, Senior
Woman Administrator
Oregon State University
Wow, 3 southeast regions, 2 east regions, 2 south regions, 2(maybe) west regions, 1 midwest region (where "midwest" is east of the Mississippi). [Edit: The regions were removed in the newer document.] My guess is the members are elected from the regional committee, and those regions are a reflection of that election, not that the committee is always composed of these numbers from these regions.
I am presuming that the "Baseball Committee" is the "National Committee", but perhaps I am wrong. There was an August 2018 meeting of the "Baseball Committee" that had 9 attendees and 1 absentee. 8 were the 8 of the National Committee minus the two positions for the West. The other two were from Univ of San Francisco and from VPI (absentee).[Edit: The newer document dropped "National Committee" and uses "Baseball Committee".]
The [older] document also lists the regional advisory committees (1 committee from each of east, midwest, south, southeast, west)
[Note that the document apparently mistakenly lists Vydra in both the SE and W regional committees. I presume that Roy Tanner of Univ of So. Carolina was intended to be listed in the SE regional committee instead.] The regional committees appear to include at least one from each(many?) conference (2 from PAC-12, SEC, ...)
(05-28-2019, 09:11 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Let's be real here. The SEC teams have bigger stadiums and draw more fans. TV ratings really don't factor in because TV games can be played anywhere. I would be shocked if home attendance and ability to make money that way isn't a large factor in the seedings.
You may as well assert that they seeded the teams based on the color of their uniforms or something else. Neither is listed in the criteria.
[Edit: 5/28 Updating to a newer NCAA Participant Manual that lists the committee members including the previously "TBD" person.]
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/champio...Manual.pdf (Oct 2018)
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/champio...Manual.pdf (Apr 2019?)
Quote:At-large teams will be assigned to the various regionals by the Division I Baseball Committee. The committee will seed the
top 16 national seeds. The 16 No. 1 teams will not be assigned to the same regional. Whenever possible, other teams will
be assigned to regionals using the closest possible geographical consideration. However, teams may be moved outside
their regions, if necessary, to balance the bracket numerically, or if the proximity to an opponent outside the region would be
comparable and a better competitive matchup would occur.
...
[regarding at-large selections - not in the newer Participant document]
In addition, the committee also uses the Rating Percentage Index (RPI), a computer program that provides the committee
with (1) the institution’s Division I winning percentage, (2) opponents’ average winning percentage and (3) opponents’
opponents’ average winning percentage. The RPI is an additional tool used in the evaluation of at-large teams. Please
note that the adjusted RPI takes into account a bonus/penalty structure. For more specific questions, please contact [person] at [phone number].
The committee may consider comparative data of individual teams, including, but not limited to, overall record; Division I
record; overall RPI rank; nonconference record and RPI rank; conference regular-season record and conference tournament
results; road record and RPI; last 15 games’ record; its record against teams ranked 1-25, 26-50, 51-100, 101-150 and below
150 in the RPI; head-to-head record; common opponents’ record; and input from regional advisory committees.
...
National Committee
Current members of the committee are:
SOUTHEAST REGION
Jeff Altier
Director of Athletics
Stetson University
EAST REGION
Dave Blank
Director of Athletics
Elon University
MIDWEST REGION
Mike Bobinski
Director of Athletics
Purdue University
SOUTHEAST REGION
Mike Buddie
Director of Athletics
Furman University
SOUTH REGION
Chris Del Conte
Director of Athletics
University of Texas at Austin
SOUTH REGION
Joe Karlgaard
Director of Athletics
Rice University
WEST REGION
TBD
Desiree Reed-Francois
Director of Athletics
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
EAST REGION
Benjamin Shove
Associate Commissioner for Sports Services
Northeast Conference
SOUTHEAST REGION
Ray Tanner, chair
Director of Athletics
University of South Carolina, Columbia
WEST REGION
Marianne Vydra
Deputy Director of Athletics for Administration, Senior
Woman Administrator
Oregon State University
Wow, 3 southeast regions, 2 east regions, 2 south regions, 2(maybe) west regions, 1 midwest region (where "midwest" is east of the Mississippi). [Edit: The regions were removed in the newer document.] My guess is the members are elected from the regional committee, and those regions are a reflection of that election, not that the committee is always composed of these numbers from these regions.
I am presuming that the "Baseball Committee" is the "National Committee", but perhaps I am wrong. There was an August 2018 meeting of the "Baseball Committee" that had 9 attendees and 1 absentee. 8 were the 8 of the National Committee minus the two positions for the West. The other two were from Univ of San Francisco and from VPI (absentee).[Edit: The newer document dropped "National Committee" and uses "Baseball Committee".]
The [older] document also lists the regional advisory committees (1 committee from each of east, midwest, south, southeast, west)
[Note that the document apparently mistakenly lists Vydra in both the SE and W regional committees. I presume that Roy Tanner of Univ of So. Carolina was intended to be listed in the SE regional committee instead.] The regional committees appear to include at least one from each(many?) conference (2 from PAC-12, SEC, ...)
![[Image: grXlkEy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/grXlkEy.png)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »