[CTcard]

Is it really bias if the best teams are in the SEC? Five of the final six in Omaha were SEC teams including the Gators.

Let me put it this way.  If all the teams in the SEC were selected for the tournament, there's a good chance they would be the only conference in the CWS.  More teams in the tournament means higher probability of making it to CWS.

This chicken and egg issue is one piece of the puzzle. 

The SEC, right now, is undoubtedly the best baseball conference. How much so is not so clear - on top of the fact that in baseball once things are reasonably competitive, the better team wins a much smaller percentage of the time than in most sports. 
There is no doubt that having more rolls of the dice is substantially helpful to the SEC's success in the NCAA tournament. 

Another piece of the puzzle is the horrendous use of RPI by the baseball (and softball) tournament committees. Anyone who has paid attention knows that it is a terrible power rating (basketball dropped it for that reason) that has both regional and schedule-construction issues, but they keep using it ... as far as I can tell simply because they've always used it. 

With 11 of 14 SEC teams making the tournament, that means 5 teams with a losing conference record made it (curiously all at 13-17). 

More to our own immediate concern is the ACC. 
The ACC has a general reputation as the second best baseball conference. They have a history of putting a lot of teams into the tournament, a reasonable number reaching Omaha, then never winning the title (they do have 2 titles: Wake in 1955 and UVa in 2015). 
This year the ACC had 8 teams make the tournament: 6 had winning conference records and two were at 0.500. One team with a winning conference record did not make the tournament (Louisville 16-14, 32-24). 
[In the Pac 12; cal, USC, ASU and Utah all had winning conference records and did not make the tournament. Only Arizona, OSU, and Oregon made it. Two of those went to a super regional.]

My own belief is that after scrapping the RPI for something more reasonable, the NCAA should then ban any team with a losing conference record from an at large bid to the tournament. It's possible that will lock out a "better" team, and in fact could hurt Stanford in the ACC, but it's hard to argue that a team with a losing conference record really deserves to advance and this would serve to keep the sport more broad based. 

[Softball was worse with 13 of 13 SEC teams making the tournament - and in softball it isn't even that the SEC is the best conference (or at least not obviously so). In this case 4 teams with conference losing records made the tournament, including as bad as 7-17. The Pac 12 had 7 teams, one with a losing conference record (Cal). The Big 12 was top heavy with 5 teams making the tournament, 1 with a losing record. The ACC had 5 teams in the tournament, all with conference winning records. ]

[p.s. It was 4 of the final 6 in Omaha from the SEC. Florida State and North Carolina, both ACC, were in the final 6.]

[CTcard]

Is it really bias if the best teams are in the SEC? Five of the final six in Omaha were SEC teams including the Gators.

Let me put it this way.  If all the teams in the SEC were selected for the tournament, there's a good chance they would be the only conference in the CWS.  More teams in the tournament means higher probability of making it to CWS.

This chicken and egg issue is one piece of the puzzle. 

The SEC, right now, is undoubtedly the best baseball conference. How much so is not so clear - on top of the fact that in baseball once things are reasonably competitive, the better team wins a much smaller percentage of the time than in most sports. 
There is no doubt that having more rolls of the dice is substantially helpful to the SEC's success in the NCAA tournament. 

Another piece of the puzzle is the horrendous use of RPI by the baseball (and softball) tournament committees. Anyone who has paid attention knows that it is a terrible power rating (basketball dropped it for that reason) that has both regional and schedule-construction issues, but they keep using it ... as far as I can tell simply because they've always used it. 

With 11 of 14 SEC teams making the tournament, that means 5 teams with a losing conference record made it (curiously all at 13-17). 

More to our own immediate concern is the ACC. 
The ACC has a general reputation as the second best baseball conference. They have a history of putting a lot of teams into the tournament, a reasonable number reaching Omaha, then never winning the title (they do have 2 titles: Wake in 1955 and UVa in 2015). 
This year the ACC had 8 teams make the tournament: 6 had winning conference records and two were at 0.500. One team with a winning conference record did not make the tournament (Louisville 16-14, 32-24). 
[In the Pac 12; cal, USC, ASU and Utah all had winning conference records and did not make the tournament. Only Arizona, OSU, and Oregon made it. Two of those went to a super regional.]

My own belief is that after scrapping the RPI for something more reasonable, the NCAA should then ban any team with a losing conference record from an at large bid to the tournament. It's possible that will lock out a "better" team, and in fact could hurt Stanford in the ACC, but it's hard to argue that a team with a losing conference record really deserves to advance and this would serve to keep the sport more broad based. 

[Softball was worse with 13 of 13 SEC teams making the tournament - and in softball it isn't even that the SEC is the best conference (or at least not obviously so). In this case 4 teams with conference losing records made the tournament, including as bad as 7-17. The Pac 12 had 7 teams, one with a losing conference record (Cal). The Big 12 was top heavy with 5 teams making the tournament, 1 with a losing record. The ACC had 5 teams in the tournament, all with conference winning records. ]

[p.s. It was 4 of the final 6 in Omaha from the SEC. Florida State and North Carolina, both ACC, were in the final 6.]