Baseball America | Blog | Baseball America College Blog

The NCAA tournament field is complete, and the two biggest surprises both came at the expense of the Southeastern Conference—which trumps every other league when it comes to fan support, visibility and financial influence.

Louisiana State was the highest team in the Ratings Percentage Index rankings (No. 26, according to Boyd's World) to get left out of the field of 64, while Arkansas was the highest RPI team (No. 14) that was not awarded a host site. Instead, the committee awarded UCLA a top seed and a home regional despite an RPI of No. 34, demonstrating a shift away from RPI and toward performance in conference play. The Bruins went 18-9 to win the Pac-10 Conference title, while Arkansas went just 15-15 in the SEC.

And while LSU's robust RPI was not enough to land an at-large bid, St. John's got in with an RPI of No. 54, thanks to its second-place finish in the Big East in the regular season and conference tournament.

"The debate is a consistent one: How do you measure a second-place team versus, for example, a ninth-place SEC team?" said Tim Weiser, chairman of the Division I Baseball Committee, on the ESPN selection show. "We've got a divided group in that regard. Many of the committee members feel like a second-place finish in the Big East is more deserving than an eighth-, ninth-, whatever-place finish in the ACC, SEC, Big 12. That's the balance that leads us back to this process, described as more of an art than a science."

It's a striking reversal from the committee's approach just two years ago, in Weiser's first year as the chairman. In 2009, the committee awarded at-large bids to eighth-place Baylor (10-16 in the Big 12) and ninth-place Oklahoma State (9-16), at the expense of teams like Rhode Island, which ranked 57th in the RPI. This year, St. John's had a comparable resume—though it was just 1-6 against the top 50 in the RPI, compared with LSU's 11-17 mark against the top 50.

"In this year's deliberations, yes, I would say that as a committee, we probably didn't use the RPI as the hammer that maybe it's been perceived as being in previous years," Weiser said afterward in a teleconference with reporters.

He also said LSU was docked for playing so many nonconference games at home, while St. John's got credit for playing 26 road games (going 11-15, including an early-season series win at SoCon tournament champ Georgia Southern and one win in three games at Georgia Tech).

"For some of our committee members, that is a very, very important piece of the discussion because some of our committee members are faced with those same challenges, if you will," Weiser said. "The balancing argument to that is we shouldn't disadvantage those that are in the warmer climates or the locations that give them opportunities to play more home games. So it was a conscious discussion and decision, if you will, about what St. John's is faced with and what teams in the northern climate are faced with when it comes to playing road games."

LSU coach Paul Mainieri, in statements released by the school's sports information office, said he thought the Tigers had done enough to get into the 64-team field. “This team clearly deserved to be in the NCAA Tournament, and I’m so disappointed for the kids that they don’t get the opportunity to do so," he said. "The disappointment of today will be a very strong motivator for our team as we go forward. I know we don’t want to feel like this ever again. I don’t think we should be feeling like this, quite frankly, but we left the decision in the hands of people."

St. John's coach Ed Blankmeyer has never been shy about his belief that the quality of Northern baseball is under-appreciated, and he said that Monday marked a major step forward for Northern teams on a national level. Really, it's more difficult for a team based in New York City to build an RPI in the 50s than it is for an SEC team based in Louisiana to build an RPI in the 20s.

"What we try to do is play the best schedule we can, nonconference-wise," Blankmeyer said. "We've made an effort to travel to Boston College and Maryland to play RPI games, but we're a product of our environment. You can play and win games against opponents around here and go down RPI-wise, versus not playing—what do you do, play or not play? Risk my RPI by playing one of my local opponents? The RPI formula is not the best, but it's what we have. I certainly believe there's a lot more criteria in that room, different philosophies at play."

LSU also was bypassed in favor of Mississippi State, which has a comparable (but slightly worse) RPI, a comparable record against the top 50 and top 100 and won the head-to-head series in Starkville just last weekend. The Bulldogs finished a game ahead in the standings, however, and made it to the conference tournament, while LSU did not.

"That was certainly one of the more difficult discussions that we had," Weiser said. "Although we recognize the head-to-head competition, we also talked about the fact that LSU was tied for ninth in the SEC and tied for fifth in their division. We also talked about the fact that six of those 13 wins that LSU had were against the 11th and 12 place teams in the league. In the end, we were faced with a nonconference schedule that didn't provide for many road games. So when we don't have the information from a nonconference schedule—even though they played a Cal State Fullerton—the fact that we didn't have many road games as a committee, so we had to go back to the conference results, and we didn't think that was strong enough to warrant a selection this year."

Love it or hate it, you have to admit it's a new direction for the committee.

The NCAA talks often about how profitable its Division I postseason is, so it's striking that the committee gave bids to St. John's and Dallas Baptist over LSU, which has a much larger following and more more brand power. And it's striking that UCLA was named a host over Arkansas, which is annually among the national attendance leaders, while the Bruins draw smaller crowds, like most West Coast teams.

Weiser said the committee does not even see the financial bids submitted by host candidates, a change from three or four years ago. So the committee is free to decide hosts based on perceived merit. And this committee valued winning a Pac-10 championship over having a high RPI and more wins against the top 25 (a stat that is skewed toward teams in the Southeast and Texas, where there are more teams and thus more opportunities for teams to pad their RPIs).

"We had a number of committee members that felt strongly about Arkansas," Weiser said. "I think those that were unsure about Arkansas probably pointed to a couple of things. One was their 15-15 conference record, and the other was that they only won four of the 10 league series that they played in. I know at least for a couple of members that was something that was pointed to."

Even if you disagree with Weiser's reasoning, it's hard to get too indignant about the snubbing of a team that went .500 in its league and won just four of 10 conference series, in favor of a team that went 18-9 to win another power league.

"The fact that they were Pac-10 champs was a very valuable thing," Weiser said.

Across the board, conference standings and performance in weekend series seemed to weigh more heavily than in past years. Connecticut earned a No. 2 seed after dominating the Big East, despite an RPI of No. 46—traditionally, a ranking that would have placed UConn on the at-large bubble, and no better than a No. 3 seed. Texas State earned a No. 2 after dominating the Southland in the regular season, overcoming its 1-9 record against the top 50 and RPI ranking of 37th.

It's logical to wonder if the backlash against the 2009 field of 64 has shaped the direction of the committee. But Weiser stopped short of saying that the criteria used this year will carry similar weight going forward.

"To say that sets a precedent going forward, I think that may be a bit of a reach.," he said. "Because we try hard not to box ourselves into, OK, this is what we did last year, so we've got to do it again this year. I think each team's different, each year's different and you kind of have to set aside what you've done in the past and not let it bias you as you go forward."

For the second straight year, Weiser's committee has given us a largely well-constructed field. This year, there is no obvious "regional of death," stacked with powerhouses. Teams mostly seem seeded appropriately, and our quibbles are minor.

The only other major point of contention involved the final national seeds. The committee went with Florida State, Texas and Rice over Texas A&M and Arizona State. There was no Western team that truly deserved a national seed, so I'm glad the committee didn't try to shoehorn a national seed into the West solely for geographic reasons. And I liked Weiser's explanation for the omission of Big 12 regular-season co-champ and tournament champion Texas A&M. That explanation included an acknowledgement that the season-ending shoulder injury to ace John Stilson factored in, but was not the most important factor.

"What we had to go with was that that final weekend in the Big 12 play, Texas took two out of three from A&M," Weiser said. "Rice earlier in the year . . . took two from A&M. So we had that kind of discussion already, and then as a committee we were informed about the injury, and I know that our policy requires us to consider that. So I think for some members of the committee, that kind of was the last piece to the puzzle for them when it came to considering A&M."

It was a thoughtful, rational answer—consistent with most of Weiser's explanations Monday. Each committee is different, and each weighs selection and seeding factors in its own way. This committee placed a premium on strong performance in conference play over RPI considerations. Whether or not you think that is a good thing depends upon your perspective. And there are a lot of passionate fans in Fayetteville and Baton Rouge who have a much different perspective than the smaller fan bases in Westwood and Queens.

Fullerton winner to Chapel Hill and Los Angeles winner to Nashville, both pretty long trips. What do you make of the Super Regional pairings by location?

Posted by Dougner | May 30, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Shortcut

So weird to hear that LSU didnt even make a regional.
I have always wondered how the selection committee determines where to put a team like Creighton? They sent them to Corvallis, though could they have been placed in one of the 4 Texas Regionals?

Posted by Johnny Rosenblatt | May 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm | Shortcut

Florida gets jobbed again. given #16, 47 and 107 in their regional. no one else is even close. # 2 overall seed my a**! same ****, different year.

Posted by jaxgator | May 30, 2011 at 1:29 pm | Shortcut

UNC a #3?? ahead of Vanderbilt? Based on what? Overall the selection committee really showed it's bias toward the ACC. Clemson host while Arkansas does not? Time to get rid od the RPI, because as is typical in political events, it's used only to defend certain stupid moves, thrown out when it does not fit. While Florida gets Miami as their 2, UNC get Fla Int'l. Look at all the #2 seeds in all the ACC Regions, then look at all the #2 in the SEC. I thought gerrymandering was the property of only politicians! Going to try to find out the committee make-up, and will be Googling Tim Weiser as soon as I click on POST COMMENT

Posted by Rick | May 30, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Shortcut

And I am sure it has nothing to do with this committee member: Chris Monasch, St. John’s University (New York) …While I know he cannot be in the room when his team is discussed, I am sure that plays a role in his team getting in to the tournament.

Posted by Kelly | May 30, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Shortcut

If the committee were shifting away from RPI and towards conference records, then how does A&M not get a national seed over Texas? Both won the Big 12 regular season but A&M also won the tournament on a 4-0 weekend (without Stilson) and played a tougher conference schedule (an extra road series vs Texas' extra home series). Even the head to head was close – Texas took 2 of 3, but also had 2 of 3 at home… Ags also led the first two games late. A&M had the better conference record, a significantly harder schedule (both in and out of conference), played Texas to about even head to head, and had a significantly better RPI. I'd say it looks like the committee played favorites (take a look at the creampuffs in the Austin regional).

Posted by Jonathan Seastrunk | May 30, 2011 at 2:07 pm | Shortcut

the committee did give Creighton a path forward to Omaha — admittedly, it's not likely to happen but if they would have put them in the South it would have been very tough given how weak the Jay's bats have been. i'll keep my fingers crossed but in any case i'm picking Florida to win it all.

Posted by roger | May 30, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Shortcut

[...] Series has been announced, and while many a qualified blog or site will have regional analysis (including this fine site) I have decided to make 16 immediate [...]

Posted by Sports Dominoes: Chain Reactions of Sports Worldwide » CWS Brackets — Immediate Regional Picks | May 30, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Shortcut

It's a shame Elon was left out of the tournament. I know they were a bubble team and did not have a real good tournament (lost the 1st game of the tournament in 20 inning affair, 6 hrs 35 min game) and then the next day, after finding out an ex teammate had gone missing one hour before the game, and a national missing person search was ongoing, they still battled and lost a one run game. All within 24 hours. You never hear or know of all the behind the scenes matters but what they did as a "TEAM" this year was up there with anyone, The seniors in the class at Elon won 3 Southern Conference Championships and deserved a better exit, you'll see more of them next year. Truth be said, what's more difficult to do, win a regular season crown or a tournament, one represents the season, one is just the hot team at the moment.

Posted by JrPhoenix | May 30, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Shortcut

Texas did win the head-to-head series. Might have been ‘about even’ but Longhorns did win the series.

Posted by John Manuel | May 30, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Shortcut

And you know if LSU was in the Big 12 in the same position, they're a lock
And you know if the St. John AD is not on the committee things are different
I'm okay with the reasoning but the politics suck!

Posted by Jimmy | May 30, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Shortcut

I don't see how no one is mentioning Mercer. They swept the season series with Georgia Tech, beat Georgia in Athens, and beat Georgia Southern (all tournament teams). They got to the finals of the ASUN tourney beating Jacksonville, who is also in the tournament, twice. Mercer is a good ball team that would have done damage in the tournament if they were given the chance. St. Johns? Unbelievable…. What happened to Arizona State being suspended from postseason play? Just because they had a good year does not mean they should be able to play in the tournament. Hope USC goes undefeated in football next year so we can send them to the national championship too.

Posted by John | May 30, 2011 at 5:37 pm | Shortcut

Its very funny how teams in the SEC get the shaft. I guess its because we have the best fans in the nation. LSU is a better team than half the field. Arkansas draws 9000 a night and doesnt get a regional. UCLA ballpark is a joke. I think the ballpark should play a part choosing a regional. Politics have alot to do with these selections. St. Johns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by tj falgout | May 30, 2011 at 6:07 pm | Shortcut

Seastrunk doesn't know what he's talking about! Texas A&M didn't have a better conference record than Texas – they had the same conference record as Texas. I think it's absurd that someone would claim that A&M should get the nod over Texas when they ended the season with the same conference record and Texas won the head to head 2 to 3. It doesn't matter that 2 were in Austin – one of the games Texas won was in College Station!!!! Know what you're talking about before you post! What does "bout even" mean anyway??? So, Texas needed to beat A&M by more than how many runs for it to be a deserving series victory???? I remind you that the one game the Ags did win over Texas was only by 3 runs and all 3 came in the top of the 9th!!!!! It was a deserved victory, just like the 2 games that Texas won over A&M by 2 runs each!!!! Be a man and realize you lost your series this year with Texas (with Stilson on the mound – albeit injured I get) and you lost your series with Rice. You dropped several key midweek games including a game against TCU and a few "also-rans"!!! Texas deserved the national 8 seed over A&M by a slim margin if they deserved it at all – bottom line!! If you're going to state otherwise, make sure you know what you're talking about so that your post makes sense………..and next time you post……..remind of what "bout even" means…..if they were "bout even", then why even play the games!!!

Posted by GB | May 30, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Shortcut

…..A&M didn't have a tougher "in-conference" record either!!! They played exactly the same teams!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by GB | May 30, 2011 at 6:46 pm | Shortcut

Creighton is 44-14, and was considered a bubble team if they hadn't won the MVC tournament. Their first-round opponent, Georgia, is 31-30, requiring a couple wins in the conference tournament to be eligible for the tournament. Being in a tough conference where a team like Georgia can make the NCAA tournament has its tradeoffs, like this year's LSU team having a solid resume, but not getting the nod since they didn't finish well in their conference. Although it's a tough decision for sure, LSU's coach admitted himself that they left the decision up to people. Sure, they can't control how good their conference and weather is. But St. Johns can't control how bad their conference and weather is, either. I'm probably biased since I'm a mid-major fan, but I'd much rather the tough selection decisions be made based on what teams can control.

Posted by Erik | May 30, 2011 at 7:15 pm | Shortcut

Guys, love the above analysis but it seems like the committee is being transparent about one factor the article doesn't mention: performance on the road.

Committee chair explicitly said they didn't know how to evaluate LSU because they didn't play nonconference opponents outside their stadium (Wake, Fullerton, etc. had to go to LSU.) They barely played on the road except conference play.

Similarly, Arkansas was 11-11 on the road (3-1 v. SDSU, 3-0 midweek, and 5-10 v. SEC losing all series 1-2 to 'Bama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky!!).

If you don't play well on the road, you don't earn the right to play at home (or in the tourney where you'd play on the road).
Ultimately, you gotta win on the ROAD as well as in your conference…

Posted by Alex | May 30, 2011 at 7:16 pm | Shortcut

P.S. And LSU was 4-11 in conference play on the road, only winning 2-1 at Miss. St. to close the season out. Otherwise, went 1-2 at Georgia and 'Bama and 0-3 at Vandy and Arkansas.

Posted by Alex | May 30, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Shortcut

I count 4 regionals (UNC, Clemson, South Carolina and GT) with in a 3 hour drive of Charlotte NC and yet the 49ers get shipped out West. You think they would have at least kept Charlotte in the same time zone.

Posted by Josh D | May 30, 2011 at 7:19 pm | Shortcut

Many teams from "non-power" conferences and occasionally teams from "power-conferences" play teams mid-week from the top 40. None of those teams throws their 1-2 or 3 starter during those mid-week games. Maybe sometimes you get a whole staff day on a wednesday, but most of the time it's the 4 or 5 starter and yes, maybe the top relievers. It's hard to count those midweek games that are lost against someones RPI or Regional Berth Standing when it comes down to pretty much offense (because most of the starting position players will play mid-week), and a huge program that has depth in pitching. Say a Top Program like Arizona State or Florida has a #4-5 starter as good as their #2-3. You can't expect a Mid-Level Div 1 to compete with that during the mid-week. But on the weekend, after it has warmed up, and the northern teams have also gotten seasoned, those first few days on a Friday and Saturday can be up for grabs if a mid-level D1 plays a Top 40… And in the post-season, the first two games are crucial, keeping it even…..But then, advantage Big Powerhouses because of the depth in pitching.

Posted by james | May 30, 2011 at 8:22 pm | Shortcut

Georgia getting send to Oregon State is Bull. Glad we are in tournament .. ACC getting five host sites We Should have been in one of them.

Posted by seeingidawg | May 30, 2011 at 8:38 pm | Shortcut

Why would LSU travel OOC when they draw 10k per game at The Box? Why go play in front of 500-1k people and lose a ton of money? That makes zero sense and shouldn't be held against them. They swept Cal State Fullerton and are penalized for the series being at the best venue in the nation? Are you serious? LSU was left out because of flat out politics. St. John's and Baylor both were chosen over them because they had members on the board representing them.

Posted by JJ | May 30, 2011 at 8:47 pm | Shortcut

Accusations of an ACC bias seems to be based on emotions rather than facts. After all, if based solely on RPI, the ACC gets five national seeds, not three.
Likewise, suggesting a bias in favor of Clemson over Arkansas falls flat when you observe that Clemson has a better record, a better RPI and a better SOS.

Posted by David | May 30, 2011 at 10:28 pm | Shortcut

I find it convenient that everyone wants to compare LSU to St Johns but how about comparing to Kansas St. KSU finishes six in the big 12 with a 12-14 record, 44 RPI while LSU finishes 13-17 with a 22 RPI–On top of that LSU played hot down the stretch. A sad day for the SEC when Aaron Fitt was predicting as many as 10 teams making the conference several weeks ago and they only get 7.

Posted by Bill | May 30, 2011 at 11:02 pm | Shortcut

Tim Weiser=former Kansas State AD.
St. Johns AD also on selection committee.
Weiser=deputy Big 12 commish, which means Texas gets its usual cream-puff regional.
Here's one problem, though, with the surprising way the committee minimized its reliance on RPI — scheduling. Nothing they had done in previous years should have led an LSU to think they had to travel to bolster their NCAA chances. Their AD is probably telling Maineiri to schedule more home games (to pay for the new Alex Box), and the school presidents don't want them traveling in midweek and missing classes.
So the committee sent — via LSU — a new message. But they did it after the fact, and that's why the LSU fans have every right to be upset.

Posted by Bert | May 31, 2011 at 5:42 am | Shortcut

GB, the facts are these on the schedule comparisons between Texas A&M and the horns:
* The horns got a free pass for playing a soft and home-heavy schedule (SOS = #61)
* A&M was 23-8 versus Big 12 competition this season (with only 12 of the 31 games at Olsen field), while the horns were 22-10 versus Big 12 competition this year.
Since you seem to be so expert at the schedule comparisons, could you enlighten us on the conference road series versus conference home series "similarities" between the two (hint: they are not similar)?

Posted by Rick | May 31, 2011 at 8:55 am | Shortcut

Who has the easiest path (Top 8 seeds)?
#1 Virginia (opponents RPI – 270)
#2 Florida (180)
#3 UNC (245)
#4 USC (135)
#5 Florida St (173)
#6 Vandy (159)
#7 Texas (237)
#8 Rice (283)
Appears that the committee did no favors to the SEC… with 6 of the remaining 8 regional sites have easier RPI schedules than the SEC top seeds.

Posted by Alex D | May 31, 2011 at 9:03 am | Shortcut

So sick of seeing Florida and Miami matched up year after year. I get that they want to keep teams closer to home, but come on, it's boring seeing the same teams year after year. Change it up a bit! And Florida (as the #2 seed) was done no favors by getting Miami (in the top 15-20 all year in RPI and the rankings) as the 2 in their regional. That's a pretty rough draw for the #2 national seed. If you go by RPI they should have played somebody closer to the 30-31 range than 15-20.

Posted by Matt | May 31, 2011 at 9:10 am | Shortcut

Listen to all this chatter. Something is obviously wrong with the selection process. New Mexico beats TCU for the MWC championship and they are 20 and 39 ! TCU gets the number one seed ! Not punished for getting beat that ONE TIME ! I bet the Yankees wish they could have got to the World Series after losing to the Rangers in the ALCS last year ! Wins and losses don't mean anything in this process . It's who draws the most fans. It's who plays the best teams according to the opinions of a select few. Simple solution – 32 D-1 conferences. Top 2 teams in each conference make the field of 64. Regionals to be held at a neutral site. Problem solved.

Posted by Billy Jack | May 31, 2011 at 9:44 am | Shortcut

Some people think that it was between Texas and Texas A&M for the eighth national seed. However, Texas is the seventh of the eight seeds, and Rice is the eighth seed. Thus, assuming A&M was considered the ninth overall seed, the argument for the final spot would be between Rice and A&M (rather than Texas and A&M). Furthermore, it appears that the season-ending injury of A&M's best starting pitcher, Stilson, was taken into account by the selection committee. Without Stilson, I doubt the Aggies will make it to Omaha. Lastly, Aggies have always been known to focus too much time and energy on whatever the Longhorns are doing. I can only guess how many A&M fans will be attending their (A&M's) regional tournament this weekend while watching the Longhorn games through the gametracker feature on their mobile telephones. I like Texas to advance to Omaha after beating Arizona State in three games in the super regional in Austin, and I like Texas to beat Florida with Jungmann on the mound in the Longhorns' first game in Omaha. After that, who knows? Hook 'em Horns! Jim Fletcher, 1997 UT-Austin and 1999 Texas State alumnus

Posted by Jim Fletcher | May 31, 2011 at 11:11 am | Shortcut

I thought one of the objectives was to increase college baseball visibility and fan base and all we have heard for years was location, location, location so that ballparks could be filled. Also that the teams with "better" facilities and higher regular season attendance would be considered over those that failed to meet that criteria. Well you can toss all that aside, just look at teams that are traveling that could be staying within a fan base. Example is the UNC regional? why not just have UNC move to a SR without playing, and a #3 seating?? C'mon you a now acting like the politicians you claim not to be… Several other examples exist once you look at the brackets. Maybe even a UNC; Charlotte; East Carolina and then toss in an outside lower placed team. Boshemer stadium would be rocking & sold out the entire weekend, but lets not put UNC in too much of a pickle to get out of the regional. UCLA Hosting??and I can go on, they don't even pull a consistent fan base… Charlotte traveling west? College Baseball is awesome but it's crazy if one team has "advantage" over others.

Posted by NCcowboy | May 31, 2011 at 11:35 am | Shortcut

Most of the arguments on here are based on a particular team getting the shaft in some respect. It seems like the underlying voice in many of these discussions is "my team got a tougher opponent, and this team's road to omaha is much easier, etc, etc."
Everyone knows the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 are the powerhouse conferences. Not even an argument. Is the ACC #8 better than Big East #2? Pretty good chance. For someone to say they should take the top 2 team from each conference for the field of 64 is beyond ridiculous, and probably not even worth commenting on, but I'll give you an easy example and be done with it. Florida, South Carolina, and Vandy are 2, 4, and 6 in the national rankings. So the #4 national seed gets left out of the NCAA tournament for not making it to the SEC championship game this year….. Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? If not, you probably need to pick a new sport to follow, or sports altogether.
The other discussion, based on teams getting tougher regionals than another is also ridiculous. If your team is a #2 national seed, you should be pretty confident that they can move past a #16 seed. They're going to have to face tougher competition the further they get, and your end goal isn't to host a super regional, is it? I'm pretty sure it's a national championship. People forget this is June. Its not about rankings, its about who gets hot at the right time. Forget what this team did back in March or how many fans your stadium holds. To a point, anyone can beat anyone on any given day. When all is said and done, the best team will hoist the trophy in Omaha.

Posted by killacam | May 31, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Shortcut

Much ado about LSU not making it . . . but when was the last time we got not a SINGLE TEAM from the entire state of Louisiana? It's arguably the most college-baseball-crazy state in the U.S., with three traditional powers (LSU, UL Lafayette, Tulane) and two sometime competitors (UL Monroe, SE La). Crazy year.

Posted by UFChompCWS | May 31, 2011 at 2:54 pm | Shortcut

Rick, I was commenting on Seastrunk's previous comment about Texas & A&M having different conference schedules – which in the regular season was the same. As for some of them being road games vs others being home games, to me it all shakes out in the wash. Texas won one game from A&M in CS and one in Austin. I can only assume that you're factoring in the tourney games – that being said, that's not what I was referring to. Did you happen to notice who Texas pitched in the first game of the conference tourney???? Did you happen to realize that the conference tourney is basically meaningless???? Do you think that Augie probably knows that???? Bottom line is, A&M & Texas were as close this year as they've ever been and the committee saw that when they got to the end, A&M had dropped 2 of 3 to Texas so Texas got the nod – rightfully so (same situation with Rice)…..don't need to waste my time going into your home/away scenarios – I would imagine if you factored all the tourney games, Texas schedule home/away would be fairly similar. Incidentally, whether you're home or away, doesn't really matter if you don't win the game! Before you start trying to rip apart a post, make sure you know what the person is talking about or "responding" to. You're talking apples and I was "responding" to oranges!!!
Finally – you're a big reason I always root against the Aggies! I'd love to root for them, but when they end up whining about not getting something that they think they deserve when the writing is on the wall for everyone else in America to see, the Homerizm just kills me!!!
You didn't deserve a top 8 seed, bottom line!! Smith even made some stupid comment a couple of weeks ago after losing to Texas about how A&M was the better team, but just lost the game…..absurd. When you lose 2 of 3, who is the better team? I could see someone possibly making some dumb statement like that after losing one game, but 2 of 3??? Come on, the Ags broke a scoreless tie in the top of 9th of the 3rd game just to salvage 1…

Posted by GB | May 31, 2011 at 2:55 pm | Shortcut

UFChampCWS..did you really make that statement that Louisiana is the most baseball crazy state in US? and then used UL Lafayette, Tulane, UL Monroe & SE La as your teams??… Wow don't take those weapons to your gunfight. I'll definently give you LSU…"da"

Posted by NCcowboy | May 31, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Shortcut

What amazes me about where the committee chooses to send teams is that it makes no logical sense at all. Teams should be rewarded for having great records and seasons within their respective conferences. South Carolina having to play a tough GA Southern team is bull with all of the other regionals nearby. SC is the #4 national seed and has one of the toughest regionals (based on RPI). Clemson gets UCONN, who played an inferior schedule and a #45 RPI. They are not a #2 seed. The Texas regional is always a joke, and this year is no different. They always have the easiest path to Omaha. And take a look at the Vanderbilt regional. They get Belmont as a #4 seed. They have beaten some very good teams this year. Austin Peay is also located in TN. They could have easily sent AP to Nashville and Belmont to GA Tech. The national seed deserves the easier bracket. Somehow the ACC, excluding VA, always gets easy regionals. Please look historically at UNC and Clemson. There are no coincidences.

Posted by C. Davis | May 31, 2011 at 8:45 pm | Shortcut

The selection commitee got what they wanted by trying to keep the SEC out of Omaha this year. They should have put Ole Miss in the tourney because they never get there anyway!
O le M iss A t H ome A gain

Posted by Chris | May 31, 2011 at 9:23 pm | Shortcut

The SEC got hosed as much as any conference that gets 7 teams in can be hosed.
First – Florida finished #1 in both major polls, won the SEC tournament, and was a co-champ for the regular season. UVA finished #2 in both polls, and was also a co-regular season champ and tournament champ. According to the official NCAA RPI, UVA was #2 and UF was #3, so I suppose this 1 spot in RPI trumps the polls for the committee.
Second – Vandy finished 3rd in both polls, was a regular season co-champ, and went to the SEC tournament final. How did both UNC & FSU (and South Carolina for that matter) get a higher seed? Again I assume the committee looked at RPI. UNC finished #1, so that could be seen as a possible rationale. But with Vandy 4th in RPI there is no way FSU should have gotten ahead of them. In short, the ACC-SEC-ACC-SEC-ACC-SEC ordering of the top 6 seeds is suspect.
Third – The general consensus seems to be that the one team snubbed from hosting a regional was Arkansas. If the NCAA put so much stock in RPI, as is indicated by the way they seeded the top 6, Arkansas' RPI was 14, UCLA was 34th. I can see the nod to UCLA by winning the Pac-10, but then perhaps that should have bounced Oregon St. whose RPI was 31.
Fourth – Speaking of RPI, the team most indicated as being snubbed by the committee was LSU. LSU's RPI was 25. You have to go another 7 spots lower in those ranking (East Tennesse St.) to find the next team that didn't get in. In fact, of those next 7, they are all at least a 2 seed (except Mississippi St., another SEC school). Oh and by the way, you still haven't gotten to UCLA yet, on that list.
Fifth – The match-ups for the SEC national seeds are suspect. As was posted earlier, the SEC hosts seem to be in regionals with stronger opponents, and the SEC schools who are hosting, but not national seeds seem to have to travel more.
Last – This one will show where my true bias is, but I think the point is still valid. Florida has Miami as the #2 seed in its regional. Since they went to the 64 team format, there have been 6 occasions where 1 of these teams hosted a regional and the other did not. In five of those occasions Miami and Florida have played. They have also been paired in the Super Regionals two times when they both hosted a regional, but only 1 was a national seed. Now of course the geography argument and the conference argument (as in you can't put Miami in with FSU) have some credence. However, here in 2011, you have Stetson (RPI 23, unranked in both polls), as a 2, going to South Carolina (the 4th overall seed), while Florida (the 2nd overall seed) gets Miami (RPI 15, 16th and 18th in the polls), again. How the #2 overall seed gets the highest ranked team in one poll to not host a regional, the second highest ranked team in the other (UConn), and the second highest RPI team to not host (Arkansas, another SEC school) is hard to explain.
Sure it's tough to complain about 7 teams in, especially when 3 of them are top 6 seeds, but still.

Posted by HouseRulz | May 31, 2011 at 9:56 pm | Shortcut

Did anyone read the article about Miami going to Florida's regional, and how Jim Morris was talking about how the committee said they were placed in that regional due to "economic" conditions. Funny yet, Arkansas-Little Rock is flying accross country to play at Oregon State Regional. That was a horrible cop-out by the committee. But it is funny that all the West Coast teams will have to play East Coast teams in super regionals. If these were truely "economic" decisions, wouldn't West Coast teams play each other in the supers? It will just be another test to show that, against the likes of the committee, West Coast teams will prevail into the CWS over the "dominant" conferences of the SEC and ACC. Mark my words.

Posted by South East Biased | May 31, 2011 at 10:47 pm | Shortcut

As in regards to the John Stilson injury, I do not understand how an injury to a player can adversely effect a teams seeding. I realize that player's injuries are part of the criteria that is considered in deciding inclusion in the field as well as seeding but to me it does not make sense. For example, if Cam Newton had been injuried in the SEC Championship game would Auburn have been denied playing in the championship game? I thought this was a team sport.

Posted by jtb | June 2, 2011 at 9:30 am | Shortcut

Well then lets just pick teams from the ACC , SEC, and Big 12 and get 'er done ! Ooops ! I forget about the Pac 10 ! And what's that conference that TCU is in ? Oh and I forgot about Cal State Fullerton ! Oh yeah and Fresno State.

Posted by Billy Jack | June 2, 2011 at 9:56 am | Shortcut

The Pac 10 sure sucked at the regionals! Boy, everyone knows they can't play baseball on the west coast! What a joke, the committee then decides they screwed the west coast so they put California versus Dallas Baptist in Santa Clara? A mere hour away from Cal instead of a host series for them? Let's have the Pac 10 play on the road for every super regional…morons and sheep, the whole lot of them!

Posted by Phil | June 7, 2011 at 12:08 pm | Shortcut