Analysis: NCAA Field of 64



The 2012 NCAA Tournament field of 64 is set, and on the whole, the committee did a solid job—including 63 of the 64 teams from our final projection last night, as well as 15 of our 16 hosts and all eight of our national seeds.

Here are my significant areas of disagreement:

1. Wake Forest deserves to be in the field of 64 after sweeping Clemson in the final weekend to finish 13-17 in the nation's strongest RPI conference. The Demon Deacons are inside the top 40 in the RPI (No. 38) and posted a better conference record than fellow ACC bubble teams Virginia Tech and Maryland, which each missed the conference tournament (and also the NCAA tournament).

"Utlimately, looking at their conference regular-season record, we couldn't get over 13-17 in conference," Kallander said of the Deacs. It's worth noting, however, that Miami was just three games better in the ACC but managed to host a regional (more on that below).

Deacons coach Tom Walter was somewhat philosophical, saying, "It's our job to make the decision easy for them, and we didn't do it."

The Deacons played 21 games against the top 25 in the RPI and went just 6-15 in those games, but that still compares very favorably with Michigan State, which somehow got an at-large spot despite finishing in fifth place in the Big Ten. (Also, Wake played 12 of those games on the road in league play—at Miami, North Carolina, N.C. State and Virginia.) The Spartans finished four games out of first, three out of second and two out of third, so it's not like East Carolina, which finished sixth in a tightly bunched C-USA, just a half-game out of second place.

Michigan State went just 2-5 against the top 25 and 3-6 against the top 50 and 13-12 against the top 100. Wake was 15-19 against the top 50 and 17-23 against the top 100. And while Michigan State's RPI (No. 45) is in solid at-large range, the Spartans are still seven spots behind the Deacs. MSU had a chance to finish in second place if it won a season-ending home series against Penn State—and if it had done so, it would have deserved an at-large bid. Instead, the Spartans lost two of three in that series, which should have been a death blow to their case.

In a conference call with media, Division I Baseball Committee chairman Kyle Kallander indicated the opinion of the eight regional advisors—coaches from around the nation—weighed heavily into some of their discussions, and it seemed to be a big factor in the decision to take the Spartans.

"Coaches felt they were the second-best team in the region," Kallander said. "They did play a good schedule in nonconference, they did challenge themselves. In their region, they were the second team right behind Purdue."

He's probably right—the Spartans look like the second-best team in the region, on paper. If that's the case, then the Spartans sure underachieved by finishing fifth in their own conference, let alone their region. Wake Forest, on the other hand, performed about how it should have and maybe even overachieved slightly by finishing seventh in a loaded ACC.

2. Afore-mentioned East Carolina had no business getting a No. 2 seed. We had ECU as the final team in the field in our final projection, and Wake Forest deserves to be in the field over the Pirates, too. ECU played very poorly down the stretch, losing three of its final four series (including a sweep at Southern Miss to end the season) and going 1-2 in the Conference USA tournament. The Pirates were just 3-8 against the top 25 and 5-10 against the top 50, and they lost their series against four of the five teams that finished ahead of them in the standings. East Carolina getting an at-large team is defensible, but not at Wake's expense, and not as a No. 2. The committee clearly leaned heavily upon the RPI this year—the Pirates rank 32nd in that measure.

And it must be mentioned that East Carolina has an administrator on the committee (Gary Overton), just as St. John's did a year ago when it shocked everyone by getting a bid over LSU. Politics sure seem like a factor in the committee's process.

New Mexico State was also a bit of a surprise as a No. 2 seed, but at least the Aggies were a safe at-large team, rather than a team that was widely considered to be right on the bubble, as ECU was. And at least the Aggies have a conference regular-season co-championship to fall back upon.

Otherwise, teams were seeded appropriately almost across the board, which is a nice achievement for a committee. I would have given Coastal Carolina a No. 2 instead of a No. 3, but that's a close one.

3. Miami should not be a host over Kentucky. The Hurricanes finished eight games out of first place in the ACC, while Kentucky was just one game out of first in the SEC. Yes, Miami played a stronger nonconference schedule, and maybe the Wildcats have learned that they should avoid loading their preconference schedule with Northern programs that are unlikely to rank inside the top 200 in the RPI. Kallander indicated the disparity between the two teams' nonconference strength of schedules was ultimately why Miami got the nod.

But Kentucky's body of work is still stronger, and Kentucky offers more geographic diversity than Miami does, as a third host in Florida. The Hurricanes, though, rank 12th in the RPI, while Kentucky ranks 18th.

It would have been perfectly defensible if the committee had made Mississippi State a host over Kentucky, because the Bulldogs came on like gangbusters down the stretch and won four of their five meetings against the Wildcats. But Miami should not host over Mississippi State, either. Consider that Miami went 7-13 against the top 25 in the RPI—even with its 4-0 record against North Carolina—while Kentucky went 10-10 (winning series against LSU and South Carolina), and MSU went 13-11.

And it seems very strange that the ACC gets five hosts while the SEC only gets three. The RPI may say otherwise, but the SEC is the stronger conference.

Other Top Storylines

1. Texas misses the NCAA tournament for the first time since 1998, coach Augie Garrido's second season in Austin. The Longhorns are college baseball royalty, and Garrido is the winningest coach in the sport's history, so their omission is big news. But it's also fair.

Texas lost its final three weekend series, then went 0-2 in the Big 12 tournament, and their negative momentum surely weighed heavily in the committee's deliberations. Power conference teams seldom get the RPI wiggle room that mid-major teams get, so Texas was in trouble with a No. 50 RPI. Appalachian State (No. 40), Louisville (No. 42), College of Charleston (No. 43), Michigan State (No. 45), Indiana State (No. 49) and Sam Houston State (No. 51) all got in with comparable RPIs, per Boyd's World. Those were the only six at-large teams that ranked 40th or lower in the RPI, and all of them except Michigan State won their conferences in the regular season. Texas finished third in a relatively weak Big 12.

2. Kudos to the committee for rewarding mid-major conferences that had strong seasons, such as the Missouri Valley and SoCon (which got three bids apiece), as well as the Southland (which sent two teams to regionals in 2009 but is nearly always a one-bid league).

3. Utah Valley was the biggest wild card entering selection day. The Wolverines made headlines by winning 40 of their final 41 games (including 32 straight) to finish 47-12 overall, but going 28-0 in the Great West (which does not get an automatic bid) wasn't enough to build an at-large-caliber RPI (No. 69). UVU tried to build a strong nonconference schedule, playing an early series at Cal State Fullerton and playing four midweek games against Arizona and Arizona State. The problem is, they went just 2-5 in their seven games against the top 50, while going 41-3 against teams outside the top 150.

"We told our guys all year to control what they could control, and they won 40 out of 41 games," Utah Valley coach Eric Madsen said. "Our guys played under the pressure all year of knowing that any losses would really make it tough for us (to go to regionals), and they went 45-4 after that tough start, so I'm proud of that.

"I feel like our schedule was pretty good, about as good as it could be. We have to play Southern Utah, it's in our state, certainly that series hurt (our RPI). We tried to move it because they are ending their program. New York Tech and Chicago State in our league probably hurt because I felt like the rest of the league was better and had some wins early in the year that helped the league."

4. Judging by Twitter, Mississippi State fans are in an uproar about getting sent to Tallahassee after winning the SEC tournament. On the surface, getting stuck in a regional with the No. 3 national seed might seem unfair to one of the field's strongest No. 2 seeds, but geography is always a factor when it comes to filling out regionals, and Starkville is within 400 miles of Tallahassee. Samford and UAB fill out a strong regional that features three automatic qualifiers. Certainly, that is one of the most competitive regionals, but I don't think it is unfairly so—all four teams are seeded appropriately, and Samford is toward the back of the group of No. 3 seeds.

5. Some fascinating matchups and storylines: The Palmetto State might come unhinged, as South Carolina and Clemson will meet in a regional for the first time since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1999—and they'll be joined by another in-state rival, Coastal Carolina. Cal State Fullerton is headed to Oregon in a matchup between Ducks coach George Horton and his former Fullerton assistant, Rick Vanderhook. Sam Houston State coach David Pierce returns to his old stomping grounds, as the Bearkats head to Rice, where Pierce served as an assistant until last season. And Oklahoma was sent to Virginia as the No. 2 seed, in a rematch of the 2010 Charlottesville Super Regional (which the Sooners won). 



Comments

Comments will be monitored prior to being added to the site. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be rejected. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed.

We have chosen to open up commenting to everyone, so comment away! We want to hear from each and every one of you! Leave a comment.

31 Comments

So, in your opinion, which region will be the toughest to win?

It is pretty clear that the committee valued not only SOS but non conf SOS.  Kentucky has a non conference  SOS of 219 vs Miami's non conference SOS of 12.  
Kentucky is a very good team but they won their first 18 games against teams with rpr's of 89, 141, 154,  then everyone else is over 190 with most over 200.  Only one road game and two neutral sight games. 
While WF had a nice season, pretty much all the facts point to ECU getting in over them.  Better record, lower rpi and a much lower non conference SOS.  With all the decent programs around WF, they played a non conference schedule of 189 vs ECU's of 20.  The sweep of Clemson is pretty much the only arguing point anyone can make for WF over ECU.
The committee sent this message loud and clear last year to LSU.  They simply are not going to reward a team from a power conference for playing mid week cupcakes to pad their win totals. 

Liking TCU's regional.  The OleMiss opener is interesting since we opened the season against that same team in Fort Worth.  By no means an easy road, the regional gives TCU fighting chances I think.
Nationally, why so many East-West matchups in the Super?  Tucson-Chapel Hill, for example?  Is geography not a factor in pairing the regional winners for the Super?
I know the national seeds cannot meet each other in the Super, but College Station vs Los Angeles?  TAMU is not a national seed, and there are closer national seeds for TAMU's regional to pair up.
Am I wrong here?

2011?  Ooops.
Anyway, Cal Poly and Gonzaga would have made the field of 64 better.
The Miami and Mich St. decisions were weak and do not add anything to the tourney.  Miami was swept 3 times in 2012!!!  Come on!  Miami should have been a middle of the road 2 seed.  Not a host.

Wake was 4-7 in series of three games or more, got swept by Boston College and lost three out of four against the best OOC team they played (New Mexico St). And they were four games below .500 in conference play. 
Maybe Missouri got their bid because the Big 12 certainly doesn't look like a four-bid league to me. Maybe the committee wanted to get another northern team in and picked Mich St. Hardly a tragedy either way.

I don't think Mississippi State got shafted at all. The fact is, to win the CWS you are going to have to beat the best teams in the country. The team that really has a beef is Florida State. The #3 overall seed gets rewarded by having arguably the nations best #2 in its regional??? Sorry FSU. MS State may actually be catching a break here: Bulldogs are hot and Seminoles are on a slide.

Thanks for sticking up for the SEC and for Kentucky.
Not sure what this selection committee was smoking.  Maybe Roger Sterling of "Mad Men" was part of this group after his recent trip.
Inexcusable-let's find some people who may have watched a game to make the selections.

Aaron,
Another is Oregon as a #5 National Seed?
They finished THIRD in the PAC 12!!!!!
 

My only beef is how did Oregon get a national seed after being swept by Oregon State the final weekend? And now Oregon St has to somehow travel to Baton Rouge for having a nearly identical record as Oregon. Did it come down to RPI? 

At least Kentucky defeated those northern teams that litter their OOC schedule.  That's more than can be said for Michigan State, which stumbled to 5th in a minor baseball conference. UK would have provided the "geographic diversity" the selection committee claims to value. The decision to spurn the Wildcats unmasks this ongoing affirmative action program as more an attempt to shackle the SEC than to reward teams north of the Mason Dixon.

I haven't always agreed with the selection committee . . . at times I was snarling mad. I think this field is fair, balanced, and about as close to getting it perfect as is ever going happen.
Michigan State is defensible (more below). Wake Forest's omission is unfortunate but understandable. The seeding of East Carolina is a joke, and that's my major criticism of how the committee has operated in recent seasons. Bluntly put, the committee needs to STOP USING GEOGRAPHY as a determining factor on how a team is seeded. East Carolina is a classic example. Likewise, Fresno State the year the Bulldogs won the title . . . they were no how, no way a No. 4 seed — but seeding them fourth was convenient because it let the committee NOT send some eastern or midwestern No. 4 seed to a far west regional.
As for Michigan State vs. Wake Forest . . . and LSU vs. St. John's a year ago . . . I think including solid non-qualifiers from the east and midwest is a good thing. If you want an at-large spot in the field, don't finish eighth in your conference. Don't fail to qualify for your conference tournament. Don't lay an egg if you get in the conference tournament.
As always, western teams did not get enough representation. But that will never change. Good as the quality of West Coast baseball is, there aren't enough schools in the Pacific time zone competing to get enough coaches in position to impact the selection process.
 

NMSU were co-champs with two other teams. And lost the first two games in the WAC Tournament.

Ed, I also have no problem with Northern teams getting at-large spots—I didn’t raise much of a fuss last year, for instance, when St. John’s got in because at least St. John’s performed well in its conference. Michigan State did not. If you want an-large spot, don’t finish fifth in the Big Ten, and don’t lose a home series to Penn State in the final weekend. As I wrote, I would have included the Spartans in my own field of 64 if they had just won that last series. But they didn’t.

I think the Big West and Cal Poly got jobbed.  35-20 against a pretty good schedule and a smokin' finish.  Sweeps of OK State and Irvine, a strong 2nd place conference finish…….But zero reward for it. The Big West is far better than a one-bid league!

Im trying to figure out why Dallas Baptist is getting so much respect. They get to pick their schedule and dont have to worry abt tough conference games on the road. They had a losing record against the Top 25, and played a patty cake schedule otherwise. Something like 70% of the teams they played had a losing record. I dont get it

Poor Texa$ didn't make the field of 64. Maybe now Augie will rethink his decision not to continue UT's home-and-home series with Rice.

Hey Aaron, I have a question for you – Why isn't Arizona State in the Field of 64?!?! Hahaha I know how much you LOVE that question, and of course I am well aware of the answer. I am very happy with the Field of 64 – I was a little nervous that Stanford would lose its right to host a regional after losing the first two games of the Cal series but relieved to see it all work out in the end, for me at least!

ACC is stronger than the SEC. This is not football

How could Oregon possibly be a # 5 National Seed and Orgon State be sent to LSU? Looks to me like the committe had it's mind made up prior to last weekends games. And oh by the way Oregon State beat Oregon 4 out of 5 times this year.

Aaron: I didn't phrase it as well as I should have . . . seems to me the committee wanted to get another non-Southern team in the field. They chose Michigan State, overlooking the flaws you point out.
Maybe a DIFFERENT team from the midwest should have been picked. I think the committee was trying to get a geographical balance, and the Spartans were the beneficiary. I see your point about excluding MSU, but picking a few non-AQ teams from northern and eastern locales seems like the right way to go.

The NCAA knew exactly what they were doing designing the Columbia Super-Region. The field is padded with South Carolina's most hated rivals and teams directly affected by their rise to two straight national championships. Even if they survive regional pairings with Clemson and Coastal, the super regional matchup is most likely against Virginia, who themselves seek revenge after last year's intense CWS matches. The committee is sending a direct message to Columbia that they want to prevent a third straight title by any means necessary.

Michigan State is good and have the talent to win the Palo Alto Regional, but, they are very fortunate to be in the tournament after finishing in 5th place.
The outrage about ECU's inclusion and Wake Forest's exclusion is surprising.
ECU–> 35-22 overall
WF–> 33-24 overall
ECU–> 14-10 in conference (6th place)
WF–> 13-17 in conference (7th place)
ECU–> 8-13 road record
WF–> 7-17 road record
ECU–> RPI 32 (Boyd's 5/29)
WF–> RPI 38 (Boyd's 5/29)
ECU–> 8 weekend series wins
WF–> 6 weekend series wins
ECU–> Lost 3 of 4 final series including being swept @ Southern Miss (tied for 3rd)
WF–> Lost 2 of 3 final series including being swept @ Boston College (tied for 10th)
ECU–> Lost to 4 of the 5 teams that finished ahead of them
WF–> Lost to 5 of the 6 teams that finished ahead of them
ECU–> 1-2 in conference tourney
WF–> 1-2 in conference tourney
ECU–> Swept once in conference play
WF–> Swept three times in conference play 
ECU–> 7 non conference wins versus tourney bound teams (UNCW-1;  NC St.-1; Louisville-1; Stony Brook-3; Oral Roberts-1)
WF–> 3 non conference wins versus tourney bound teams (New Mex. St.-1; Valpo-2)
ECU has the better case and it doesn't even seem that close to me.
 
Chad, that "minor league" conference:
2003: Ohio State took out #4 national seed Auburn and won the regional
2007: Michigan took out #1 national seed Vandy and won the regional
2009: Ohio State made regional final as #3 seed taking out #2 Georgia along the way
           Minnesota made regional final as #2 seed in Baton Rouge
2010: Minnesota made regional final as #4 seed
2011: Illinois made regional final as #4 seed
Always laugh when someone complains after their league gets 8 bids.  What an outrage!!
 

Mizzou got their bid because they won the Big XII…

The Scott talking about DBU isn't me.  I'm the other Scott comparing WF and ECU.  
 
Last year, I was all over DBU getting in.  This year…I'm not saying 1 word!  Consider me impressed by that program.

Scott, your numbers look pretty but they don't actually tell the whole story between ECU and WFU.
ECU plays in a decidedly harder conference than ECU does and that certainly hurts them when it comes to their overall record. But do you really think that having to play in a conference with UNC and FSU can be compared to the conference situation ECU is in?
 
Likewise, coming in 6th place in CUSA vs 7th place in the ACC hardly makes you a better team.
 
Again road record is also affected by the SOS.
 
RPI clearly in ECUs favor.
 
I'll give you weekend series comparisons, though if you want to make that case I think it should be noted that UNCW won all of their conference weekend series, and I think was only swept once all season, so maybe they should be a 2 ahead of ECU?
 
Conference tourney notes are fine.
 
Being swept in conference is again a factor of how strong the teams in conference are. Also, again UNCW not only was never swept in conference but never lost a conference series all year.
 
Finally, how many wins against tourney teams does WFU have all year compared to ECU? I would guess that it is more, and probably not by a small amount either. Clearly sweeping a team that earns an auto-bid doesn't make you a great team it just means you got lucky on what team you played and also won their conference tournament. 

To me, everyone is missing the point about the Columbia Regional.  I think it's all about money, ticket sales, and TV ratings (since Columbia is an all-in ESPNU site).  And the committee was looking to generate some excitement early in the playoffs, leveraging one of the most virulent rivalries in college sports.

Matt,
Appreciate the debate.  Wake didn't belong in the tourney.  I not sure ECU necessarily did either.  Just think they should be in before Wake.    

To answer the final question on your post–> Wake was 12-17 against tourney teams and ECU was 13-8.
Here are the RPIs (according to Boyd's on 5/29) of the opponents Wake defeated in non conference games:
34- @ New Mexico State (1 win)
52- Elon (1)
85- Georgia Southern (1)
107- @ UNC Greensboro (1)
119- @ High Point (1)
142- Valpo (2)
149- UNC Asheville (1)
198- Winthrop (1)
205- @ Charlotte (1); Charlotte (1)
210- Eastern Michigan (2)
215- Marshall (2)
220- Cincinnati (1)
241- Georgetown (1)
256- New Jersey Tech (1)
291- Maryland Baltimore County (1)
 
That is a very weak non conference resume.  A LOT of teams would win a lot of games against these teams, especially considering all but four of these wins were at home.
 
Since you think the ACC is so strong and the league deserved that 8th bid, WF, I decided to see how many wins the top 8 teams had against teams that are now in the NCAA tourney.  22 total!  6 of those on the road and 1 at a neutral site.
 
I'm a Minnesota Gopher fan so I checked how many non conference wins the top 8 teams in the Big 10 had against teams that made the NCAA tournament.  26 total!!  12 of those were on the road and 5 at neutral sites.
 
So, please tell me again, why the ACC should get 8 bids?  SE Louisiana, Cal Poly, Tulane, Wichita St., Liberty, Gonzaga, and yes Utah Valley would like to know.  I could care less what their RPIs say.   
 

Good debate, gentlemen. Thanks for your very reasonable, well-researched arguments.

MSM, if those things were the driving force behind every NCAA decision, don’t you think South Carolina and Clemson would have been matched up in a regional before this year? They never have been in the 64-team era. I just think it made sense this year — Clemson is a No. 2-caliber team, and sending them to Columbia made sense geographically as well as competitively.

While watching all of the regional action, I noticed the absence of a very significant powerhouse.  Where is 16th ranked Arizona State?  Have they been placed on probation?  
The Sun Devils have always been a formidable opponent for my Arkansas Razorbacks and always a strong contender for a slot in the College World Series.  But, I can not find them in any of the regional brackets?

Arizona St did not get a bid because they are on NCAA probation and part of the sanctions imposed on them was a one year ban on postseason play. The sanctions were imposed late last year but because ASU appealed the sanctions and the appeal was not heard until this year they were allowed to participate. The appeal was denined and thus ASU had to sit out the postseason.


What Are Your Thoughts?

• Line and paragraph breaks are automatic
• Your e-mail address will never be displayed











About This Blog

  • Aaron Fitt is the lead college writer for Baseball America. If you have questions or comments about college baseball you can e-mail him at collegeblog@baseballamerica.com.

Categories

Archives

Syndicate This Blog

Blogs

BaseballAmerica.com

Search This Blog