Comments on: Analysis: NCAA Field of 64

By: John Paulson

John Paulson — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 05:26:41 +0000

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.

By: Mark Hooper

Mark Hooper — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:31:02 +0000

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?

By: Aaron Fitt

Aaron Fitt — Thu, 31 May 2012 02:13:41 +0000

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.

By: Aaron Fitt

Aaron Fitt — Thu, 31 May 2012 02:12:05 +0000

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

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 30 May 2012 23:21:03 +0000

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.

By: MSM

MSM — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:09:08 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 30 May 2012 04:37:05 +0000

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.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 30 May 2012 03:04:00 +0000

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.

By: JJ

JJ — Wed, 30 May 2012 01:42:22 +0000

Mizzou got their bid because they won the Big XII…

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 29 May 2012 18:36:43 +0000

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!!

By: Nick J

Nick J — Tue, 29 May 2012 17:30:56 +0000

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.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 29 May 2012 16:18:53 +0000

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.

By: Doug Cox

Doug Cox — Tue, 29 May 2012 15:22:17 +0000

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.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 29 May 2012 14:55:32 +0000

ACC is stronger than the SEC. This is not football

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 29 May 2012 14:52:56 +0000

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!

By: John K. Spear

John K. Spear — Tue, 29 May 2012 13:58:43 +0000

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.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 29 May 2012 13:08:45 +0000

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

By: David Ginn

David Ginn — Tue, 29 May 2012 13:08:17 +0000

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!

By: Aaron Fitt

Aaron Fitt — Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:06 +0000

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.

By: c. s.

c. s. — Tue, 29 May 2012 02:07:17 +0000

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

By: ed

ed — Tue, 29 May 2012 00:01:50 +0000

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.

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 28 May 2012 23:54:22 +0000

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.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 28 May 2012 23:11:08 +0000

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?

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 28 May 2012 23:04:13 +0000

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

By: Dan Ryan

Dan Ryan — Mon, 28 May 2012 22:59:59 +0000

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.

By: Bobby

Bobby — Mon, 28 May 2012 21:50:34 +0000

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.

By: John Conley

John Conley — Mon, 28 May 2012 21:09:00 +0000

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.

By: TitaNation89

TitaNation89 — Mon, 28 May 2012 21:07:26 +0000

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.

By: TCUDoug

TCUDoug — Mon, 28 May 2012 19:37:44 +0000

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?

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 28 May 2012 19:24:48 +0000

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.