Sad that it has to be OT, but I thought the post-season should have its own thread.

(05-27-2019 11:35 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://d1baseball.com/featured/ncaa-tou...eld-of-64/

NCAA regional field

TCU gets in? Wow.

TCU's inclusion, with its RPI=59, was the biggest surprise, for sure. ESPN's Kyle Peterson: "I don't think even the Frogs thought they would get in."

Other highlights:

FAU gets in, so CUSA gets two teams into the tournament.

Georgia Tech got the #3 seed. (D1Baseball had them at #6; BaseballAmerica at #9.)

CalState-Fullerton misses the tourney for the first time since 1991.

All 3 D1 teams in Nebraska make the tourney (Nebraska, Creighton, Omaha), as do three from Connecticut (UConn, Central Ct & Quinnipiac)

Florida State makes its 42nd straight post-season appearance in Mike Martin's final year as coach.

SEC has 10 teams in ... and four Top-8 seeds.

There are five potential intra-conference Super Regional matchups ... but the head of the NCAA Committee said the pairings were the result of ranking the Top 16, not due to any intention of setting up same-conference SRs. (He did add, though, that should any occur that the atmosphere at those intra-conference super regional games would be off the charts.)

In alphabetical order ...
Last 4 in: Duke, Florida St., Michigan, TCU
First 4 out: Houston, Missouri, Texas State, Central Florida.

Non-hosting picks who could make it to Omaha ... Studio commentator: Arizona State & UC-Santa Barbara; Peterson: Creighton.

In the past 6 years, only 21 of the Top-8 seeds have made it to Omaha.

Joseph Duarte
‏
This marks the first time since 1994 that Houston and Rice will miss the NCAA baseball tournament in the same year. Owls had 23-year streak snapped in 2017.

He's wrong - it was snapped in 2018. But otherwise, his tweet is a good one.

(05-27-2019 12:32 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Joseph Duarte
‏
This marks the first time since 1994 that Houston and Rice will miss the NCAA baseball tournament in the same year. Owls had 23-year streak snapped in 2017.

He's wrong - it was snapped in 2018. But otherwise, his tweet is a good one.

When was the last time Rice and UT missed the NCAA tournament in the same year?

Baseball America's bracket analysis: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/...-analysis/

(05-27-2019 01:29 PM)ausowl Wrote:  When was the last time Rice and UT missed the NCAA tournament in the same year?

UT did not make the post-season in 1948, 1951, 1955, 1956, 1959, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1977, 1978, 1997, 1998, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2019.

The Owls' steak-starting NCAA appearance was in 1995.

So the answer to your question would be 1978.

4 of 8 national seeds to the SEC? That should never happen. Stanford got royally screwed. The lost but one weekend series all year long-- and that one in a hotly contested affair vs. #1 UCLA (I went to two of those games), and were ranked in the Top 4 in virtually every reputable poll, but got seed #11....and has to travel across country to Mississippi State should they advance to the Supers.

(05-27-2019 11:57 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  There are five potential inter-conference Super Regional matchups ... but the head of the NCAA Committee said the pairings were the result of ranking the Top 16, not due to any intention of setting up same-conference SRs. (He did add, though, that should any occur that the atmosphere at those inter-conference super regional games would be off the charts.)

Where's the vinegar? In the UK, when you're served (a load of) tripe it normally comes with vinegar.

IMHO the Big12 got royally scr%&ed over by ranking Tx Tech and Okla State, #8 and #9, respectively. Was the inclusion of TCU in the field of 64 supposed to make up for this nonsense?

Opportunities to advance (paths to SRs) to Omaha by conference & conference RPIs:

1. (tie) SEC (1) - 6
1. (tie) ACC (3) - 6
3. Big10 (7) - 5
4. (tie) PAC12 (4) - 4
4. (tie) Big12 (2) - 4
6. MVC (6) - 3

What has the Big10 done to merit this and what didn't the PAC12 and Big12 do? (And yes I saw the auto bid for OSU. Sorry tOSU.)

(At least the NCAA didn't guarantee the Big10 a super regional.)

Re. TCU-- how does a team with a losing conference record, #59 ranked RPI, and losing records against the Top 25, the top 50 and the top 100 get included into the field of 64. This has NEVER, ever happened before. In fact, previous teams winning at large births with RPIs over 45 have all had winning conference records. BYU, Texas State and Mizzou all got robbed, and even UH had a superior overall resume than TCU. Heck, one could argue UT had a better overall resume.

(05-28-2019 06:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 11:57 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  There are five potential inter-conference Super Regional matchups ... but the head of the NCAA Committee said the pairings were the result of ranking the Top 16, not due to any intention of setting up same-conference SRs. (He did add, though, that should any occur that the atmosphere at those inter-conference super regional games would be off the charts.)

Where's the vinegar? In the UK, when you're served (a load of) tripe it normally comes with vinegar.
IMHO the Big12 got royally scr%&ed over by ranking Tx Tech and Okla State, #8 and #9, respectively. Was the inclusion of TCU in the field of 64 supposed to make up for this nonsense?
Opportunities to advance (paths to SRs) to Omaha by conference & conference RPIs:
1. (tie) SEC (1) - 6
1. (tie) ACC (3) - 6
3. Big10 (7) - 5
4. (tie) PAC12 (4) - 4
4. (tie) Big12 (2) - 4
6. MVC (6) - 3
What has the Big10 done to merit this and what didn't the PAC12 and Big12 do? (And yes I saw the auto bid for OSU. Sorry tOSU.)
(At least the NCAA didn't guarantee the Big10 a super regional.)

B1g should have gotten 1 or 2 fewer bids, and they should have gone to Pac12 and/or XII.

Who else from the XII should have gotten in? I mean, if TCU didn't deserve in, what two teams were better (one to replace TCU and one additional)? Maybe it was just a strong conference across the board, with few outstanding teams.

I personally would favor a provision for both baseball and basketball of no more than 4 per conference, and they should be spread so that no two can meet before Omaha/Final Four. That would create more spots for teams from other conferences (such as regular season winner if different from tournament winner). Maybe those would be lesser teams, but IMO if you can't finish in the top 4 in your conference, you don't belong in the NCAA tournaments.

(05-28-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 06:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 11:57 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  There are five potential inter-conference Super Regional matchups ... but the head of the NCAA Committee said the pairings were the result of ranking the Top 16, not due to any intention of setting up same-conference SRs. (He did add, though, that should any occur that the atmosphere at those inter-conference super regional games would be off the charts.)

Where's the vinegar? In the UK, when you're served (a load of) tripe it normally comes with vinegar.
IMHO the Big12 got royally scr%&ed over by ranking Tx Tech and Okla State, #8 and #9, respectively. Was the inclusion of TCU in the field of 64 supposed to make up for this nonsense?
Opportunities to advance (paths to SRs) to Omaha by conference & conference RPIs:
1. (tie) SEC (1) - 6
1. (tie) ACC (3) - 6
3. Big10 (7) - 5
4. (tie) PAC12 (4) - 4
4. (tie) Big12 (2) - 4
6. MVC (6) - 3
What has the Big10 done to merit this and what didn't the PAC12 and Big12 do? (And yes I saw the auto bid for OSU. Sorry tOSU.)
(At least the NCAA didn't guarantee the Big10 a super regional.)

B1g should have gotten 1 or 2 fewer bids, and they should have gone to Pac12 and/or XII.

Who else from the XII should have gotten in? I mean, if TCU didn't deserve in, what two teams were better (one to replace TCU and one additional)? Maybe it was just a strong conference across the board, with few outstanding teams.

I personally would favor a provision for both baseball and basketball of no more than 4 per conference, and they should be spread so that no two can meet before Omaha/Final Four. That would create more spots for teams from other conferences (such as regular season winner if different from tournament winner). Maybe those would be lesser teams, but IMO if you can't finish in the top 4 in your conference, you don't belong in the NCAA tournaments.

I wouldn't go that far, Chip, as it's quite possible for a conference to have 5 or even 6 teams ranked in the Top 35. However, teams with losing conference records should not be awarded at large births. That's just ridiculous. BYU and Texas State each won their regular season conference title, and had RPIs superior to TCU, but both missed the cut. That should never happen.

(05-28-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 06:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 11:57 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  There are five potential inter-conference Super Regional matchups ... but the head of the NCAA Committee said the pairings were the result of ranking the Top 16, not due to any intention of setting up same-conference SRs. (He did add, though, that should any occur that the atmosphere at those inter-conference super regional games would be off the charts.)

Where's the vinegar? In the UK, when you're served (a load of) tripe it normally comes with vinegar.
IMHO the Big12 got royally scr%&ed over by ranking Tx Tech and Okla State, #8 and #9, respectively. Was the inclusion of TCU in the field of 64 supposed to make up for this nonsense?
Opportunities to advance (paths to SRs) to Omaha by conference & conference RPIs:
1. (tie) SEC (1) - 6
1. (tie) ACC (3) - 6
3. Big10 (7) - 5
4. (tie) PAC12 (4) - 4
4. (tie) Big12 (2) - 4
6. MVC (6) - 3
What has the Big10 done to merit this and what didn't the PAC12 and Big12 do? (And yes I saw the auto bid for OSU. Sorry tOSU.)
(At least the NCAA didn't guarantee the Big10 a super regional.)

B1g should have gotten 1 or 2 fewer bids, and they should have gone to Pac12 and/or XII.

Who else from the XII should have gotten in? I mean, if TCU didn't deserve in, what two teams were better (one to replace TCU and one additional)? Maybe it was just a strong conference across the board, with few outstanding teams.

I personally would favor a provision for both baseball and basketball of no more than 4 per conference, and they should be spread so that no two can meet before Omaha/Final Four. That would create more spots for teams from other conferences (such as regular season winner if different from tournament winner). Maybe those would be lesser teams, but IMO if you can't finish in the top 4 in your conference, you don't belong in the NCAA tournaments.

I didn't say the Big12 was robbed, I said they were scr%&ed. Placing TxTech & OklaSt as #8 and #9 means they could meet in the super regional and eliminate one another.

I guess you could say that about the SEC (s/k) as they have an all SEC quadrant (Ark, OleMiss, LSU, and Georgia) with the possibility of hosting two super regionals.

I'd prefer to see TxTech & OklaSt on the opposite sides of the bracket.

I'm in agreement with you on limiting conference representatives to a maximum of 4.

(05-28-2019 08:17 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 06:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 11:57 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  There are five potential inter-conference Super Regional matchups ... but the head of the NCAA Committee said the pairings were the result of ranking the Top 16, not due to any intention of setting up same-conference SRs. (He did add, though, that should any occur that the atmosphere at those inter-conference super regional games would be off the charts.)

Where's the vinegar? In the UK, when you're served (a load of) tripe it normally comes with vinegar.
IMHO the Big12 got royally scr%&ed over by ranking Tx Tech and Okla State, #8 and #9, respectively. Was the inclusion of TCU in the field of 64 supposed to make up for this nonsense?
Opportunities to advance (paths to SRs) to Omaha by conference & conference RPIs:
1. (tie) SEC (1) - 6
1. (tie) ACC (3) - 6
3. Big10 (7) - 5
4. (tie) PAC12 (4) - 4
4. (tie) Big12 (2) - 4
6. MVC (6) - 3
What has the Big10 done to merit this and what didn't the PAC12 and Big12 do? (And yes I saw the auto bid for OSU. Sorry tOSU.)
(At least the NCAA didn't guarantee the Big10 a super regional.)

B1g should have gotten 1 or 2 fewer bids, and they should have gone to Pac12 and/or XII.
Who else from the XII should have gotten in? I mean, if TCU didn't deserve in, what two teams were better (one to replace TCU and one additional)? Maybe it was just a strong conference across the board, with few outstanding teams.
I personally would favor a provision for both baseball and basketball of no more than 4 per conference, and they should be spread so that no two can meet before Omaha/Final Four. That would create more spots for teams from other conferences (such as regular season winner if different from tournament winner). Maybe those would be lesser teams, but IMO if you can't finish in the top 4 in your conference, you don't belong in the NCAA tournaments.

I wouldn't go that far, as it's quite possible for a conference to have 5 or even 6 teams ranked in the Top 35. However, teams with losing conference records should not be awarded at large births. That's just ridiculous. BYU and Texas State each won their regular season conference title, and had RPIs superior to TCU, but both missed the cut. That should never happen.

I'm sorry, but if you are not top 4 in your conference, then you have no business being in a national championship tournament. And the only way you are going to eliminate screwing the likes of BYU and Texas State is to put a limit on number of slots that the P5 have.

I would favor a proviso that both regular season and tournament champions get in, before any more than 4 can get in from any conference. If you get 4 from all the big boys, and you accommodate all the regular season conference champions and tournament champions, and you still have slots left over, then maybe I could see allowing a 5th or more teams from a given conference. But I would still want to see things seeded so that no two teams from the same conference can meet until at least Omaha.

Sam women's rugby has gone to the national Sweet 16 at least four times, and probably every time there were other better teams up east, where rugby is bigger, who got left out. But they were Texas champions, and as such deserved to go. I think it should be about champions, and not necessarily the best teams until all champions--regular season and tournament--have been accommodated.

(05-28-2019 08:17 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 06:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 11:57 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  There are five potential inter-conference Super Regional matchups ... but the head of the NCAA Committee said the pairings were the result of ranking the Top 16, not due to any intention of setting up same-conference SRs. (He did add, though, that should any occur that the atmosphere at those inter-conference super regional games would be off the charts.)

Where's the vinegar? In the UK, when you're served (a load of) tripe it normally comes with vinegar.
IMHO the Big12 got royally scr%&ed over by ranking Tx Tech and Okla State, #8 and #9, respectively. Was the inclusion of TCU in the field of 64 supposed to make up for this nonsense?
Opportunities to advance (paths to SRs) to Omaha by conference & conference RPIs:
1. (tie) SEC (1) - 6
1. (tie) ACC (3) - 6
3. Big10 (7) - 5
4. (tie) PAC12 (4) - 4
4. (tie) Big12 (2) - 4
6. MVC (6) - 3
What has the Big10 done to merit this and what didn't the PAC12 and Big12 do? (And yes I saw the auto bid for OSU. Sorry tOSU.)
(At least the NCAA didn't guarantee the Big10 a super regional.)

B1g should have gotten 1 or 2 fewer bids, and they should have gone to Pac12 and/or XII.

Who else from the XII should have gotten in? I mean, if TCU didn't deserve in, what two teams were better (one to replace TCU and one additional)? Maybe it was just a strong conference across the board, with few outstanding teams.

I personally would favor a provision for both baseball and basketball of no more than 4 per conference, and they should be spread so that no two can meet before Omaha/Final Four. That would create more spots for teams from other conferences (such as regular season winner if different from tournament winner). Maybe those would be lesser teams, but IMO if you can't finish in the top 4 in your conference, you don't belong in the NCAA tournaments.

I wouldn't go that far, Chip, as it's quite possible for a conference to have 5 or even 6 teams ranked in the Top 35. However, teams with losing conference records should not be awarded at large births. That's just ridiculous. BYU and Texas State each won their regular season conference title, and had RPIs superior to TCU, but both missed the cut. That should never happen.

What is the rationale for saying that a team that is 5th place in its own conference merits an opportunity to compete for the national title?

(05-28-2019 11:18 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 08:17 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 06:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 11:57 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  There are five potential inter-conference Super Regional matchups ... but the head of the NCAA Committee said the pairings were the result of ranking the Top 16, not due to any intention of setting up same-conference SRs. (He did add, though, that should any occur that the atmosphere at those inter-conference super regional games would be off the charts.)

Where's the vinegar? In the UK, when you're served (a load of) tripe it normally comes with vinegar.
IMHO the Big12 got royally scr%&ed over by ranking Tx Tech and Okla State, #8 and #9, respectively. Was the inclusion of TCU in the field of 64 supposed to make up for this nonsense?
Opportunities to advance (paths to SRs) to Omaha by conference & conference RPIs:
1. (tie) SEC (1) - 6
1. (tie) ACC (3) - 6
3. Big10 (7) - 5
4. (tie) PAC12 (4) - 4
4. (tie) Big12 (2) - 4
6. MVC (6) - 3
What has the Big10 done to merit this and what didn't the PAC12 and Big12 do? (And yes I saw the auto bid for OSU. Sorry tOSU.)
(At least the NCAA didn't guarantee the Big10 a super regional.)

B1g should have gotten 1 or 2 fewer bids, and they should have gone to Pac12 and/or XII.
Who else from the XII should have gotten in? I mean, if TCU didn't deserve in, what two teams were better (one to replace TCU and one additional)? Maybe it was just a strong conference across the board, with few outstanding teams.
I personally would favor a provision for both baseball and basketball of no more than 4 per conference, and they should be spread so that no two can meet before Omaha/Final Four. That would create more spots for teams from other conferences (such as regular season winner if different from tournament winner). Maybe those would be lesser teams, but IMO if you can't finish in the top 4 in your conference, you don't belong in the NCAA tournaments.

I wouldn't go that far, as it's quite possible for a conference to have 5 or even 6 teams ranked in the Top 35. However, teams with losing conference records should not be awarded at large births. That's just ridiculous. BYU and Texas State each won their regular season conference title, and had RPIs superior to TCU, but both missed the cut. That should never happen.

What is the rationale for saying that a team that is 5th place in its own conference merits an opportunity to compete for the national title?

Money, money, money.

Let's apply 69/70/75's approach to the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament (no 5th place teams).

Without doing any research, let's just suppose that 16 of the 32 conferences have different regular season and tournament champions. That brings the automatic spots to 48, with 20 at-large.

Since the top 7 conferences (P5 + Big East and AAC) get multiple teams, let's say for 2019 that all get 3, except for the Pac-12, which was down this season.

Here are the teams which would not make it, with Sagarin rankings in parentheses:

Florida State (16)
Texas (21)
Mississippi State (22)
Florida (24)
Oklahoma (28)
Maryland (29)

(05-28-2019 03:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Let's apply 69/70/75's approach to the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament (no 5th place teams).
Without doing any research, let's just suppose that 16 of the 32 conferences have different regular season and tournament champions. That brings the automatic spots to 48, with 20 at-large.
Since the top 7 conferences (P5 + Big East and AAC) get multiple teams, let's say for 2019 that all get 3, except for the Pac-12, which was down this season.
Here are the teams which would not make it, with Sagarin rankings in parentheses:
Florida State (16)
Texas (21)
Mississippi State (22)
Florida (24)
Oklahoma (28)
Maryland (29)

And I think that would be just fine if it happened that way. If you can't finish in the top four in your conference, you don't deserve a shot at a national championship. Let's look at ow they did.

Florida State (16) - lost in Sweet 16 to Gonzaga
Texas (21) - didn't make NCAA field; won NIT
Mississippi State (22)-lost in first round to Liberty
Florida (24) - lost in second round to Michigan
Oklahoma (28) - lost in second round to Virginia
Maryland (29) - lost in second round to LSU

Only one of six made it to the second weekend, and promptly exited. Three were two and 'cue, one lost in first round, and the best showing might have been the team that didn't make the dance. None of them even remotely threatened to go all the way. I don't think the tournament would have been weakened materially, if at all, had they been replaced by regular season champions from 6 (or should it be 5, since Texas was in the NIT) conferences.

(05-28-2019 03:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Let's apply 69/70/75's approach to the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament (no 5th place teams).

Without doing any research, let's just suppose that 16 of the 32 conferences have different regular season and tournament champions. That brings the automatic spots to 48, with 20 at-large.

Since the top 7 conferences (P5 + Big East and AAC) get multiple teams, let's say for 2019 that all get 3, except for the Pac-12, which was down this season.

Here are the teams which would not make it, with Sagarin rankings in parentheses:

Florida State (16)
Texas (21)
Mississippi State (22)
Florida (24)
Oklahoma (28)
Maryland (29)

I looked it up - it was 10 auto-bids to the NIT in 2019 (those that won their regular season conference title, but didn't win the tournament).

The list should be longer. I'm not going to try to sort out tiebreakers for the third team. Someone else can add Sagarin rankings and results.

Virginia Tech
Syracuse
Kansas (finished 3rd in conference, but Baylor won the tournament, so Kansas is out)
Iowa State
Oklahoma
Florida
Kentucky or Tennessee (as Auburn won the tournament, LSU won the regular season conference, and these two tied for 2nd)
Temple or UCF (tied for third in conference)
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
St. John's

I’m surprised to see the number of folks who think a 5th place team like Rice (circa 1992-4) shouldn’t receive a regional bid despite a high national RPI ranking.

They said: why should a team that doesn’t even qualify for its own Conference Tournament deserve in the NCAA’s?

In response, the SWC field expanded to include all 7 schools. Rice got their invite (albeit as a 6-seed). And just to avoid putting it in the hands of the committee, we went ahead and just won the whole thing for the auto-bid.

If the eighth best team is better than Texas state, I’m ok with SEC getting 8 teams in.

But if the metric is skewed to bias toward certain conferences and it *unjustfiably* gives them 8 teams, well, I do have a problem with that.

A look at the struggles of the 2015 National Champions -

https://www.dailyprogress.com/cavalierin...e4386.html

Why? Pitching - or lack therof - At the ACC Tournament, O'Connor told the media that this year's team returned the fewest innings pitched in his career. And that it was 70 innings less than the previous low. That's a very inexperienced staff.

(05-29-2019 09:24 PM)johncatworth Wrote:  A look at the struggles of the 2015 National Champions -

https://www.dailyprogress.com/cavalierin...e4386.html

Why? Pitching - or lack therof - At the ACC Tournament, O'Connor told the media that this year's team returned the fewest innings pitched in his career. And that it was 70 innings less than the previous low. That's a very inexperienced staff.

We’re not the only ones!