When I am projecting the NCAA Tournament, I spend a significant amount of time looking at past data as a predictor of how the NCAA baseball selection committee will evaluate the field. When evaluating the resumes of schools competing for the precious national seeds and remaining #1 seeds, the selection committee has been reasonably consistent in its application of metrics in making such selections. The primary criteria is as below. A * indicates that the given metric receives emphasis when evaluating national seeds and #1 seeds.

RPI (*)
Non-conference RPI
Conference Regular Season finish (*)
Conference Tournament finish (*)
Record vs. Base RPI Top 25 (*)
Record vs. Base RPI Top 50 (*)
Road Record
Record in Last Ten Games
Conference RPI (*)

The selection committee also consider RPI record against the Top 75 and Top 100. But when evaluating #1 seeds, they are particularly interested in the record against the Top 25 and Top 50.

Given this, it is interesting to look at data in the last couple of years to gauge the thoughts of the committee when it comes to selecting the #1 seeds. Especially as it pertains to teams that have been in a similar situation as that of the Cajuns this season.

UL has the following resume . (numbers are through games of 5/22)
RPI 13
Non-Conference RPI 13
Conference Regular Season finish 1st
Conference Tournament finish ?
Record vs. Base RPI Top 25 1-5
Record vs. Base RPI Top 50 3-6
Record vs. Base RPI Top 75 9-6
Record vs. Base RPI Top 100 19-10
Road Record 18-12
Record in Last Ten Games 8-2
Conference RPI 7

Given this, it is interesting to compare the Cajuns' resume to that of teams that received the last #1 seeds and the top #2 seeds in 2005 and 2006. Note that actual NCAA RPI data is used.

2005

Coastal Carolina (RPI 14, 1st Conf. (RPI 12th), 2nd Conf. Tourn., 7-6 T25, 8-7 T50) #1 Seed

Florida State (RPI 23, 4th Conf. (RPI 3rd), T3rd Conf. Tourn., 14-13 T25, 14-13 T50) #1 Seed

Tennessee (RPI 29, 3rd Conf. (RPI 1st), T4th Conf. Tourn., 11-9 T25, 19-14 T50) #1 Seed

North Carolina (RPI 8, 5th Conf. (RPI 3rd), T7th Conf. Tourn., 10-12-1 T25, 14-14-1 T50) #2 Seed

College Charleston (RPI 10, 1st Conf. (RPI 9th), 3rd Conf. Tourn., 2-4, T25, 6-7 T25) #2 Seed

North Carolina State (RPI 12, 6th Conf. (RPI 3rd), 6th Conf. Tourn., 10-11 T25, 15-12 T50) #2 Seed

2006

Oregon State (RPI 30, 1st Conf. (RPI 5th), 1-2 T25, 7-5 T50) #1 Seed

Kentucky (RPI 28, 2nd Conf. (RPI 1st), T7th Conf. Tourn., 5-5 T25, 17-9 T50) #1 Seed

Florida State (RPI 10, 6th Conf. (RPI 2nd), T3rd Conf. Tourn., 8-14 T25, 14-16 T50) #2 Seed

Arkansas (RPI 11, 4th Conf. (RPI 1st), T7th Conf. Tourn., 8-7 T25, 16-13 T50) #2 Seed

North Carolina State (RPI 13, 7th Conf. (RPI 2nd), 2nd Conf. Tourn., 12-15 T25, 15-20 T50) #2 Seed

Miami (RPI 15, 5th Conf. (RPI 5th), 5th Conf. Tourn., 10-14 T25, 13-20 T50) #2 Seed


When looking at the above data, the 2005 College of Charleston squad looks eerily similar to UL of 2007. However, the Cajuns still have a chance to win their conference tournament, whereas C of C finished 3rd in their tournament and the Sun Belt was a slightly higher rated conference.

There are also some similarities to Coastal Carolina of 2005 (a traveling #1 seed). Coastal Carolina finished second in their conference tournament but had a much superior record versus the Top 25 and Top 50. Of course, the Big South was not quite as strong as the Sun Belt is this season.

I will leave you this post to chew on and will then follow up with some individual team analysis as to what I think the selection committee was thinking when these teams were seeded.

Brian