Regional Placements
Recently I have seen a lot of chatter regarding the slotting of teams in regionals based on the theoretical 1/32, 2/31, 3/30, etc.. I wanted to highlight some caution with that sort of analysis. There are a number of factors that determine how regional teams are placed. Geography is a major one ... as is balance. But balance does not mean the above (1/32, 2/31, etc.). It is about achieving as much balance as possible in the entire four team regional. But at the same time, geography is an important consideration ... and there are other less important criteria that are also considered. Note that I am not including the hard rule regarding teams from the same conference not being eligible for the same regional (except in cases where this rule is waived). I am only referring to the subjective criteria.
The most optimal situation for the committee is when balance and geography work well together ... while also affording the committee the ability to reward a high national seed with a very winnable region (or the converse). But these never fully align and you see examples of this every year. It is also important not to look at the placements in a vacuum (why did this team get shipped out there). The puzzle is often significantly more complicated than it seems (I have assembled many of these selections over the years). Here are some examples from the 2023 selections with RPI ranking at selection time used as a proxy. Yes, RPI ranking is not exactly indicative of the evaluation ranking of the involved teams. But it is easily close enough to use as a good proxy, especially when also considering the other selection criteria as a confirmation. 2023 is just an example of what I have seen many many times over the years.
--
Indiana State was the #14 national seed in 2023. The Sycamores were paired with a #32 RPI Iowa as a #2 seed. Iowa was a low #2 seed. Their resume also included a third place finish in the Big Ten. Meanwhile, the committee attempted to introduce some balance by slotting #27 RPI North Carolina as the #3 seed (The Tar Heels were considered to be a high #3/low #2). For the #4 seed, the second highest RPI ranked #4 seed (Wright State) was placed in the Indiana State regional with a #77 RPI ranking. The top RPI ranking for a #4 seed was #76 Oral Roberts (made it to the CWS, where they defeated TCU). So, you can see where it was not the case that Indiana State was saddled with a strong #2 seed ... quite the opposite. But Iowa made sense from a geographic standpoint (bus trip). To make this work, the committee then attempted to achieve balance by sending tough #3 and #4 seeds. It also worked out well (and was part of the consideration) that Wright State was also a bus trip.
Another example is #4 national seed Clemson. The committee sent #20 RPI Tennessee to Clemson ... where they won the Clemson regional, won the Hattiesburg super regional, and went to the CWS (eliminating Stanford). Tennessee was a high #2 seed, yet was sent to Clemson as it made geographical sense as well as resulted in a better overall set of selections. The #3 seed (#67 Charlotte) was arguably the weakest #3 seed (focus on balance). Lipscomb was not what I would consider a weak #4 seed, but having Lipscomb in this regional allowed for all four teams taking the bus (a true regional).
#11 national seed Oklahoma State (#17 RPI ranking) was paired with a #2 seed that was on the bubble to host (#16 Dallas Baptist). This was done for geographical reasons. I do think that this was the most unbalanced regional (and toughest for a national seed to advance), but you can see what they were doing and why. I would have made a different selection for a #3 seed (#36 Washington) and #76 Oral Roberts was no favor (they won the regional, as mentioned above). But this also underscores the importance of geography even more.
There are other examples, but I will close with one more. #22 RPI Connecticut was slotted as the #2 regional seed in the #2 national seed Florida regional. Connecticut was not a low #2 seed. Connecticut had to fly somewhere ... and this was more dictated by the slotting of other teams in #2 seed slots and balancing the regionals. Low #4 seed #153 Florida A&M was able to bus and was accordingly sent to Gainesville for some balance.
Now, all of this does not mean that you do not have pairings that are high #1/low #2 and vice versa. #1 Wake Forest/#35 Maryland and #2 Arkansas/#33 TCU ... as well as #15 South Carolina/#13 Campbell and #16 Alabama/#18 Boston College are examples. But the point is that this is nowhere near the rule and that there are many other considerations. And you can see where geography also plays a role in three of those four above pairings.
Brian
Quote
Re: Regional Placements
Originally Posted by Jacob81
