The Book: 2002 Baseball

[CajunFun]

Shame that Justin couldn't have had Bicandoa's scalp at least once.

[GoneGolfin]

an NCAA Baseball Regional ...

I have updated my list to include Miami (Fla.), California-Irvine, and Auburn. Indiana has been removed from the list.

I have confirmation from the NCAA that the following schools have submitted bids for an NCAA Baseball regional ...

Alabama, Arizona State, Auburn, Baylor, California State-Fullerton, California-State Irvine, Clemson, East Carolina, Florida, Florida State, Fresno State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Houston, Long Beach State, Louisiana, LSU, Miami (Fla.), Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Nebraska, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Rice, San Diego State, South Alabama, South Carolina, Southern Cal, Stanford, Stetson, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Wake Forest, and Wichita State.

Brian

[Turbine]

Louisiana
USA
NMSU
FIU

[Turbine]

Tallahassee, Fla.
1. Florida State*
2. Central Florida (reg season opponent 3-0)
3. South Florida (reg season opponent 1-0)
4. Stetson

South Bend, Ind.
1. South Alabama (Sunbelt 1-2)
2. Notre Dame*
3. Ohio State
4. Kent State


Los Angeles
1. South California*
2. Cal State Northridge
3. Maine
4. Brigham Young

Stanford, Calif.
1. Stanford*
2. Long Beach State
3. San Jose State
4. Cal State Fullerton


Austin, Texas
1. Texas* (reg season opponent 1-0)
2. Baylor
3. Lamar (reg season opponent 0-2)
4. Central Connecticut State

Tempe, Ariz.
1. Houston (reg season opponent 0-3)
2. Arizona State*
3. San Diego
4. New Mexico State (Sunbelt 3-0)

Baton Rouge, La.
1. LSU* (reg season opponent 2-0)
2. Louisiana
3. Tulane (reg season opponent 2-0)
4. Southern (reg season opponent 1-1)

Houston
1. Rice* (reg season opponent 0-1)
2. Texas Tech (reg season opponent 1-0)
3. Washington
4. Harvard

Clemson, S.C.
1. Clemson*
2. East Carolina
3. Elon (Rock Hill S.C.)
4. Georgia Southern

Wichita, Kansas
1. Wichita State* (reg season opponent 1-2)
2. Oklahoma
3. Arkansas
4. Oral Roberts

Lincoln, Nebraska (brand new field)
1. Nebraska*
2. Southwest Missouri State
3. Marist
4. Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Winston-Salem, North Carolina
1. Wake Forest*
2. Richmond
3. Navy
4. George Washington

Columbia, S.C.
1. South Carolina*
2. North Carolina
3. James Madison
4. Virginia Commonwealth

Gainesville, Fla.
1. Florida*
2. Florida International (Sunbelt 2-1)
3. Miami
4. Bethune-Cookman

Atlanta
1. Georgia Tech*
2. Georgia
3. Louisville
4. Coastal Carolina

Tuscaloosa, Ala.
1. Alabama*
2. Auburn
3. Florida Atlantic
4. Southeast Missouri State

*#1 seed AND home field

edited by turbine

[GoneGolfin]

Surprise #1
FIU surprised me. Not that they are not worthy of being in the tournament. They are. But the NCAA leapfrogged a Western Kentucky team that swept them and finished two games in the loss column ahead of FIU in the conference standings. This combination is a new precedent. I wonder if the NCAA used the new rules and restrictions (geography) to break some of their unwritten rules of the past.

Surprise #2
Conference championships were not valued as they were in the past. Northwestern State (pRPI 60), San Diego State (pRPI 86), and Minnesota (pRPI 83) did not make the field. All three schools also made their conference tournament finals before losing. Instead, Arkansas (sub .500 SEC) (pRPI 35), Elon (2nd in Big South and 1-2 in conference tournament) (pRPI 46), Tulane (5th in CUSA, 2-2 in tournament) (pRPI 54), and South Florida (7th in CUSA, 2-2 in conference tournament) (pRPI 38) made the field of 64. Tulane (pRPI 54) also leapfrogged Southern Mississippi (4th) (pRPI 55) and TCU (3rd) (pRPI 45) in the CUSA standings to make the field. San Diego State did not make the field; meanwhile ESPN broadcasts a segment on their selection show featuring head coach Tony Gwynn and the San Diego State program. Talk about having your bubble burst!

Surprise #3
Arkansas making the field over Mississippi State. Mississipi State finished 7th in the SEC and Arkansas 8th. Mississippi State won 2/3 from Arkansas during the season. Mississippi State won 6 of its last 10 and Arkansas split its last 10 games. Both were 1-2 in the SEC tournament. The difference had to be the pRPI, 35 to 50 in Arkansas' favor. BTW, Mississippi State took 3/4 from Georgia, while Arkansas lost 2/3 to Georgia. Mississippi State was 5-2 against these opponents, Arkansas was 2-4, and Georgia 3-4. Georgia and Arkansas made the field. Mississippi State did not.

Surprise #4
Stanford receiving a national seed over Houston. I have to wonder if this was done for geographical purposes. If so, it violates their stated procedure. Houston won their conference title and has a pRPI of 8. Stanford finished second in the Pac Ten to Southern California. Stanford has a pRPI of 12. It seems the NCAA wanted a western super-regional. This could not have happened without Stanford being a national seed ... which brings us to surprise #5 ...

Surprise #5
The NCAA committee paired two #1 seeds from the same conference in a potential super-regional matchup (Stanford and Southern California). They could have paired Mesa, Arizona (Houston, likely the #9 seed) against Palo Alto (Stanford #8 national seed). But they elected to minimize travel in the super-regionals as well by pairing Texas - Houston and Stanford - Southern California for potential super-regional matchups.

Surprise #6
The NCAA selection committee really botched the Palo Alto regional. Stanford, a #8 national seed, must play California State-Fullerton (#4 seed) in the first round. You say that it is because of geography. Well, why do we have Maine (#3 seed) and BYU (#4 seed) in Los Angeles for the Southern California regional? BYU is closer to Palo Alto and would make sense as a #4 seed going up against Stanford in the first round. Especially considering that a national seed should merit an easier first round game and regional. Fullerton is just outside of Los Angeles, thus it makes complete sense to have California State-Fullerton in Los Angeles. But this is where the NCAA screwed themselves. They could not have California State-Fullerton in Los Angeles as the #4 seed. They could not justify having Maine seeded above them. But the Titans could not be the #3 seed as they would have a first round matchup with California State-Northridge (same conference). Hence, they stacked the national #8 seed regional in Palo Alto while Southern California gets a break. The NCAA did not need to send Maine to the West Coast ... which brings us to the next surprise.

Surprise #7
The NCAA did not take my recommended list of regional sites. :-) They took 15 of the 16, but neglected to select Ohio State (instead selecting Georgia Tech). This would have averted the log jam out west and put Maine much closer to home (albeit a plane trip as well). But if I am being cautious of potential terrorist threats, I would much rather fly into Columbus, Ohio than Los Angeles, California.

Surprise #8
I nailed all of the #1 seeds!

Surprise #9
I botched six teams!

Surprise #10
Navy (pRPI 173) was slotted as a #3 seed in the Wake Forest regional. Meanwhile, George Washington (pRPI 59) is the #4 seed. They did this not because Navy is deserving of a higher seed. They obviously are not. They did this because they could not find another regional slot for George Washington. They could not be the #3 seed in the Wake Forest regional because they would have to face Richmond (#2 seed) in the first round (same conference). Very sloppy work by the NCAA.

Surprise #11
The thing that troubles me the most about the selections this year seems to be even more reliance on the RPI. The NCAA took the Top 37 teams in the pRPI this year, save Mississippi. Mississippi would have made it as well had it not been for the fact that they finished 9th in the SEC and failed to qualify for the NCAA tournament. The RPI is a heavily flawed measurement of strength, yet the NCAA seems to becoming increasignly dependent on it as a measuring stick.

Brian

[Turbine]

Very nice, your ability to show the surprises shows your strengths.

"The RPI is a heavily flawed measurement of strength"

What exactly flaws it?

[GoneGolfin]

With respect to the RPI
Turbine said:
What exactly flaws it?
--
The RPI is flawed because of the regional nature of college baseball. College baseball lacks sufficient inter-regional play to make the tool worthwhile in my opinion. Remember that your RPI score is based on your W-L record, your opponents' W-L record, and your opponents' opponents' W-L record.

If you have a bunch of teams on the West Coast that are very good, but all they do is beat up on one another, you are going to have low RPIs. On the other hand, northeastern teams play predominantly against each other. W-L records are inflated because of the weak regional competition. Since these schools do not appropriately mix games with other parts of the country, you do not get a true reading as to the strength of a given team. This is why you see a number of northeastern schools with inflated RPIs. You also see this in smaller conferences on the east coast. On the other hand, western teams tend to get brutalized. The ISRs seem to do a decent job of offsetting these shortcomings.

If you had a round-robin schedule where each team played each other team the same number of times, you would get an accurate reading (Ex. MLB, or very close).

Did I explain it well enough? I can provide an example if you like.

Brian

[Turbine]

Originally posted by gonegolfin
Did I explain it well enough? I can provide an example if you like.

Very clear and concise, although an example would be nice.

Also I see the NE and FW scenario, so where does mid south and the Sunbelt come in as far as rpi accuracy is concerned?

[GoneGolfin]

but why not have the following regionals out west?

Palo Alto:
1. Stanford
2. Long Beach State
3. San Jose State
4. BYU

Mesa:
1. Houston
2. Arizona State
3. California State-Fullerton
4. New Mexico State

Los Angeles:
1. Southern California
2. California State-Northridge
3. San Diego
4. Maine

I did not introduce any new regional sites to the picture nor did I move any of the current western regional teams to regionals outside of the west. I simply moved some teams around in the three western regionals. This more evenly distributes the #4 seeds while requiring the same travel overhead.

BYU has about the same flight to Palo Alto as it does to Los Angeles. It is about the same trip from Fullerton to Palo Alto as it is from Fullerton to Mesa. So why not send CSF to Mesa as the #3 seed? San Diego would then have a 200 mile shorter trip to Los Angeles (as opposed to Mesa). Maine stays in Los Angeles, but now as the #4 seed.

Stanford, a national seed, now plays a real #4 in the first round and the Palo Alto regional is appropriately weakened. Los Angeles is slightly tougher, but still easy. Mesa is more difficult, but not nearly as difficult as the current regional in Palo Alto. Besides, Houston is not one of your national seeds. Although I think they should have been. I have to wonder if the NCAA made Stanford a national seed just to ensure a western super-regional. National seeds and #1 seeds are supposed to be awarded on merit.

Brian

[Turbine]

How much of an effect will all of this have on crowning the true national champion? Will tougher regionals wear some teams down?

[GoneGolfin]

Originally posted by Turbine

Very clear and concise, although an example would be nice.

Also I see the NE and FW scenario, so where does mid south and the Sunbelt come in as far as rpi accuracy is concerned?

--
This is an extreme example, but it better illustrates my point.

Let's say we have two pools of teams, one from the northeast and one from the west coast. Let's also assume that the teams from the west are very strong and that the teams from the northeast are very weak. Finally, teams can only play games within the pools (consider these the regions) and play a twelve game schedule (4 games against each opponent alternating home/road) with the W-L records below.

Pool A:
Central Connecticut State (10-2)
Harvard (9-3)
Northeastern (5-7)
Stony Brook (0-12)

Pool B:
Stanford (8-4)
Southern California (6-6)
California State-Fullerton (5-7)
Arizona State (5-7)

Your RPI rankings are simply going to be rankings by W-L record. That is,

1. Central Connecticut State
2. Harvard
3. Stanford
4. Southern California
5. Northeastern
California State-Fullerton
Arizona State
8. Stony Brook

The system is flawed because there is no inter-regional play. We know that all of the west coast schools would beat the pants off of the northeastern schools in this example. But according to the RPI, the two strongest teams are Central Connecticut State and Harvard.

Now, a little inter-regional play will bring us closer to the truth. But to achieve truly accurate results with the RPI, you must have perfect inter-regional play. This is why the RPI is even less effective in college baseball than in college basketball. Because of costs, inter-regional college baseball is minimal when you take into account the entire schedule played.

As far as the south and sun belt is concerned, I think they are slightly inflated because of some of the southern tours some northern schools make. But it is cetainly not signficantly inflated. The accuracy of an individual schools's RPI is really going to be dependent on the schedule that school plays.

Another problem with the RPI is that you can boost your RPI in many cases simply by playing (win or lose) to high RPI teams. This does not measure a damn thing. But this is the reason why I have always voiced the opinion that UL should play the toughest schedule they can afford budget-wise. Road games are especially good since bonuses are worked into the RPI formula for road wins against highly rated RPI schools.

I do think that FIU's RPI is somewhat inflated. They schedule smart with respect to the RPI. They play many home games and some games against northern schools early in the season. They also occassionally hit the road against a highly rated RPI team that can potentially get them bonus points. The massive number of home games is not a penalty in the RPI system.

As for UL this season, I think their pRPI is slightly inflated. I think the ISR is more accurate. I would put the Cajuns somewhere between 22 and 27.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

Originally posted by Turbine
How much of an effect will all of this have on crowning the true national champion? Will tougher regionals wear some teams down?

I do not think that it will wear down teams for the super-regional round the following week as there is enough recovery time between the regional and super-regional (unless rain delays ensue) . But I do think that it tests the pitching depth of all of the teams in that regional in a way that is not tested in other regionals (which does not promote a consistent theme throughout the regionals). Hence, it would give an unfair advantage to a team with superior pitching depth.

Whether this really has an effect on the eventual national champion is arguable. But I still think there is much to be gained by simply winning a regional championship ($$$ and reputation).

As an example, I think that this is the type of regional in which LSU probably does not advance if you replace Stanford with the Tigers. Not that LSU does not have the best team. But they really only have a couple of solid starters and one reliever (3 pitchers). I do not consider Petit to be a regional caliber starter that could beat a CSF.

Brian