BB: ASC: American Southwest Conference

[d3baseballnut]

Alright everyone....

It is true that the road to the postseason is easier for Hopkins than the ASC, but it is easier for EVERYONE, not just Hopkins. THe ASC has it rough.

I have been leading the revolt against Ralph Turner (love ya though), and the committee's oversight of UT Tyler in 2008. That is ridiculous, and there is no way that Montclair state should have gotten in at 26-18 over 36-9 UTTyler. HOpkins is a different story, who was 34-5....you cant hate on that.

The fact is, the ASC is very good baseball, and deserves to get more than one team in per year, as does the SCAC. Depauw was left out last year at 35-11....how do you take teams at 29-13 of 26-18 over teams like Depauw or UT Tyler? Strength of schedule has played way too high a factor in all this, since it is arbitrary....they obvious rated the ASC much lower than it truly is. Texas Lutheran or Mississippi College deserves a bid. I'll be upset if they keep putting teams with 14-15 losses in over ASC and SCAC teams

In 2008, it was absolute bull crap. UTTyler was ranked 2nd in the west, and went 3-2 in the conference tournament, and dropped off completely!!!! WHAT?!?! They went from top 10 in the country to out of the postseason bc of a 3-2 conf record.....there is definitely a bias against ASC teams and for some reason, it is so much harder for them to get 2 teams in.....trust me committee, the OAC isnt better than the ASC

[CUAfan]

Seems to me that the biggest issue is with the means of determining what is (or is not) a strong schedule. Frankly, using any W-L record to determine such is flawed from the outset, as a 20-1 blowout counts the same as a 2-1 nailbiter (at least to my understanding). In my opinion, the NCAA should use the following as a "power" ranking of sorts to inform their decision making.

(.5 x Team Pythagorean Winning %) + (.5 x Opponents Combined Pythagorean Winning %)

[For any who don't know, pythagorean winning percentage is calculated as follows: RS²/(RS² + RA²)]

The NCAA should have the data to do the math, and having some intern or other grunt put together the spreadsheet or database or whatever to do it probably wouldn't be too hard. Could even do it with just in-region numbers if they wanted. Maybe change the weights a little, or add opponents' opponents numbers to the mix, but the main thing is to give credit to teams that win often and win big.

[Ralph Turner]

Alright everyone....

It is true that the road to the postseason is easier for Hopkins than the ASC, but it is easier for EVERYONE, not just Hopkins. THe ASC has it rough.

I have been leading the revolt against Ralph Turner (love ya though), and the committee's oversight of UT Tyler in 2008. That is ridiculous, and there is no way that Montclair state should have gotten in at 26-18 over 36-9 UTTyler. HOpkins is a different story, who was 34-5....you cant hate on that.

The fact is, the ASC is very good baseball, and deserves to get more than one team in per year, as does the SCAC. Depauw was left out last year at 35-11....how do you take teams at 29-13 of 26-18 over teams like Depauw or UT Tyler? Strength of schedule has played way too high a factor in all this, since it is arbitrary....they obvious rated the ASC much lower than it truly is. Texas Lutheran or Mississippi College deserves a bid. I'll be upset if they keep putting teams with 14-15 losses in over ASC and SCAC teams

In 2008, it was absolute bull crap. UTTyler was ranked 2nd in the west, and went 3-2 in the conference tournament, and dropped off completely!!!! WHAT?!?! They went from top 10 in the country to out of the postseason bc of a 3-2 conf record.....there is definitely a bias against ASC teams and for some reason, it is so much harder for them to get 2 teams in.....trust me committee, the OAC isnt better than the ASC

The change that needs to be considered is in the OWP and OOWP.  We are a closed system, and so our OWP never gets too much higher than .535, at least in basketball where we have seen the numbers for N= 20 games.

If you really want to hear us howl, then go read the Football boards about Bracket-gate and the Texas Sub-regional!

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=5306.30

[Ralph Turner]

Seems to me that the biggest issue is with the means of determining what is (or is not) a strong schedule. Frankly, using any W-L record to determine such is flawed from the outset, as a 20-1 blowout counts the same as a 2-1 nailbiter (at least to my understanding). In my opinion, the NCAA should use the following as a "power" ranking of sorts to inform their decision making.

(.5 x Team Pythagorean Winning %) + (.5 x Opponents Combined Pythagorean Winning %)

[For any who don't know, pythagorean winning percentage is calculated as follows: RS²/(RS² + RA²)]

The NCAA should have the data to do the math, and having some intern or other grunt put together the spreadsheet or database or whatever to do it probably wouldn't be too hard. Could even do it with just in-region numbers if they wanted. Maybe change the weights a little, or add opponents' opponents numbers to the mix, but the main thing is to give credit to teams that win often and win big.

Interns?  Oh no!  We already get all of the D1 interns who don't know how to pronounce Willamette or LeTourneau.

[CUAfan]

Fair enough, Ralph.

Re-ranking the top 6 in the West (according to the regional rankings) by pythagorean winning percentage:

1. Pomona-Pitzer - .822
2. Texas-Tyler - .792
3. George Fox - .783
4. Pacific Lutheran - .758
5. Chapman - .694
6. Texas-Dallas - .612

Frankly, Texas-Dallas does not belong on there now, and probably didn't on 4/30 either. You could make a case that Chapman doesn't either, but it's hard to say without running the numbers on the entire region. I'll do this again when the next set of rankings comes out on Thursday.

[d3baseballnut]

hmmm....that looks crazy close to the Bracketology 2009 thread's version of the West region

[TexasBB]

The top 25 came out and unless I miss counted there are 6 teams ranked from the West Region. Since Chapman seems to be a pool B pick, with the current system one of those 6 teams is likely not going to be invited to the dance.  One again I put my plug in for a 64 team tournament with expanded Pool C selections.  (Guys there is no perfect system and no matter what even with 64 teams some team will be left out. But the probabilities of a top 25 team being left out would be nearly elliminated.)

[dp643]

Had anyone checked out the All-Conference teams that have released?

I am all for player recognition and acknowledging players for their accomplishments, but I think there is a point where you need to draw a line. Not to take anything away from Schreiner, but having 13 all conference recognitions in one of the bottom teams in the division definitely raises some eyebrows. There are definitely some deserving players that made the honorable mention list, and I think their accomplishments are overshaddowed by the fact that they are recognized alongside pitchers with 10+ERA's and hitters with sub .230 batting averages.

Not to mention a player like Kyle Martiin with a 3.61 ERA didnt even make Honorable Mention while other players on the list had terrible numbers.

While I agree with alot of the list, and where some players are put can be arguable, the bottom of the list really bothers me.

This is all of course my humble opinion, and I am curious to hear other's thoughts.

[royhobbs]

Maybe that's why they don't always post their stats next to them? Do you agree they got the Players of the year right? I happen to think so.

[golden_dome]

Ralph,
   I know you don't think MC will be getting one of the pool c bids, but I think we have a shot this year. Our schedule was tough and should hold up. I'd be curious to see the official numbers on that. We should jump UT-Dallas in the rankings based on an edge in just about every primary criteria and going 3-1 against them.

I think MC's regional record is 27-14, but of those 41 games:
- six against UT-Tyler (38-10)
- four against UT-Dallas (28-18)
- three against Millsaps (32-8)
- three against Texas Lutheran (30-14)
- two against Mary Hardin-Baylor (22-17)
- two against Emory (24-18)

That's 20 of our 41 games against very tough competition, and 16 games against teams with at least 28 wins. We went 9-11 in those games, but we played tough opponents and didn't rack up a great record against a terrible schedule like a lot of schools. We are 6-4 against regionally ranked West opponents.

The one thing that will hurt us and make our schedule look worse than it really is are three games against Rust College. They are a local team and a cheap opponent as far as travel goes, which is important in this economic climate and why we played them.  But I think they went something like 0-25, which will significantly bring down a schedule that was very tough.

[BigPoppa]

I don't see MC getting a bid either.

[golden_dome]

I don't see MC getting a bid either.

What would your reasoning be? Due to the ASC's history of not getting pool c bids?

[dp643]

I dont see the ASC getting a Pool C, just from the lack of a standout team.

In my opinion, TLU getting swept by Dallas, and MC getting swept by TLU is what will keep them from getting a Pool C.

Even though UTD has been ranked high in the regional rankings, I still dont see them taking one either.

I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

[BigPoppa]

I don't see MC getting a bid either.

What would your reasoning be? Due to the ASC's history of not getting pool c bids?

My reasoning is the commoiitee will take a second or third team from a more powerful conference before awarding MC a bid. MC needs to have all conference top seeds win Pool A bids before they even can be considered for a bid. The Pool C herd needs to be thinned out.

[golden_dome]

Hard to believe that UT-Dallas was able to stay ahead of MS College in the regional rankings considering MC finished two games ahead of them in the ASC standings and went 3-1 head-to-head against them including run-ruling them in the ASC Tourney. I think there was very little doubt at the tournament who had the much  better team. 

West Region Overall Record In-Region Record
1. Pomona-Pitzer 35-5 27-3
2. Texas-Tyler 38-10 35-9
3. Cal Lutheran 31-9 27-6
4. Pacific Lutheran 31-8 29-8
5. George Fox 32-9 29-6
6. Texas-Dallas 28-18 27-14

You can't help but raise an eyebrow at the process. Here are the primary criteria and how MC and UTD stack up. I just don' tsee how anyone can keep UTD ahead. I could be wrong on these numbers and if that is the case then I should be corrected. But if these are the actual numbers for primary criteria, then I think MC should be ahead of UTD.

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
UTD and MC should both be 27-14 in regional games.

• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
We don't see the offical numbers, but I would think it is at least close. MC and UTD both played very good schedules. I know MC played 16 regional games against opponents with at least 28 wins, I think UTD played 13 games.

• In-region head-to-head competition.
MC went 3-1 against UTD including a dominating 10-0 win in the ASC tournament.

• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
UTD holds the edge here because of TLU. UTD was 15-4 against common regional opponents and MC is 12-6. UTD was 4-0 against TLU having swept TLU at home. MC was swept at TLU.

• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
UTD is 1-4  against regional ranked West teams while MC is 7-5.

I could be wrong on some of these numbers, and if I am then I could see how this could happen. But if this is accurate, I just don't see it and I hope this isn't a final ranking. Here is this year's West region committee.

West
Matt Newman, Northwest Conference, chair
Scott Laverty, University of Redlands
Geoff Loomis, Pacific Lutheran University
Dirk Morrison, California State University, East Bay
Shane Shewmake, University of Texas at Dallas