BB: South Region General Talk -- '07, '08, '09 and '10

[narch]

unofficially, i've got the following regional records for what i consider "bubble teams" from the south region (i think lc and piedmont are locks...and probably emory, too):

rhodes: 24-14 (if rust is still d3 & denison is in-region)
mary wash: 23-13
methodist: 23-13-1
ncwc: 22-12-1

i haven't calculated opponents winning percentage each team, and i'm not about to calculate opponents/opponents winning percentage...do any of these teams have a shot?  i'm not sure they do...

[Ralph Turner]

Yes, narch, Rust is D-III and Denison is Administrative Region #3, in-region.

We need to see if Denison makes the Mideast Regional Rankings this week.

I think that the threshold for in-region results (won loss percentage will be .667) unless the OWP/OOWP's are .550 or better, and some team has an in-region results versus Ranked teams is 12-8.

[A.G.]

The new regional rankings are out..
http://www.ncaa.com/baseball/default.aspx?id=212508

1    Salisbury    38-2    34-2
2    Lynchburg    30-11    24-8
3    Piedmont    33-12    31-12
4    Emory    25-11-1    23-9-1
5    Christopher Newport    28-12    21-11
6    Methodist    28-15-1    22-12-1

Let the speculatin' and arguin' begin!  Will the committee go with this...or will they perhaps ship a team like Hopkins down to Danville and add R-MC (ODAC Pool A) AND Methodist for a nice 8-team regional?  What do ya'll think?

[Wood]

I am new to this regional ranking stuff, but how do you justify MU making regionals ahead of NCWC?  I guess conf. standings do not matter. Conf. tournament does not matter and head to head does not matter. (Seems like a flawed system)

[killerdude]

I DEF AGREE....HOW IS MU AHEAD OF NCWC??....NCWC HAS TO BE THE FAVORITE TEAM TO GET AT AT LARGE BID FOR THE SOUTH REGION!!

[Ralph Turner]

The new regional rankings are out..
http://www.ncaa.com/baseball/default.aspx?id=212508

1    Salisbury    38-2    34-2
2    Lynchburg    30-11    24-8
3    Piedmont    33-12    31-12
4    Emory    25-11-1    23-9-1
5    Christopher Newport    28-12    21-11
6    Methodist    28-15-1    22-12-1  (.643)

Let the speculatin' and arguin' begin!  Will the committee go with this...or will they perhaps ship a team like Hopkins down to Danville and add R-MC (ODAC Pool A) AND Methodist for a nice 8-team regional?  What do ya'll think?

NCWC has an in-region record of 23-13-1  (.635).  NCWC is 3-5 against the other regionally ranked teams.  Methodist is 5-4-1 vs. the other regionally ranked teams.

NCWC was 2-1 versus Methodist, so I think that NCWC's OWP and OOWP is lower than Methodist's.

[killerdude]

WHAT IS MU's STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE LIKE??...UNDERSTANDABLY THE RECORDS OF NCWC AND MU ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL, BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING JUST HOW HARD MU's AND NCWC's REGION SCHEDULE WAS!!...EITHER WAY I BELIEVE THAT BOTH SHOULD HAVE A LEGITIMATE SHOT TO GET IN!!

[narch]

WHAT IS MU's STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE LIKE??...UNDERSTANDABLY THE RECORDS OF NCWC AND MU ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL, BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING JUST HOW HARD MU's AND NCWC's REGION SCHEDULE WAS!!...EITHER WAY I BELIEVE THAT BOTH SHOULD HAVE A LEGITIMATE SHOT TO GET IN!!

killerdude...turn off the caps...no need to shout

here is my post from the usasac board:

How does Methodist have the heads up on NCWC?

i'd be willing to bet it's strength of schedule, since both have similar regional records - i've got mu at 23-13-1 and ncwc at 23-12-1 in region, but i've got mu's owp at .558 and ncwc's owp at .538...that's a significant difference - the ncaa has a tradition of rewarding teams that schedule strong...when you schedule 3 games against emu (10-30), 2 against capital (10-26-1) and then a historically strong team like york drops off significantly (14-27), you run the risk of having it bite you on the back-side during the regional ranking process - additionally, mu is 5-5-1 vs. teams that are ranked ahead of them (pc, lc, emory and cnu) while ncwc is just 3-5 against pc, lc and cnu (they didn't play emory) - that being said, i bet there isn't much space between the monarchs and bishops in these rankings...maybe the proverbial hair - here is a reminder of the criteria used to rank:

These are the primary criteria that are used to rank the Pool C teams:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
• Quality of Wins Index: only contests versus regional competition - i'm about 95% certain this has been replaced by owp and oowp
• In- region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results vs. common regional opponents.
• In-region results vs. regionally ranked teams
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the ranking/selection process only.
• Conference post-season contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selection.

keep in mind that the committee also has access to information that i don't have time to calculate, and that's the oowp...who knows what, if any, differential there is between mu and ncwc with that important factor

[narch]

NCWC HAS TO BE THE FAVORITE TEAM TO GET AT AT LARGE BID FOR THE SOUTH REGION!!

i would disagree...since neither team has any games left, and few (if any) of their regional opponents are still playing, it would be difficult for ncwc to jump the monarchs...regional rankings are used as a basis for selection, meaning that if the bishops got in, the monarchs would, too - i hope i'm wrong, but i don't see the usasac getting 2 pool c's this year...to be honest, i'm not sure the usasac even gets one pool c (although i'm hoping like crazy the monarchs have a chance to continue their season)

[Wood]

Good stuff NARCH    (I guess i was right when I said that Conf season,Cong tourn, and Head to Head does not matter) Thanks for the info. (good luck if MU makes it)

[Ralph Turner]

+1 narch! 

Thanks for the research.  Jim Dixon and I are trying to compile the data to predict the Pool B and C teams.  You have done a great job of explaining what data the committee probably has to put Methodist over NCWC.

You are correct that the OWP/OOWP has replaced the QOWI.  York's having an off-season was tough!  You don't anticipate a Pool C team dropping below .350 the next year.

Wood, conference games (tourney or regular season and head-to-head) are rolled in the in-region criteria.

[Wood]

Thanks Ralph.  As someone new to this process it just did not seem possible for a team that finished behind NCWC in conf.,conf tour., and head to head to be considered first. ( I now understand that selection criteria comes first which leaves NCWC out. ) I would hate to be the guy to explain this stuff to the players.

[Wood]

Suggestion.
Maybe a new selection criteria needs to be added that does not allow this to happen.

[Ralph Turner]

Suggestion.
Maybe a new selection criteria needs to be added that does not allow this to happen.

Wood, these selection criteria are essentially the same for all team sports, football baseball, basketball, soccer, etc.

I guess that the regional committee thought that the OWP/OOWP gave enough weight to boost MU over NCWC.

[Wood]

Ralph thanks for the info. The more I read the more I understand . From my limited knowledge it looks like the only way NCWC makes the regionals is if the south gets eight teams and then MU and NCWC  both make it. (Seems very unlikely)
PS I still think that conf. play should be more of a factor in the rankings when considering two teams from the same conference.