BB: Regionals (South) Danville '08, Salisbury '09, Methodist '10, Rhodes '11

[Ralph Turner]

Forheaven:  What's he saying about the conditions there?  They are saying thousands may be living in tents after next week.  I'm thinking hotels that aren't affected are going to swamped with these folks.  It would be great if you could get your friend to post the situation or relay it through you.  From what Ralph says, Rhodes could move the tourney to other fields nearby - any logical candidates?

Good morning NoVa.  Actually the NCAA moved the tourney from west Texas to southern California!

The logistics on flood and hotel/transportation/infrastructure makes me think that one would not like to spend time in that area if one could avoid it, which we have with 10 days notice.

[narch]

i'm sure mu would be willing to host if they were assured a spot in the tournament

[CrashDavisD3]

I'm getting kinda worried about the Millington Regional even being playable.  Read an article today that says the river will crest at 48' on Wednesday and could stay at the crest level for 7 days.  It also says the zip code of the stadium is going to be flooded.  If this is true, I can't see how they can hold this regional when those poor folks are going to have lots more to worry about than baseball.  Is there any precedent for this - has a regional had to move or worse, been cancelled and had teams dispersed to other regions?

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/may/05/forecast-of-water-damage-reduced/?partner=RSS

A few years back the West Regional was moved from Abilene, TX(McMurry Hosting) to Orange, CA(Chapman hosting) at the very last minute due to severe weather forecasted in Abilene, TX.  I am sure the NCAA has a backup plan for who will host this. BUT they will not tell you until the last minute causing expensive changes to some people for traveling.

[forheavendial4999]

Forheaven:  What's he saying about the conditions there?  They are saying thousands may be living in tents after next week.  I'm thinking hotels that aren't affected are going to swamped with these folks.  It would be great if you could get your friend to post the situation or relay it through you.  From what Ralph says, Rhodes could move the tourney to other fields nearby - any logical candidates?

There's plenty of flooding in and around the area, but they played the tournament. I would expect the regional will be played there unless the field is flooded or an emergency is declared. I expect by the time we get to regionals it won't be that much of a problem.

EDIT TO ADD: Apparently the only thing affected much right now are the routes into town from the south and west.

[Pauperboy]

rhodes has absolutely no merit on this list, let alone in front of emory...how can they substantiate the lynx in any way?

emory should be ahead of rhodes, and i think both mu and maryville should be, as well...

here is how the three stack up

methodist: 46 SOS rank, .576 win %, .565/.538/.556 (owp, oowp, owp+oowp)
maryville: 62 SOS rank, .647 win %, .550/.551/.550
rhodes: 77 SOS rank, .575 win %, .539/.545/.541

maryville beat rhodes head to head, as well

the ONLY thing that rhodes has vs. maryville or methodist is proximity to usa stadium...hmmmm

Narch,

    Are we to assume that you would like to see the NCAA dissolve each regional selection committee and have the NCAA select teams solely based on numbers with zero human input or discussion?

  I included the below on a post in the National Regional rankings discussion. Maybe
you overlooked it. It shows validity to having Rhodes in the mix. I didn't even think to include MU with their 19 regional wins.

How about record vs. in-region common opponents as primary criteria? I think I got them all.

      Rhodes   14-8  .636
      Emory     10-6  .625
      M'Ville     12-11 .521
     

   Is there any value to how a team is playing down the stretch? I'm pretty sure LaGrange last year surged their way into the regional going 10-0 in their last 10.

       Rhodes  7-4
       Emory    5-6
       M'Ville    3-8

   Here is my .02 with regards to the Monarchs. I have them as 1-9 versus ranked South regional opponents. They were 0-6 vs. CNU and SU. 0-6. Not one win. Which combined with 1-9 shows me a team not capable of winning in a regional. But for me the biggest knock against them are the two late season losses at home vs. Salisbury. Here are two games that everyone in Monarchland had to recognize has crucial to their Pool C chances. They proceeded to go out and lose both games convincingly.
   I also question their non-conference scheduling. Yes wins over Immaculata, PSU Abington, Swarthmore, Arcadia, and SUNY Purchase are great for adding to the win column but where do these help come selection time? Before you give me Keystone and Tufts,  I can see through those wins....Keystone (it was their first game of the year vs. MU's 19th) and Tufts (playing their 6th game in 5 days in their 1st week of the season.) Maybe a few more games  vs. out of conference South region opponents help their case.
  Bottom line is that there is no clear cut #5 ranked South team. They all have their strong points and weaknesses. You could make an argument for any of them. I am a proponent of the human element involved with the selection of teams. I feel the coaches who see these teams day in and day out are capable of making better decisions than Joe the Casual Fan who may only see one side of the argument. Also, insinuating a team is ranked simply because of their proximity to a venue is short-sighted.
     

   

[CrashDavisD3]

rhodes has absolutely no merit on this list, let alone in front of emory...how can they substantiate the lynx in any way?

emory should be ahead of rhodes, and i think both mu and maryville should be, as well...

here is how the three stack up

methodist: 46 SOS rank, .576 win %, .565/.538/.556 (owp, oowp, owp+oowp)
maryville: 62 SOS rank, .647 win %, .550/.551/.550
rhodes: 77 SOS rank, .575 win %, .539/.545/.541

maryville beat rhodes head to head, as well

the ONLY thing that rhodes has vs. maryville or methodist is proximity to usa stadium...hmmmm

Narch,

   Are we to assume that you would like to see the NCAA dissolve each regional selection committee and have the NCAA select teams solely based on numbers with zero human input or discussion?

 I included the below on a post in the National Regional rankings discussion. Maybe
you overlooked it. It shows validity to having Rhodes in the mix. I didn't even think to include MU with their 19 regional wins.

How about record vs. in-region common opponents as primary criteria? I think I got them all.

     Rhodes   14-8  .636
     Emory     10-6  .625
     M'Ville     12-11 .521
   

  Is there any value to how a team is playing down the stretch? I'm pretty sure LaGrange last year surged their way into the regional going 10-0 in their last 10.

      Rhodes  7-4
      Emory    5-6
      M'Ville    3-8

  Here is my .02 with regards to the Monarchs. I have them as 1-9 versus ranked South regional opponents. They were 0-6 vs. CNU and SU. 0-6. Not one win. Which combined with 1-9 shows me a team not capable of winning in a regional. But for me the biggest knock against them are the two late season losses at home vs. Salisbury. Here are two games that everyone in Monarchland had to recognize has crucial to their Pool C chances. They proceeded to go out and lose both games convincingly.
  I also question their non-conference scheduling. Yes wins over Immaculata, PSU Abington, Swarthmore, Arcadia, and SUNY Purchase are great for adding to the win column but where do these help come selection time? Before you give me Keystone and Tufts,  I can see through those wins....Keystone (it was their first game of the year vs. MU's 19th) and Tufts (playing their 6th game in 5 days in their 1st week of the season.) Maybe a few more games  vs. out of conference South region opponents help their case.
 Bottom line is that there is no clear cut #5 ranked South team. They all have their strong points and weaknesses. You could make an argument for any of them. I am a proponent of the human element involved with the selection of teams. I feel the coaches who see these teams day in and day out are capable of making better decisions than Joe the Casual Fan who may only see one side of the argument. Also, insinuating a team is ranked simply because of their proximity to a venue is short-sighted.
   

When teams are close in being selected past history shows the stronger SOS is the deciding factor right or wrong that is what happens most times. Also head to head or wins/losses over common opponents are factor in IMO. Being Regionally Rank never guarantees a Pool B or Pool C bid. But not being ranked almost always means you will not get a Pool B or Pool C bid.

[Falcon2720]

Whenever there is controversy over regional rankings and someone wants to question the validity of those ranking you should look at who is on the south region committee.  Last I checked Jeff Cleanthes (Rhodes Head Coach) is the chair of the committee.  Here's a question,  I wonder what Rhodes would be ranked if he wasn't the chair?  My guess would not be fifth.

Pauperboy,

Obviously you want to do a comparison between MU and Rhodes.  Maybe somebody has ruffled your feathers?  If you don't feel MU is capable of winning a regional then I'm not sure how you feel Rhodes is capable of winning a regional.  Methodist had their chances as did Rhodes.

Using the human element, Rhodes ended the season on fire, losing 3 of their last 4 games.  2 games to a Hendrix team that is one of the best in the country at 19-22.   Using your logic the win over Wooster means nothing since it was Wooster's 4th game in 4 days to start the season while Rhodes was playing its 18th game.  Wooster is also having a down year compared to their usually standards.

For every Immaculata, Swarthmore, and Purchase  (All 3 teams over .500 BTW) I can point out MacMurray (3-33), Centre (13-23), and Sewannee (10-21).  I guess MU should schedule bad south region teams to bulk up their in-region record like Rhodes.

[BigPoppa]

Committee members who have a team up for consideration are not present during the discussion of their own team.

[Falcon2720]

I know that.  They still have a influence or friends "other coaches on the committee" to help fight for them.  Its the human element as Pauperboy pointed out.

[BigPoppa]

I know that.  They still have a influence or friends "other coaches on the committee" to help fight for them.  Its the human element as Pauperboy pointed out.

I'd like to think the members have more integrity than that

[narch]

pauperboy - this is purely conjecture, but i think m'ville, emory and methodist could all have gone better than 7-4 in their last 11 if they had played 3 games vs. sewanee (10-21), 4 games vs. hendrix (19-22), 3 games vs. oglethorpe (18-24) and 1 vs. trinity (33-11)

if you want to compare records over the last 11 games, please also note owp in those games...mu played 9 games in their last 11 against teams at or above .500 while rhodes played 1 game vs. a team above .500...hardly an apt comparison

i'll get to your other points later

[BigPoppa]

... and how a team is playing right now is not part of the selection criteria. They are evaluated on a whole season's body of work.

[Back2Back!!]

Whenever there is controversy over regional rankings and someone wants to question the validity of those ranking you should look at who is on the south region committee.  Last I checked Jeff Cleanthes (Rhodes Head Coach) is the chair of the committee.  Here's a question,  I wonder what Rhodes would be ranked if he wasn't the chair?  My guess would not be fifth.

Pauperboy,

Obviously you want to do a comparison between MU and Rhodes.  Maybe somebody has ruffled your feathers?  If you don't feel MU is capable of winning a regional then I'm not sure how you feel Rhodes is capable of winning a regional.  Methodist had their chances as did Rhodes.

Using the human element, Rhodes ended the season on fire, losing 3 of their last 4 games.  2 games to a Hendrix team that is one of the best in the country at 19-22.   Using your logic the win over Wooster means nothing since it was Wooster's 4th game in 4 days to start the season while Rhodes was playing its 18th game.  Wooster is also having a down year compared to their usually standards.

For every Immaculata, Swarthmore, and Purchase  (All 3 teams over .500 BTW) I can point out MacMurray (3-33), Centre (13-23), and Sewannee (10-21).  I guess MU should schedule bad south region teams to bulk up their in-region record like Rhodes.

Wasnt Tom Austin on the committee last year? Methodist was on the bubble and also were hosting the regional and that had to influence on whether or not they got in. I dont feel that having a coach on the committe gives you an advantage

[NoVa Baseball]

So it appears the South Regional may be missed by the flooding.  Hopefully it will miss a lot of Memphis as well.  It also appears that CNU is heading that way.  Given that what'd the latest thinking on the rest of the region?  Don't know what the NCAA is going to do about 4 South region teams (I include RMC) that will need to fly to Millington.  Assuming they may fly two teams in, here are my projections:


SOUTH
1 Christopher Newport 29-5 39-5  #1 seed in South Region tourney - air fare and all
2 Shenandoah 30-5 34-5 #Heading to another region or addl. NCAA air fare
3 Piedmont 29-11 31-13 #2 in South region tourney
4 Salisbury 24-10 25-11 Heading to another region or addl. NCAA air fare
5 Rhodes 23-17 24-20 Logical #4 if they make the South Region tourney
6 Emory 24-13 26-17 #3  in South Region Tourney
Unranked Randolph-Macon - Should be the #5 in the South Region, but will the NCAA pay to fly them?
Unranked SLAIC Champion - Logical #6 in South Region Tourney

[narch]

Narch,
   Are we to assume that you would like to see the NCAA dissolve each regional selection committee and have the NCAA select teams solely based on numbers with zero human input or discussion?

when there are clear-cut quantitative data which are supposed to be used as selection criteria, i would prefer to minimize human error...honestly, how many times do you think the committee members saw each team considered? i would rather the committee evaluate teams based on quantitative data that includes 30+ games vs. personal opinion which may be based on as few as zero games...

I included the below on a post in the National Regional rankings discussion. Maybe you overlooked it. It shows validity to having Rhodes in the mix. I didn't even think to include MU with their 19 regional wins.

How about record vs. in-region common opponents as primary criteria? I think I got them all.

     Rhodes   14-8  .636
     Emory     10-6  .625
     M'Ville     12-11 .521

how about we compare mu and rhodes in ALL of the primary and secondary criteria...i have (see below)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/rhodesvmu.jpg/

Here is my .02 with regards to the Monarchs. I have them as 1-9 versus ranked South regional opponents. They were 0-6 vs. CNU and SU. 0-6. Not one win. Which combined with 1-9 shows me a team not capable of winning in a regional. But for me the biggest knock against them are the two late season losses at home vs. Salisbury. Here are two games that everyone in Monarchland had to recognize has crucial to their Pool C chances. They proceeded to go out and lose both games convincingly.

you're not going to get an argument from me here...i agree that mu spit the bit vs. ssu (and most other south region ranked teams), but i've got to say, cnu, su and ssu didn't lose many games against ANYONE this year...they were a combined 84-20 (.808) in region – there are a lot of (good) teams that might be 0-8 against those three – checking the primary and secondary criteria does confirm my suspicion that being "capable of winning in a regional" is not in the ncaa handbook for pool b/c consideration

I also question their non-conference scheduling. Yes wins over Immaculata, PSU Abington, Swarthmore, Arcadia, and SUNY Purchase are great for adding to the win column but where do these help come selection time? Before you give me Keystone and Tufts,  I can see through those wins....Keystone (it was their first game of the year vs. MU's 19th) and Tufts (playing their 6th game in 5 days in their 1st week of the season.) Maybe a few more games  vs. out of conference South region opponents help their case.

hmm...tufts and keystone wins don't count? How about the fact that keystone was able to pitch their #1 vs. mu, while the monarchs started a frosh? also, mu played 33 regional games...a quick peek at most of the south region teams indicates that most played a similar number of games – keep in mind that mu had a game scheduled vs. rmc and rmc backed out of the game (despite the fact that they could have easily kept their pitching staff on a regular 5 day rotation - wednesday to monday – and didn't exactly burn up their staff in the odac tourney – 5 or 6 pitchers over 4 games)

Bottom line is that there is no clear cut #5 ranked South team. They all have their strong points and weaknesses. You could make an argument for any of them. I am a proponent of the human element involved with the selection of teams. I feel the coaches who see these teams day in and day out are capable of making better decisions than Joe the Casual Fan who may only see one side of the argument. Also, insinuating a team is ranked simply because of their proximity to a venue is short-sighted.

i disagree that there isn't a clear-cut #5 seed...i think emory is clearly a better team when you look at the criteria, and i think that mu is clearly a better choice as a #6 seed (of the 14 primary and secondary criteria, mu is better than rhodes in 10, while rhodes is better than mu in 2...that's a landslide, if you ask me) – while you may think it is short-sighted to insinuate proximity as justification for ranking rhodes ahead of mu and/or emory and/or m'ville, i think it's a reasonable line of reasoning when the primary and secondary criteria don't seem to support the decision