BB: Top Teams in West Region

[TexasBB]

I see that the second Regional rankings have been publised:
West Region
1 Linfield 30-4 32-5
2 Cal Lutheran 30-7-1 31-7-1
T3 Texas-Tyler 26-8 30-10
T3 Trinity (Texas) 32-7 36-7
5 George Fox 23-10 26-12
6 Texas Lutheran 29-10 32-10

I note that there is an error with respect to Texas-Tyler.  They did not credit them with the 2-0 record beating Hardin-Simmons over last weekend in the first round of the ASC tournament. UTT should be 28-8 in region and 32-10 overall. I am not sure if that would have mattered in the ranking or not.

TexasBB

[tigerfan_2001]

I see that the second Regional rankings have been publised:
West Region
1 Linfield 30-4 32-5
2 Cal Lutheran 30-7-1 31-7-1
T3 Texas-Tyler 26-8 30-10
T3 Trinity (Texas) 32-7 36-7
5 George Fox 23-10 26-12
6 Texas Lutheran 29-10 32-10

I note that there is an error with respect to Texas-Tyler.  They did not credit them with the 2-0 record beating Hardin-Simmons over last weekend in the first round of the ASC tournament. UTT should be 28-8 in region and 32-10 overall. I am not sure if that would have mattered in the ranking or not.

TexasBB

I wonder if those wins happened after the regional deadline and maybe they will be included in this weeks ranking.

[Ralph Turner]

I see that the second Regional rankings have been publised:
West Region
1 Linfield 30-4 32-5
2 Cal Lutheran 30-7-1 31-7-1
T3 Texas-Tyler 26-8 30-10
T3 Trinity (Texas) 32-7 36-7
5 George Fox 23-10 26-12
6 Texas Lutheran 29-10 32-10

I note that there is an error with respect to Texas-Tyler.  They did not credit them with the 2-0 record beating Hardin-Simmons over last weekend in the first round of the ASC tournament. UTT should be 28-8 in region and 32-10 overall. I am not sure if that would have mattered in the ranking or not.

TexasBB

I wonder if those wins happened after the regional deadline and maybe they will be included in this weeks ranking.

The committee considers games thru April 28.

[TexasBB]

Tyler probably clinched at least a Pool C playoff spot today by beating Texas Lutheran convincingly 11-3. They can finish no worse than second in the tournament. With this win their regional record improves to 30-8. They are in the driver's seat for a Pool A as they are in the finals and have saved most of the bullpen. The loser's bracket winner tonight will have to beat them twice tomorrow and the pitching staffs of either Louisiana College or Texas Lutheran will be spent. Tyler has shown opportunistic offense and solid defense thus far.

[TexasBB]

Patriots win the title with a 10-4 win over Louisiana College. They get the ASC Pool A spot in the regionals.

It remains to be seen if Texas Lutheran will get a Pool C bid.

[108 Stitches]

CLU  clinched with 10-6 win over P-P. P-P probably helped their cause getting to the championship game. West is filling in now and it will be interesting to see how P-P, TLU, and GF compare to another team that might get shipped into the West.

[CrashDavisD3]

1) NWC Pool A - Linfield
2) SCIAC Pool A - Cal Lutheran
3) SCAC Pool A - Trinity Texas
4) ASC Pool A - Texas - Tyler
5) Pool C ?
6) Pool C ?

Possible in the West George Fox, Texas Lutheran, Pomona Pitzer

[Ron Boerger]

I would guess that if UT-T was tied with Trinity in the regional rankings last week that their undefeated performance in the ASC championships will propel them to third this week.

TLU going 1-2 in those same championships may be the death knell to their NCAA hopes. 

[108 Stitches]

Does it really matter 3 or 4? 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, etc. Unless they go to 8 in the region I guess.

[CrashDavisD3]

Does it really matter 3 or 4? 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, etc. Unless they go to 8 in the region I guess.

Not really since...Look back in 2009 to see what the seed was of the team that won it.

[Teddy_Ballgame]

Does it really matter 3 or 4? 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, etc. Unless they go to 8 in the region I guess.

Not really since...Look back in 2009 to see what the seed was of the team that won it.

Well if you look all the way back to 2012, the 3 seed won it but your point is well taken and I don't think seeding had anything to do with it.

The seeding advantage only really seems to matter in game one, as the higher seed is the home team (I believe). We can argue about whether that's a significant advantage or not, but if it is, it only matters for the first game. After that they try and balance it so that everyone plays approximately half home and half away for the tournament.

The other advantage, in theory, is being the #1 seed. They get to start with the 6 seed (not as big an advantage this year without any surprise Pool A teams in the field, unless one gets shipped in) and they get to play a team with a loss in their second game, potentially making their road to the championship a tad easier. But last year, Concordia won their first game and then lost to La Verne- a 4 seed who had lost to #3 Whitworth in their first game. And then Concordia was bounced in their next game. So in a tournament where everyone is pretty strong, the seeding doesn't really seem to be much of an advantage in itself. Higher seeds winning is an indication that they have a better team, rather than an indication that there's any inherent advantage in being a higher seed based on tournament format.

[CrashDavisD3]

Does it really matter 3 or 4? 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, etc. Unless they go to 8 in the region I guess.

Not really since...Look back in 2009 to see what the seed was of the team that won it.

Well if you look all the way back to 2012, the 3 seed won it but your point is well taken and I don't think seeding had anything to do with it.

The seeding advantage only really seems to matter in game one, as the higher seed is the home team (I believe). We can argue about whether that's a significant advantage or not, but if it is, it only matters for the first game. After that they try and balance it so that everyone plays approximately half home and half away for the tournament.

The other advantage, in theory, is being the #1 seed. They get to start with the 6 seed (not as big an advantage this year without any surprise Pool A teams in the field, unless one gets shipped in) and they get to play a team with a loss in their second game, potentially making their road to the championship a tad easier. But last year, Concordia won their first game and then lost to La Verne- a 4 seed who had lost to #3 Whitworth in their first game. And then Concordia was bounced in their next game. So in a tournament where everyone is pretty strong, the seeding doesn't really seem to be much of an advantage in itself. Higher seeds winning is an indication that they have a better team, rather than an indication that there's any inherent advantage in being a higher seed based on tournament format.

In 2009 #6 seed beat #1 seed in Game 1. All teams are good in the regional.

[CrashDavisD3]

Does the Pool C bids come from the West or does the West get shutout and Pool C's fly in from other regions 

[Teddy_Ballgame]

Does it really matter 3 or 4? 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, etc. Unless they go to 8 in the region I guess.

Not really since...Look back in 2009 to see what the seed was of the team that won it.

Well if you look all the way back to 2012, the 3 seed won it but your point is well taken and I don't think seeding had anything to do with it.

The seeding advantage only really seems to matter in game one, as the higher seed is the home team (I believe). We can argue about whether that's a significant advantage or not, but if it is, it only matters for the first game. After that they try and balance it so that everyone plays approximately half home and half away for the tournament.

The other advantage, in theory, is being the #1 seed. They get to start with the 6 seed (not as big an advantage this year without any surprise Pool A teams in the field, unless one gets shipped in) and they get to play a team with a loss in their second game, potentially making their road to the championship a tad easier. But last year, Concordia won their first game and then lost to La Verne- a 4 seed who had lost to #3 Whitworth in their first game. And then Concordia was bounced in their next game. So in a tournament where everyone is pretty strong, the seeding doesn't really seem to be much of an advantage in itself. Higher seeds winning is an indication that they have a better team, rather than an indication that there's any inherent advantage in being a higher seed based on tournament format.

In 2009 #6 seed beat #1 seed in Game 1. All teams are good in the regional.

Actually the #6 seed did NOT beat the #1 seed in 2009. Source: I played in that game. PP beat Hendrix. Still, 2009 is both a good and bad example of how seeding is important. Being the #1 seed that year allowed us to play Hendrix who had like .500 record in the regular season. But we did lose our next game, to a GFU team that lost their first game to Chapman (as you probably remember   ). After that first game, seeding didn't mean diddly-squat. We were bounced by a Chapman team that we went 3-0 against in the regular season, and who- as a lower seed- were still obviously very good and played like the best team in the tournament.

Now, I think this year the #6 will be a lot stronger (barring the shipment of a "weak" Pool A from somewhere else) and I still do agree with your point that all teams will be good. Looking at specific years gives us too small a sample size to make generalizations, but I imagine that the one seed wins less often than statistical analysis would suggest.

[Teddy_Ballgame]

Does the Pool C bids come from the West or does the West get shutout and Pool C's fly in from other regions 

Depending on how other conference tournaments go in the rest of the country, George Fox seems like a pretty good Pool C candidate. Tough to imagine TLU or PP getting a Pool C though, so you have to imagine at least one outside team getting shipped in.