NCAA At Large Bids

last few years a losing record team would not get to play unless they won their league or post season tourney. Baylor last year was one game under 500 and missed going and this year made it to world series.

Coach Merc,
Losing or winning conference records does not hinder one from being able to get an automatic berth or get At Large Bids.
I am not in agreement with the winning early theory for bids. I think it should be based on teams overall record at the end of the year. Some teams play really rough first half schedules, to make the second half of conference play easier for them, end up strong but not able to host super regionals.
Clemson is a perfect example. Last year they had a really tough first half, lost many games but improved and won against top ranked teams the second half.
This year to secure a super regional, much of their first half is against teams that they should beat. If they come out above 500 first half and then go into conference play and do well (do not have to be conference champions or win every game)they should secure a bid. Likewise, if Clemson gets a top 25 ranking and stays in the top 25, any weaker team that plays them and is not ranked and wins and continues to do well in conference should secure a regional bid (if they have the money and facilities to support a bid).
Some of the bigger conference teams say they play weaker teams first half because they have such strong teams in their conference, but reality is, the better they do first half, better for a super regional spot.

One of the reasons why mid week games have become so important these days.

TPM
Hi, I agree that the at large should not be based soley on conference record. I was just looking over the past few years and one team,(no one in particular) stuck out in the list. They were from one of the big baseball conferences, finsished 6th or 7th had a 14-16 record and then finished the year at something like 42-20. Not bad!! They had started the year out with 12 or 14 straight wins against teams from the north, some who most likely had not been on a field until that game. I remember those days well.....

I guess thats' where the whole RPI and all the other formulas weigh in...

I was hoping to spark some thoughts, tiered of reading about guitars

Coach Merc

You might want to try taking guitar lessons---it can be quite relaxing when you learn to strum a few tunes

quote:

Should a team with a losing conference record be given an at large bid to the tournament?????

Coach....OF COURSE, if they're from the SEC, ACC, PAC10 or Big 12.

They are the best baseball conferences in the country and a losing conference record only means that you've played against the best teams in the country each weekend.

Better to give at-large berth to these conference teams than to some of the schools that get in with sub .500 (yearly records) because they win their Conference year-end tourney which gets them the berth.

"I was looking at the last 3 years of qualifiers for the NCAA baseball Regionals. Should a team with a losing conference record be given an at large bid to the tournament?????"

Answer: Yes, If it is one of the best 64 teams in the country.

Another question, should a team with a record of 27-32 or 27-25 be allowed in
the tournament over a team that is 42-18?

quote:

should a team with a record of 27-32 or 27-25 be allowed in
the tournament over a team that is 42-18?

If they got very hot toward the end of the year, then maybe. Much more often than not a team with less than 30, even 40 wins will struggle to advance to Omaha regardless of conference.

quote:

Answer: Yes, If it is one of the best 64 teams in the country.

What about the conference winners from the "other conferences" who may not be considered a "top 64" team. Should they unpack and stay home if they are not determined to be one of the top 64. They won their tournament.

This is the NCAA tournament which includes the winners of the sanctioned conferences/leagues, and the "at large" berths. Same issues as in basketball, who are the top 64 teams, and, the argument from the top conferences, whos teams argue saying they are deserving but are left out because some "low life" team got in because the won their stinkin' conference.

The top 64, that argument is always up for debate, and there will never be an agreement.

The stinkin' conference argument, I have no time for because that is not what the NCAA tournament is about. Every team is under the NCAA umbrella and pays their dues. If some big name team is left out, maybe they should have done better in the conference tourney. All the other teams that won their conferences had to

I would bet that every #4 seed and some #3 seeds in the NCAA regionals would be questioned whether they belonged as the top 64 teams. But that is not up for debate, because that is not how the tournament is set up.

rz1...lol...Spoken like a parent of a son on a team that his likely not going to get an at-large berth except by winning their conference tournament.

Saw their schedule in 2006 and 2007...Is Mike in love with playing SEC teams? With your son gone, he might start the spring of 2007 at 2-15!!!!!

Beenthere,

LOL. You got it right, and I was expecting a reply.

There are 280 some D1 baseball teams that dream of getting to the dance. Why not give the 200 or so teams that do not have a chance to be a top 64 a chance to fulfil a dream. That is the "light at the end of the tunnel" that the college sports is all about.

In the same breath I ask is there a chance in helll that a mid-D1 team that has an outstanding year, and is a top 64, but is upset in thier conference championships, going to bump an at large bubble SEC team that was not as good. Not a chance.

btw, with Creighton, Long Beach, and Mississippi opening up the UIC season this year the SEC pre-season pain may be eased a bit in the next 2 years. I doubt there are many coaches that would have the nads to do that.

I think they should do away with the tournament and just give Texas the national championship every year.



Just kidding.

Keller Dad...lol...How about Rice in the next couple of years? Coached a couple of their players in summer tournaments in 2002.

rz...Agree with what you've written. Anxious to see the big guy this spring. Mike says he's the "real deal". With Peterson and your guy, should get a few w's. Seen that the little lefthanded hitting outfielder is getting some pro interest, too.

Question.
Isn't the coach trying to get his team to bring up the playing level a notch or two by facing tougher competition?

RZ1-I would respectfully disagree with your statement about what is and what is not up for
"debate". IMO everything is open for discussion-just because the NCAA sets up certain guidelines for getting into the top 64 doesn't mean it cannot be changed. The BCS has been
tweaked again for this year and may be changed again and as far as I'm concerned it will always be bogus until they have a playoff like ALL other sports.

Is the intent of the of the 64 team baseball tourn. to determine a National Champion or is it
to reward as many teams as possible for winning a conference tournament at the end of the year? I asked the question about the 25-32 team getting into the tournament only because
Baylor's entry was questioned because of a losing record in their conference.

If a team is rewarded with an automatic entry just by winning the conf. tournament at the end of the season(regardless of reg season record, or caliber of teams played) then why
shouldn't a team that came in second in the tournament also be given some consideration?

Hypothetical example: two teams make it to the final two, both with sub .500 records. Championship game goes 15 innings with one team winning with bases loaded walk on questionable call by ump. One team moves on the other goes home-too bad, they came in second.

There will always be areas of debate, but when one starts questioning why a subpar conference
record gets a team into the "64" then I think we also need to question why a team or teams
with ZERO chance of winning it all gets in.

Makes for good discussion .

In last nights UNC vs Ill game Dick Vitale made mention to exactly what is part of this discussion. UNC played a great game with 4 freshman playing> He stated that if they could upset Ill they will probably go 10-1 over the next 11 games before they have to play an ACC opponent. Their schedule is set up to play the weaker non-conference teams for record purposes only. Adding W's.

In baseball, many of the better weather teams offer guarantees($$$$$) to intice the northern schools with smaller budgets to come and play. Some may call this buying wins, however without this, there would be some small schools that would have to have their players out fund raising to make the southern trip. (It was a long time a go but I remember). Read http://www.collegebaseballinsider.com you'll see who's offering...

Last year, UNC-Wilmington won the CAA regular season, hovering in the top-50 all season.

They lost the conf tournament and the automatic bid. They ended up getting squeezed out of the tourney so the #9 team from the SEC could go. Not right.

The way the system is set up rewards the status quo and aids recruiting in the large conferences. It squeezes the smaller teams and conferences that are building.

To attend, you should at least have a winning record in your conference.

I guess those teams with losing records in their
conference that win the conf.tourn. would then be ineligible.

It just keeps going and going and .....

not following the debate here -
the ncaa uses a formula with RPI to eval at the strength of teams for at large bids & seeding

Baylor got a bid from their better RPI -

wins over "weaker" non conference teams DO NOT HELP
wins over "weaker" conference opponents DO NOT HELP
a great won-loss record DOES NOT HELP, if the wins are weak teams

and ya really got it backwards - it's not "powers" scheduling weaker teams

non-power & northern teams, many in weaker conferences are "lined up"
to schedule strong southern teams in hopes that they can string together some "quality" wins to boost their RPI, so in the event they don't win their conference tourney & they still get "at-large" consideration (in weak conferences you can have a great w/l record and still have a poor RPI)

seems pretty logical really

or am I missing something?

ps - UNC Wilmington did have a good case for being included, but that is also a good reason to control your destiny & not leave it resting on a "BUBBLE"


.

Scheduling for each type of team accomplishes different goals. As Bee points out wins over weaker teams don't help RPI. A decent mid major struggles to get major conference teams to play, especially on a home and home basis, as the major conference teams have enough good RPI games scheduled.

If the mid major team has a strong following (large gate) it is a balancing act as to play other mid-majors at home to make money or play up on the road.

Bee, these are some pretty good programs;

Houston is looking to fill one midweek game in 2006. Contact assistant coach Sean Allen at 713-743-9457 or sallen4@uh.edu.

Duke is looking to fill a weekend series in 2006 due to a cancellation. The dates are Feb. 17-19, 2006, but the Blue Devils could also play Feb. 10-12, 2006. Contact assistant coach Matthew Boggs at 919-668-5735.

South Alabama has open dates in 2007. The dates are Feb. 23-25, 2007 for the four-team Coca-Cola Classic and April 13-15 for a two- or three-game series. Guarantees are possible. Contact head coach Steve Kittrell at 251-454-1524.

Arizona is looking to fill two midweek dates in 2006 due to a cancellation. The dates are flexible. Contact assistant coach Andy Diver at 520-626-8859.

Boston College is looking to fill dates in 2006. The Eagles are looking for a two- or three-game home series on May 13-14, 2006. A sizeable guarantee will be offered. Contact head coach Pete Hughes at hughespf@bc.edu.

Wagner is looking for date in 2006 and 2007. The dates for 2006 are Feb. 24-26, 2006. It will travel but needs a good guarantee. For 2007, Wagner is looking to fill March 2-4, 2007 and May 4-6, 2007. It needs a good guarantee to travel. Contact assistant coach Jim Carone at james.carone@wagner.edu or 718-420-4081.

Florida Atlantic is looking for two teams to fill a tournament in 2007. The tourney dates are Feb. 2-4, 2007. FAU also is looking to fill a home series Feb. 16-18, 2007. Generous guarantees are available for both dates. Contact assistant coach John McCormack at jmccorma@fau.edu or 561-297-3477.

California is looking to fill dates in 2007. The dates are March 16-18, 2007, and the Golden Bears are looking for a home series. A good guarantee is available. Contact assistant coach Jon Zuber at 510-642-5315 or jzuber@berkeley.edu.


Duke is looking to fill dates in 2007. The Blue Devils are looking for home series on Feb. 9-11 and May 6-8, 2007. Contact assistant coach Matthew Boggs at 919-668-5735 or mboggs@duaa.duke.edu.

Stetson is looking for dates in 2007. The Hatters need a home series April 20-22, 2007. A guarantee is available. Contact assistant coach Mitch Markham at 386-822-8733 or mmarkham@stetson.edu.

Cal State Northridge has open dates in 2007 and 2008. The dates in 2007 are Feb. 2-4, Feb. 9-11, March 2-4 (THESE DATES FILLED) and March 9-11 and March 23-25. The dates in 2008 are May 9-11. Contact head coach Steve Rousey at 818-677-7055.

Arizona State is looking to fill several weekends in 2007. The dates are Feb. 2-4, Feb. 23-25, March 9-11 and March 16-18. Contact Graham Rossini at 480-965-1904 or graham.rossini@asu.edu.

Nevada is looking to fill dates in 2007. The dates are Feb. 23-25, 2007. Nevada must play at home and will guarantee three games. Stadium has newly installed field turf. Contact assistant coach Stan Stolte at stolte@unr.edu or 775-784-8031 ext. 262.

Quoted from http://www.collegebaseballinsider.com

quote:

by coach Merc: It looks like a few of these schools give large $$$ guarantees to bring down smaller northern schools for early games. Getting 12-15 early wins can really help the overall record. This is nothing more then paying $$ for wins

thanks for the update,
is the part about the "large $$$" on the next page?
are those openings sent only to "weak schools"?
Duke doesn't charge admission

the bid is based on RPI, NOT their overall record

your premise is bogus


.

[{and ya really got it backwards - it's not "powers" scheduling weaker teams

non-power & northern teams, many in weaker conferences are "lined up"
to schedule strong southern teams in hopes that they can string together some "quality" wins to boost their RPI, so in the event they don't win their conference tourney & they still get "at-large" consideration (in weak conferences you can have a great w/l record and still have a poor RPI)]

seems pretty logical really

or am I missing something?

I believe the terms used are "generous", "good", "sizable" sorry for using "Large"

ok, I give - it DOES take two teams to schedule a game

the conclusion you reached after viewing a posting of some open dates is still in error

if those teams scheduled "sister's of the poor U" and won every game it does NOT help their RPI & chances of an at-large bid -

but it WOULD help the visiting team if it was from a "weaker" conference"



.

Not sure why Baylor's entry into NCAA tourn is being questioned. 26 wins against top
50 teams and 3 against Texas.

As far as the SEC #9 team being invited, Miss State gets in because of automatic bid for winning conference tourney-even with losing conf. record. They still had 15 wins against top 50 teams. Auburn and Arkansas-both losing conf. records had 13 wins each
against top 50 teams. Arkansas beat Texas and Florida(twice).

I also think UNC-Wilmington should have gotten a bid as well, however, they did not beat a team in the top 50. They were 1 and 1 vs. Virginia ranked 57.

According to RPI

quote:

by C Merc: Dick Vitale made mention to exactly what is part of this discussion

heeey baaaby

coach, you came to a fork in the road & didn't take it

basketball uses an RPI fomula as well and a great record vs teams "weaker" than you gives you NO advantage

fyi, the rpi can be derived by simply (?) using the following

RPI= .25 × WP + .50 × OWP + .25 × OOWP +bonus -penalty

here is a link further explaining-
sebaseball - rpi
it does note some shortcomings - if you can understand them, feel free to tell us what they are in plain english

a better debate might be -

"why should a team get an "AUTO" bid by winning the conference tourney if they're not in the "top 150"??



.

Bee,
Thanks for the link...These are quotes from the link.

{The description of the RPI says that it combines a team's winning percentage with its opponents' winning percentage, and its opponents' opponents' winning percentage. If it did that, it would very likely satisfy the objective, but it doesn't do that. The factors that are called OWP and OOWP in the RPI are not percentages at all, so whatever it is it's not a "Ratings Percentage Index".}

{Including the Opponents WP (not counting games vs the opponent) for each game played sounds right, but what it means is that you can boost your RPI by losing many times to a good team, since the good team's WP against other teams gets counted for each loss in OWP. Also, two good teams who play each other a lot boost their OOWP components, so WP+OOWP counters any losses to each other.}

{ Which brings us to the OOWP component. It is just the average of the opponents' OWP values. This is no more a "percentage" than the OWP is, but it introduces an extra problem. When a team's Opponents' Opponents include the team itself or a team that is also an opponent, there is not the same care taken to remove games that are already accounted for in WP or OWP, so the OOWP can be manipulated by careful scheduling to include your own WP in it as many times as you like. Put plainly, by beating lots of weak teams who play each other, you can make your RPI as high as you want without ever playing a good team.
Which is exactly what we were saying..

quote:

by C Merc: but what it means is that you can boost your RPI by losing many times to a good team, since the good team's WP against other teams gets counted for each loss in OWP

I believe your RPI can only be "boosted" with WINS

AND you don't know for sure who the "GOOD" teams are until they play their schedule and their RPI plays out - so, scheduling 2+ yrs out is just rolling the dice


.

Those quotes all came direct from your link..

It's like the article said, there so many variables that we can go on and on as we have. It was all good input and I guess that's why they can't seem to come up with a cure for it or the BCS...
Thanks

so -

what do you think about a team out of the top 150 getting an "auto bid"

I guess the cop out, answer a question with a question is; Disregarding the "Auto bid" teams/conferences, would each team who won their regular season title be in the top 150? If not then there would be conferences either not represneted or forced to disband in order to qualify.

I do think since variables such as budgets, # of scholarships, travel, weather, etc. effect conferences/teams differently, each conference should be represented.

Bee and Coach Merc,
According to link below, if a team plays a team that is a constant winner, it effects the RPI. For example, if Clemson played top ranked Tech, not necessarily beat them and Tech won all of their other games against top competition, and those teams beat their competition. Clemson would be the beneficiary of a better RPI,higher if tehy won teh game, not only based on their wins, but who they played and how those teams played. This is my understanding.

http://www.boydsworld.com/baseball/faq.html
Coach Merc,
The NCAA championship is a money maker. The NCAA is going to create a field that will put money in their pocket. They are only going to pay the expense of sending a team to Omaha, to win. Would you watch a game where Texas played weakest conference XYZ winner?

Keep in mind that most Northern teams go south to play strong teams not so much for the wins possibility and RPI boost but for the benefit of "getting out of the barn" and playing in warm weather for week or two. Since most teams from the North get the bid for the NCAA's by winning their conference title, the wins and losses down south mean nothing other than helping the team get better by playing good competition in warm weather.

TPM : You are correct-- the RPI is boosted by the simple fact a team plays strong rivals, win or lose-- obviously when you beat a strong team the value is more but you do get points for just playing the stronger teams

quote:

RPI= .25 × WP + .50 × OWP + .25 × OOWP +bonus -penalty

yup, I stand corrected after closer review of the math

opponents win %, and opponents opponents win % percentage WILL boost the RPI with a loss to a strong team

.

Based on my understanding, I think you all are correct and bring good arguments to the table.

I could never understand how regionals are chosen with automatic and At Large bids. In the end, for the bigger schools, the human factor comes into play, along with facilities, region for field advantage. Some don't like this.

According to my new understanding, weaker schools need to win their conf title, while larger schools have to work off their RPI, SOS, ISR, etc. and how they place in their division, how they play out against top 25 ranked teams, how they begin, how they end up.
In the Clemson regional, for instance, NC A&T got an automatic bid, based on Div Title, but I couldn't see them playing in Omaha, but given a chance nonetheless. So there is a chance for weaker teams to get into the playing field.Fair enough.
The stronger contenders (where they do not have to win conf championship) had to work pretty darn hard ALL season against tougher competition, and place well in their final Div standings, not just win their conf title.
Based on my observation, it's a lot harder road for a Top 25 team to make it to Omaha than a weaker team. JMO.

quote:

Based on my observation, it's a lot harder road for a Top 25 team to make it to Omaha than a weaker team. JMO.

esplain please? Won't the top 25 team have a higher seed? A better chance of hosting, based on history?

TPM

I too am confused by your "logic"

Please explain

Don't weaker teams usually get thrown to the wolves and miles away from their home territory ?

TPM,

Regardless of the conference titles, the stronger rpi team will have the better seed.

As far as an "easier road" to Omaha, you still have to win the region and super to move on. If you ask most coaches they will say keep me close to home because I have to beat em a all anyway

As far as seedings I thing you will still find the top 8 overall seeds matched up with the bottom 8 seeds in the first regional game. To me that sounds like a pretty tough road. With many of the regional #2's and #3's you will probably see them closer to home. The #4's are like TR said thrown to the wolves far from home.

My opinion was referring to just getting to the regionals.
Once they get there, I know the better team with higher RPI gets the advantage.
But those teams have had to battle it out in tough divisions, play against teams in other tough divisions (ex, SEC teams vs. ACC teams in scheduled games).

I believe it is much more difficult for a team from the weaker conferences to get to a regional tournament than it is for the teams in the SEC, ACC, etc.

A team in the top two or three conferences doesn't really have to win any tournaments or qualifiers to get a regional bid. They simply have to finish their season, perhaps out of the last one or two places in their conference/division.

The teams in the weaker conferences actually have to qualify for their conference tournament AND THEN WIN the tournament to receive a regional bid. The best team does not always win their conference tournament.