(05-18-2014 09:48 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Over the past five years, the NCAA has stuck very close to RPI in handing out regional hosting spots. Regarding pre-tournament top 16 RPI teams:

2013: 15 of 16 hosted regionals
2012: 15 of 15 hosted regionals (Arizona St. was not eligible due to probation)
2011: 13 of 16 hosted regionals
2010: 14 of 16 hosted regionals
2009: 13 of 16 hosted regionals

Of the nine top 16 RPI teams that did not host regionals, none of them had won their regular season conference championship. In other words, over the last five years, 100% of top 16 RPI teams that also won their regular season conference title have hosted regionals. The nine teams denied regionals were commonly major conference teams that finished well down in their conference standings.

Selection of regional hosts is made by a committee rather than clearly defined strictly objective criteria, so no one is a "lock" until the host sites are announced. However, I feel comfortable speculating that we will host regardless of our performance in the conference tournament.

Awesome research. Major Props to you! I will now back off the ledge...

(05-18-2014 07:27 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 10:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 09:49 PM)temchugh Wrote:  I a agree with Walt; Blake will not pitch on Wednesday.

I'm fine with McCanna pitching Wednesday. However, I would understand the logic of pitching McDowell on Wednesday. I believe thAt we are lock for hosting a regional. So our performance in the conference tournament is of no real consequence. Pitching McDowell on Wednesday, McCanna on Thu, and Fox in the third game sets us up better for the regional as far as days of rest goes. The risk of going 0-2 would be higher, but that would be ok.

We are not yet a lock to host a regional. I suggest you take a look at Warren Nolan's Nitty Gritty Report: http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2014/nitty
...and recognize that the Committee will look beyond RPI to get a 3rd Western host (likely Washington) and, possibly, another "newbie" host site. We have the RPI (at least for the moment) and the conference regular season championship, but the Committee will notice that CUSA is the #8th ranked conference. We do not have a particularly strong hosting-worthy resume with regards to record vs. Top 25/50 (3-6 vs. Top 25, 8-10 vs. Top 50). Bottom line-- we can ill-afford to go 2 & Q. Should we win one game we should be safe (but not a lock).

As for setting up for the regionals, we'll have a full week to rest up and go with our preferred rotation, regardless to how far we go in Hattiesburg. Note-- the regionals don't start until the following Friday or Saturday, depending on which side of the bracket we're placed. Had our first game opponent not been FIU, I would have agreed on McDowell as a viable option...but not when you're going against arguably the best starting pitcher in the conference and the best offensive club...and Chase has had but one good outing in his last 3 - 4 appearances.

For those believing we're a lock to host, I suggest reading Kendall's stock report this morning, in which he actually makes the case for both Louisville and LSU over Rice and UH (with Cal Poly, Washington, Oklahoma State, Vandy, TCU and South Carolina ahead of us as regional hosts beyond the 8 national seeds). I do think UH is in jeopardy if they don't advance to the AAC championship, given they finished in 3rd place in conference (4 1/5 games behind Louisville), but save for conference positioning, UH blows us away resume-wise, including their 3-0 record against us. At this point, I think the Committee has an valid excuse--with other viable, justifiable options-- for NOT giving the city of Houston two host spots. In fact, unless both of us win our conference tournaments, at this point, I'd bet against both of us hosting. The question is whether the Committee puts greater weight on conference champions or overall resume...

http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View...ticle=9896

Quote:LOOKING AT THE HOSTS

There are some things to discuss from a hosting perspective after Saturday's contests. Beyond the national seeds, we entered the week with Houston, Cal Poly, Oklahoma State, South Carolina, Washington, TCU, Vanderbilt and Rice as hosts. However, LSU and Louisville also are teams to watch entering conference tournament action next week.

The Tigers took a major step back in the hosting discussion three weeks ago with a series loss at Texas A&M, but have played well since, splitting a rain-shortened series at home against Alabama last weekend, while hitting the road and sweeping Auburn this weekend. I don't think the Tigers have surpassed Houston or Rice just yet, but they're close, and a strong showing in the SEC tournament might do the trick.

Going inside the Tigers' resume, they have an RPI of 16 after Saturday's victory over Auburn, while they're 4-8 vs. RPI Top 25, 12-12 vs. RPI Top 50 and 18-12 vs. RPI Top 100. LSU also finished the regular season third in the SEC standings. Those are compelling arguments and it makes next week's SEC tournament crucial. If the Tigers don't host, a seamless transition over to the Lafayette, La., Regional likely is on the docket.

As for Louisville, it also is very much in the hosting mix, and there are reasons for committee members to choose the Cards over UH as a host. For instance, the Cards took a road series over UH and won the American Athletic Conference crown, finishing four and a half games in front of the Cougars. UL has an RPI of 19 with a 4-5 mark vs. RPI Top 25, 6-7 mark vs. RPI Top 50 and 13-8 record vs. RPI Top 100.

I'm not ready to officially make the switch to LSU or Louisville as host sites, but my confidence level with Houston and Rice has decreased this weekend.

If you're looking for a surprise host, watch out for Texas Tech. The Red Raiders are a long shot to host right now, but always think outside the box. Tech has a head-to-head series win over Indiana to its credit, a fourth-place Big 12 finish, 40 wins, a top-15 RPI, and eight wins vs. RPI Top 25 teams to go with a 26-15 mark vs. RPI Top 100.

Of course, what Kendall fails to recognize in his analysis is that it is HIGLY unlikely that the Committee is going to name 5 SEC teams as regional hosts (along with 3 ACC teams (UVA, FSU, Miami). Consequently, if LSU runs through the SEC tourney and gets to host, it will knock out either South Carolina or Vandy.

If I could mention something that probably isn't part of Kendell's motivation, but is interesting to me, is his travel plans. If someone was going to travel to Hoover to watch the SEC Tourney, might it make sense to make nice with the locals before you get there? Just saying...

IMO, Kendall is the least skilled of the "analysts" who try to predict the field of 64. It might be interesting to go back a few years and see how his late season predictions have panned out (but not me, not today...).

How was it determined that we would be paired with FIU and UAB with UTSA? Both tied with the same conference record (along with ECU).

(05-18-2014 01:02 PM)grol Wrote:  How was it determined that we would be paired with FIU and UAB with UTSA? Both tied with the same conference record (along with ECU).

Tie breaker is record against conference leader (Rice). ECU was 2-1 (6 seed), UTSA was 1-2 (7 seed), FIU was 0-3 (8 seed). RPI would have been used next, if needed.

(05-18-2014 01:52 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 01:02 PM)grol Wrote:  How was it determined that we would be paired with FIU and UAB with UTSA? Both tied with the same conference record (along with ECU).

Tie breaker is record against conference leader (Rice). ECU was 2-1 (6 seed), UTSA was 1-2 (7 seed), FIU was 0-3 (8 seed). RPI would have been used next, if needed.

Thanks

(05-18-2014 09:48 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Over the past five years, the NCAA has stuck very close to RPI in handing out regional hosting spots. Regarding pre-tournament top 16 RPI teams:

2013: 15 of 16 hosted regionals
2012: 15 of 15 hosted regionals (Arizona St. was not eligible due to probation)
2011: 13 of 16 hosted regionals
2010: 14 of 16 hosted regionals
2009: 13 of 16 hosted regionals

Of the nine top 16 RPI teams that did not host regionals, none of them had won their regular season conference championship. In other words, over the last five years, 100% of top 16 RPI teams that also won their regular season conference title have hosted regionals. The nine teams denied regionals were commonly major conference teams that finished well down in their conference standings.

Selection of regional hosts is made by a committee rather than clearly defined strictly objective criteria, so no one is a "lock" until the host sites are announced. However, I feel comfortable speculating that we will host regardless of our performance in the conference tournament.

Your hstorical research is all true...BUT what you do not appear to be recognizing is that should we go 0-2 in the CUSA tourney, it is possible, if not likely, that our RPI will no longer be in the Top 16. Keep in mind that as of this morning we are #10 according to Boyds, but in a virtual tie at 0.591 with #11 TxTech and #12 Miami (who are already a lock for regional host and in contention for national seed), and only .008 ahead of #17 Cal Poly (who are almost a lock for a regional host already). And if we don't finish Top 16 in RPI, it gives the Committee an excuse not to have us host, especially since our overall resume vs. Top 25/50 is not very good. Also keep in mind that winning games in the CUSA tourney will not likely improve our RPI since ODU is the only team with an RPI under 65, and ODU's RPI has climbed to #39.

I stand by my previous statement that we had to sweep LaTech (check) and win at least one game in the tourney to feel anywhere near safe, and even one win would not make us a lock by any means.

Win the tournament. Then let things sort themselves out. Who gives a damn what the minimum is--unless your objective is to do the minimum.

(05-18-2014 09:48 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Over the past five years, the NCAA has stuck very close to RPI in handing out regional hosting spots. Regarding pre-tournament top 16 RPI teams:

2013: 15 of 16 hosted regionals
2012: 15 of 15 hosted regionals (Arizona St. was not eligible due to probation)
2011: 13 of 16 hosted regionals
2010: 14 of 16 hosted regionals
2009: 13 of 16 hosted regionals

Of the nine top 16 RPI teams that did not host regionals, none of them had won their regular season conference championship. In other words, over the last five years, 100% of top 16 RPI teams that also won their regular season conference title have hosted regionals. The nine teams denied regionals were commonly major conference teams that finished well down in their conference standings.

Selection of regional hosts is made by a committee rather than clearly defined strictly objective criteria, so no one is a "lock" until the host sites are announced. However, I feel comfortable speculating that we will host regardless of our performance in the conference tournament.

(05-18-2014 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Win the tournament. Then let things sort themselves out. Who gives a damn what the minimum is--unless your objective is to do the minimum.

So....maybe eleven more in a row would make seeding mute? My numbers may be off, but I like the way you are thinking.

(05-18-2014 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Win the tournament. Then let things sort themselves out. Who gives a damn what the minimum is--unless your objective is to do the minimum.

I don't believe that it is that simple. Of course we want to win every game we play, be sometimes you try harder than others. The real objective is to win in Omaha. Walt thinks we need to win one or two games to host. I think zero or one. Once the coaches are confident that we have done enough to secure a regional host, I don't think that they will push our pitchers quite as hard as they might if winning the conference tournament was what we really needed to secure that host.

Say that we are 1-1 and playing an elimination game on Friday. Duplantier gets the start and has pitched well enough to keep us in the game but hits 100 pitches in the sixth inning. Ditman and Tekyel have each pitched 3+ innings over the first two games. If you just gotta win that game, you might leave Duplantier in and let him get up to 120 - 125 pitches. If you are 95+% sure that you will host a regional regardless, then the outcome of the game is pretty much meaningless and you are going to make sure that don't push any of the pitchers too far.

If you believe that 2 wins is the key to locking down a regional host (and the bullpen has already been stretched by an extra inning game), then you might use McDowell in relief in game 3 and start Smith for game 4 (which would be a truly meaningless game).

(05-18-2014 04:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Also keep in mind that winning games in the CUSA tourney will not likely improve our RPI since ODU is the only team with an RPI under 65, and ODU's RPI has climbed to #39.

Actually, FIU at 34-18 will help. As long as we avoid MT (24-24), the tournament should improve our RPI. (assuming a 2-2 or better performance, that is)

(05-19-2014 07:23 AM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 04:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Also keep in mind that winning games in the CUSA tourney will not likely improve our RPI since ODU is the only team with an RPI under 65, and ODU's RPI has climbed to #39.

Actually, FIU at 34-18 will help. As long as we avoid MT (24-24), the tournament should improve our RPI. (assuming a 2-2 or better performance, that is)

??? Disagree. It won't likely hurt our RPI much, unless we go 0-2 or 1-2, but it will not help it (relative to the teams immediately in front and behind us, save for UH). FIU may have a great record, but their RPI is only #70. Again, ODU is the only other CUSA team with an RPI under #65, and even beating them will not help RPI much as they're at #39.

(05-19-2014 08:21 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 07:23 AM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 04:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Also keep in mind that winning games in the CUSA tourney will not likely improve our RPI since ODU is the only team with an RPI under 65, and ODU's RPI has climbed to #39.

Actually, FIU at 34-18 will help. As long as we avoid MT (24-24), the tournament should improve our RPI. (assuming a 2-2 or better performance, that is)

??? Disagree. It won't likely hurt our RPI much, unless we go 0-2 or 1-2, but it will not help it (relative to the teams immediately in front and behind us, save for UH). FIU may have a great record, but their RPI is only #70. Again, ODU is the only other CUSA team with an RPI under #65, and even beating them will not help RPI much as they're at #39.

According to Boyd a couple weeks ago, FIU can help.

http://boydsworld.com/sa/rice.html

Now, I know their record went down since then, but they still have .622 adjusted WP, which will help us.

(05-18-2014 04:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Your historical research is all true...BUT what you do not appear to be recognizing is that should we go 0-2 in the CUSA tourney, it is possible, if not likely, that our RPI will no longer be in the Top 16. Keep in mind that as of this morning we are #10 according to Boyds, but in a virtual tie at 0.591 with #11 TxTech and #12 Miami (who are already a lock for regional host and in contention for national seed), and only .008 ahead of #17 Cal Poly (who are almost a lock for a regional host already). And if we don't finish Top 16 in RPI, it gives the Committee an excuse not to have us host, especially since our overall resume vs. Top 25/50 is not very good. Also keep in mind that winning games in the CUSA tourney will not likely improve our RPI since ODU is the only team with an RPI under 65, and ODU's RPI has climbed to #39.

I stand by my previous statement that we had to sweep LaTech (check) and win at least one game in the tourney to feel anywhere near safe, and even one win would not make us a lock by any means.

I'm not sure I completely understand RPI, but here goes:

- Adjusted win percentage is 25% of RPI
- Opponents win percentage is 50% of RPI
- Opponents opponents win percentage is 25% of RPI

Today, our adjusted win percentage (aWP) is 0.6780. If we go 0-2 in the conference tourny, our aWP will fall to 0.6533. All else being equal, this alone would cause our RPI to fall by 0.0062 (aWP is 25% of RPI, so the decrease in RPI is 25% of the decrease in aWP).

Our current opponents win percentage (OWP, 50% of RPI) is 0.5792. FIU has an aWP of 0.6220 and Middle Tenn has an aWP of 0.5228. The average of those two is 0.5724. Thus, playing FIU and Middle Tenn will have very close to zero impact on our OWP.

I'm not smart enough to figure out how our OOWP (25% of RPI) will change.

However, I think that there is a very good chance that we could go 0-2 in the conference tourny and still remain in the top 16 RPI.

Of course, I have no desire for the accuracy of this analysis to be tested.

My gut - which is often wildly inaccurate - suggests the following re: hosting a regional.

* Win the tournament or make the championship game and we're fine for hosting

* Go 2-2 or thereabouts and we're probably OK - but leaving ourselves somewhat exposed in regards to happenings around the country

* Go 2/Q and all bets are off (not necessarily saying we're out ... but clearly at risk)

(05-19-2014 03:24 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  My gut - which is often wildly inaccurate - suggests the following re: hosting a regional.

* Win the tournament or make the championship game and we're fine for hosting

* Go 2-2 or thereabouts and we're probably OK - but leaving ourselves somewhat exposed in regards to happenings around the country

* Go 2/Q and all bets are off (not necessarily saying we're out ... but clearly at risk)

IMO, 2 & Q and we need luck to get a regional host (and an awful lot of help from just about everyone around us).

1-2 and our hosting is at risk-- we're at the mercy of the Committee, which is never a good thing.

2-2 and we're probably safe, but not a lock.

Championship game participation pretty much give us a lock on a regional host.

(05-19-2014 03:24 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  My gut - which is often wildly inaccurate - suggests the following re: hosting a regional.

I agree with you and Walt (and Owl 69/70/75). Go 2 and Q and we could be the exception that proves the rule in temchugh's accounting of top 16 RPI teams that don't get to host. Rice would be 6-5 going into regionals, and teams with poor results to close the season out generally aren't well rewarded.

edit: I'll amend my remarks as walt seems to have backtracked on the "sweep LATE" and "win one in the tourney" line of thinking. I think with 1 or two wins, Rice is in safe territory, but may sap the optimism from certain fans (myself included).