SIAP...Read on

Flip-flopping the current format is an intriguing idea...it is likely that there would be better crowds because the host team would be playing every night in those 32 locations.

i still say the double elimination format has no business here.

a couple of thoughts...

if the NCAA goes to a best of 3 for the opening round then they need to re-seed for the next round (to continue to reward teams that had great regular seasons).

also...how much would geography factor into the first round best of 3 matchups? To save travel costs (to 32 sites) it seems like the NCAA would have tighten up the travel radius even more. For example this year, Baylor (the #2 seed in Houston) would instead have been at Rice for the first round best of 3. And Seton Hall (the #3 at CS) would host another northern team in the first round.

right now 48 teams travel for the first round... 32 would cheaper to begin with.

but then the NCAA pays for it in the next round unless they are willing to put teams from the same conference in the same second round 4-team regional.

32 might not be cheaper if the geography of it all got screwed up.

And W is right, you've still got to figure out how to handle travel in second round and on.

They should retain the current format in that it mirrors the CWS. Regional = the double elimination brackets; Supers = Championship series.

Keep it the way it is, BUT there MUST be a change to assign national seeds AFTER regionals. That Baylor was 1/3 an inning from
hosting a regional is the manifest symptom of how sick the National seeding system is now.

That teams play one game to pick the "better" of the two during the double elimination bracket is an aberration of baseball in general.

if the reverse regional format had been in place for 2011, who would the Ags have played in their initial best of 3 series?

Ideally it would have still been Wright State, but could it have been Dallas Baptist (the #3 in Fort Worth) and a much more difficult opponent?

If the committee blurs the lines between usual #2 and #3 seeds, then Kent State (the #3 in Austin this year) could have hosted Wright State for a best of 3 (for easy travel geography).

wouldn't "2" seeds become hosts?

that would be the issue. Would Texas State (#2 seed) have hosted a first round best of 3? I think the committee would have sent TxSt to play at Texas in the first round regardless.

some #2 seeds get sacrificed for travel considerations. And some #1 seeds draw tougher opponents

quote:

---

That teams play one game to pick the "better" of the two during the double elimination bracket is an aberration of baseball in general.

---

what?

baseball was designed around series play. So each match up could see multiple repetitions. It's a statistical game.

By paying a single game the true "better" club does not always win, which then skews the results for the rest of the season.

For instance, what happens this post season if Cal starts out playing Baylor Best of 3?... Or Baylor plays Rice best of 3? Or Oral Roberts plays TCU best of 3?

The way it sits, teams can manipulate at throw everything at the wall to see if it sticks so they survive one more round... That doesn't happen in two of the best of 3 games.

quote:

---

For instance, what happens this post season if Cal starts out playing Baylor Best of 3?

---

Probably the exact same thing that happened. Cal beats Baylor 2 games in a row and advances.

quote:

---

Or Oral Roberts plays TCU best of 3?

The way it sits, teams can manipulate at throw everything at the wall to see if it sticks so they survive one more round

---

TCU might have won the third game, I don't know. When they played the second time, ORU had already been through an elimination game, both were on game 3, both had gone 1-1. They had equal chance to throw whatever they wanted at the wall. And for either to really "advance", they've still got to beat DBU twice, as they'd have to in a 3 game format.

I just doubt playing a double elimination bracket and forcing teams to lose twice that way produces many more anomalies than if they were to play 3 games series all the way through.


If you can find the money to pay for and the time to play 63 3-game series, then call up the NCAA and see what you can get done.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 6/26/2011 2:24p).]

I disagree on reseeding. They don't reseed for upsets in the basketball tournament. That's just the plus of having to play the higher seed. If you win, you get the benefit of that seed.

quote:

---

I disagree on reseeding. They don't reseed for upsets in the basketball tournament. That's just the plus of having to play the higher seed. If you win, you get the benefit of that seed.

---

I don't know if the means you were being sarcastic, but the difference is that the basketball tournament doesn't have host sites.

Now that ESPN covers the entire CWS AND we don't know for sure whether the championship series will go 2 or 3 games until after game 2, they just need to scrap this stupid split bracket/best of 3 format and go straight double elim for both regionals and the CWS.

Yes, you CAN do an 8 team double elim in the regionals, just do it over 2 weekends instead of one. Would it favor a team with deeper pitching? Sure, but there isn't a format that wouldn't do that anyway. Let's go back to 8 sites with 8 teams with a pure double elimination format.

a double elim bracket favors anyone with an easy draw.

A best of 3 bracket negates that advantage. It doesn't matter if you play South Carolina or Centenary in one round... the next round is a fresh series.

The bottom line is that no one has the money to play, nor really wants to play in the first place, a 6 week tournament that lasts half way into July.


[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 6/26/2011 9:09p).]

you're assuming a field of 64...

I'm assuming narrowing the field isn't much of an option.

And personally, I'm not real peachy keen on ridding the tournament of its 3 seeds or automatic bids.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 6/26/2011 9:35p).]

Interesting. I think they would have to seed 1-32 to make it really work though, and I don't really see that happening.

It's possible that this is in an effort to get the northern teams further along in the tourney. If they don't seed 1-32, I could see them pairing everything up as geographically as they can, thus giving teams in the south a much tougher road to the CWS by virtue of having to eliminate one another on the road to Omaha.

This format is only viable, IMO if they seed all the opening round hosts making the subsequent rounds a game based on seeds, rather than geography.

I really like the current format because it stresses teams in different ways to win. The current format requires pitching depth and great front line pitching to make it through. Changing to all best of 3 would negate the depth a great deal in favor or 2-3 great front line guys.

Once upon a time (not all that long ago really) the CWS was completely double elimination until the champion was crowned. Then ESPN got on board. Since then, the format will be whatever ESPN mandates it to be.

I'd be okay with shrinking the field to 48

When CBS had the championship game they wanted it wrapped up on weekend, so the championship game was winner take all. ESPN could care less how long it takes, they got plenty of networks to fill programming.