Quick question about the format of the SEC Tournament that doesn't make sense to me:

The "second and third rounds" of the tournament appear to be a double-elimination format, just as the NCAA regionals are. However, when the winners of the winner side and loser side meet in the "semi-finals", the winner of a single game advances, despite one team having no losses and the other having one loss. The NCAA regionals (and Omaha) fix this by requiring the loser side team to win twice to advance, while the winning side team only needs to win once. However, the SEC Tournament doesn't do this. There is no advantage to entering the "semi-finals" 2-0 instead of 2-1. This seems incorrect, yet fixable with an extra game (if required).

They do it because there are 12 teams to make the sec tourney, unlike the 8 that get to Omaha.

They begin to run up against time issues so they cut out the potential final game.

aeroag14 said:

---

They do it because there are 12 teams to make the sec tourney, unlike the 8 that get to Omaha.

They begin to run up against time issues so they cut out the potential final game.

---

There is time (barring rain delays) to play "what if" games on Saturday if you wanted to maintain the "double elimination" aspect until Sunday. But, ultimately, it came down to saving pitching. That would just be too many games, and could seriously screw up your pitching heading into the NCAA tournament.

No advantage, other than saving pitching which for the Aggies will be huge this year!

CWS used to do this in the championship.
Before they went to best 2 outta 3 it was a single game
Didn't matter if one team entered with a loss and one undefeated.. it was a 1 game winner take all

It helps to remember that the SEC Tournament resolves in a single week with six days of games. They need to spread out the games enough for starting pitchers to get enough rest to start another game or you end up needing six starters at a minimum.

The NCAAT/CWS has more time to resolve measures in weeks. It's format at both the regional/super-regional level and the CWS combines double elimination with series resolution today (though not always.). That is a very satisfying format given how single elimination in baseball is anathema to the best being about .600 win rate (a bit higher in college) and worst about .400. MLB uses seven game resolution that tones down statistical "luck" from determining outcomes.

Given how the basketball selection committee ignored tournament game outcomes, it's entirely possible the baseball tournament is superfluous other than the champion getting an auto-bid. Even more so as the mids continue to flex their NCAA voting power and aligning to get more bids.

This won't end pretty. The transformation committee sees the issue and is treating each sport as in essence federations likely by division with freedom to set all rules.

Maybe the current CWS survives in some traditional format, but if scholarships are uncapped for the top division you can't have those teams play each other and expect a satisfying outcome.

I would much rather see the ACC model done

and when we expand to 16 teams still keep the tourney at 12 and not let everyone in

Pool play while probably best in giving lower seeds a chance to improve their resumes for the NCAA Tournament and less taxing on the pitching staffs that go deep into the tournament are a competitively unsatisfying way to determine an automatic bid.

Ryan Brauninger said:

---

Talked to a coach who has competed in both. He said, without a doubt, it's tougher to win the SEC Tournament than it is the College World Series.

---

It is brutal on pitching. If you are already assured a regional, it is almost better to lose quickly.

One of the reasons we quit going.

And it means basically nothing.

jkag89 said:

---

Pool play while probably best in giving lower seeds a chance to improve their resumes for the NCAA Tournament and less taxing on the pitching staffs that go deep into the tournament are a competitively unsatisfying way to determine an automatic bid.

---

Maybe so, but it's a better fan experience if you are actually attending the tournament. You know when your team plays, and know they will play a minimum number of games. I'd be fine with getting rid of the tournament altogether, but, it does serve one useful purpose: it helps preserve the integrity of the regular season championship by giving teams at the bottom of the standings something to play for, rather than playing for the future in the last third of the season when an NCAA at large bid becomes out of reach.

I agree that it means nothing, but the players sure look like they have a lot of fun during the tournament and are really into it. Maybe that is just the TV production cutting to and highlighting those moments. I have really enjoyed watching it on TV for that reason.

I have never been in person so I will definitely defer to those like dermdoc on that aspect of it from a traveling fan prospective.

I'd disagree that it means nothing.

Just look at Ole Miss in 2019. Entering the SEC tournament, they had an RPI of 31 and were in 5th place in the SEC West.

No way they host a regional with that resume.

But they went on a run to the tournament final, they beat the #4 and #5 national seeds, their RPI jumped to 22, and got the #12 national seed, hosted a regional, and won their regional.

all of these tournaments have too many teams.

field needs to be cut to 6 or 8.

but the locals in Hoover would probably not like that

twk said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

Pool play while probably best in giving lower seeds a chance to improve their resumes for the NCAA Tournament and less taxing on the pitching staffs that go deep into the tournament are a competitively unsatisfying way to determine an automatic bid.

---

Maybe so, but it's a better fan experience if you are actually attending the tournament. You know when your team plays, and know they will play a minimum number of games. I'd be fine with getting rid of the tournament altogether, but, it does serve one useful purpose: it helps preserve the integrity of the regular season championship by giving teams at the bottom of the standings something to play for, rather than playing for the future in the last third of the season when an NCAA at large bid becomes out of reach.

---

Don't disagree with any of this. Pool play is the logical format considering the various functions of the SEC Baseball Tournament serves but it is just not as competitively intense as an elimination format, even the flawed one the SEC currently uses.

W said:

---

all of these tournaments have too many teams.

field needs to be cut to 6 or 8.

but the locals in Hoover would probably not like that

---

The reason it is not 6-8 is to get as many SEC teams in the NCAA tournament. If they went to less it would be a mark against the teams not there.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I'd disagree that it means nothing.

Just look at Ole Miss in 2019. Entering the SEC tournament, they had an RPI of 31 and were in 5th place in the SEC West.

No way they host a regional with that resume.

But they went on a run to the tournament final, they beat the #4 and #5 national seeds, their RPI jumped to 22, and got the #12 national seed, hosted a regional, and won their regional.

---

Imho, that is a rarity. Kind of like the conference basketball tourneys.

nereus said:

---

I agree that it means nothing, but the players sure look like they have a lot of fun during the tournament and are really into it. Maybe that is just the TV production cutting to and highlighting those moments. I have really enjoyed watching it on TV for that reason.

I have never been in person so I will definitely defer to those like dermdoc on that aspect of it from a traveling fan prospective.

---

Agree. The players and their parents love it. The problem with the SEC format is that if you are in the first round and lose, you go home.

dermdoc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I'd disagree that it means nothing.

Just look at Ole Miss in 2019. Entering the SEC tournament, they had an RPI of 31 and were in 5th place in the SEC West.

No way they host a regional with that resume.

But they went on a run to the tournament final, they beat the #4 and #5 national seeds, their RPI jumped to 22, and got the #12 national seed, hosted a regional, and won their regional.

---

Imho, that is a rarity. Kind of like the conference basketball tourneys.

---

We probably wouldn't have made the NCAA tournament in 2013 without our 2 wins and 4 games at the SEC tournament.

We were 13-16 in the SEC regular season and had an RPI in the 40s going into the SEC tournament.

We won two good games, including that win over #1 Vanderbilt...our RPI went up to 34 after the tournament, which is still a huge outlier among SEC teams with only 13 regular season wins since we joined the conference...by far, the worst RPI amongst those 13 win teams to make the NCAA post-season.


Another example...LSU played themselves into a national seed in 2014. They were 2nd in the SEC west, 3rd overall in the conference, had an RPI of only 16 before the SEC tournament. They won the tournament and got the #8 national seed after 4 wins and improving their RPI to 9.

I think there's lots of reasons to believe the tournament matters.

the hope would be that the committee would not use tournament qualification as criteria for selection.

of course they did in the old days of the SWC, but that was 25 years ago

That happened to tu some years ago in Omaha. Weather had delayed a lot of games. tu had no losses, and whoever they were playing had a loss. NCAA changed the rule and said one game, winner take all. Sips were pissed. And they lost, if I remember right.

W said:

---

the hope would be that the committee would not use tournament qualification as criteria for selection.

of course they did in the old days of the SWC, but that was 25 years ago

---

Just a few years ago, I think it was UNC, maybe, that had an RPI of like 17 or so but didn't make the ACC tournament and didn't get invited to the NCAA tournament.

Pool Play with12 teams...max four games in tourney doesnt put pressure on pitching as much and it rewards regular season

Top 4 teams get one seeds in the conference tourney. If a three way tie in pool #1 seed advances to semis

Thus to move on as not one of the top 4 seeds you have to win both pool play games... each team is guareteed two games which is one of the main reasons i dont go all the way to Alabama if we are in a win or go home first round matchup

Not going to argue about this but it just seems like there have been a lot more times when it was pretty obvious the seedlings were set prior to the tourney and did not change unless the team went on a huge run. And even then it did not seem to change things that often.

Those are three examples. Seems like there are a lot more of what I am saying.

But whatever.

BTHO UTA!

TXAggie2011 said:

---

W said:

---

the hope would be that the committee would not use tournament qualification as criteria for selection.

of course they did in the old days of the SWC, but that was 25 years ago

---

Just a few years ago, I think it was UNC, maybe, that had an RPI of like 17 or so but didn't make the ACC tournament and didn't get invited to the NCAA tournament.

---

And I agree with you there. If you do not make the conference tourney, you are almost assured of not making the NCAA tourney.