Good! I remembered JJ! But off the top of my head I didn't recognize the other names.

apparently the Hogs' dominant sweep of t.u. occurred in an alternate universe

sips (38-8) stay #1 in D1's poll

Arkansas (40-9) only moves up from #11 to #7

W said:

---

apparently the Hogs' dominant sweep of t.u. occurred in an alternate universe

sips (38-8) stay #1 in D1's poll

Arkansas (40-9) only moves up from #11 to #7

---

I'm surprised this doesn't have a thread of it's own. It really is ridiculous.

W said:

---

apparently the Hogs' dominant sweep of t.u. occurred in an alternate universe

sips (38-8) stay #1 in D1's poll

Arkansas (40-9) only moves up from #11 to #7

---

I would say unreal, but I'm not surprised in the slightest.

KR is responding to a thread on this in premium. The question is who do you replace them with, as 2 and 3 lost this weekend as well. He said it was LSU until the Sorrell homer... As it stands, they still have a full 2 game lead on #2 Arkansas in the toughest conference.

I don't have a major problem with it but of course it's sips that this happens to.

RED AG 98 said:

---

KR is responding to a thread on this in premium. The question is who do you replace them with, as 2 and 3 lost this weekend as well. He said it was LSU until the Sorrell homer... As it stands, they still have a full 2 game lead on #2 Arkansas in the toughest conference.

I don't have a major problem with it but of course it's sips that this happens to.

---

Yep. Texas gets all the breaks. That's why they've won so many baseball titles in the last 2 decades.

They are as good a #1 as any right now in my book. That wasn't my intent, just that of course it's them because I hate them and their pos coach and I live and work among them and ....

here's the problem with D1's argument:

ACC teams in the poll:

2. Florida State
4. North Carolina
9. Clemson
16. N.C. State <----1st place team in the ACC (by percentage points)

can't use the sips spot in the SEC standings as rationale

Well this one is different! Man I really don't know. I want to believe but I don't know.

Latest #SEC Baseball Power Rankings via @CPhilly19

Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/oQM4J2biTx

— SEC Unfiltered (@SECUnfiltered) May 5, 2025

Oh, KR also confirmed it is in fact rule and not just convention that schools from the same conference cannot be in the same regional. I'd seen speculation elsewhere this was just convention but it appears that was false information...

I think some of the confusion might have come from the fact in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 they did place teams from the same conference in the same regional for a couple of seasons. I still have never seen anything definitive on this one way or the other on this but with all the discussion in game broadcast I still think they may move that way. But If anyone would know It would be Kendall.

jkag89 said:

---

I think some of the confusion might have come from the fact in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 they did place teams from the same conference in the same regional for a couple of seasons. I still have never seen anything definitive on this one way or the other on this but with all the discussion in game broadcast I still think they may move that way. But If anyone would know It would be Kendall.

---

I could not remember this happening and was about to call BS, but looked it up and you are right.

In 2002, at least 4 conference rivals played each other in regionals


Alabama, Auburn

Texas, Baylor

Rice, Texas Tech

Cal St. Fullerton, Long Beach State.

In each case, the conference rivals were 1 & 2 seeds except for Cal St. Fullerton, which they were a 4 seed. Also in each regional, the two conference rivals did end up playing each other.

Learned something today.

That makes sense. He said it was a rule but isn't sure how much longer it can last with the expanding power conferences. If we put 12 teams in the post season for example, and none can be paired in a regional, it's highly likely someone is getting hosed in seeding due to this rule.

I did not remember it either until twk brought it up on thread a few seasons ago and sure enough when I checked this was the case. I assuming I didn't remember is because the Aggies did not make the field and I did not pay close attention that season.

RED AG 98 said:

---

That makes sense. He said it was a rule but isn't sure how much longer it can last with the expanding power conferences. If we put 12 teams in the post season for example, and none can be paired in a regional, it's highly likely someone is getting hosed in seeding due to this rule.

---

It seems to me that mathematically, it's only a problem if you have a combination of more than 16 at any two levels. For example, if the SEC has 8 one seeds, then you could have 8 two seeds from the SEC and still not have any overlap because there would be 8 one seeds not from the SEC. You could have 9 one seeds from the SEC and still be OK as long as you had no more than 7 two seeds from the SEC.

If we were still in the days of the 48 team field and 8 regionals with six teams each, then we really would have a problem. But, with 16 regionals, I don't think it's mathematically possible for there to be a problem with the SEC (and no other league realistically is going to pose one, either).

My thought process was more along the lines of non-SEC hosts getting a tougher regional due to following the rule than an SEC team getting hosed. I didn't really but a lot of thought into and I'm fine with it, just figured the rest of college ball would eventually want fewer paths for SEC teams to make it through.

RED AG 98 said:

---

My thought process was more along the lines of non-SEC hosts getting a tougher regional due to following the rule than an SEC team getting hosed. I didn't really but a lot of thought into and I'm fine with it, just figured the rest of college ball would eventually want fewer paths for SEC teams to make it through.

---

The official policy is that all 2 seeds are considered equal, all 3 seeds equal, etc. Now, we all know that's not true in reality, and they might occasionally take that into consideration (mostly by not "punishing" a highly rated host team by sending them the highest rated 2), but they have that rule so as to make it easier to put the bracket together (and keep costs down).

twk said:

---

RED AG 98 said:

---

My thought process was more along the lines of non-SEC hosts getting a tougher regional due to following the rule than an SEC team getting hosed. I didn't really but a lot of thought into and I'm fine with it, just figured the rest of college ball would eventually want fewer paths for SEC teams to make it through.

---

The official policy is that all 2 seeds are considered equal, all 3 seeds equal, etc. Now, we all know that's not true in reality, and they might occasionally take that into consideration (mostly by not "punishing" a highly rated host team by sending them the highest rated 2), but they have that rule so as to make it easier to put the bracket together (and keep costs down).

---

Yep, and in my mind this compounds the issue in my scenario for potential non-sec hosts. You have stronger 2 and 3 seed SEC teams traveling because they can't be in regionals with nearby SEC 1s and 2s. Anyway, I thought it was interesting that he said it was in fact a rule and not just convention.

ColoradoMooseHerd said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

I think some of the confusion might have come from the fact in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 they did place teams from the same conference in the same regional for a couple of seasons. I still have never seen anything definitive on this one way or the other on this but with all the discussion in game broadcast I still think they may move that way. But If anyone would know It would be Kendall.

---

I could not remember this happening and was about to call BS, but looked it up and you are right.

In 2002, at least 4 conference rivals played each other in regionals


Alabama, Auburn

Texas, Baylor

Rice, Texas Tech

Cal St. Fullerton, Long Beach State.

In each case, the conference rivals were 1 & 2 seeds except for Cal St. Fullerton, which they were a 4 seed. Also in each regional, the two conference rivals did end up playing each other.

Learned something today.

---

Rice and Tech were not in the same conference.

khkman22 said:

---

ColoradoMooseHerd said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

I think some of the confusion might have come from the fact in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 they did place teams from the same conference in the same regional for a couple of seasons. I still have never seen anything definitive on this one way or the other on this but with all the discussion in game broadcast I still think they may move that way. But If anyone would know It would be Kendall.

---

I could not remember this happening and was about to call BS, but looked it up and you are right.

In 2002, at least 4 conference rivals played each other in regionals


Alabama, Auburn

Texas, Baylor

Rice, Texas Tech

Cal St. Fullerton, Long Beach State.

In each case, the conference rivals were 1 & 2 seeds except for Cal St. Fullerton, which they were a 4 seed. Also in each regional, the two conference rivals did end up playing each other.

Learned something today.

---

Rice and Tech were not in the same conference.

---

Wow you are right. My bad