Instead of looking at it from our perspective think about a top 5 national seed ACC team getting Aggies in its regional. How is that fair to them?

Aggies will be a 2 seed out west or with a big 12 team. So ucla, Irvine/poly, Oregon, tcu, West Virginia.

W said:

---

the committee works in mysterious ways

there could or should be some injury forgiveness (so to speak) for Sorrell

---

Or it could be completely ignored. The committee's criteria changes based on which way the wind is blowing that particular day. We have 50+ years of support data to show as much.

Does the committee really punish the top seeds by putting team like us their regional? That's seems counterintuitive. Seems like we would be more likely to get a #1 seed in the 13-16 spots, not any of the top 8.

Felt like you lose today and post season wass in major jeopardy. I think this helps keep us on the right side of the bubble.

Luke The Drifter said:

---

TexAgTrojan said:

---

Luke The Drifter said:

---

So we just ignore those weekends? That's not how RPI and post-season selections work.

---

you don't ignore it, but smart people see the difference. You've proven you aren't

---

I see the difference. It's obvious we're better now than we were 5 or 6 weeks ago. What I'm saying is that we don't get to simply pick and choose which games we want to highlight and which games to dismiss. Like it or not, the games vs. Bama, Vandy, and UK count the same as the games vs. LSU, Arky, and Tennessee. Whether Sorrell was in the lineup or not, the games count the same.

Do you think we get to tell the committee to ignore the losses to Texas State, UTSA, New Mexico State, and Cal Poly because one of our studs wasn't playing? Or tell them that our coach hadn't figured out the bullpen yet?

Yea - anyone with a brain can see we're playing much better now than in February and early March. That's not even debatable. All I'm saying is until the regionals start, it's the overall body of work that matters, not just a few cherry picked weekends.

---

You are really moving those goalposts. The past 4 weekends have shown that we are currently very well matched up against the best teams. Nobody here ever insinuated that our total body of work matches up with the top teams nor and that we should be seeded as if the first 3 SEC series never occured. We are "right there" with the top SEC teams right now the way we are playing as a unit.

Your original quote:

Quote:

---

Teams who went 1-8 vs. Bama, Vandy, and Kentucky aren't "right there" with the best teams in the league.

---

SABUILDERAG said:

---

Does the committee really punish the top seeds by putting team like us their regional? That's seems counterintuitive. Seems like we would be more likely to get a #1 seed in the 13-16 spots, not any of the top 8.

---

After the top 16, supposedly there is no further "seeding" if you will beyond 2, 3 or 4. Meaning all 2s are equal, all 3s are equal and all 4s are equal. Regional assignments are set to maximize bus trips and minimize flights.

But, if you are flying, at that point there's no difference in going 400 miles or 1400 miles.

24601 said:

---

Luke The Drifter said:

---

TexAgTrojan said:

---

Luke The Drifter said:

---

So we just ignore those weekends? That's not how RPI and post-season selections work.

---

you don't ignore it, but smart people see the difference. You've proven you aren't

---

I see the difference. It's obvious we're better now than we were 5 or 6 weeks ago. What I'm saying is that we don't get to simply pick and choose which games we want to highlight and which games to dismiss. Like it or not, the games vs. Bama, Vandy, and UK count the same as the games vs. LSU, Arky, and Tennessee. Whether Sorrell was in the lineup or not, the games count the same.

Do you think we get to tell the committee to ignore the losses to Texas State, UTSA, New Mexico State, and Cal Poly because one of our studs wasn't playing? Or tell them that our coach hadn't figured out the bullpen yet?

Yea - anyone with a brain can see we're playing much better now than in February and early March. That's not even debatable. All I'm saying is until the regionals start, it's the overall body of work that matters, not just a few cherry picked weekends.

---

You are really moving those goalposts. The past 4 weekends have shown that we are currently very well matched up against the best teams. Nobody here ever insinuated that our total body of work matches up with the top teams nor and that we should be seeded as if the first 3 SEC series never occured. We are "right there" with the top SEC teams right now the way we are playing as a unit.

Your original quote:

Quote:

---

Teams who went 1-8 vs. Bama, Vandy, and Kentucky aren't "right there" with the best teams in the league.

---

---

Two things can be true at once.

SABUILDERAG said:

---

Does the committee really punish the top seeds by putting team like us their regional? That's seems counterintuitive. Seems like we would be more likely to get a #1 seed in the 13-16 spots, not any of the top 8.

---

this is always a fun discussion

last year #1 overall seed Tennessee and #2 overall seed Kentucky got soft regionals -- all the 2 seeds and 3 seeds were mid-majors

in part because those schools are geographically close to the Big Ten, however power conference teams like Wake Forest, Duke, and West Virginia were in bus range to one or both regionals. Duke and WVU ended up taking airplane trips.

the #3 overall seed A&M and #4 overall seed North Carolina both received power conference opponents

Quote:

---

I get your logic, but that's not really how they assign the 2 and 3 seeds. It's much more about minimizing travel for all of those teams as a whole than it is about balancing the strength of individual regionals. Remember, baseball generally isn't a revenue sport, so the committee tries to minimize travel costs where it can.

---

You're right, 13. I was forgetting that huge consideration. They'll shoehorn in what needs to fit if it keeps it more regional. I guess that's why we end up with some really strong regions and some not so much.