New NCAA Baseball tournament Question

[57stratdawg]

D1 baseball says:

The best news? It’ll start in 2018 and the format will call for 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, and so on in the super regional round. Should one of those seeds get upset in the regional round, the winner of the regional would replace them as that seed and there would not be a reseeding process, a potential future change that many coaches are still in favor of.

So, Texas A&M would have been traveling to Davidson? And seeds 9-16 will never host a Super?

 

[missouridawg]

D1 baseball says:



So, Texas A&M would have been traveling to Davidson? And seeds 9-16 will never host a Super?

I dont think that's the case. I think the only thing that changes is the bracket. All other quirks will remain the same. Ranked team 9 will always play 8 now, in the bracket. If they both get upset, I believe the super regional host will be determined in the same fashion as always.

You will never see 9 paired up with 1 now, which is the key to this. It prevents the west coast super regionals pairings based on geography (southeast pairings too, for that matter). And always assures a fairer route to Omaha for the top 16 seeds.

 

[MSUDC11]

I think the “there won’t be a reseeding process” line means that the brackets stay the same even if there are upsets. I believe the same rules for hosting Supers still apply. The only change is that the pairings will now be based on body of work instead of geography.

 

[rynodawg]

I liked that #1 regional seeds from the same conference couldn’t be paired together in the supers. Sounds like that might be changing. If we earn a 9-16 regional host, I don’t want to travel to an SEC team in the Supers.

Also I’ll believe that geography won’t play a role when I see it. I assume these 1-16 rankings will be completely arbitrary, decided by the committee. That’s real easy to adjust as needed, especially for the 9-16 teams. If UCLA ends up with #8, I’d bet the other host worthy CA team would ‘coincidentally’ end up #9.

Edited to add: After reading article it seems that main point is to stop having FSU-UF,, South Carolina-Clemson,, Texas only, and CA only super regionals every single year. It was getting to be repetitive for those teams and coaches. Might work if it’s a true 1-16 ranking, but I suspect the matchups will still just be engineered by the committee.

 

[8dog]

That sentence is so strange because its been years since they reseeded. And they already kept the matchups as is regardless of who won the regional
or supers. Strange

eta: after re reading i guess they were clarifying bc coaches are in favor of reseeding