[d4cohn]

The data out of these regional seedings make it look like a conspiracy against Stanford by any objective measure. Esquer and Muir should be fuming at the NCAA Baseball committee and demanding answers. How can they possibly explain what they did to Stanford?

Our regional assignment can be explained in part on geography, which is considered in baseball/softball in making regional assignments
(in softball at least, the terminology used is maximizing the number of bus trips versus flights to keep the costs of hosting the championship down; hence Fullerton being sent so many times to PA). UCSB, Sac State and Fresno State can all bus easily to Palo Alto. And we finished behind UCLA in most if not all metrics, and in conference standings. Hence UCSB being likely sent to us, as opposed to UCLA. 

I think people's notions of a conspiracy are misplaced. If anything, direct your anger to the policy of prioritizing geography in baseball/softball, as opposed to men's and women's basketball, where geography is generally only considered for the Top 16 Seeds (Top 4 seedlines). 

Furthermore, I am not sure if Massey or other non-RPI ratings are made available to the committee in their evaluation (I know in softball, Massey is not made available, and therefore, explicitly not part of their consideration). As a data scientist, I would love to see the committee follow MBB's lead this year in moving beyond RPI (even if MBB's RPI replacement of NET has its own flaws). I think the committee would also be served by having as many certified metrics available as reasonable/possible.

[d4cohn]

The data out of these regional seedings make it look like a conspiracy against Stanford by any objective measure. Esquer and Muir should be fuming at the NCAA Baseball committee and demanding answers. How can they possibly explain what they did to Stanford?

Our regional assignment can be explained in part on geography, which is considered in baseball/softball in making regional assignments
(in softball at least, the terminology used is maximizing the number of bus trips versus flights to keep the costs of hosting the championship down; hence Fullerton being sent so many times to PA). UCSB, Sac State and Fresno State can all bus easily to Palo Alto. And we finished behind UCLA in most if not all metrics, and in conference standings. Hence UCSB being likely sent to us, as opposed to UCLA. 

I think people's notions of a conspiracy are misplaced. If anything, direct your anger to the policy of prioritizing geography in baseball/softball, as opposed to men's and women's basketball, where geography is generally only considered for the Top 16 Seeds (Top 4 seedlines). 

Furthermore, I am not sure if Massey or other non-RPI ratings are made available to the committee in their evaluation (I know in softball, Massey is not made available, and therefore, explicitly not part of their consideration). As a data scientist, I would love to see the committee follow MBB's lead this year in moving beyond RPI (even if MBB's RPI replacement of NET has its own flaws). I think the committee would also be served by having as many certified metrics available as reasonable/possible.