I just saw that if we win today we go to the semi-final round where it becomes single elimination again. That means we could play a one loss team and if they win they advance and we go home even though we both only have one loss. Seems like you are punishing teams for winning early in the tournament. The only game where we can take a loss and still play on is today.
Why does the tournament switch agani to single elimination?
- Thread starter starkvegasdawg
- Start date
i wouldn't say you are punishing the teams that win early. the early winners still get a rest day tomorrow and will be the home teams, so that's a pretty decent incentive to win early right there.
Agree with both earlier responses. 6 games is the absolute max you can ask any team to play right before the regionals, and even that is pushing it. The team that wins today still has the advantage of not having to play on Friday. It's not a perfect format, but once you get past 8 teams there really aren't any perfect formats that are feasible.
The problem is having a 12 team baseball tournament the week before the regionals. That is a massive tournament and most teams would be down to pitching the bat girls in a 12 team double elim. I say just put em all out there and play a single elimination tournament.
I agree with this. At this point, with 14 teams, I say just let the whole conference come to Hoover and let them play it off. First round is a play-in game on Thursday with the bottom 12 teams (Top 2 seeds get byes). 8 team round on Friday, 4 teams on Saturday, Championship Sunday. Done. 6, 4, 2, 1 games on the successive days. 4 games max for the bottom seeds. More excitement, and it would give the whole conference a chance to earn their way into the NCAAs. I mean that's the point of the SECT anyway.
But no, they want to extend the sucker as long as possible to keep people in Hoover, while at the same time not having the teams play more than 6 games (which is still too many). 5 is the absolute MAX a team should have to play. They will never play more than that in a given week during the regular season, regionals or the CWS. So why now?
But no, they want to extend the sucker as long as possible to keep people in Hoover, while at the same time not having the teams play more than 6 games (which is still too many). 5 is the absolute MAX a team should have to play. They will never play more than that in a given week during the regular season, regionals or the CWS. So why now?
Last edited:
I prefer Pool Play. All schools would play a minimum of two games & not more than four games in this scenario:
Pool A - 1st, 8th, 9th place
Pool B - 2nd, 7th, 10th place
Pool C - 3rd, 6th, 11th place
Pool D - 4th, 5th, 12th place
Tuesday
C 3 vs. 11
B 2 vs. 10
D 4 vs. 12
A 1 vs. 9
Wednesday
C 6 vs. 11
B 7 vs. 10
D 5 vs. 12
A 8 vs. 9
Thursday
C 3 vs. 6
B 2 vs. 7
D 4 vs. 5
A 1 vs. 8
Friday
Pool B winner vs. Pool C winner
Pool A winner vs. Pool D winner
Saturday
Championship Game - Winners of Fridays' games
Thanks, Cousin Jeffrey for the correction. Shifted Pool D down and moved Pools B & C up thanks to conversation with patdog.
Pool A - 1st, 8th, 9th place
Pool B - 2nd, 7th, 10th place
Pool C - 3rd, 6th, 11th place
Pool D - 4th, 5th, 12th place
Tuesday
C 3 vs. 11
B 2 vs. 10
D 4 vs. 12
A 1 vs. 9
Wednesday
C 6 vs. 11
B 7 vs. 10
D 5 vs. 12
A 8 vs. 9
Thursday
C 3 vs. 6
B 2 vs. 7
D 4 vs. 5
A 1 vs. 8
Friday
Pool B winner vs. Pool C winner
Pool A winner vs. Pool D winner
Saturday
Championship Game - Winners of Fridays' games
Thanks, Cousin Jeffrey for the correction. Shifted Pool D down and moved Pools B & C up thanks to conversation with patdog.
Last edited:
I like your idea.
(Minor correction: All teams would play a minimum of 2 and max of 4 games in your format.)
And it would only be 2 fewer total games than the current SEC format, in which any one team can play anywhere from 1 to 6 games.
What's your tie-breaker, though, in the event a pool ends up with three 1-1 teams? Highest seed advances? That would seem to be the logical choice.
It's interesting that you can't have a 2-way tie in a 3-team pool. The only tie you can have is a 3-way tie.
(Minor correction: All teams would play a minimum of 2 and max of 4 games in your format.)
And it would only be 2 fewer total games than the current SEC format, in which any one team can play anywhere from 1 to 6 games.
What's your tie-breaker, though, in the event a pool ends up with three 1-1 teams? Highest seed advances? That would seem to be the logical choice.
It's interesting that you can't have a 2-way tie in a 3-team pool. The only tie you can have is a 3-way tie.
Last edited:
Better would be 3 games per day on Tue-Fri, then semifinals on Sat and finals on Sun. Otherwise, this would be the best alternative other than 14-team single elimination. Most conferences that do pool play have the higher seed advance in case of a tie. I would rather use head-to-head and run differential then revert to higher seed if that doesn't break the tie.
Tie breaker in my mind should be fewest runs allowed first, then runs scored second, then highest seed third.
Thanks. I also like the highest seed advancing (there should be some advantages for having a good regular season conference record) but Drebin makes a good case for runs allowed being the first tiebreaker.
Last edited:
If there were three pools, I would agree...
But this works well with four pools plus it builds in an extra day just in case there is a rainout. If there's rain on one day, the finals can be pushed back to Sunday.
But this works well with four pools plus it builds in an extra day just in case there is a rainout. If there's rain on one day, the finals can be pushed back to Sunday.
I just hate 4 games in 1 day. It's just too much. You're starting at 9:30 in the morning and often not finishing until 1:00 the next morning. That's just way too much. Much easier and better to play 3 games at 11:00, 3:00 and 7:00. Plus you could still deal with rainouts by playing 4-games the next couple of days if you had to. And realistically, the SEC is never going to move the finals to Saturday.
^^ This all day^^ Its much more dependent on how you do during the regular season. Also, the 4 games (max) will not put a burden on teams for regional play.
why not just run differential? a big offense shouldn't be punished because they win 10-5 instead of 5-0. that puts run creation and run prevention on equal footing.
Maybe too much for the field and grounds crew but...
The pool games are scheduled to be during roughly the same time each of the three days. Since one pool is scheduled to have the late game each of the first three days, I have it set up so that they have the late semifinal. Come to think of it, I should just go ahead and move the Pool D games to the late afternoon sessions...
The pool games are scheduled to be during roughly the same time each of the three days. Since one pool is scheduled to have the late game each of the first three days, I have it set up so that they have the late semifinal. Come to think of it, I should just go ahead and move the Pool D games to the late afternoon sessions...
I don't like run differential. If I finished tied with Arkansas but lose the tiebreaker and have to play Vanderbilt because Arkansas beat Missouri by 10 runs on five errors or something like that, well, that's just not going to fly. You reward good baseball, not bad baseball. That's why runs allowed should be the first tiebreaker. The fewer runs you allow, the better you are playing, typically.
Besides that, almost every pool play tournament on the planet already uses runs allowed for the first tiebreaker.
I wouldn't mind the SEC trying this for one year. I like the fact that you have four pools instead of two (like the ACC). Gives it more of an elimination feel on Friday and Saturday, with Thursday likely being an important day, too.
The ACC runs into some meaningless games under their current format.
The ACC runs into some meaningless games under their current format.
Yeah. Having attended the Conference USA tournament in Pearl, I like pool play but at the same time it makes the championship game appear anticlimatic to me at times. <br><br>If the SEC wants a larger tournament to give more teams chances to advance to the regionals, then it stands to reason that: 1. the schools have to have the chance for multiple games (which the one-and-done rounds don't do); 2. there has to be some sort of elimination round to get advancing teams accustomed to how it feels before NCAA play; 3. having the higher seeded teams play on the third day was intentionally done so that it would feel important & I purposely scheduled them on the first day against the lowest seeded teams first to give the lowest seeded teams with an ace (e.g., Missouri's Zastrzyny) a fighting chance for an early upset and a chance to be a pool champion.