	products recent interviews FastScripts archive about ASAP Sports

Our Clients:

Browse by Sport

Find us on

Subscribe to RSS

Click to go to
Asaptext.com

View our
e-Brochure

NCAA MEN'S COLLEGE WORLD SERIES MEDIA CONFERENCE

May 30, 2011

Tim Weiser

THE MODERATOR: Welcome to today's 2011 NCAA 64-team bracket conference call. We appreciate taking your time on this holiday to join us, and it's been a busy couple of days selecting 64 teams, and it was fun. At this time I'd like to to turn it over to the Committee Chair and Deputy Commissioner of the Big 12 conference, Tim Weiser.
TIM WEISER: Thank you, J.D., and good afternoon. I'll make some opening remarks and give you a chance to ask questions. We started out with an initial nomination pool of 110 teams for the 34 at-large positions, which compares to 105 last year.
These nominations come from a couple of different sources. One is our regional advisory committees, which each member of our baseball committee which totals 10, has a regional advisory committee made up of coaches for the regions that they're responsible for evaluating. So those regional advisory committees were able to nominate teams and rank teams prior to our arrival here in Indianapolis.
We also take into the pool our top 75 RPI teams and the top two teams from each conference. So those three sources lead us to this initial nomination pool that I previously mentioned was 110.
We considered a pool down the stretch of 22 teams for the 16 No. 1 seeds. As is the case for those final teams that we select, there is obviously more teams than there are slots available. So as much as we try and accommodate all of the interests, the reality is we do end up not having enough spaces for the teams that we'd like to have either in the tournament or in our top 16 seeds or our top 8 seeds.
Nine of the 16 No. 1 seeds were unanimous votes on our initial committee selection. And I say that to use it as a way of reminding those of you that have heard this before, but our process using a blind ballot requires that the team has seven of the ten votes in order to gain an opportunity for consideration in the field and use that same approach as we go forward in the seeding process.
We considered six teams for the finals No. 1 seed as I mentioned, and we had six teams that we considered for the final two top 8 seeds. So we had a lot to compare as we get to that point, splitting hairs, trying to evaluate several different things. RPI is a tool, one part of it, the win/loss record is something that we look at, the availability of student-athletes, which is another way of saying that if there are significant injuries to players that should be taken into consideration, strength of schedule is another one, regular season finish.
So as you can tell, we've got a variety of things that kind of balance throughout the process.
We had 31 teams being considered for the last 7 at-large positions. Of course, that's where I would tell you for a committee is probably the greatest stress is trying to determine which teams are in, and which teams are out. We realize the disappointment that that creates for those that get left out, so we do spend a lot of time.
We reached a consensus late last night on the field and agreed that, as we did last year, we needed to sleep on it, come back this morning, first thing, and spend a couple more hours talking about it much. We did make some final adjustments this morning and fine tuned our field, but then eventually, as you now know, we have our field of 64.
I think I'll stop at this point and open it up for questions.

Q. How deep into the pool did Arkansas make it in terms of being in consideration for a regional, and also thought given to possibly Arkansas winding up at one of the Texas regions?
TIM WEISER: Well, to answer your first question, they made it extremely deep into the discussions. We had a number of committee members that felt strongly about Arkansas. I think those that were unsure about Arkansas probably pointed to a couple of things. One was their 15-15 conference record, and the other was that they only won four of the ten league series that they played in. I know at least for a couple of members that was something that was pointed to.
So I, again, would say that they were given lots of consideration, and that was probably one of two or three very difficult decisions that we had down the stretch.
Now your second question was how much consideration Arkansas had for a Texas regional?

Q. Going somewhere closer to home rather than Arizona.
TIM WEISER: Yeah, that's a good question. One of the obligations that we have, our championships committee, cabinet, excuse me, at the NCAA which is made up of our member institutions has given us a directive and a policy that requires us, where possible, to try to reduce travel expenses to a minimum like bus as opposed to travel.
Obviously, in some cases we were able to do that. Arkansas wasn't one of those. And some of that occurs because we simply can't find enough teams in a vicinity to bus as opposed to fly. The other part of that is trying to preserve the seeding process, and making sure that we send seeds to each regional in a balanced way. And I think that, in the end, was part of what we were trying to do with Arkansas.

Q. If you could just discuss why Georgia Tech didn't receive one of the national seeds despite having what would seem to be a qualifying RPI?
TIM WEISER: Yeah, the RPI is one of the issues our committee has wrestled with. The RPI is certainly one of the tools that we used. And in the case that you're referencing, Florida State won the head-to-head contest with Georgia Tech, and I know for part of our discussion we talked about that. Florida State also had a number 2 non-conference RPI while Georgia Tech had a number 17 non-conference RPI.
So in the end I would say it's a combination of the single head-to-head game that we had, which isn't always used to make a decision. But if you have some other evidence that you can point to, and in this case the No. 2 non-conference RPI that Florida State had versus Georgia Tech's No. 17.

Q. As a follow-up, could you discuss the decision to send Georgia across the country to Oregon, please?
TIM WEISER: Well, again, some of the same answers that I gave about Arkansas would apply to Georgia. Ideally we'd prefer not to have to fly teams that far cross country. Part of it is because of the impact on the student-athletes and the coaches and the fans following, but we also recognize the need for us to stay consistent and keep the integrity of our bid and seed process.
In Georgia's case that was part of what we were trying to do was to make sure that we had a balanced regional. I'm trying to look at that regional right now, but that was I think in large part what Georgia provided us was some balance to that regional and gave us kind of the numbers that we needed in order to have them compare consistently and favorably with the other regions.

Q. I know that the math behind the RPI is guarded like the eternal secret formula , but I think our simulations are pretty close. Just wondering about St. John's. They've got one win against RPI top 50, losing record against the 100. I mean, we've got 9 and 16. Just curious, what separated them from some of the other bubble teams?
TIM WEISER: Well, I don't know how guarded our RPI formula is, but I know it's certainly not made public. So from that standpoint, I guess it is guarded. I'm sorry, it is made available?
SPEAKER: The factors are made available, yes.
TIM WEISER: So the factors that go into our RPI calculation are available. But the difficulty we've had, and it's been the same formula for 15 or 20 years is that try as you might, it's not going to be the great equalizer.
As I told our committee the first day here, if it was simply a matter of RPI, we wouldn't be spending our Memorial Day weekend here in Indianapolis. We could just simply run through the RPI and say this is our field and away we go, so it isn't just about the RPI.
You reference St. John's, St. John's I think finished second to what we considered to be a very good Connecticut team. They made the championship game in their conference tournament. And in the end, what that discussion kind of centered on was a number of our committee members isn't a second place finish in the Big East more important than a ninth place finish in the SEC or an 8th place finish to the Big 12 or 7th, whatever it might be?
And as long as I've been on these committee or in these committee discussions, it depends on your perspective as to how you answer that.
Though we had a lively debate about it, in the end it required seven votes in order to get them in, and those were done by blind ballot. Once they received those, that put them in the field.

Q. I know that in the past teams that have not made their conference tournament have been able to get in. There was a lot of talk about LSU and even Ole Miss. How do team that's finish in the bottom of their standing in a very difficult conference, how do you weigh that against teams that finish near the top and conferences are not as strong against the Big East around 13 versus SEC or ACC?
TIM WEISER: I cannot answer that. Because although I may have an opinion about that, I can tell you that there are equal or more that have opposite opinions about that. I've been fortunate to be on both sides of that argument. So I think I do understand it.
But part of the role that I think I play in this discussion is to balance those out and give people an opportunity to ask those tough questions.
I can tell you that on a number of occasions, we're all just kind of left looking at each other like, boy, you know, there is really no set answer on this. There is no rock solid place to stay on part of it. And that's where this becomes more of an artistic or more of an art than a science process for us.
So there's not a good answer for that question. That, unless we change some aspect of our calculation and our process will continue to exist.

Q. Wanted to ask you about your feeling. Has the committee's general philosophy shifted at all from where it was two years ago maybe where you had Oklahoma State and Baylor getting in with poor conference finishes, versus now you've got maybe power conference teams that don't give the nod over teams that do well in the conference standing. Has there been more of a shift toward conference standing and away from RPI?
TIM WEISER: You know, I was asked that earlier. And I guess I'd have to say as I reflect on the past few days, I think our committee perhaps did a better job of putting the RPI where I think it should be in terms of a single tool to evaluate. I think a lot of times that becomes bigger than it really should be.
I think you reference some teams, Oklahoma State and Baylor with losing records, and we've had that in conference play before. And I think Alabama falls into that category, if I'm not mistaken, Kansas State falls into that category. So it's not a single criteria that we use to eliminate teams, but rather it becomes part of the discussion, part of the fabric, if you will, that we evaluate.
In this year's deliberations, yes, I would say that as a committee, we probably didn't use the RPI as the hammer that maybe it's been perceived as being in previous years.

Q. Also could you touch on Dallas Baptist and in their case what put them over the top?
TIM WEISER: Well, I think Dallas Baptist is an independent, and both Dallas Baptist and Cal State Bakersfield were the independents that we had a lot of discussion about. They've kind of got a difficult on one hand challenge to find games on weekends. Obviously with other conferences having their games and their playing, it's difficult for them to put a schedule together.
But as some of our committee members pointed out, the flip-side of that is they're in position to throw their number one, two guy in mid-week against a lot of good teams. And that gives them an opportunity to pick up a lot of good wins along the way.
I think in the case of Dallas Baptist, I think that that probably was as meaningful for our group as anything. They beat A&M, they went out and played the Pac-10 Washington State team. So they played a pretty good schedule, and they have that success against the Big 12 teams that we felt like were deserving of consideration and ultimately selection.

Q. I think when you look at A&M, Rice and Florida State, I think all three have compelling case and all three are very similar. But I was curious to pick up on your comment on John Stilson and the injury he had on ESPN. I was curious what all went into A&M not getting a national seed? Over the last week they went 4-0 in the Big 12 Tournament without the big arm, so it shows they can win games without him. So I'm curious where you would put Rice and Florida State over top of A&M?
TIM WEISER: I would tell you that I probably saw A&M more than any other team this year, so I'm well aware of the job that Rob has done with A&M and the kind of team they are. Obviously, we had the ability to watch that championship game yesterday, and their run through the tournament was extraordinary. So they were a very deserving team.
I think back to the discussion about Texas A&M, and the teams that we were talking about and considering, Rice was one of them. Texas, at that time was one of them, and what we had to to go with was that that final weekend in the Big 12 play, Texas took two out of three from A&M. Rice earlier in the year, I believe it was, perhaps it was middle of the season, but they took two out of two from A&M.
So we had that kind of discussion already, and then as a committee we were informed about the injury, and I know that our policy requires us to consider that. So I think for some members of the committee that kind of was the last piece to the puzzle for them when it came to considering A&M.

Q. You look at UCLA, obviously they've got the big guys. But when you look at UCLA, the fact that they've only got 33 wins, do you think in the future they kind of set the precedent whereas long as you win your conference regular season title as a power conference, even if you have 32 or 33 wins, you'll be a 1 seed in the regional? What went into that? Just talk about UCLA's case a little bit.
TIM WEISER: I'll answer that personally. I think when you have a conference championship in the conference like the Pac-10 that is deserving of a lot of discussion. Back to our committee deliberations, the fact that they were Pac-10 Champs was a very valuable thing. They won 2 out of 3 with Arizona State. You referenced the pitching staff, they finished the game ahead of the other Pac-10 top teams or the other two Pac-10 top teams. They won their last four weekend series all against quality teams, Oregon, Cal State, Bakersfield, Cal, Arizona State. So that was a combination issue.
But to say that sets a precedent going forward, I think that may be a bit of a reach. Because we try hard not to box ourselves into, okay, this is what we did last year, so we've got to do it again this year. I think each team's different, each year's different and you kind of have to set aside what you've done in the past and not let it bias you as you go forward.

Q. I wanted to ask you about Elon and their situation, it looked like maybe a week ago they were perceived to be in good shape, how was their stat us and how close were they to making the field?
TIM WEISER: Yeah, Elon was as close as any team could be and not get in there. We had even late this morning a debate about that. Of course the regional advisory committee was part of that, our committee member from that part of the country talked a lot about them. We considered the merits of what they had done.
If I recall correctly, in addition to winning the regular season, they also lost their first two games in the conference tournament.

Q. That's correct.
TIM WEISER: I do recall some of our committee members talking a little bit about that. But historically we've tried to value the entire 56-game schedule, and not just look at the last ten or the last 15, because in most cases you can't control who it is you're playing in those last 10.
I think with Elon they were 0-3 against top 25 teams; they were 11-15 against Top 100 teams. So when it comes down to that final group of four or five, six teams for one slot, those become some of the more meaningful discussions. And I think that's probably in the end what tripped up Elon.

Q. Wanted to ask you about Virginia and what put them as the No. 1 seed? Obviously they've been ranked No. 1 for a good part of the season going back and forth with Vandy and South Carolina. But just in the committee's from your perspective, what made them the No. 1 national seed?
TIM WEISER: I think I would go back to the comment I just made about the 56-game schedule. When you look at Virginia over the course of the season, it's hard to argue that anybody has had any more success than Virginia. I think they're the only team with single digit losses.
Obviously Brian has done an amazing job there, and I think in most of our minds, his best team this year. So in their case they lost some games late to North Carolina, but that wasn't, I think for our committee, enough to offset what they had done the previous 53 games, if you will.

Q. Wanted to ask quickly about St. John's specifically. How much does it help or is it considered by members of the committee when you're playing all those road games? Did Georgia Southern winning the Southern Conference to help boost St. John's because they played head-to-head earlier in the year? You said they had the one win against top 50 teams, and I assume that was at Georgia Tech. How much is having them having to go on the road so much as a northern team early, how much of a factor was that to boost their case above the RPI as it was?
TIM WEISER: I think that's part of what I said. For some of our committee members, that is a very, very important piece of the discussion because some of our committee members are faced with those same challenges, if you will. The balancing argument to that is we shouldn't disadvantage those that are in the warmer climates or the locations that give them opportunities to play more home games.
So it was a conscious discussion and decision, if you will, about what St. John's is faced with and what teams in the northern climate are faced with when it comes to playing road games. They did play 26 road games, and I mentioned earlier, we thought finishing second to a very good Connecticut team and making the championship game of their conference tournament were two valuable pieces to go along with the point that you're making about the road games.

Q. Did the Georgia Southern part of that give them an additional boost when they won a road series like the team that wound up winning the conference? Did that help at all?
TIM WEISER: I think the best way to answer that is that it certainly didn't hurt their cause.

Q. Got a wild, speculative question that I just need to ask. Given Creighton's overall body of work this year, if they would have made a competitive financial bid to play a regional at T.D. Ameritrade, would that have been given good consideration by the committee?
TIM WEISER: As a committee, we don't ever see the financial bids that are made. We simply have information about who has bid those locations, and then we're making decisions based on what we consider to be our top 16 seeds. So the financial piece, although NCAA staff members would know about that, that's not something our committee ever gets involved in.

Q. But given their body of work, had they made a bid, would there be any hesitancy about the committee to play a regional at the same side as the World Series?
TIM WEISER: No, not at all. If they were deemed to be a top 16 seed and they had a viable site, certainly T.D. Ameritrade would be considered that, then they'd absolutely be able to host.

Q. I have a question about some of the conference champions. Just how close were, and how much discussion was spent on teams like Hawaii, Stoneybrook and Michigan State as conference champions? How close did they get to maybe getting in into the field?
TIM WEISER: Well, they were in our pool of teams that were getting consideration. I know for a fact that all three of those teams were brought forward by the regional advisory committees and brought to our committee for discussion. So I guess the best answer is to say that, yes, they were given consideration.

Q. The follow-up to that was about teams like Oregon who got really hot at the end and swept Oregon State. It seemed like they were just on the outside as far as looking at RPI. But other than that, how close was Oregon considered to getting in as well?
TIM WEISER: I think they were in the discussion with Cal State Bakersfield. Oregon was there. We obviously were looking at their RPI. As it was improving, we had the ability to see what was taking place with the wins they were getting over Oregon State. So, yeah, I would tell you that I think that they were still with us on Sunday night as we had those discussions.

Q. You guys usually don't answer this question, but do you have any final few teams that you were talking about that you can let us know about?
TIM WEISER: The reason -- the answer is yes. We certainly know those teams. But the difficulty with that is when we announce that, obviously there would be a number of teams that would say so we didn't even make it to the final discussion? And I'm not sure that there's an upside to doing that.
We did have a group of 6 to 8 teams that were being discussed. But I don't really see the upside in announcing who those are because of the disappointment that would create for those that weren't in that group.

Q. I wanted to follow up. You said you guys don't see the financial information as far as the bids when they're presented, the hosting bids, is that a recent development or has that always been the case?
TIM WEISER: No, that hasn't always been the case. I can remember in my first go around. Of course that was back when we were making decisions in part based on the financial bids that we had. But I would say -- what's it been, five years? Five years, something like that, three or four years, yeah, three or four years.

FastScripts Transcript by ASAP Sports

ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297