At Large Bids

[jonriv]

Does anyone know what the criteria is to get an "at large" bid to the WCWS when you don't win your conference?

[Kirt]

Does anyone know what the criteria is to get an "at large" bid to the WCWS when you don't win your conference?

I don't think there's any magic formula, but the RPI plays a pretty big factor in getting in. At least up until now only the top 16 teams were seeded, meaning the overall competitiveness of the regionals has taken a back seat to travel distance/cost. I have heard that will not be the case this year, but I haven't confirmed that.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/softball/d1

[Old Darter]

There are no "at large bids" to the WCWS.

There are "at large bids" awarded to the regional tournaments. These go to teams who either won their conference and the conference has no automatic berth in the tournament and/or a teams RPI is high enough to get the team invited. There are only 64 spots, so your teams RPI better be in the top 70 or so to even have a prayer of going.

RPI is based on strength of schedule, and is the primary (not only) factor used by the selection committee.

[AlwaysImprove]

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Division_I_Softball_Tournament

30 teams were awarded an automatic bid as champions of their conference, and 34 teams were selected at-large by the NCAA Division 1 Softball Selection Committee.

RPI seems to play a large part in the at-large bid selection process, but it really is up to the Softball Selection Committee. Does anyone know who is on the Committee?

The following conference winners get an automatic bid. Listed are the teams that received an automatic bid last year.
ACC-Florida State
America East-Albany
Atlantic 10-Fordham
Atlantic Sun-Jacksonville
Big 10-Michigan
Big 12-Missouri
Big East-Syracuse
Big South-Liberty
Big West-Pacific
Colonial-Georgia State
Conference-USA-East Carolina
Horizon-Illinois-Chicago
Ivy-Harvard
Mid-American-Western Michigan
Metro Atlantic-Iona
Mid-Eastern-Bethune-Cookman
Missouri Valley-Missouri State
Mountain West-BYU
Northeast-Sacred Heart
Ohio Valley-Jacksonville State
Pac 10-Arizona State
Pacific Coast-Portland State
Patriot-Lehigh
SEC-Tennessee
Southern-Chattanooga
Southland-Texas State
SWAC-Jackson State
Summit-North Dakota State
Sun Belt-Louisiana-Lafayette
WAC-New Mexico State

[Old Darter]

for 2011:

Barbara Dearing, Portland State
Shannon Ealy, UAB
Scott Farmer, Louisiana-Lafayette, chair
Robin Petrini, Penn State
Maria Roth, New Mexico State
Alison Sexton, Fairfield
Megan Sobel, Dartmouth
Brandi Stuart, Florida State
Eric Toliver, UNLV
Carla Wilson, Missouri-Kansas City

[Old Darter]

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Division_I_Softball_Tournament

30 teams were awarded an automatic bid as champions of their conference, and 34 teams were selected at-large by the NCAA Division 1 Softball Selection Committee.

RPI seems to play a large part in the at-large bid selection process, but it really is up to the Softball Selection Committee. Does anyone know who is on the Committee?

The following conference winners get an automatic bid. Listed are the teams that received an automatic bid last year.
ACC-Florida State
America East-Albany
Atlantic 10-Fordham
Atlantic Sun-Jacksonville
Big 10-Michigan
Big 12-Missouri
Big East-Syracuse
Big South-Liberty
Big West-Pacific
Colonial-Georgia State
Conference-USA-East Carolina
Horizon-Illinois-Chicago
Ivy-Harvard
Mid-American-Western Michigan
Metro Atlantic-Iona
Mid-Eastern-Bethune-Cookman
Missouri Valley-Missouri State
Mountain West-BYU
Northeast-Sacred Heart
Ohio Valley-Jacksonville State
Pac 10-Arizona State
Pacific Coast-Portland State
Patriot-Lehigh
SEC-Tennessee
Southern-Chattanooga
Southland-Texas State
SWAC-Jackson State
Summit-North Dakota State
Sun Belt-Louisiana-Lafayette
WAC-New Mexico State

The Pac12 and the SEC will always dominate the at large bids based on their strength of schedule. The Pac12 will probably get 7-8 berths in 2012, and the SEC should get 6-7.

[jonriv]

So which makes more sense for a coach to schedule?

A non-conference schedule filled with "heavyweights", but little chance of winning

or


A non-conference schedule filled with weaker teams with a better chance of victories?

[DP3816]

So which makes more sense for a coach to schedule?

A non-conference schedule filled with "heavyweights", but little chance of winning

or


A non-conference schedule filled with weaker teams with a better chance of victories?

A mix of both.

You scedule some weaker teams to build confidence and some tougher teams to challenger your team to get better.

[Old Darter]

Your answer can be found by looking at the Cathedral City schedule. Rarely do you see PAC v PAC, SEC v SEC or PAC v SEC teams play one another before conference play (the Cal-Tenn game is an anomaly). Makes sense based on the high RPI value of their intra-conference play. Lower RPI teams seek tougher pre-conference games because of the high RPI factor, something they cannot get during their own intra-conference play. They really don't have much to lose and everything to gain. If I'm in a weak conference in which I know I will run the table and get say, 25 wins, I can lose 10-15 games to high RPI teams and come out with with a winning 25-15 record with hopefully a higher RPI based on the pre-conference schedule strength, even though I lost those games. Theoretically, of course.

[jonriv]

Your answer can be found by looking at the Cathedral City schedule. Rarely do you see PAC v PAC, SEC v SEC or PAC v SEC teams play one another before conference play (the Cal-Tenn game is an anomaly). Makes sense based on the high RPI value of their intra-conference play. Lower RPI teams seek tougher pre-conference games because of the high RPI factor, something they cannot get during their own intra-conference play. They really don't have much to lose and everything to gain. If I'm in a weak conference in which I know I will run the table and get say, 25 wins, I can lose 10-15 games to high RPI teams and come out with with a winning 25-15 record with hopefully a higher RPI based on the pre-conference schedule strength, even though I lost those games. Theoretically, of course.

But if a team is in a weaker conference- most likely the only team making it would be the conference champion? Would it be better to have a gaudy win-loss record or a decent record with a better RPI. Obviously higher RPI would help in rankings, but I am talking about just getting in? Also- do you risk hurting a team pysche by playing powerhouses and getting your head handed to you?