Softball

Speedy17 said:
Again my bad. I totally concur with your assessment of the committee's two rankings.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I know that I come on strong about those rankings. The committee actually had 3 rankings and they totally reversed the first two with the final bracket.

I have problems with the RPI when it doesn't have controls. This season shows how the math can actually reward a team with little success. I believe that a team that is 6-18 or below .40 record in conference play without making their conference tourney should NOT be in the NCAA Tournament. I also believe a team with a below .500 record in conference should NOT be an NCAA seed - see Kentucky. I give Ole Miss a pass because they won 4 tough games to get to .500 (14-14) by winning the SEC Tourney.

I also believe it is completely unfair to teams in conferences beyond the SEC and Pac 12 when the RPI shows a team in the Top 30 simply because they play in the SEC. Yes, they played 24 games with Top 25 opponents. OU had the opportunity to play 3 games against a Top 25 opponent simply because they are a member of the Big 12. Hey, this impacts recruiting for talented young women because SEC teams can say "Come to Georgia, you are guaranteed a spot in the NCAA regardless of whether we are last place." The current RPI formula allows this situation and totally discriminates against conferences. Georgia went 6-18 in SEC play and is #26 in the RPI. Yeah, they played those Top 25 teams but they LOST, LOST, and LOST. I know in men's hoops that is a big consideration beyond the RPI is whether a team was .500 in conference play. The same situation usually goes in baseball.[/QUOTE]

Can't dispute the points you make. The rpi is less than ideal with exceptions that need to be addressed despite it doing a good job overall. Your suggestion that conference winning percentage be a partial determinant for participation in the NCAA has some merit (greater than .400 of participation and greater than .500 to be seeded). The question is it equitable for all conferences? I have no problem with it but others may see several problems. For example many would argue that Georgia should not be eliminated from the NCAA's with its .611 winning percentage which is a better winning percentage than Big 12 qualifers OSU .608 and Texas .564 while playing a tougher SOS. I see being seeded and hosting a regional another issue.

Of course I am a guy that sees the purpose of the national tournaments is to determine the best team for that particular season and I would support reducing the number qualifying for the tournament to 32. Lower seeded teams very seldom make the final four. I think softball has it right with their double elimination format. My way of thinking is teams 33-64 should stay at home or you can develop another tournament for them. But I am obviously on the wrong side of that issue.
 
Last edited:
scrybe said:
I've always believed it is dishonest for the NCAA and the voters to rank almost every SEC team in the Top 25 before the season even starts. By doing this, they are giving the SEC a giant headstart and making it a near certainty that SEC teams will dominate the weekly rankings, then later the RPI, and eventually the seedings for the postseason.

Few teams outside the SEC (and to a lesser degree the Pac 12) receive a fair shake when seeding time rolls around. Exceptions sometimes do occur for teams like OU and Michigan, both traditional powers that have earned at least some consideration for inclusion among the SEC elite. But where is the justice for teams like Minnesota?
Click to expand...

If Michigan was 54-3, they would be the #1 seed regardless of RPI.
 
SoonerSpock said:
Thanks, I know that I come on strong about those rankings. The committee actually had 3 rankings and they totally reversed the first two with the final bracket.

I have problems with the RPI when it doesn't have controls. This season shows how the math can actually reward a team with little success. I believe that a team that is 6-18 or below .40 record in conference play without making their conference tourney should NOT be in the NCAA Tournament. I also believe a team with a below .500 record in conference should NOT be an NCAA seed - see Kentucky. I give Ole Miss a pass because they won 4 tough games to get to .500 (14-14) by winning the SEC Tourney.

I also believe it is completely unfair to teams in conferences beyond the SEC and Pac 12 when the RPI shows a team in the Top 30 simply because they play in the SEC. Yes, they played 24 games with Top 25 opponents. OU had the opportunity to play 3 games against a Top 25 opponent simply because they are a member of the Big 12. Hey, this impacts recruiting for talented young women because SEC teams can say "Come to Georgia, you are guaranteed a spot in the NCAA regardless of whether we are last place." The current RPI formula allows this situation and totally discriminates against conferences. Georgia went 6-18 in SEC play and is #26 in the RPI. Yeah, they played those Top 25 teams but they LOST, LOST, and LOST. I know in men's hoops that is a big consideration beyond the RPI is whether a team was .500 in conference play. The same situation usually goes in baseball.
Click to expand...

Can't dispute the points you make. The rpi is less than ideal with exceptions that need to be addressed despite it doing a good job overall. Your suggestion that conference winning percentage be a partial determinant for participation in the NCAA has some merit (greater than .400 of participation and greater than .500 to be seeded). The question is it equitable for all conferences? I have no problem with it but others may see several problems.

Of course I am a guy that sees the purpose of the national tournaments is to determine the best team for that particular season and I would support reducing the number qualifying for the tournament to 32. Lower seeded teams very seldom make the final four. I think softball has it right with their double elimination format. My way of thinking is teams 33-64 should stay at home or you can develop another tournament for them. But I am obviously on the wrong side of that issue.[/QUOTE]
 
[/QUOTE]Lower seeded teams very seldom make the final four.[/QUOTE]

Imagine that one, seeding is everything when you have to play at the seeded team's house. Yeah, that is why screwing Minnesota was huge - they now have to beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa and beat Florida in Gainesville. Odds are against OU because they will have to beat Auburn in Auburn, AL.

If the committee screws you over in the bracket, get ready to work on next year. Same goes for baseball. Same goes for Women's basketball - nothing like trying to beat Geno in Connecticut. Men's Basketball not so much because at least you can get a semi-neutral court.
 
scrybe said:
I've always believed it is dishonest for the NCAA and the voters to rank almost every SEC team in the Top 25 before the season even starts. By doing this, they are giving the SEC a giant headstart and making it a near certainty that SEC teams will dominate the weekly rankings, then later the RPI, and eventually the seedings for the postseason.

Few teams outside the SEC (and to a lesser degree the Pac 12) receive a fair shake when seeding time rolls around. Exceptions sometimes do occur for teams like OU and Michigan, both traditional powers that have earned at least some consideration for inclusion among the SEC elite. But where is the justice for teams like Minnesota?
Click to expand...

In theory rankings have should have no impact on rpi. You get just as many points for a home win against the #75 team as you do the #5 team. That is were the 75% of the rankings for opponents' schedule plus opponents' opponents schedule develops SOS as the season progresses being far more accurate week 14 than week 4.

I agree don't publish the rpi until the last third or fourth of the season. The CFP in college football has taken that approach and it seem to function quite well with minimal complaints.
 
Lower seeded teams very seldom make the final four.[/QUOTE]

Imagine that one, seeding is everything when you have to play at the seeded team's house. Yeah, that is why screwing Minnesota was huge - they now have to beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa and beat Florida in Gainesville. Odds are against OU because they will have to beat Auburn in Auburn, AL.

If the committee screws you over in the bracket, get ready to work on next year. Same goes for baseball. Same goes for Women's basketball - nothing like trying to beat Geno in Connecticut. Men's Basketball not so much because at least you can get a semi-neutral court.[/QUOTE]

Do you have the solution to the problem? I find it difficult to penalize the teams that win the most games against the best competition. Is it not viable that lower seeded teams lose most frequently because they are inferior teams more so than because of where the game is played?

It is easy for us to point out examples of the wrongs of the system but much more difficult to correct those wrongs without creating another set of wrongs that are equally exasperating.
 
And who the heck really knows which teams have played the toughest schedules? When I hear it said that Team A played a "tough schedule," I usually take that to mean Team A played in the SEC. Perhaps playing in the SEC does constitute playing a tough schedule. But if Team A plays in the SEC and gets its head handed to it game after game, is it more deserving of a high seed or high RPI than Team B – a team that played in another Power 5 conference but was one of the winningest teams in softball? For those who didn't get the memo, talented players and tough teams are not the exclusive property of the SEC.

I personally don't have a huge problem with the possibility that OU will have to go to Auburn for the Super Regionals. I truly believe the Sooners are up to the task and will have an excellent chance to make it out of Supers and advance to the WCWS. Having said that, I also believe the committee seeds the teams with one main goal in mind: to get as many SEC teams into the WCWS as possible. And if recent history is any indication, the NCAA's plan has been working very well.
 
Does anyone know who will be carrying the game Friday. I have Diectv and can't find it


Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
oketex said:
Does anyone know who will be carrying the game Friday. I have Diectv and can't find it


Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

oketex, the game is being shown on ESPN3, which normally means it is available only on your computer or the WatchESPN app on your phone or mobile device.

However, sometimes DirecTV does televise some ESPN3 games on the upper 700s channels (usually in the 780s range). Those games don't usually show up on the DTV guide until the day before the game. I plan to look for the game on those channels, and if it's not televised there I'll watch on my computer.
 
scrybe said:
oketex, the game is being shown on ESPN3, which normally means it is available only on your computer or the WatchESPN app on your phone or mobile device.

However, sometimes DirecTV does televise some ESPN3 games on the upper 700s channels (usually in the 780s range). Those games don't usually show up on the DTV guide until the day before the game. I plan to look for the game on those channels, and if it's not televised there I'll watch on my computer.
Click to expand...

If you have a roku streaming device, you can download the ESPN app and get the game.
 
SoonerSpock said:
Lower seeded teams very seldom make the final four.
Click to expand...


Imagine that one, seeding is everything when you have to play at the seeded team's house. Yeah, that is why screwing Minnesota was huge - they now have to beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa and beat Florida in Gainesville. Odds are against OU because they will have to beat Auburn in Auburn, AL.

If the committee screws you over in the bracket, get ready to work on next year. Same goes for baseball. Same goes for Women's basketball - nothing like trying to beat Geno in Connecticut. Men's Basketball not so much because at least you can get a semi-neutral court.[/QUOTE]

Do you have the solution to the problem? I find it difficult to penalize the teams that win the most games against the best competition. Is it not viable that lower seeded teams lose most frequently because they are inferior teams more so than because of where the game is played?

It is easy for us to point out examples of the wrongs of the system but much more difficult to correct those wrongs without creating another set of wrongs that are equally exasperating.[/QUOTE]

The big word there is win - when you lose a bunch of games against good teams then you actually win because of the opps record and opps opps record. This allows 6-18 into the tourney.
 
Norman High could lose those same games, and don't tell me they couldn't win those six because that would mean the 6 and 18 team is getting a seed based solely on those six wins. Anyone can lose to top 25 teams, anyone.
 
Last edited:
This kind of reminds me of a softball ponzi scheme. You get a percentage of your opponents ranking then get a percentage of your opponents opponents rankings. Everybody gets a share and the shares are great when you get your opponents winning pct and then your opponents winning percentage when you play the same opponents.

Georgia - Kentucky (2-1)
- LSU (0-3)
- Auburn (0-3)
- Florida (0-3)
- Miss State (1-2)
- A&M (0-3)
- S. Carolina (1-2)
- Arkansas (1-2)

UGA 6-18 =RPI#26 NCAA BID

By formula goes (.25) win pct + .5 opp win pct + .25 opp opp win pct.

For the Florida series:
Georgia gets their winning pct (0) + Fla win pct for three games + Fla opp win pct which include the other teams in the SEC.


Georgia other Teams played include: Winthrop, Syracuse, East Carolina, Presbyterian, Northern Kentucky, ULM, Dayton, BYU (L), UCLA (L), Notre Dame (L), Northwestern, Cal Fullerton (W), Kennesaw, UNC Wilmington, C. Conn, Mich State, Mercer, Ohio State (W), UCF, Delaware State, GT, Ga. Southern, and Georgia State

Against NCAA Bracket teams - UGA went 1-3 vs Non-conference and 6-18 against conference foes. That is 7-21 against tournament opponents yet they are in. Vandy needs to start a team - they don't have to be any good to make the tourney.
 
Speedy17 said:
[/B]

Imagine that one, seeding is everything when you have to play at the seeded team's house. Yeah, that is why screwing Minnesota was huge - they now have to beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa and beat Florida in Gainesville. Odds are against OU because they will have to beat Auburn in Auburn, AL.

If the committee screws you over in the bracket, get ready to work on next year. Same goes for baseball. Same goes for Women's basketball - nothing like trying to beat Geno in Connecticut. Men's Basketball not so much because at least you can get a semi-neutral court.
Click to expand...

Do you have the solution to the problem? I find it difficult to penalize the teams that win the most games against the best competition. Is it not viable that lower seeded teams lose most frequently because they are inferior teams more so than because of where the game is played?

It is easy for us to point out examples of the wrongs of the system but much more difficult to correct those wrongs without creating another set of wrongs that are equally exasperating.[/QUOTE]

The big word there is win - when you lose a bunch of games against good teams then you actually win because of the opps record and opps opps record. This allows 6-18 into the tourney.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a solution or just a complaint? We all have complaints but solutions are not readily forthcoming. Complaints fix nothing. And yes Minnesota still got screwed and Georgia is in the tournament unseeded but bracketed as though they were a #29 seed which is about right based on their #26 rpi. Guess you could have them flip with Oklahoma State but that would accomplish what.

There are 64 teams in the tournament and I am sure a dozen or more think they got screwed. But the only thing that will change about that dozen is the name of the school next year. The committee is fortunate if 36 teams in the tournament are happy with their draw. It is the nature of the beast.
 
Speedy17 said:
This kind of reminds me of a softball ponzi scheme. You get a percentage of your opponents ranking then get a percentage of your opponents opponents rankings. Everybody gets a share and the shares are great when you get your opponents winning pct and then your opponents winning percentage when you play the same opponents.

Georgia - Kentucky (2-1)
- LSU (0-3)
- Auburn (0-3)
- Florida (0-3)
- Miss State (1-2)
- A&M (0-3)
- S. Carolina (1-2)
- Arkansas (1-2)

UGA 6-18 =RPI#26 NCAA BID

By formula goes (.25) win pct + .5 opp win pct + .25 opp opp win pct.

For the Florida series:
Georgia gets their winning pct (0) + Fla win pct for three games + Fla opp win pct which include the other teams in the SEC.


Georgia other Teams played include: Winthrop, Syracuse, East Carolina, Presbyterian, Northern Kentucky, ULM, Dayton, BYU (L), UCLA (L), Notre Dame (L), Northwestern, Cal Fullerton (W), Kennesaw, UNC Wilmington, C. Conn, Mich State, Mercer, Ohio State (W), UCF, Delaware State, GT, Ga. Southern, and Georgia State

Against NCAA Bracket teams - UGA went 1-3 vs Non-conference and 6-18 against conference foes. That is 7-21 against tournament opponents yet they are in. Vandy needs to start a team - they don't have to be any good to make the tourney.
Click to expand...

It appears on the surface you are making a valid argument. I would like to see the NCAA documents supporting the rpi formula with the raw scores for the approximately 5-6K games that impact the rpi ranking of each team and justifies their inclusion in the tournament.

From the lay person's perspective their appears to be minimal justification but inclusion of all the data used may indicate otherwise. Hence the need for the seeding committee leadership to open their books and let their experts explain in detail the effectiveness of the system to the public.

I suspect they provide sufficient explanation to school administrators. Minnesota is not the first school to get screwed and after it happens multiple times annually the victim list becomes long. These victims are obviously getting some justification or they would all be screaming to high heaven constantly to get things fixed.

The public needs to get the same education regarding the system as it is absolute that nothing on the surface warrants the treatment Minnesota received. But don't tell me you treated the Gophers properly show me why you treated the Gophers as you did. Without all the data we are led to jump to conclusions that may be either true or false and most definitely will be impacted by our personal bias.
 
Last edited:
Speedy17 said:
This kind of reminds me of a softball ponzi scheme. You get a percentage of your opponents ranking then get a percentage of your opponents opponents rankings. Everybody gets a share and the shares are great when you get your opponents winning pct and then your opponents winning percentage when you play the same opponents.

Georgia - Kentucky (2-1)
- LSU (0-3)
- Auburn (0-3)
- Florida (0-3)
- Miss State (1-2)
- A&M (0-3)
- S. Carolina (1-2)
- Arkansas (1-2)

UGA 6-18 =RPI#26 NCAA BID

By formula goes (.25) win pct + .5 opp win pct + .25 opp opp win pct.

For the Florida series:
Georgia gets their winning pct (0) + Fla win pct for three games + Fla opp win pct which include the other teams in the SEC.


Georgia other Teams played include: Winthrop, Syracuse, East Carolina, Presbyterian, Northern Kentucky, ULM, Dayton, BYU (L), UCLA (L), Notre Dame (L), Northwestern, Cal Fullerton (W), Kennesaw, UNC Wilmington, C. Conn, Mich State, Mercer, Ohio State (W), UCF, Delaware State, GT, Ga. Southern, and Georgia State

Against NCAA Bracket teams - UGA went 1-3 vs Non-conference and 6-18 against conference foes. That is 7-21 against tournament opponents yet they are in. Vandy needs to start a team - they don't have to be any good to make the tourney.
Click to expand...

It appears on the surface you are making a valid argument. I would like to see the NCAA documents supporting the rpi formula with the raw scores for the approximately 5-6K of games that impact the rpi ranking of each team and justifies their inclusion in the tournament.

Your focus is on Georgia's wp but it is too massive for you to calculate the other 75% wp of opp. and opp's. opp's. Nor do we no the true validity of their inclusion or if they are the weighted properly. Historical results says they do very well.

From the lay person perspective their appears to be minimal justification but inclusion of all the data used may indicate otherwise. Hence the need for the seeding committee leadership to open their books and let their experts explain in detail the effectiveness of the system to the public.

I suspect they provide an acceptable explanation to school administrators. Minnesota is not the first school to get screwed and after it happens multiple times annually the victim list becomes long. These victims are obviously getting some justification or they would all be screaming to high heaven constantly to get things fixed.

The public needs to get the same education regarding the system as it is absolute that nothing on the surface warrants the treatment Minnesota received. But don't tell me that you treated the Gophers properly show me why you treated the Gophers justly.

Without all the data we are led to jump to conclusions that may be either true or false and most definitely will be impacted by our personal bias.
 
SoonerSpock said:
Do you have the solution to the problem? I find it difficult to penalize the teams that win the most games against the best competition. Is it not viable that lower seeded teams lose most frequently because they are inferior teams more so than because of where the game is played?
Click to expand...

SS, please stop arguing against yourself. The teams people are talking about got rewarded for LOSING, not for winning. The lousy SEC teams that got high seeds got there WITHOUT WINNING. They lost. Game after game. But because the RPI is moronic, they got rewarded for LOSING. They were not good enough to win - even when given chance after chance. They were lousy. And due to that they lost. But the insane RPI dreamed up the idea that they were among the strongest teams in the country.

The big word there is win - when you lose a bunch of games against good teams then you actually win because of the opps record and opps opps record. This allows 6-18 into the tourney.
Click to expand...

Do you see the craziness in that last sentence. "The big word there is win" ....... They got in because they LOST, not because they won. So the actual big word here is lose - not win.

Note that no one is arguing that some SEC teams are - and should be - seeded high. But obviously not EVERY SEC team. Which is what happened.

Do you have a solution or just a complaint?
Click to expand...

The solution is to limit the number of times you get to lose - yet still get into the tournament. Every Big-12 team could have found a way to lose games to those same teams the bad SEC teams lost to. Are you saying losing those games would have meant they were better?
 
SoonerSpock said:
It appears on the surface you are making a valid argument. I would like to see the NCAA documents supporting the rpi formula with the raw scores for the approximately 5-6K of games that impact the rpi ranking of each team and justifies their inclusion in the tournament.

Your focus is on Georgia's wp but it is too massive for you to calculate the other 75% wp of opp. and opp's. opp's. Nor do we no the true validity of their inclusion or if they are the weighted properly. Historical results says they do very well.

From the lay person perspective their appears to be minimal justification but inclusion of all the data used may indicate otherwise. Hence the need for the seeding committee leadership to open their books and let their experts explain in detail the effectiveness of the system to the public.

I suspect they provide an acceptable explanation to school administrators. Minnesota is not the first school to get screwed and after it happens multiple times annually the victim list becomes long. These victims are obviously getting some justification or they would all be screaming to high heaven constantly to get things fixed.

The public needs to get the same education regarding the system as it is absolute that nothing on the surface warrants the treatment Minnesota received. But don't tell me that you treated the Gophers properly show me why you treated the Gophers justly.

Without all the data we are led to jump to conclusions that may be either true or false and most definitely will be impacted by our personal bias.
Click to expand...

By contrast to Georgia and their 7-21 record vs. the NCAA field, Minnesota went 17-3 against the field. Yet, they are both in a 2 vs. 3 game.

My real point is the NCAA is rewarding a team like Georgia a spot in the NCAA tournament - for what reason - it certainly was not for winning - they did not even make the SEC Tournament because their record wasn't good enough. The RPI/SEC bias allows teams to make the tournament without winning games. The same results might be in effect for the Pac 12 but it is not in effect for any other conference.

The only conferences to produce schools in the bracket with losing conference records were the SEC, the Pac 12, and the Big 12. We will cut Ole Miss some slack because they won the SEC Tourney and evened their conference record to . 500 at 14-14.

Teams in NCAA (teams with conference losing records in bold)

American - 1 Tulsa
ACC - 3 FSU, Notre Dame, UNC
American East - 1 Albany
Atlantic 10 - 1 Fordham
Atlantic Sun - 1 USC Upstate
Big 12 - 4 OU, OSU, Bay, Tex
Big East - 1 Depaul
Big Sky - 1 Montana
Big South - 1 Longwood
Big Ten - 5 Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, Wisconsin
Big West - 1 CS Fullerton
CUSA - 3 La Tech, FIU, Marshall
Colonial - 1 JMU
Horizon - 1 Illinois Chicago
Ivy - 1 Princeton
MAC - 1 Kent State
MEAC - 1 Florida A&M
Mountain West - 2 San Jose State, Fresno
Metro Atlantic - 1 Fairfield
Missouri Valley - 1 S. Illinois
Northeast - 1 St. Francis
Ohio Valley - 1 Jacksonville State
Pac 12 - 8 Arizona, Oregon, UCLA, Cal, Oregon St, Washington, Arizona State, Utah
Patriot - 1 Lehigh
SEC - 13 which is all of them (1) Florida, (16) Alabama, (7) Auburn, (13) LSU, (14) Kentucky, (8) Tennessee, (9) Texas A&M, South Carolina, Arkansas, Miss State, (12) Ole Miss, UGA, Missouri
SWAC - 1 Texas Southern
Southern - 1 ETSU
Southland - 1 McNeese
Summit - 1 N. D. State
Sunbelt - 2 Louisiana, Texas State,
WAC - 1 N. Mex State
West Coast = 1 BYU
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Maddie Vickery 2027 Offer
Replies
1
Views
305
Soonercuda
S
S
#20 OU at Kansas 4pm 3/2 on ESPN+
Replies
7
Views
392
scrybe
S
S
#20 OU vs #3 Texas 6pm 2/28 on ESPN+
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
scrybe
S
S
OU Grads: New Members of the Varsity O Club & Academics
Replies
0
Views
166
SoonerTraveler
S
S
#19 OU vs TCU 1:30 pm 3/9 on ESPN+
Replies
4
Views
398
betterstill
B
Back
Top