Softball

[Speedy17]

This gets old. The simple fact is that the SEC has underperformed in the Super-Regionals, and the home field advantage makes that a bit difficult. Between them, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Auburn won how many games? Zero? Is seeding that well-defined?

I'm also a bit tired of hearing about the early losses. In our first game, against Auburn (not their first game), we were experimenting. We didn't use our ace. Auburn used one of their two starters, the one that had faced us in the finale. We used someone that was still a project. She walked five, typical of how she had pitched at Missouri. It was a third of the season before she got into the groove of what she was being taught. Now, look at how many times she even walks two in a game. She has become all about control. Oh, and we had no idea what our lineup might be, still favoring Dalton as one of our replacement stars. We had no clue about Mendes. We also had Knighten and Romero in recovery from surgery.

We started 24-7. But, we were developing. Auburn was probably about as good as they were today. We were better. We had the same experience with teams like Washington and Arizona. Just from watching recent play, if OU were to play those 31 games with this team in this condition, what might their record be? 30-1? 29-2?

All of those losses were at neutral sites. It is curious as to how we didn't get credit for beating UCLA on their field because it was a part of some tournament. But, we lost at neutral sites.

Meanwhile, we watched teams that played hardly anyone lose at home----on their home field. Yet, they ended up with good rpis? I would feel pretty good if I were taking one of three from the Yankees. But, losing to a middle school in Norman might cause me some concern. Some of these highly-rated teams were losing to Maryland, Penn State, and Houston on their home field. If your system doesn't penalize them for that, it needs to be discarded and ignored.

Myers was probably right. ESPN did get the seeding and the matchup that they wanted. It was good TV: the defending champions and the runners-up. Having just watched some other games, Auburn and OU might well be as good as anyone in the nation. But, ESPN got the matchup and the TV audience they wanted. Rpi and integrity aside.

At least, it's nice that A&M, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida were playing against each other. Got the SEC some wins.

Not only that, every one of those games that OU lost were highly competitive. In fact, in the 9 losses - 7 were one run games against Auburn, Arizona, Washington, Baylor, Tennessee, Notre Dame, and North Dakota State. The other two were by 2 runs to a hot pitcher for Cal Poly. The games themselves are not part of the RPI formula. Last year OU got demolished in February/March by several teams including getting wiped out by Michigan and Washington. Margin of victory is not not included.

The softball RPI does not consider home/road. OU is currently on a 27 game road winning streak that dates back to a game in March 2016 to Cal State Fullerton. Ask Auburn how OU plays on the road - and no school is close. This year OU lost two home games - one to Baylor and one to North Dakota State. By the way, the baseball and basketball RPI calculations weight home vs. road.

As for the RPI being right on the tournament - you let very good teams be home teams, they are going to win for the most part. However, the gorilla in the room is SEC favoritism beyond the RPI. It goes back to the regionals. Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi were not final RPI Top 16 yet they all hosted.

The factor that used to be important to the committee was how a team finished - it was obviously not used for OU or Minnesota but it also wasn't used for A&M on the negative side.

I think OU can win this thing again - and that goes totally against the RPI.

 

[SoonerSpock]

This gets old. The simple fact is that the SEC has underperformed in the Super-Regionals, and the home field advantage makes that a bit difficult. Between them, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Auburn won how many games? Zero? Is seeding that well-defined?

I'm also a bit tired of hearing about the early losses. In our first game, against Auburn (not their first game), we were experimenting. We didn't use our ace. Auburn used one of their two starters, the one that had faced us in the finale. We used someone that was still a project. She walked five, typical of how she had pitched at Missouri. It was a third of the season before she got into the groove of what she was being taught. Now, look at how many times she even walks two in a game. She has become all about control. Oh, and we had no idea what our lineup might be, still favoring Dalton as one of our replacement stars. We had no clue about Mendes. We also had Knighten and Romero in recovery from surgery.

We started 24-7. But, we were developing. Auburn was probably about as good as they were today. We were better. We had the same experience with teams like Washington and Arizona. Just from watching recent play, if OU were to play those 31 games with this team in this condition, what might their record be? 30-1? 29-2?

All of those losses were at neutral sites. It is curious as to how we didn't get credit for beating UCLA on their field because it was a part of some tournament. But, we lost at neutral sites.

Meanwhile, we watched teams that played hardly anyone lose at home----on their home field. Yet, they ended up with good rpis? I would feel pretty good if I were taking one of three from the Yankees. But, losing to a middle school in Norman might cause me some concern. Some of these highly-rated teams were losing to Maryland, Penn State, and Houston on their home field. If your system doesn't penalize them for that, it needs to be discarded and ignored.

Myers was probably right. ESPN did get the seeding and the matchup that they wanted. It was good TV: the defending champions and the runners-up. Having just watched some other games, Auburn and OU might well be as good as anyone in the nation. But, ESPN got the matchup and the TV audience they wanted. Rpi and integrity aside.

At least, it's nice that A&M, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida were playing against each other. Got the SEC some wins.

The wins are wins. The losses are losses. You can disregard what you want to disregard. Favorite teams beat under ranked teams. These are the facts what you and I think don't mean s**t. The SEC has performed similar to what they were predicted to perform by the rpi. The exception SEC losses have been to SEC underdogs. No non-SEC underdog has beaten a SEC team but OU. All favored SEC teams beaten were beaten be underdog SEC teams with except for Auburn's losses to OU. SEC 'dog LSU beat favored FSU 'dogs Baylor beat Arizona and Utah beat Washington.


I think OU was a better team than Auburn all season but what I think is not what rankings are based upon. They are based on win and losses with emphasis on quality wins and bad losses things that OU had few of the former and several of the latter.

But then the schools accept the rpi as the preferred seeding system for a justifiable reasons. No one has presented to them a better more effective system an they know better than to pay attention to the Syb. He knows not that of which he speaks.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Not only that, every one of those games that OU lost were highly competitive. In fact, in the 9 losses - 7 were one run games against Auburn, Arizona, Washington, Baylor, Tennessee, Notre Dame, and North Dakota State. The other two were by 2 runs to a hot pitcher for Cal Poly. The games themselves are not part of the RPI formula. Last year OU got demolished in February/March by several teams including getting wiped out by Michigan and Washington. Margin of victory is not not included.

The softball RPI does not consider home/road. OU is currently on a 27 game road winning streak that dates back to a game in March 2016 to Cal State Fullerton. Ask Auburn how OU plays on the road - and no school is close. This year OU lost two home games - one to Baylor and one to North Dakota State. By the way, the baseball and basketball RPI calculations weight home vs. road.

As for the RPI being right on the tournament - you let very good teams be home teams, they are going to win for the most part. However, the gorilla in the room is SEC favoritism beyond the RPI. It goes back to the regionals. Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi were not final RPI Top 16 yet they all hosted.

The factor that used to be important to the committee was how a team finished - it was obviously not used for OU or Minnesota but it also wasn't used for A&M on the negative side.

I think OU can win this thing again - and that goes totally against the RPI.

I agree all of OU's losses were competitive but margin of victory is not a factor in the rankings which I have repeatedly said needs to be a factor gaming industry be damned.

Can you provide visual evidence of the exact rpi formula for softball. I have seen none published just as I have seen none published for WBB. It is logical to assume softball uses the baseball calculation or similar weighing factors just like it is assumed that WBB uses the MBB's formula or similar weighting factors. If I am correct the rpi has a major consideration for road and home wins. In their formula you get 0.7 victories for a home win and 1.3 victories for a road win. A neutral court win gets 1.0 victories. A road win is worth almost as much a two home wins.

With regard to the differences in the final rpi rankings and the seedings that is not the fault of the rpi but the subjective decision making of the selection committee. Personally I would prefer to eliminate all subjectivity and use the computer exclusively. The computer would error but its errors would be fewer than subjective opinions filled with personal bias and could be modified to correct the errors after the accumulation of sufficient data to substantiate the accuracy of the change.

But such a system has to totally transparent. With all calculations for all teams available weekly and committee press conferences at least each week of the last month of the season and the post season.

Total transparency of the data identifies the errors in the system and the tweaks needed as the system is continually monitored and refined to improve its accuracy. It is imperative the system maintain its dynamics.

 

[Speedy17]

I agree all of OU's losses were competitive but margin of victory is not a factor in the rankings which I have repeatedly said needs to be a factor gaming industry be damned.

Can you provide visual evidence of the exact rpi formula for softball. I have seen none published just as I have seen none published for WBB. It is logical to assume softball uses the baseball calculation or similar weighing factors just like it is assumed that WBB uses the MBB's formula or similar weighting factors. If I am correct the rpi has a major consideration for road and home wins. In their formula you get 0.7 victories for a home win and 1.3 victories for a road win. A neutral court win gets 1.0 victories. A road win is worth almost as much a two home wins.

With regard to the differences in the final rpi rankings and the seedings that is not the fault of the rpi but the subjective decision making of the selection committee. Personally I would prefer to eliminate all subjectivity and use the computer exclusively. The computer would error but its errors would be fewer than subjective opinions filled with personal bias and could be modified to correct the errors after the accumulation of sufficient data to substantiate the accuracy of the change.

But such a system has to totally transparent. With all calculations for all teams available weekly and committee press conferences at least each week of the last month of the season and the post season.

Total transparency of the data identifies the errors in the system and the tweaks needed as the system is continually monitored and refined to improve its accuracy. It is imperative the system maintain its dynamics.

The formula for the Softball RPI is below: It should be noted that it has bonus points that are awarded for victories vs. highly rated opponents. They dropped this process in baseball to account for home/road but the softball formula has NOT been changed. There is no doubt that it biases the calculation.

Base RPI Formula
Base RPI = (WP + (2*OWP) + OOWP)/4
WP = Winning Percentage
OWP = Opponents' Winning Percentage
OOWP = Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage

SOS is just another way of stating ((2*OWP)+OOWP)

The Adjusted RPI is simply the Base RPI plus the awarded RPI bonuses and assessed RPI penalties. The Adjusted RPI is presented with four digits of precision and what is commonly referred to as the "RPI". It is the actual Adjusted RPI ranking (not the "RPI" or "Adjusted RPI") that folks commonly see in the published NCAA reports.

RPI Bonus:
Each win vs. Base RPI Top 25: .0026
Each win vs. Base RPI 26 -> 50: .0013

RPI Penalty:
Each loss vs. Base RPI 265 -> 289: -.0026
Each loss vs, Base RPI 240 -> 264: -.0013

Concrete Example (as of results through 3/25) ...

Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns (30-1)
WP = .9677
OWP = .5405
OOWP = .5505
---
Base RPI = .6498

Base RPI Top 25 bonuses:
Arizona State -> .0026
Michigan -> .0026

Base RPI 26 -> 50 bonuses:
Tulsa -> .0013
Northwestern -> .0013
Mississippi State -> .0013
Boston -> .0013
Georgia Tech -> .0013 (2 games)
Troy -> .0013 (2 games)

RPI Bonus Total: .0156

Base RPI = .6498 (Ranked #7)
Adjusted RPI = .6498 + .0156 = .6654 (Ranked #7)

Non-Conference Base RPI = .6485
Non-Conference Adjusted RPI = .6485 + .0130 = .6615 (Ranked #5)

 

[Speedy17]

For 2017, the NCAA Softball board reverted to a previously used set of constants ... a minor difference from 2016. The new constants ...

RPI rankings used for bonus/penalty purposes are base RPI rankings, not Adjusted RPI rankings (which would not be possible).

Win vs. NC Base RPI Top 25 -> .00260 (from .00280 in 2016)
Win vs. NC Base RPI 26-50 -> .00195 (from .00210 in 2016)
Win vs. NC Base RPI 51-75 -> .00130 (from .00140 in 2016)

Loss vs. NC Base RPI Bottom 25 -> -.00260 (from -.00280 in 2016)
Loss vs. NC Base RPI Bottom 26-50 -> -.00195 (from -.00210 in 2016)
Loss vs. NC Base RPI Bottom 51-75 -> -.00130 (from -.00140 in 2016)

 

[SoonerSpock]

For 2017, the NCAA Softball board reverted to a previously used set of constants ... a minor difference from 2016. The new constants ...

RPI rankings used for bonus/penalty purposes are base RPI rankings, not Adjusted RPI rankings (which would not be possible).

Win vs. NC Base RPI Top 25 -> .00260 (from .00280 in 2016)
Win vs. NC Base RPI 26-50 -> .00195 (from .00210 in 2016)
Win vs. NC Base RPI 51-75 -> .00130 (from .00140 in 2016)

Loss vs. NC Base RPI Bottom 25 -> -.00260 (from -.00280 in 2016)
Loss vs. NC Base RPI Bottom 26-50 -> -.00195 (from -.00210 in 2016)
Loss vs. NC Base RPI Bottom 51-75 -> -.00130 (from -.00140 in 2016)

Thanks so much for the information. Very enlightening if that is the complete formula used. Could you provide me a link to this data as I have never been able to find any specific documentation on the net regarding softball but only on MBB and baseball rpi formulas. Not very good at defining my request I guess.

With the above being the only factor in their methodology it is very limited and short sighted with SOS being the only real factor with the OWP and OOWP weighting factor plus the rpi bonus/penalty effectively double counting SOS. Failure to including other factors like injuries, more weight for W/L the last X number of games or site location are big negatives and contrary to the rpi methodologies used in other NCAA sport's rankings. I would also like to see a margin of victory factor included but understand NCAA's resistance to aiding the gaming industry. However I disagree with them as I think its exclusion is a meaningless political jester.

 

[SoonerMGB56]

To each his own. Many don't like whatever ranking system especially the rpi but their dissatisfaction by citing individual teams that they feel are unjustified exceptions reputes nothing regarding the rpi. The rpi's objective is to accurately identify and seed a high percentage of teams. They have no concern about how individual teams are impacted.

Everything else is a unsubstantiated disagreement with the results based on an opinion. Until the committee provides the transparency to document the system's accuracy the discussion really remains moot. Personally I do not always understand the logic of the committee when ignoring the rpi like they did this year with Minnesota. To me that was politically based.

But the fact is the system has consistently identified accurately via seeding the teams that have finished as champion, in the championship game, in the final 4 teams and the WCWS. Ditto for men's and women's basketball. That is the job it is designed to do.

OU was 1-4 against top ten and 5-5 against the top 25. Tennessee was 3-3 against the top 10 and 16-7 against the top 25. Auburn was 1-2 against the top 10 and 15-6 against the top 25 with a win over OU. And the justification for OU was what? Defending national champ counts nothing this year. Nor does the name OU. Wins over UCLA, Mississippi, Tulsa and Baylor twice is not much of a resume for a top 8 seed.

You cite records v top 25. But that's part of the problem. It appears that the RPI top 25 (and beyond, for that matter) is skewed because of membership in the SEC.

Let's look at Kentucky, #16 in the RPI. Kentucky was 27-4 non-conference. But they played exactly TWO good teams, UCLA and Michigan and went 2-1. (BTW, we pounded UCLA in LA) So that stellar SOS qualifies them to host a regional? FYI conf record 12-12.

Now to Ole Miss, 18th in the RPI. They went 33-6 in non-conference. They played exactly ONE team in the top 25 of the RPI in non-conference ( OU, a loss). Is that a hosting eligible NC schedule? Conf record 10-14.

Now S Carolina. Ranked 22 in the RPI. They went 26-10 NC. UCLA loss. 9 other losses in a garbage schedule. 8-15 conference record. This shouldn't qualify for the tournament, let alone the top 25.

Same types of schedules/records for Arkansas, Missouri, and Georgia. Georgia, e.g., played their first TWELVE games at home.

So justify again, how Auburn and Tennessee should be getting bonus points for their wins v. Kentucky/Ole Miss/S Carolina?

It seems to me, that just like you're accusing other of (and will accuse me of), you're using selective data to justify the RPI.

There are MANY softball people who have expressed concern with the RPI (and the tourney seeding beyond that). Including Auburn coach, Michigan coach and OUr coach.

So I'm sorry, you're "we don't really understand the formula" crap doesn't fly with me. I'm a CPA, do financial forecasting and use statistical formulas and data all time. And I'm an avid softball fan (my girls all played) and may understand the formula better than you. I just don't think the formula is a good one. It probably needs more factors, and MAJOR tweaking.

 

[scrybe]

How dare you question the great and wonderful SS. LOL. Great post.

Sent from my MT2L03 using Tapatalk

 

[BanjoCharley]

You cite records v top 25. But that's part of the problem. It appears that the RPI top 25 (and beyond, for that matter) is skewed because of membership in the SEC.

Let's look at Kentucky, #16 in the RPI. Kentucky was 27-4 non-conference. But they played exactly TWO good teams, UCLA and Michigan and went 2-1. (BTW, we pounded UCLA in LA) So that stellar SOS qualifies them to host a regional? FYI conf record 12-12.

Now to Ole Miss, 18th in the RPI. They went 33-6 in non-conference. They played exactly ONE team in the top 25 of the RPI in non-conference ( OU, a loss). Is that a hosting eligible NC schedule? Conf record 10-14.

Now S Carolina. Ranked 22 in the RPI. They went 26-10 NC. UCLA loss. 9 other losses in a garbage schedule. 8-15 conference record. This shouldn't qualify for the tournament, let alone the top 25.

Same types of schedules/records for Arkansas, Missouri, and Georgia. Georgia, e.g., played their first TWELVE games at home.

So justify again, how Auburn and Tennessee should be getting bonus points for their wins v. Kentucky/Ole Miss/S Carolina?

It seems to me, that just like you're accusing other of (and will accuse me of), you're using selective data to justify the RPI.

There are MANY softball people who have expressed concern with the RPI (and the tourney seeding beyond that). Including Auburn coach, Michigan coach and OUr coach.

So I'm sorry, you're "we don't really understand the formula" crap doesn't fly with me. I'm a CPA, do financial forecasting and use statistical formulas and data all time. And I'm an avid softball fan (my girls all played) and may understand the formula better than you. I just don't think the formula is a good one. It probably needs more factors, and MAJOR tweaking.

Grand Slam!

 

[tycat947]

Grand Slam!

:woot:woot:woot

 

[SoonerTraveler]

#13 LSU defeats #4 Florida State. LSU Tigers are coming to OKC.

 

[sybarite]

#13 LSU defeats #4 Florida State. LSU Tigers are coming to OKC.

Two vastly overrated teams.

 

[tycat947]

Two vastly overrated teams.

Yep! You got that right! Guess Fla State didn't have to pay for weak conference!

 

[sybarite]

Yep! You got that right! Guess Fla State didn't have to pay for weak conference!

I had the impression all year that they thought Florida State was in the SEC.

 

[tycat947]

I had the impression all year that they thought Florida State was in the SEC.

A lot of these teams that have been rated highly all season I did not see until this past weekend but using the eye test, I don't know who's playing stronger than we are! Doesn't mean we will win it all but I have a much better feeling about OUr team now!

Eye test also proved to me that SEC was overrated.

 

[sybarite]

I had seen some since I get the SEC channel. The fielding has not impressed me. What I have noticed is that if they can't get you to make mistakes by putting the ball on the ground, some of these teams have difficulty scoring. I watched Arkansas blow winning a series against A&M by making something like three errors in the seventh to let A&M come back and win.

I think Florida has a good, solid team. But, they are offensively limited. Needham shut them out. She just couldn't do it twice in a row. OSU beat Barnhill. Arizona is getting all it wants from Missouri. Let's see what those two series show. The Big Twelve's third place team took Florida to the limit in the Regional, beating Barnhill. The Big Twelve's second place team is taking Arizona to the limit, both on their home fields, and Florida and Zona are generally regarded as #1 and #2.

I would rather not face Washington, Oregon, Zona, or Florida. But, I think we could take two of three from any of them. Of course, it's all about how you are in three games. I have seen the better team swept in four-game World Series.

 

[BlackwellSooner]

Florida is darned good. Yes, fOSU took one of three from them in the regional, but the other two games the Cowgirls were decisively beaten, each time by way of a one-hit shutout.

 

[SoonerSpock]

You cite records v top 25. But that's part of the problem. It appears that the RPI top 25 (and beyond, for that matter) is skewed because of membership in the SEC.

Let's look at Kentucky, #16 in the RPI. Kentucky was 27-4 non-conference. But they played exactly TWO good teams, UCLA and Michigan and went 2-1. (BTW, we pounded UCLA in LA) So that stellar SOS qualifies them to host a regional? FYI conf record 12-12.

Now to Ole Miss, 18th in the RPI. They went 33-6 in non-conference. They played exactly ONE team in the top 25 of the RPI in non-conference ( OU, a loss). Is that a hosting eligible NC schedule? Conf record 10-14.

Now S Carolina. Ranked 22 in the RPI. They went 26-10 NC. UCLA loss. 9 other losses in a garbage schedule. 8-15 conference record. This shouldn't qualify for the tournament, let alone the top 25.

Same types of schedules/records for Arkansas, Missouri, and Georgia. Georgia, e.g., played their first TWELVE games at home.

So justify again, how Auburn and Tennessee should be getting bonus points for their wins v. Kentucky/Ole Miss/S Carolina?

It seems to me, that just like you're accusing other of (and will accuse me of), you're using selective data to justify the RPI.

There are MANY softball people who have expressed concern with the RPI (and the tourney seeding beyond that). Including Auburn coach, Michigan coach and OUr coach.

So I'm sorry, you're "we don't really understand the formula" crap doesn't fly with me. I'm a CPA, do financial forecasting and use statistical formulas and data all time. And I'm an avid softball fan (my girls all played) and may understand the formula better than you. I just don't think the formula is a good one. It probably needs more factors, and MAJOR tweaking.

You may be right regarding the factors and tweaking. But without the transparency I have repeatedly stated needed to be provided to determine the accuracy of the factors used in their projections all you have is your opinion that you don't think the formula is a good one despite the results for two decades indicating otherwise.

You continually keep citing the SEC and the bogus seeding of their teams. I am not defending the seedings but the rpi rankings which are void of seeding subjectivity. You obviously know the rpi process does not consider conference affiliation whatsoever the only factors per info provided by Speedy are WP+OWP+OOWP+rpi bonus-rpi penalty. Your constant reference to non-conference and conference affiliation and results are not germane to rpi calculations leads one to presume you either don't have complete grasp of the rpi or choose to ignore the facts.

SOS of your wins, losses. OWP and OOWP do. It makes no difference whether you lose to #2 Arizona like OU did or to #1 Florida like Tennessee. Ditto if you beat #4 UCLA as OU did or beat #1 Florida as the Vols the impact on rpi is the same as it should be.

Using the rpi rankings To infer Tennessee's 15 wins over #1 Florida, #9 A&M, #12 OU, #14 LSU, #15 Alabama, #16 Kentucky, #18 Ole Miss and #22 South Carolina while only having 6 losses should not be ranked higher than OU's 6 wins over #3 UCLA, #10 Baylor (2), #18 Ole Miss, #20 BYU and #25 Tulsa while having 5 losses is illogical.

You justify where Kentucky, South Carolina and Georgia's are ranked by comparing their WP+OWP+OOWP+rpi bonus-rpi penalty to similarly ranked Texas, OSU, California, Wisconsin, BYU, Louisiana Lafayette, etc. You justify Auburn and Tennessee's rpi bonus points in the same manner that you justify OU's rpi bonus points for wins over OSU and Texas.

Basically the system is doing what it is designed to do and I am sure could definitely be tweaked for the better perhaps even enhanced significantly but we must first have access to data to make that determination.

The big bicth is against the subjectivity of the committee that ignored #11 Minnesota, #13 James Madison and #16 La Lafayette bumping them out of hosting a regional and Baylor that they dropped from #10 to #15 in favor of adding Utah, Kentucky and Ole Miss although Ole Miss can be justified in part with their winning the SEC tournament. The committee should have to justify these decisions to vary from the rpi to the media after they release their two or three rankings at the end of the season

 

[SoonerSpock]

I had seen some since I get the SEC channel. The fielding has not impressed me. What I have noticed is that if they can't get you to make mistakes by putting the ball on the ground, some of these teams have difficulty scoring. I watched Arkansas blow winning a series against A&M by making something like three errors in the seventh to let A&M come back and win.

I think Florida has a good, solid team. But, they are offensively limited. Needham shut them out. She just couldn't do it twice in a row. OSU beat Barnhill. Arizona is getting all it wants from Missouri. Let's see what those two series show. The Big Twelve's third place team took Florida to the limit in the Regional, beating Barnhill. The Big Twelve's second place team is taking Arizona to the limit, both on their home fields, and Florida and Zona are generally regarded as #1 and #2.

I would rather not face Washington, Oregon, Zona, or Florida. But, I think we could take two of three from any of them. Of course, it's all about how you are in three games. I have seen the better team swept in four-game World Series.

What I have seen are a lot of base running, fielding and mental errors from nationally ranked defensive teams. I take this abnormal play to be a reaction in part to the pressure of trying to get to the WCWS. I have seen every super-regional game to date and OU is on par or better than everyone I have seen. For certain OU will be the most experienced team in the WCWS. That is a big plus for the Sooners.

My biggest concern is the quality of Florida's pitching. They just don't allow an opponent to score 3 runs very often. I also think going 3-0 to start the WCWS is a key factor for winning it all. 3 wins and you are in the finals, like OU last year, while coming through the losers bracket can take 5 games to make the finals.

Difficult for teams like Arizona, Utah and Washington who primarily depend on their ace to advance to the finals through the losers bracket.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Chamberlain's HR record is safe. Baylor beats Arizona 6-5.