I would be happier if they came out with contempt next year. We are #1. You are the ones at risk if you don't think so. We will win it again.
So, by winning percentage:
697 Big Twelve
667 Pac Twelve
591 SEC
By wins per entry
5.75 Big Twelve
3.75 Pac Twelve
3.00 SEC
But, the SEC claims the most teams and the most wins. Maybe it suggests that the Big Twelve should have had seven entries.
Just not much revealed by those numbers other than a lot of SEC teams got in, and a lot lost. They also had 27 losses.
No questions the data from one year is going to tell you virtually nothing. Take the data from the last 36 years of March Madness and you can get a very good indication how variously seeded are going to perform over the next 10-15 years.
http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html
While there is no maximum limit to the number of players that can be included on a college softball team listed in the NCAA rule book, there are specific rules governing the number of players, particularly scholarship players that can be listed on an NCAA Division I team's roster. The basics of the game call for nine players on a side and allow for eligible substitutes listed on the lineup card submitted to the plate umpire before each game.
Basics: Each team in a Division I softball game must have nine eligible players on the field at all times. Standard positions for these players include a pitcher, catcher, first, second and third basemen, short stop and three outfielders. It is usual for a team to list at least several other eligible players for a given game including backup pitchers, so-called utility players and perhaps a stronger hitter to fill the designated player (DP) role. If a team cannot field nine eligible players, the game is deemed a forfeit according to NCAA rules to the team that can field a full team of nine.
The Roster: The NCAA allows Division I softball teams to have 12 scholarships on each team if each school chooses to budget for that many scholarships. Those scholarships can amount to more than 12 players, however. Scholarships can be divided into half, third or other partial scholarships resulting in a larger roster of players for any given team. A team's roster of scholarship athletes, then, could amount to up to 25 players. Teams may also field so-called walk on players who are not on any athletic scholarship.
A typical roster among the top teams around the country numbers between 15 and 19 players. With more than twice the number of players on a roster than are allowed on the field at any given time, this offers the coaching staff of each of these teams options on how best to field a team from back up pitchers to strength in the field or an extra strong hitter in the designated player (DP) role.
Softball should have 20 scholarships. Basketball has 5 players and 15 schollies and play about 30 games. Softball plays 70 games and 12 schollies. Typical stupidity.
You fail to understand that the accuracy/failure of the data over the last 36 years has no bearing on the accuracy of the RPI/seedings of 2017.
And you fail to understand despite repeated statements to the contrary no system can accurately project the future. The numbers are only applicable from a probability perspective and they are accurate in those regards only. Again I apologize for again talking above your head. But an accuracy of 77.4% is pretty damn good.
However the rpi system linked below did project 16 of 16 super-regional winners, 5 of 8 WCWS qualifiers, 2 of 4 semi-finalist, 1 or 2 finalist or 24 of 31 contest or a winning percentage 77.4% (24/31). Neither the ESPN or Coaches poll did as well.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/softball/d1/ncaa-womens-softball-rpi
And you fail to see another factor. Forcing teams like Minnesota to trave for a regional reinforces the seeding because of home field advantage. Frankly, had Florida played oSu in Stillwater, they might not have made it to the Super Regional. Putting all 13 SEC teams in the tourney improved chances that SEC teams would advance.
The Committee needs to have Power 5 representation, not the SEC and a raft of small conferences.
And you fail to understand despite repeated statements to the contrary no system can accurately project the future. The numbers are only applicable from a probability perspective and they are accurate in those regards only. Again I apologize for again talking above your head. But an accuracy of 77.4% is pretty damn good. Both ESPN/USA polls accuracy was 66.1%.
However the rpi system linked below did project 16 of 16 super-regional winners, 5 of 8 WCWS qualifiers, 2 of 4 semi-finalist, 1 or 2 finalist or 24 of 31 contest or a winning percentage 77.4% (24/31). Neither the ESPN or Coaches poll did as well.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/softball/d1/ncaa-womens-softball-rpi
Spock, for you to talk above my head, you'd have to climb a 12-foot ladder.
For someone who can't even compose or correctly punctuate a sentence, you certainly have a high regard for your own intellect.
On one hand, there is agreement. Any time that you introduce the human factor, there is the opportunity for error. The question becomes what error, and when is it introduced. I think that most of us are certain that there is error introduced into the formulation of the rpi.
If you devise a formula to achieve a desired result, that will be the result that you get. From what we saw this year, some things that should have had a major impact on the rpi, assuming a proper formula, had no effect. Thus, we assume that the problem of human error occurred in the formulation, itself.
The fact that some aspects of the formulation were correct resulted in a similarity of some logical consequences simply removes it from random numbers. From a random number, you anticipate a probability of 50:50. A 75% success is barely above random numbers in such a system. If we used a 75% probabilty, we would probably have had such great scientific success that we would have landed in Mesopotamia by now. I hardly think Isabella would have financed Columbus on such a probability of success. The rpi simply didn't provide credible comparisons.