Softball

The team I thought got screwed over is S. Carolina. The Cocks easily were worthy of Top 8. Wonder if the committee at least gave them a kiss before the bending over occurred.
 
I understand your thoughts on S. Carolina but the gamecocks were ranked #11 in last week's RPI with an adjusted RPI of .66290. But I thought #8 Tennessee (.66905) took the bigger hickey based on last week's RPI. The Vols were ahead of both #10 Georgia (.66609) and #11 S. Carolina (.66290) in last weeks RPI.

S. Carolina beat #20 MSU and #19 Arkansas and lost to #4 Florida, Georgia lost to #19 Arkansas and Tennessee beat #9 LSU and lost to #4 Florida.

But the Vols fell from #8 in the RPI to the #10 seed, Georgia moved up from #10 in the RPI to the 7 seed and S. Carolina moved up from #11 to the #9 seed.

No one in the RPI moved up 3 spots like Georgia and they lost their only game in the SEC. Strange. I had S. Carolina #8, Tennessee #9 and Georgia #10 in my seedings which obviously means nothing.
 
Last edited:
SoonerSpock said:
I understand your thoughts on S. Carolina but the gamecocks were ranked #11 in last week's RPI with an adjusted RPI of .66290. But I thought #8 Tennessee (.66905) took the bigger hickey based on last week's RPI. The Vols were ahead of both #10 Georgia (.66609) and #11 S. Carolina (.66290) in last weeks RPI.

S. Carolina beat #20 MSU and #19 Arkansas and lost to #4 Florida, Georgia lost to #19 Arkansas and Tennessee beat #9 LSU and lost to #4 Florida.

But the Vols fell from #8 in the RPI to the #10 seed, Georgia moved up from #10 in the RPI to the 7 seed and S. Carolina moved up from #11 to the #9 seed.

No one in the RPI moved up 3 spots like Georgia and they lost their only game in the SEC. Strange. I had S. Carolina #8, Tennessee #9 and Georgia #10 in my seedings which obviously means nothing.
Click to expand...

LOL. So it took you four paragraphs to finally agree with me?

So, I'll give you a big thumbs up in return (and I'll do it in just my second paragraph). Georgia as the No. 7 seed is, indeed, strange. That's a huge example of the committee pulling its own pants down and showing its a$$.
 
scrybe said:
LOL. So it took you four paragraphs to finally agree with me?

So, I'll give you a big thumbs up in return (and I'll do it in just my second paragraph). Georgia as the No. 7 seed is, indeed, strange. That's a huge example of the committee pulling its own pants down and showing its a$$.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thumbs up but I still don't necessarily think S. Carolina got screwed. S. Carolina was seeded 9th I had them at 8th in my seedings. But Tennessee did and both S. Carolina and Tennessee should be upset with Georgia's seeding unfortunately they cannot yell SEC bias like folks around here like to do.
 
Last edited:
Final RPI adjusted rankings compared to tournament seedings. It will show you the subjective impact of the selection committees "eye test".

Seeding-----Team--------Adj. RPI rank

#1-----------Oregon-----------#1
#2-----------Florida------------#3
#3-----------UCLA-------------#2
#4-----------OU----------------#4
#5-----------FSU---------------#6
#6-----------Washington------#5
#7-----------Georgia----------#10
#8-----------ASU---------------#7
#9-----------S. Carolina--------#9
#10----------Tennessee--------#8
#11----------LSU--------------#11
#12----------Alabama---------#16
#13----------Arkansas---------#17
#14----------Arizona-----------#12
#15----------A&M--------------#15
#16----------Kentucky---------#13
#18----------Baylor------------#14

Note that they only seed 16 teams but Baylor being paired in the A&M regional theoretically makes them the #18 seed although location was probably a bigger factor.

Alabama got the biggest bump relative to their final rpi with a +4 seeding followed by Georgia and Arkansas with a #3. Baylor took the biggest hickey with a -3 as did Kentucky but Baylor's drop cost them the opportunity to host a regional. Kentucky's did not. Florida was a +2 and Arizona a -2 from their rpi ranking.


https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty Through 5-13-2018.pdf
 
I would suggest a strong SEC bias, especially for a year in which the SEC really did nothing to distinguish itself. I don't know who got hurt. I will be interested in seeing who emerges from some of these regionals. But, it even seems that the SEC got some favorable bounces in opponents.

I just don;t get a team that loses its top pitcher, its only real hope for a title, and rises to a 7. Unless the young Arkansas pitchers are a lot better than they appeared against us, they would seem to be somewhat suspect. The nice thing about their seed is that it helped give us a safe path to the CWS. If Arkansas prevails, we can simply use the regionals and super-regionals to work out kinks. An all-star team of our opposition couldn't beat us twice without some strange intervention.
 
sybarite said:
I would suggest a strong SEC bias, especially for a year in which the SEC really did nothing to distinguish itself. I don't know who got hurt. I will be interested in seeing who emerges from some of these regionals. But, it even seems that the SEC got some favorable bounces in opponents.

I just don;t get a team that loses its top pitcher, its only real hope for a title, and rises to a 7. Unless the young Arkansas pitchers are a lot better than they appeared against us, they would seem to be somewhat suspect. The nice thing about their seed is that it helped give us a safe path to the CWS. If Arkansas prevails, we can simply use the regionals and super-regionals to work out kinks. An all-star team of our opposition couldn't beat us twice without some strange intervention.
Click to expand...

It definitely was not a good year for the SEC relative to their recent years but a review of the numbers for conference comparisons suggest that the SEC was the strongest overall conference despite the strength of the top 5 Pac-12 teams.

But the SEC bias did appear to impact a couple of teams it should not have.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB League Rankings Through 5-13-2018.pdf

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Team Rankings Through 5-13-2018.pdf
 
Last edited:
SoonerSpock said:
Thanks for the thumbs up but I still don't necessarily think S. Carolina got screwed. S. Carolina was seeded 9th I had them at 8th in my seedings. But Tennessee did and both S. Carolina and Tennessee should be upset with Georgia's seeding unfortunately they cannot yell SEC bias like folks around here like to do.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that argument holds water, Spock. By jumping Georgia from a 10 to a 7, the committee, in effect, cost South Carolina an opportunity to host both a regional and a super regional. That's not just a screwing, but in my book a royal screwing.
 
scrybe said:
Not sure how that argument holds water, Spock. By jumping Georgia from a 10 to a 7, the committee, in effect, cost South Carolina an opportunity to host both a regional and a super regional. That's not just a screwing, but in my book a royal screwing.
Click to expand...

To each their own opinion. I would have had S. Carolina ranked above Georgia and hosting a regional and a super-regional as they were #8 in my personal seedings. However I do not consider seedings as an absolute. The RPI which is designed to eliminate subjectivity in its rankings has South Carolina ranked 9th (.6639) The seeding committee seeded the gamecocks 9th as the system suggest. The RPI had Tennessee ranked #8 (.6678) and Georgia #10 (.6634). The other teams seeded in the top 8 were also ranked by RPI in the top 8.

So I have difficulty considering S. Carolina screwed with a #9 seed and a #9 ranking. I do considered Tennessee with a #8 ranking and a #10 seed as getting screwed and the culprit was obviously Georgia who should have been seeded #10 in my opinion instead of #7.

I also provided a link that goes into much more detail at how they rpi rankings are broken down for you comparison. As you can see for the season Georgia had a better winning %, opponents SOS, road success, road rpi, and normal rpi than did S. Carolina. S. Carolina had a better SOS and adjusted rpi than Georgia. As the Nitty Gritty report reflects Georgia had a slightly better record than S. Carolina against the top 25 and the top 100.

Your and my argument for S. Carolina are based almost solely on our subjective opinions which are both laden with bias as the quantified performance on the field slightly favors Georgia. But I still think S. Carolina is the better team. I just cannot prove it and for certain they were not screwed. But Tennessee did get screwed by Georgia and S. Carolina too if you want to factor Tennessee being ranked higher but seeded lower than the gamecocks.


https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Team Rankings Through 5-13-2018.pdf

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty Through 5-13-2018.pdf
 
I still have a basic problem believing that the rpi formula is working. In order to try to figure it out, I've been listing Florida, Georgia, and OU schedules as far as rankings of non-conference opponents. It ought to work if your conference plays tough schedule and wins that your conference should have a high rpi. Thus far what I've found:

OU plays the highest ranked non-conference schedule:

Average non-conference opponent strength:

77.667 Oklahoma
89.065 Florida
106.167 Georgia

Whoa! Since OU plays the toughest non-conference schedule, OU should have the worst record. Right. Well, OU is 29-3 against non-conference teams with two losses at neutral sites and one on the road. OU has not lost a non-conference (or conference game) at home. Florida was 27-4 against non-conference opposition with losses at Gainesville, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Lafayette, LA. Florida had 19 home games and another five that they hosted in Tampa. OU had 11 non-conference games in Norman (as opposed to 19 for Florida). Georgia was 22-1 in Athens in non-conference play, 4-1 at neutral sites, and 1-0 on the road (Georgia Tech). One road game, five at a neutral site, and 23 at home? Really? They were 27-2 in non-conference play, almost all at home against weak opposition. The neutral site game they lost was to Oregon.

Thus far, I am not seeing how the rpi got its high ranking as a conference.
 
sybarite said:
I still have a basic problem believing that the rpi formula is working. In order to try to figure it out, I've been listing Florida, Georgia, and OU schedules as far as rankings of non-conference opponents. It ought to work if your conference plays tough schedule and wins that your conference should have a high rpi. Thus far what I've found:

OU plays the highest ranked non-conference schedule:

Average non-conference opponent strength:

77.667 Oklahoma
89.065 Florida
106.167 Georgia

Whoa! Since OU plays the toughest non-conference schedule, OU should have the worst record. Right. Well, OU is 29-3 against non-conference teams with two losses at neutral sites and one on the road. OU has not lost a non-conference (or conference game) at home. Florida was 27-4 against non-conference opposition with losses at Gainesville, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Lafayette, LA. Florida had 19 home games and another five that they hosted in Tampa. OU had 11 non-conference games in Norman (as opposed to 19 for Florida). Georgia was 22-1 in Athens in non-conference play, 4-1 at neutral sites, and 1-0 on the road (Georgia Tech). One road game, five at a neutral site, and 23 at home? Really? They were 27-2 in non-conference play, almost all at home against weak opposition. The neutral site game they lost was to Oregon.

Thus far, I am not seeing how the rpi got its high ranking as a conference.
Click to expand...

We can refute the RPI/seeding system all we want but if you look at every team that has qualified for the WCWS over the last 10 years we see that 72.5% were seeded in the top 8, 82.5% in the top 10, 96.2% in the top 16 and only 3.8% (3 teams) were not seeded. As a prognostication tool the RPI seeding system has been highly accurate.

Could it be improved I think so. I think the need to tweak the system to allow a team's WP count for more of the rpi than 25%. Increasing WP to 40% would give each team more control of their ranking and reduce the impact of scheduling/conference membership where they have minimal control.

However the history shows the RPI/seeding system has effectively performed is task. I just think it could be slightly more effective.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_Softball_Tournament
 
sybarite said:
I still have a basic problem believing that the rpi formula is working. In order to try to figure it out, I've been listing Florida, Georgia, and OU schedules as far as rankings of non-conference opponents. It ought to work if your conference plays tough schedule and wins that your conference should have a high rpi. Thus far what I've found:

OU plays the highest ranked non-conference schedule:

Average non-conference opponent strength:

77.667 Oklahoma
89.065 Florida
106.167 Georgia

Whoa! Since OU plays the toughest non-conference schedule, OU should have the worst record. Right. Well, OU is 29-3 against non-conference teams with two losses at neutral sites and one on the road. OU has not lost a non-conference (or conference game) at home. Florida was 27-4 against non-conference opposition with losses at Gainesville, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Lafayette, LA. Florida had 19 home games and another five that they hosted in Tampa. OU had 11 non-conference games in Norman (as opposed to 19 for Florida). Georgia was 22-1 in Athens in non-conference play, 4-1 at neutral sites, and 1-0 on the road (Georgia Tech). One road game, five at a neutral site, and 23 at home? Really? They were 27-2 in non-conference play, almost all at home against weak opposition. The neutral site game they lost was to Oregon.

Thus far, I am not seeing how the rpi got its high ranking as a conference.
Click to expand...

We can refute the RPI/seeding system all we want but if you look at every team that has qualified for the WCWS over the last 10 years we see that 72.5% were seeded in the top 8, 82.5% in the top 10, 96.2% in the top 16 and only 3.8% (3 teams) were not seeded. As a prognostication tool the RPI seeding system has been highly accurate.

Could it be improved I think so. I think the need to tweak the system to allow a team's WP count for more of the rpi than 25%. Increasing WP to 40% would give each team more control of their ranking and reduce the impact of scheduling/conference membership where they have minimal control.

However the history shows the RPI/seeding system has effectively performed is task. I just think it could be slightly more effective.

P.S. the non-conference schedule does not determine SOS games against top 25, top 50, top 100 and top 150 determines SOS for all games against Division I opponents.

The Nitty Gritty link will show which teams are playing the toughest schedule and it is not OU among the top 20 teams OU has played the fewest top 25 teams and the second fewest top 50 teams. Only Hofstra has played fewer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_Softball_Tournament

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty Through 5-13-2018.pdf
 
SoonerSpock said:
We can refute the RPI/seeding system all we want but if you look at every team that has qualified for the WCWS over the last 10 years we see that 72.5% were seeded in the top 8, 82.5% in the top 10, 96.2% in the top 16 and only 3.8% (3 teams) were not seeded. As a prognostication tool the RPI seeding system has been highly accurate.

Could it be improved I think so. I think the need to tweak the system to allow a team's WP count for more of the rpi than 25%. Increasing WP to 40% would give each team more control of their ranking and reduce the impact of scheduling/conference membership where they have minimal control.

However the history shows the RPI/seeding system has effectively performed is task. I just think it could be slightly more effective.

P.S. the non-conference schedule does not determine SOS games against top 25, top 50, top 100 and top 150 determines SOS for all games against Division I opponents.

The Nitty Gritty link will show which teams are playing the toughest schedule and it is not OU among the top 20 teams OU has played the fewest top 25 teams and the second fewest top 50 teams. Only Hofstra has played fewer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_Softball_Tournament

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty Through 5-13-2018.pdf
Click to expand...

OU ranked in the RPI as high as it possibly could have given the schedule. The real difference does not lie in the Non-Conference but rather in the Conference (Big 12) which only has 7 teams while the Pac 12 and SEC are playing ranked teams in every conference game. As I always say, OU needs to get in the Top 8 and things will take care of themselves.

The one team that got over ranked is Alabama - there is NO way they deserved a #12 seed. That one was shameful for the second year in a row.
 
Speedy17 said:
OU ranked in the RPI as high as it possibly could have given the schedule. The real difference does not lie in the Non-Conference but rather in the Conference (Big 12) which only has 7 teams while the Pac 12 and SEC are playing ranked teams in every conference game. As I always say, OU needs to get in the Top 8 and things will take care of themselves.

The one team that got over ranked is Alabama - there is NO way they deserved a #12 seed. That one was shameful for the second year in a row.
Click to expand...


Bingo!
 
My point is that I don't believe that--at all.

The primary thing that has been demonstrated is that the home team (not the seeds) has an advantage. Is it difficult to beat a higher seed, or to beat the home team? Seeded teams have a huge advantage.

I don't agree as much with the idea of weighting the victory as I do in weighting the location. When you look at the conference play, you see that they tend to win at home and lose on the road. Yet, this does not receive adequate recognition.

I want to see that applied to non-conference games. It is an outrage that the committee does not put forward an rpi formula that recognizes the advantage of playing at home. Almost every team has a better record at home.

Yet, the conferences that play almost all of their non-conference games at home are not penalized for it. Until there is a formula that penalizes teams for remaining at home, I will not recognize any superiority of the SEC or Pac 12 at all. Also, I will continue to maintain that the formula must be revised until they see a need to play on the road.

23 home non-conference games and only one on the road? Really? And, you wonder why their non-conference record is so good when it was only 5-1 on a neutral site, 1-0 on the road, and 22-1 at home? You show me thirteen teams with that type of imbalance and want me to accept that they were better as a conference?

That's like the guy who thinks that the guy from the ghetto has equal opportunity with the billionaire's son.
 
sybarite said:
My point is that I don't believe that--at all.

The primary thing that has been demonstrated is that the home team (not the seeds) has an advantage. Is it difficult to beat a higher seed, or to beat the home team? Seeded teams have a huge advantage.

I don't agree as much with the idea of weighting the victory as I do in weighting the location. When you look at the conference play, you see that they tend to win at home and lose on the road. Yet, this does not receive adequate recognition.

I want to see that applied to non-conference games. It is an outrage that the committee does not put forward an rpi formula that recognizes the advantage of playing at home. Almost every team has a better record at home.

Yet, the conferences that play almost all of their non-conference games at home are not penalized for it. Until there is a formula that penalizes teams for remaining at home, I will not recognize any superiority of the SEC or Pac 12 at all. Also, I will continue to maintain that the formula must be revised until they see a need to play on the road.

23 home non-conference games and only one on the road? Really? And, you wonder why their non-conference record is so good when it was only 5-1 on a neutral site, 1-0 on the road, and 22-1 at home? You show me thirteen teams with that type of imbalance and want me to accept that they were better as a conference?

That's like the guy who thinks that the guy from the ghetto has equal opportunity with the billionaire's son.
Click to expand...

You seem to want to place all of your focus on non-conference road games as though a conference road games means nothing. The adjusted rpi provides more points for a road win and penalizes more for a home loss just as they do in basketball and baseball. They also recognize that playing conference road games are as difficult as playing non-conference road games.

This year OU (13) played fewer road games than any SEC or Pac 12 team except for A&M. Florida played 19, Washington 19, Alabama 18, S. Carolina 18, Auburn 17, MSU 16, Missouri 16, Oregon 16, UCLA 15, Arizona 15, Tennessee 14, LSU 13, Georgia 13 and A&M 12. Everyone of the SEC teams and Pac 12 teams played 12 conference road games excepting rainouts. That is 12 conference games against quality opposition. Check the Nitty Gritty link below. The facts do not lie.

The problem is OU played a total of 18 conference games with only 4 on the road. You do not penalize 22 other teams (13 SEC + 9 Pac 12) because OU has difficult scheduling issues as a member of a small 7 team conference which necessitates scheduling stronger non-conference road games than the SEC/Pac 12 schools.

Were Nebraska, Missouri and A&M still in the Big 12 this discussion would be mute. But they are no longer conference members and OU has a scheduling issue not the Pac 12 or the SEC.

P.S. No one really cares if you recognize Pac 12/SEC superiority. It is a free country you have the right to choose to be wrong and yes the Pac 12/SEC presently play more road games than the Sooners. Should we penalize OU for playing so few road games.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty Through 5-13-2018.pdf
 
sybarite said:
My point is that I don't believe that--at all.

The primary thing that has been demonstrated is that the home team (not the seeds) has an advantage. Is it difficult to beat a higher seed, or to beat the home team? Seeded teams have a huge advantage.

I don't agree as much with the idea of weighting the victory as I do in weighting the location. When you look at the conference play, you see that they tend to win at home and lose on the road. Yet, this does not receive adequate recognition.

I want to see that applied to non-conference games. It is an outrage that the committee does not put forward an rpi formula that recognizes the advantage of playing at home. Almost every team has a better record at home.

Yet, the conferences that play almost all of their non-conference games at home are not penalized for it. Until there is a formula that penalizes teams for remaining at home, I will not recognize any superiority of the SEC or Pac 12 at all. Also, I will continue to maintain that the formula must be revised until they see a need to play on the road.

23 home non-conference games and only one on the road? Really? And, you wonder why their non-conference record is so good when it was only 5-1 on a neutral site, 1-0 on the road, and 22-1 at home? You show me thirteen teams with that type of imbalance and want me to accept that they were better as a conference?

That's like the guy who thinks that the guy from the ghetto has equal opportunity with the billionaire's son.
Click to expand...

You seem to want to place all of your focus on non-conference road games as though a conference road games means nothing. The adjusted rpi provides more points for a road win and penalizes more for a home loss just as they do in basketball and baseball. They also recognize that playing conference road games are as difficult as playing non-conference road games.

This year OU (13) played fewer road games than any SEC or Pac 12 team except for A&M. Florida played 19, Washington 19, Alabama 18, S. Carolina 18, Auburn 17, MSU 16, Missouri 16, Oregon 16, UCLA 15, Arizona 15, Tennessee 14, LSU 13, Georgia 13 and A&M 12. Everyone of the SEC teams and Pac 12 teams played 12 conference road games excepting rainouts. That is 12 conference games against quality opposition. Check the Nitty Gritty link below. The facts do not lie.

The problem is OU played only 18 conference games with only 4 on the road. You do not penalize 22 other teams (13 SEC + 9 Pac 12) because OU has difficult scheduling issues as a member of a small 7 team conference which necessitates scheduling stronger non-conference road games than the SEC/Pac 12 schools.

Were Nebraska, Missouri and A&M still in the Big 12 this discussion would be mute. Six additional top 25 games and 9 top 50 games provides a totally different perspective, ranking and seeding. But they are no longer conference members and now OU has a scheduling issue and it is not the Pac 12 or the SEC's job to accommodate OU's needs.

P.S. No one really cares if you recognize Pac 12/SEC superiority. It is a free country you have the right to choose to be wrong and yes the Pac 12/SEC already play more road games than the Sooners. They also play more games against the top 25 and the top 50. Unfortunately for us the RPI/Seeding system makes adjustments for OU's scheduling anomaly which works to our demise. The RPI is not ideal but it is more than fair. Life is not always fair and OU's circumstances are not fair for the Sooners but they are what they are. The blame is not a Pac 12/SEC bias it is a conference SOS bias that Sooners experience in football, wrestling and softball and women's gymnastics. Fortunately we can to some extent schedule through it in the other sports. For Patty it is not so easy and Lincoln on occasion will get a Big 12 hickey come CFP time.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty Through 5-13-2018.pdf
 
Last edited:
SoonerSpock said:
P.S. No one really cares if you recognize Pac 12/SEC superiority. It is a free country you have the right to choose to be wrong and yes the Pac 12/SEC already play more road games than the Sooners. They also play more games against the top 25 and the top 50. Unfortunately for us the RPI/Seeding system makes adjustments for OU's scheduling anomaly which works to our demise. The RPI is not ideal but it is more than fair. Life is not always fair and OU's circumstances are not fair for the Sooners but they are what they are. The blame is not a Pac 12/SEC bias it is a conference SOS bias that Sooners experience in football, wrestling and softball and women's gymnastics. Fortunately we can to some extent schedule through it in the other sports. For Patty it is not so easy and Lincoln on occasion will get a Big 12 hickey come CFP time.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty Through 5-13-2018.pdf
Click to expand...

Well. It seems to bother you. If it doesn't, don''t respond. Incidentally, your facts are wrong.

Let's see if I can explain a concept. If you wish to compare groups A and B, and you have no direct comparison, you look for some way to compare them. Conveniently, both A and B have played C and D. So, how do you compare?

First, let's see if we can recognize a simple fact. Within A, we can see the following:

1) hopefully, they all play each other in order to get a complete picture,
2) but, we can see that it makes a difference where the games are played. Within A, if you play at home, you tend to win. If you play on the road, you tend to lose. So, in order to try to get some balance within the members of A, you not only need to play every team, but you also need to play at home and on the road against every team.

Unfortunately, while this is done in professional baseball (except for interdivision and interleague play), there is simply no way that you will get every team in A to play every other team in A at home and on the road. But, you get as much information as you can, realizing that you aren't even able to be accurate in your assessment of the simple membership of group A without getting complete information on those factors that appear to make a difference.

But, now you wish to utilize information derived from comparisons against C and D. You begin with the information that it makes a difference where you play. BUT, when playing C and D, you make every effort to play all of your games at home?

Just from what you know about comparisons within Group A, it is totally invalid to try to get anything valid if you only play at home. It makes your information useless, and your comparisons absurd. You want to have A ranked higher than B when A only plays at home while B plays mostly on the road? And you don't see your problem?

Mentally, you aren't on third base with this. You aren't even out of the starting gate until you achieve some way of comparing A and B when they are using different parameters in their operations vs C and D.

Now, if you don't get the picture, that's why you need to look at non-conference schedules rather than intraleague games when trying to compare A to B. Your intraleague games are meaningless as comparison tools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Maddie Vickery 2027 Offer
Replies
1
Views
211
Soonercuda
S
S
#20 OU at Kansas 4pm 3/2 on ESPN+
Replies
7
Views
366
scrybe
S
S
#20 OU vs #3 Texas 6pm 2/28 on ESPN+
2 3
Replies
44
Views
1K
scrybe
S
S
OU Grads: New Members of the Varsity O Club & Academics
Replies
0
Views
141
SoonerTraveler
S
S
#19 OU vs TCU 1:30 pm 3/9 on ESPN+
Replies
4
Views
363
betterstill
B
Back
Top