Softball

[scrybe]

Likewise we should be able to win many more conference championships and play for more national championships in all sports than we could as members of the SEC and that makes for happier OU fans. Just one man's opinion

:ez-laugh: I swear you have fully bought in to that hype ESPN and most other media has been peddling for so many years.

OU, in softball for sure, and in football to maybe a lesser degree, would compete for just as many national championships if we played in your storied SEC conference.

 

[sybarite]

syb: Are you watching the ISU stream? If so, mind if I ask what they charge?

No.

 

[sybarite]

Pendley singles to right, driving in Clifton and Aviu.

OU leads 3-2 in the fifth. OU keeps starting with two outs.

 

[sybarite]

We wasted a leadoff walk in the sixth. 3-2.

 

[sybarite]

OU blew it by popping into a double play trying to bunt. But, IS also blew it, a wild pitch giving us our fourth run (after an error).
4-2 going into the bottom of the seventh.

Final: 4-2

 

[SoonerSpock]

:ez-laugh: I swear you have fully bought in to that hype ESPN and most other media has been peddling for so many years.

OU, in softball for sure, and in football to maybe a lesser degree, would compete for just as many national championships if we played in your storied SEC conference.

Perhaps in your eyes but the statistics of the past few years say otherwise. To each his own. And I buy nothing ESPN says. I am not a fan of their dog and pony show. I do my on research before forming my opinions. I also think the stats forthcoming in the next few years will further verify my assessment. I base my opinions on more than I feel I want facts unlikw what is often posted here. Try documenting your viewpoint instead of just expressing your feelings.

Not saying you are wrong and I am right just that I can document reasons for my position and you have substantiated nothing regarding your argument except what you think which along with $2.00 won't buy a good cup of coffee. Facts are what matters.

 

[sybarite]

Aviu hits a three-run home run to right center with Knighten and Clifton aboard.

 

[scrybe]

Perhaps in your eyes but the statistics of the past few years say otherwise. To each his own. And I buy nothing ESPN says. I am not a fan of their dog and pony show. I do my on research before forming my opinions. I also think the stats forthcoming in the next few years will further verify my assessment. I base my opinions on more than I feel I want facts unlikw what is often posted here. Try documenting your viewpoint instead of just expressing your feelings.

Not saying you are wrong and I am right just that I can document reasons for my position and you have substantiated nothing regarding your argument except what you think which along with $2.00 won't buy a good cup of coffee. Facts are what matters.

C'mon, SoonerSpock. You've documented nothing. ESPN and the other mindless media have created the "Great SEC" narrative. The SEC is no better – or worse – than the other power conferences. It's easy to get teams into the regionals/super regionals/WCWS when two-thirds of the teams are ranked in or near the Top 10 each season. Those are the real facts.

 

[sybarite]

OU goes down 1-2-3 in the second. They should be familiar with Sanders. She has pitched every inning today. I get the impression that they are jumping at the ball since she is not very fast.

 

[sybarite]

Clifton hit a home run to right center with Romero on from a double, 5-0.

Stevens shuts them down. OU 5 IS 0 after three.

 

[SoonerSpock]

C'mon, SoonerSpock. You've documented nothing. ESPN and the other mindless media have created the "Great SEC" narrative. The SEC is no better – or worse – than the other power conferences. It's easy to get teams into the regionals/super regionals/WCWS when two-thirds of the teams are ranked in or near the Top 10 each season. Those are the real facts.

Keep your head in the sand where it belongs. I have provided a significant amount of stats documenting my position. You provided nothing to support your position I assume because you know nothing to support your position.

But to suggest I am wrong only because I have bought the ESPN/SEC bill of goods is foolish on your part as the following would indicate otherwise.

An institution’s RPI ranking consists of three factors that are weighted as follows:
1. I Winning Percentage -- 25 percent of the RPI
2. Opponent Strength of Schedule -- 50 percent of the RPI
3. Opponents’ Opponent Strength of Schedule -- 25 percent of the RPI

OU possibly could jump Michigan if their loss was to Central Michigan or Rutgers but a loss to Penn State which trails Michigan in the B10 by only 2 games would not be a bad loss.

If you look at the Nitty Gritty report attached you will also see all the teams record against teams ranked 1-25, 26-50, 51-100 and 101-150. Both Florida 28-3 and Michigan 23-4 have a much better record against the top 50 teams than does OU 18-7. Michigan does have a bad loss to North Dakota State and another bad loss to Central Michigan or Rutgers might allow the Sooners to jump them. Florida like OU has no bad losses plus they play in the SEC and that means something in the RPI.

For instance look a Alabama and Texas A&M. Bama is 13-7 against top 25 teams and still rank #4 in RPI because six of those losses are to SEC teams plus OU. aTm is 6-12 against top 25 teams but all of their wins and all but one of their losses are to SEC teams so they are ranked #22 in the RPI and #18 in the coaches poll. Every team in the RPI top 15 with a losing record against top 25 teams is from the SEC except Louisiana Lafayette and they had a winning record until losing 3 games to Florida this past weekend.

Playing the B12 hurts OU's RPI big time. We have 3 teams ranked in the top 35 the SEC has 12 teams. Fortunately the Sooners have been good enough to overcome factors #2 and #3 above.


https://rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats ...024 2016.pdf

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/softbal...aynfca-coaches

OU playing in the Big 12 where about half of their schedule is against Big 12 opponents a few also ran non-conference opponents that play low strength of schedules and their opponents low strength of schedule definitely negatively impacts OU's RPI ranking.

Alabama for example only played top 25 ranked non-conference opponents in James Madison, Arizona and OU. Auburn played only James Madison and Florida State. This allows them to virtually assure themselves of no losses in non-conference games but no more than one loss. Hence maintaining or increasing their high RPI for being a SEC school prior to conference play.

OU on the otherhand must load up their non-conference schedule with highly ranked opponents early to get the required strength of schedule and often have their RPI fall because of several earlylosses (6 this year). Initially they are hurt in the RPI ranking by these numerous losses.

Moreover, once the conference season starts OU starts to recover because of the weak B12 schedule and SEC schools falter somewhat because of conference losses. However the conference schedule continues to work to SEC schools favor in that they are playing their strongest schedule top 25 wins late in the season preparing them for post season play.

OU's conference season works just the opposite we are facing weaker opponents toward seasons end and not being pushed to prepare for post season at the same level SEC schools are pushed.

I think playing in the B12 is a definite disadvantage to preparing for post season play and achieving the highest RPI. Where I think it works to our advantage is generally winning the conference and being guaranteed to host a regional. I also think it is probably slightly easier to host a super regional as B12 champions then it is to finish in the top 3-4 of the SEC that is necessary to be eligible to host a super regional. Although last year the SEC hosted 7 regionals and 5 super regionals.

Fortunately Patty knows how to overcome the burden of the B12 strength of schedule and prepare her team as best she can for post season play. Few if any could be as successful as she is in her circumstances. Props to Patty.


http://www.rolltide.com/sports/w-sof...tbl-sched.html

https://rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats ...024 2016.pdf

http://www.auburntigers.com/sports/w...tbl-sched.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_N...all_Tournament

Perhaps I can illustrate it another way by saying playing in the SEC is a big advantage. To me I am also saying playing in the third best conference is a disadvantage. Not unlike football OU playing in the third best conference is a disadvantage compared to playing in the SEC when it comes CFP time.

For example Alabama is 13-6 in SEC play. OU is 9-1. Were OU to be 7-3 in the conference (same winning %) we would not be ranked in the top 10. Likewise Baylor is ranked #14 in RPI with a 10-4 conference record. LSU is ranked #15 in RPI with a 10-11 conference record. Were the Bears 6-8 in conference play they would not be ranked in the top 30.

It is simple strength of schedule of Big 12 is not a strong as two other conferences and two of the factors in determining RPI are strength of schedule of our opponents and our opponents opponents (Big 12 team) strength of schedule.

Having to win all of you conference games or lose no more than 1 maybe 2 to be considered for hosting a super regional when in 2015 Florida had 6 conference losses, Auburn 8 losses, Alabama 9 losses, Tennessee 12 losses and LSU 12 losses hosted super regionals is tough to do. Had OU lost 5 conference games last year instead of 2 we would have probably had to go on the road for our regional series because we were ranked only #12 in the final RPI (behind 6 SEC teams) with the losses listed above. Had we lost 3 more conference games 3 more SEC teams would have jumped us in the RPI.

For certain you cannot win only 59% of your conference games on the Big 12 and have any hope of hosting a regional much less a super regional. No big deal just playing in the Big 12 leaves no room for error if you want to host all your post season games before the WCWS.

https://rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty thru April 24 2016.pdf

Patty has to schedule what is probably the toughest non-conference schedule in the country to compensate for the weakness of the B12. This year to date only 3 of our 12 games against top 25 teams are from the B12 and only 10 of the 25 games we have played against the top 50 teams are from the B12. Patty has to go out of conference to schedule two thirds of her tough games and build her RPI so she can have a shot at hosting a super regional. For certain the B12 is not making Patty's job easy.

https://rpiarchive.ncaa.org/Stats Library/SB Nitty Gritty thru April 24 2016.pdf

If you look at the last two WCWS you will observe that 8 of the 16 teams in the WCWS were from the SEC and 3 of the 4 teams in the finals were also from the SEC. For certain I do not want OU to leave the B12 for the SEC as it would not provide the winning percentages and championships OU's fans are accustom to achieving in multiple sports. But just like football qualifying for the CFP and the WCWS is going to be more difficult to achieve playing in the B12.

It probably will be 2025 when the grant of TV media rights contracts expire but I suspect OU will no longer be a member of the B12 opting to move to another conference at that time. TV money for B12 schools will be a +$15 million less after the new conference TV contracts are all signed. In my opinion OU goes to the Pac12 as a member of the eastern division comprised of Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Texas, OU and two other B12 schools most likely Baylor and TCU.

If you fail to see the above as any form of documentation for my position dialog with you is a waste of time. Your mind is to closed. If not show me why I am wrong don't just give me your opinion. Presently as a source you have no credibility.

 

[sybarite]

OU 8 Iowa State 1
Stevens pitched a complete game.

 

[scrybe]

Spock, you're consistent; I'll give you that.

Look, you continue to cite RPI as some sort of "proof" that the SEC is better than every other conference. Yet, you continue to ignore (or simply refuse to acknowledge) my assertion that those SEC teams go into each season with high rankings that they've done absolutely nothing to earn -- rankings that are handed to them on a silver platter by adoring members of the media and other voters (coaches) who have bought into the ESPN hype. And these artificially inflated rankings obviously result in these teams receiving high RPIs as the season progresses.

Until and unless you become willing to acknowledge that fact, further debate is probably pointless.

You also like to point out that each team's RPI is based in no small part (50 percent) on their opponent's Strength of Schedule.

But it apparently has never occurred to you that "strength of schedule" is a term that, in this case, might as well have been created solely to benefit the SEC. Tennessee, Alabama -- he11, every team in the SEC -- is guaranteed to have a strong strength of schedule -- even before the season gets started. Most of these SEC teams are rated in the Top 10 (or near it) in both of the pre-season polls; and since they are all playing each other throughout the season, how can any of these SEC teams not have a strong strength of schedule and maintain it all the way to the end of the season?

Very convenient, wouldn't you agree? And a very effective way for those in charge to make sure a crapload of SEC teams make it to the WCWS and everyone can continue to drool on and on about that great and wonderful SEC.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Spock, you're consistent; I'll give you that.

Look, you continue to cite RPI as some sort of "proof" that the SEC is better than every other conference. Yet, you continue to ignore (or simply refuse to acknowledge) my assertion that those SEC teams go into each season with high rankings that they've done absolutely nothing to earn -- rankings that are handed to them on a silver platter by adoring members of the media and other voters (coaches) who have bought into the ESPN hype. And these artificially inflated rankings obviously result in these teams receiving high RPIs as the season progresses.

Until and unless you become willing to acknowledge that fact, further debate is probably pointless.

You also like to point out that each team's RPI is based in no small part (50 percent) on their opponent's Strength of Schedule.

But it apparently has never occurred to you that "strength of schedule" is a term that, in this case, might as well have been created solely to benefit the SEC. Tennessee, Alabama -- he11, every team in the SEC -- is guaranteed to have a strong strength of schedule -- even before the season gets started. Most of these SEC teams are rated in the Top 10 (or near it) in both of the pre-season polls; and since they are all playing each other throughout the season, how can any of these SEC teams not have a strong strength of schedule and maintain it all the way to the end of the season?

Very convenient, wouldn't you agree? And a very effective way for those in charge to make sure a crapload of SEC teams make it to the WCWS and everyone can continue to drool on and on about that great and wonderful SEC.

That is exactly what it is an assertion by you nothing more nothing less. While you may detest RPI and it methodology used and my no means is it flawless. But it is the best statistical method we have of comparing teams. Just as the SEC members are helped by their conference schedule they are hurt by their weak non-conference schedule in the RPI rankings.

Bunk!!! Remember RPI is based not only your winning percentage but the teams you played's winning percentage and the team's they played's winning percentage. Hence if you played weak teams their winning percentage will be low and your RPI will be hurt. Further you opponent's schedule is evaluated by looking at the teams they played and if they are weak teams then you opponents RPI is lower and in turn your RPI is lower. Conversely if you played strong teams that in turn played strong teams your rating will be higher. Also your winning percentage accounts for only 25% of the RPI. Rightfully who you play (strength of schedule) accounts for 75& of the rating.

I think that is a reasonably comprehensive manner to attempt to evaluate a team's rating relative to its peers. What is your proposal for a better methodology to rate teams? How would you modify RPI for the better? What are RPI's shortcomings? It has to be more than just your gut feel. There has to be more than just your disdain for ESPN and the SEC. For certain post season success more than substantiates the validity of the RPI ratings.

When you look at your team's success, the success of the teams you played and the success of the teams they played in determining your rating you are being more than reasonably through. What factors have you omitted?

Of course you choose to rely solely on an unsubstantiated opinion from an undocumented source. That really has a lot of validity.

 

[Stringmusic]

Thanks, Syb. I continue to be impressed by our freshmen! And Miller is the glue that holds this team together. And how about that gutty Nicole wearing a batting mask to protect her beat up face - and played like a champion. Proud to see Stevens go the distance and get this K's.

 

[tycat947]

I would concur that Boren's first choice is probably OSU because of political pressure and I have no idea who else he would prefer. But for certain you are correct that conference reconfiguration is about money/TV sets/population and Boren is smart enough to know that being linked to Texas in a new alignment is how to best maximize new revenue for OU.

I don't see Texas wanting any part of the SEC. They become too small of a fish in a big pond and they open up recruiting for Texas H.S. talent even more than it is now with aTm in the SEC. Texas likes and is accustomed to being a big fish. Ditto OU. I don't see either having significant leverage in the SEC especially as new kids on the block.

However with Texas and OU being the main players in an eastern division of the Pac12 both schools will have more clout than as members of the B1G or SEC. This is especially true with two other B12 schools joining them in the Pac12 and the financial impact from TV money this expansion would bring to the Pac12.

And when it comes to money Texas and OU gain even more leverage with the Pac12 than they would the SEC because Texas TV sets are already part of the SEC targeted market. Conference money is all about TV sets and TV sets is all about population. Present population of SEC states is 95.6 million, B1G states 85.1 million, Pac12 65.5 million and B12 39.2 million. Easy to see why the B12 will be financially starved to death over time. Also while the Pac12 has its own conference network they have been unable to negotiate a TV contract with Direct TV/ATT that is acceptable to the conference CEO's.

Add Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas to the Pac12 and the population of Pac12 states grows to 99.8 million the largest of any conference. Now the Pac12 has lots of leverage to negotiate an ideal contract with Direct TV or whomever and this leverage results from Texas and OU's membership which in turn is leverage for both schools to remain big fish in their new conference.

Furthermore with most of our games remaining unchanged with 3 non-conference and 5 division games we should be able to continue to dominate our new division comprised of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, ASU, Texas, OU, ? and ?. Likewise we should be able to win many more conference championships and play for more national championships in all sports than we could as members of the SEC and that makes for happier OU fans. Just one man's opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...ing_wp_cron=1461868205.1931009292602539062500

I think Boren has mentioned some attachment to former Big 8 schools, with KU being close to the top. Not that it makes much difference at this point. I do think that he wouldn't lift a finger for the schools in Wacko or Ft Worth.

My preference would be for Big 12 to survive and prosper. I doubt if that is possible though. My next choice would be PAC12 although I have serious problems with the vast expanse and multiple time zones of the PAC12. I don't necessarily think it would affect football that much but students of all other sports would be adversely affected (missing more class time, later nights of traveling, etc).

Also, the PAC12 does have a significant population edge over Big 12 but the interest is not there compared to SEC, B1G nor Big 12. Average attendance in PAC12 is 5,000 less per game than the Big 12 and that's at a huge population advantage. ACC is even lower and that's exacerbated because of a bunch of private schools, as well.

I think the conference networks are going to die down soon (maybe not SEC because of their crazed nature). LHN is really a flop for ESPiN. Not for Texas but for ESPiN it's a losing proposition. I've watched some of SEC Network, PAC12 Network, B1G Network and also some of LHN. Truthfully, I really don't care to watch Iowa State play TCU or Tech playing K-State in ANYTHING! There would be extenuating circumstances that I may watch one of those games (if, in some way it affects OU) but really I have no interest and I suspect most people don't, unless it's SEC country. There is so much replay on these networks and with DVR now, not a lot of reason to rewatch a game when you could have DVR'd and watch when and how much you want. PAC12 Network really isn't successful with all those 65 million potential viewers. Football attendance has dropped for 5 years in a row and that includes 2 seasons with the playoffs. When I was in school (late 70's/early 80's) OU had 18,000 student season tickets. Now we have 6,000 with a significantly larger enrollment. Attendance, with a few exceptions is falling in all sports on all campuses. In this high tech age and with so many things to do, people just will not develop the passion that OU fans from 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's did. I certainly don't know the answer but I can see somewhere down the line that massive cuts to all collegiate athletic departments will occur and there will be a lot of empty seats in college stadiums and basketball arenas all over.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I think Boren has mentioned some attachment to former Big 8 schools, with KU being close to the top. Not that it makes much difference at this point. I do think that he wouldn't lift a finger for the schools in Wacko or Ft Worth.

My preference would be for Big 12 to survive and prosper. I doubt if that is possible though. My next choice would be PAC12 although I have serious problems with the vast expanse and multiple time zones of the PAC12. I don't necessarily think it would affect football that much but students of all other sports would be adversely affected (missing more class time, later nights of traveling, etc).

Also, the PAC12 does have a significant population edge over Big 12 but the interest is not there compared to SEC, B1G nor Big 12. Average attendance in PAC12 is 5,000 less per game than the Big 12 and that's at a huge population advantage. ACC is even lower and that's exacerbated because of a bunch of private schools, as well.

I think the conference networks are going to die down soon (maybe not SEC because of their crazed nature). LHN is really a flop for ESPiN. Not for Texas but for ESPiN it's a losing proposition. I've watched some of SEC Network, PAC12 Network, B1G Network and also some of LHN. Truthfully, I really don't care to watch Iowa State play TCU or Tech playing K-State in ANYTHING! There would be extenuating circumstances that I may watch one of those games (if, in some way it affects OU) but really I have no interest and I suspect most people don't, unless it's SEC country. There is so much replay on these networks and with DVR now, not a lot of reason to rewatch a game when you could have DVR'd and watch when and how much you want. PAC12 Network really isn't successful with all those 65 million potential viewers. Football attendance has dropped for 5 years in a row and that includes 2 seasons with the playoffs. When I was in school (late 70's/early 80's) OU had 18,000 student season tickets. Now we have 6,000 with a significantly larger enrollment. Attendance, with a few exceptions is falling in all sports on all campuses. In this high tech age and with so many things to do, people just will not develop the passion that OU fans from 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's did. I certainly don't know the answer but I can see somewhere down the line that massive cuts to all collegiate athletic departments will occur and there will be a lot of empty seats in college stadiums and basketball arenas all over.

I concur with you that Boren's favorite two schools to join the Pac12 with OU probably are not Baylor or TCU but I do not know that when Texas expresses their wishes for fellow 12 members that he would not support either Baylor or TCU. Likewise I have no feel on the Pac12's position on religious private schools. I do know that USC and Stanford are both private and they met the Pac12 criteria for membership. To me the key factor is having 4 B12 schools that include Texas and OU. The Pac12 wants and needs the 31.6-34.6 million population added to the Pac12 footprint to meet their revenue goals. Also the national reputation and interest in Texas and OU football are other keys to driving the deal from an attendance perspective.

Athletically I would also prefer to play in conference of more regional schools like the old B12, but as I see it, most athletic departments are losing millions annually necessitating relocation of potential academic dollars to athletics. This problem is not going away so the need for a larger revenue stream is vital. Expansion of the Pac12 in part accomplishes that for 16 schools.

I agree that attendance to Pac 12 games is definitely less than B12 games. Also attendance for all of college football not named SEC, SEC, SEC is falling and will probably continue to do so with the massive increase in ticket prices and the availability to watch games on HD television. That is part of what makes Texas and OU critical to the formula. For certain every time a Pac 12 school host either Texas or OU their attendance will significantly increase unlike their normal falling average annual attendance. I would not be surprised that the one game annually against either of the two schools could raise their annual average attendance by 1,000 or more. Enough to eliminate their 2014 average annual decrease in attendance.

Also because of professional sports in California, Washington, Colorado and Arizona college sports interest and attendance will always be less than we the proposed new conference schools. But again the addition of Texas, Oklahoma and if included OSU, Baylor and TCU would elevate that interest and attendance in football when they visit the west coast schools because all four schools are presently national top 25 powers. Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado and Utah they are not.

I don't know the answer to dwindling football attendance either. I know Boren and Castiglione are in part attempting to address the issue with a fan amenities focus on the current stadium expansion. I suspect they also perceive the addition of USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State, Utah and Arizona to the conference schedule would kindle new and additional interest in the fan base at all existing B12 schools and elevate their attendance figures moderately except in Norman where all games are already a sellout.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2014.pdf

 

[sybarite]

Due to weather, the start time for the game today is 3:00 PM.

 

[sybarite]

Now, it is pushed to 4 PM, and they said yesterday that Iowa State has no lights.

 

[womenssports]

Great to see Kelsey pitch an entire game. For her sake, as much as OU's, it would be great to see her get back to pitching as she did in 2014.