Softball

[MsProudSooner]

Isn't Auburn the team that suspended some players late in the season?

 

[scrybe]

Isn't Auburn the team that suspended some players late in the season?

Yes, three Auburn players were suspended after all three were arrested for possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. I believe the players' eligibility was reinstated before the regular season ended.

 

[Speedy17]

Yes, three Auburn players were suspended after all three were arrested for possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. I believe the players' eligibility was reinstated before the regular season ended.

The missed six games and have a court date in August. Don't forget their pitching coach Corey Myers (Clint Myers' son) resigned in late March/early April. They called it a family matter but rumors indicate something going on between him and a couple of players.

 

[scrybe]

The missed six games and have a court date in August. Don't forget their pitching coach Corey Myers (Clint Myers' son) resigned in late March/early April. They called it a family matter but rumors indicate something going on between him and a couple of players.

Wow!! I didn't realize it was "a couple" of players. Good thing Myers wasn't accused of "associating" with three players (if you get my drift).

 

[bob the nailer]

If you are being treated fairly by a committee that doesn't have to kowtow to espn and the sec, theres no way you go from #7 to not even in the top 16 without losing a game. Ridiculous.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

It does appear ESPN owns the committee decisions in the minor sports they televise. There is no way OU was going to finish in the lower half of the SEC - and everyone knows that. The larger sports can dictate somewhat to the TV folks.

Did you notice even Fox did not show many of the OU games (in OKC on COX) in the Big-12 SB tourney?

 

[scrybe]

3-2-1: About time for an esteemed poster to chime in and educate us commoners on just why the RPI is great and SEC teams absolutely deserve every one of the top 8 seeds.

 

[j2d2]

I think I saw all of them in Naples, FL. I lived in OKC for many years so it doesnt surprise me that Cox didnt show some important OU games.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Perhaps the rpi did do its job as designed. Only #1 Florida from the SEC in the rpi top 5 followed by #6 Auburn #7 FSUand #8 A&M.

But then the committee tweaked the rpi and elevated FSU to #4, lowered Auburn to #7. A&M to #9 and elevated Tennessee from #9 to #8 giving the SEC 3 top 8 seeds. It was the Pac 12 that had 4 of the top 5 rpi rankings.

#11 Minnesota got screwed by the committee in my opinion not being seeded. #12 OU had 1 top 10 win other top schools 6 or more except Auburn with 4.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/softball/d1/ncaa-womens-softball-rpi

https://res.cloudinary.com/cmgverti...to/v1494817015/softball_d1_2017_1__bhvozb.jpg

 

[SoonerTraveler]

FWIW, RPI rankings of the teams playing at Auburn, Alabama and at Norman, Oklahoma.

Auburn, Alabama
6 ..... Auburn (7-Seed)
24 ... California
37 ... Notre Dame
173 .. East Tennessee State

Norman, Oklahoma
12 ... Oklahoma (10-Seed)
25 ... Tulsa
33 ... Arkansas
155 .. North Dakota State

Strange History (2009): In 2009, OU was the #7 national seed and hosted Tulsa, Arkansas and North Dakota State in Norman. These are the identical schools playing in Norman this year. NDSU upset OU 1-0 in the first round, and NDSU went on to win the Norman regional. NDSU then lost at the super-regional to 10-Seed Arizona State in Tempe. Finally, at the WCWS in OKC, 3-Seed Washington beat 1-Seed Florida in the finals.

 

[Speedy17]

The problem with the rpi is that it does create bias - that bias is being propagated by the SEC. If you take the formula - .25 winning pct X .5 opp winning percentage X .25 opp /opp win pct then you play half your schedule against the same teams then you get tons of games against the Top 25. You end up with six teams with sub .500 records in conference but with 24 games or more counting the conference tournament against the RPI TOP 32. Think about it, Georgia went 6-18, Arkansas 7-17, Mizzou 7-16 (29-26 overall), South Carolina 8-15, Miss State 10-14, and Ole Miss 10-14. Everyone of those games were against an RPI Top 32 opponent. Just imagine a team with a .25 winning pct. in conference with a Top 32 RPI and gaining ground with each loss because of the rpi weights.

If you take OU's situation then you end up with 3 games in conference against a Top 32 RPI opponent. The RPI is so bad that Baylor lost the conference to OU by 4 games and still ended up with a higher RPI which is ludicrous. I really hope Minnesota steam rolls in Tuscaloosa this week then beats Florida.

By the way, the same phenomenon has been happening in baseball. It favors the SEC, but somehow the Big 12 is the top RPI conference. West Virginia is a prime example in baseball - they have hovered in the Top 20 RPI and their non-conference is horrible.

 

[SoonerSpock]

There is a magnitude of bias in the rpi as there is in any rating system including polls which are all subjective. There are teams that get screwed every year. Could the rpi system be improved? Absolutely!!!
Do you have the perfect solution? I definitely don't. Can you eliminate bias? Very doubtful but you work to minimize it as the rpi has tweaked their system over the years. But identifying by seeding 74% of the participant for a ten year period and 40% of the winners indicates the rpi methodology is a very accurate system overall.

The system works to the advantage of strong conferences with deep balance like the SEC and Pac 12 as they play more games against top 25 teams. But what is the alternative? Disregard playing strong opponents to the favor of those with a multitude of win versus weak opponents like the B1G, ACC and Big 12. Difficult to totally fair to all. Should not at team that beats 6-8 top ten opponents be afforded some advantage over a team that beats 1 top ten opponent and 9 sisters of the poor? Ditto top 25.

What is a fact is that the seeding system used which is based on the rpi combined with the opinion of the committee is the seeding of the NCAA softball tournament has for the last 10 years (2007-2016) has:

The #1 seed has won 40% of the time.
The #1 or the #2 seed has won 60% of the time.
The #1-3 seed has won 70% of the time.
The #1-5 seed has won 100% of the time.
55% of the Final Four have been top 4 seeds.
65% of the final two have been top 4 seeds.
74% of the WCWS participants have been top 8 seeds.
Only 24% of the WCWS participants were #9 seeds or lower.
Been 5% more accurate than the USA Today Coaches poll in projecting
WCWS participants (top 8 ranking vs top 8 seeding).

*****ing about the ills of the rpi is warranted but the pluses of the system needs to be recognized as well and the rpi has a multitude of positives.

 

[scrybe]

The problem with the rpi is that it does create bias - that bias is being propagated by the SEC. If you take the formula - .25 winning pct X .5 opp winning percentage X .25 opp /opp win pct then you play half your schedule against the same teams then you get tons of games against the Top 25. You end up with six teams with sub .500 records in conference but with 24 games or more counting the conference tournament against the RPI TOP 32. Think about it, Georgia went 6-18, Arkansas 7-17, Mizzou 7-16 (29-26 overall), South Carolina 8-15, Miss State 10-14, and Ole Miss 10-14. Everyone of those games were against an RPI Top 32 opponent. Just imagine a team with a .25 winning pct. in conference with a Top 32 RPI and gaining ground with each loss because of the rpi weights.

The failure of the RPI formula and the bias the media and the committee have for the SEC is very real – not imagined as some would have us believe. What you so aptly described above is very clearly a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that teams in certain conferences get credit no matter if they win or lose to other teams within their conference. By the end of the season, teams with mediocre or poor records are rated (RPI) higher than teams from other conferences who are very clearly stronger and more deserving.

 

[tycat947]

The failure of the RPI formula and the bias the media and the committee have for the SEC is very real – not imagined as some would have us believe. What you so aptly described above is very clearly a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that teams in certain conferences get credit no matter if they win or lose to other teams within their conference. By the end of the season, teams with mediocre or poor records are rated (RPI) higher than teams from other conferences who are very clearly stronger and more deserving.

Yes, very true!

 

[gwydion]

If the RPI artificially inflates rankings for teams from the same conferences, i.e. SEC, then that flaw should show up in the tournament with losses for those lesser teams.

 

[scrybe]

If the RPI artificially inflates nor so good teams from the same conferences, i.e. SEC, then that flaw should show up in the tournament with losses for those teams.

Actually, it does. SEC teams had plenty of losses in the tournament. OU, all by its lonesome, beat one SEC team in the regionals and three more in the WCWS. But when one conference has more teams in the tournament than any other conference, it's likely that more of those teams will still be around near the end.

 

[Speedy17]

There is a magnitude of bias in the rpi as there is in any rating system including polls which are all subjective. There are teams that get screwed every year. Could the rpi system be improved? Absolutely!!!
Do you have the perfect solution? I definitely don't. Can you eliminate bias? Very doubtful but you work to minimize it as the rpi has tweaked their system over the years. But identifying by seeding 74% of the participant for a ten year period and 40% of the winners indicates the rpi methodology is a very accurate system overall.

The system works to the advantage of strong conferences with deep balance like the SEC and Pac 12 as they play more games against top 25 teams. But what is the alternative? Disregard playing strong opponents to the favor of those with a multitude of win versus weak opponents like the B1G, ACC and Big 12. Difficult to totally fair to all. Should not at team that beats 6-8 top ten opponents be afforded some advantage over a team that beats 1 top ten opponent and 9 sisters of the poor? Ditto top 25.

What is a fact is that the seeding system used which is based on the rpi combined with the opinion of the committee is the seeding of the NCAA softball tournament has for the last 10 years (2007-2016) has:

The #1 seed has won 40% of the time.
The #1 or the #2 seed has won 60% of the time.
The #1-3 seed has won 70% of the time.
The #1-5 seed has won 100% of the time.
55% of the Final Four have been top 4 seeds.
65% of the final two have been top 4 seeds.
74% of the WCWS participants have been top 8 seeds.
Only 24% of the WCWS participants were #9 seeds or lower.
Been 5% more accurate than the USA Today Coaches poll in projecting
WCWS participants (top 8 ranking vs top 8 seeding).

*****ing about the ills of the rpi is warranted but the pluses of the system needs to be recognized as well and the rpi has a multitude of positives.

One problem that has not been addressed in softball is that the RPI has not been adjusted like baseball and basketball for home and road victories. They weight victories at home .7 and road 1.3 in those other sports. Your stats are the fulfillment of the home field advantage garnered through the seeding. I can tell you for a fact that OU playing in Norman is a lot tougher to defeat than playing on the road - even with that 26 game road winning streak. I have little doubt that OU was much than Bama in 2015 but had to travel to Tuscaloosa where they lost in 3 games. OU would have swept the same team in Norman. You put that 4K of home fans in the stands - it makes a difference.

It was funny today when the coaches made Minnesota the #1 team - how could the committee be so wrong especially after the Gophers were in the Top 8 on May 7. You don't do those early ratings if you are using a different criteria. It is like the Wizards are behind the scenes in Oz making random decisions WITHOUT accountability. The Chair of the Committee should have been made available to meet with the media.

Been 5% more accurate than the USA Today Coaches poll in projecting WCWS participants (top 8 ranking vs top 8 seeding).

This shows the importance of home field.

 

[SoonerSpock]

One problem that has not been addressed in softball is that the RPI has not been adjusted like baseball and basketball for home and road victories. They weight victories at home .7 and road 1.3 in those other sports. Your stats are the fulfillment of the home field advantage garnered through the seeding. I can tell you for a fact that OU playing in Norman is a lot tougher to defeat than playing on the road - even with that 26 game road winning streak. I have little doubt that OU was much than Bama in 2015 but had to travel to Tuscaloosa where they lost in 3 games. OU would have swept the same team in Norman. You put that 4K of home fans in the stands - it makes a difference.

It was funny today when the coaches made Minnesota the #1 team - how could the committee be so wrong especially after the Gophers were in the Top 8 on May 7. You don't do those early ratings if you are using a different criteria. It is like the Wizards are behind the scenes in Oz making random decisions WITHOUT accountability. The Chair of the Committee should have been made available to meet with the media.

Been 5% more accurate than the USA Today Coaches poll in projecting WCWS participants (top 8 ranking vs top 8 seeding).

This shows the importance of home field.

While I defend the rpi methodology I concur with you regarding the need for more transparency regarding the calculation methodology and exposure to media inquiry. Also I would like you to confirm exactly what weight factors softball actually uses you inferred there was information to that effect that I cannot find.

I can find sources that indicates the weighting factors for basketball are 0.6 for home and 1.4 for road while baseball's factors are 0.7 and 1.3 like you indicated. I find nothing for softball. Is it 0.7 and 1.3 or is it 0.6 and 1.4 or are the factors totally different. I would assume them to be the same as baseball. But who knows!

I do think they should publish the calculation numbers for each school each week allows the public to know the exact differential between every team in the rankings and how subject they are to weekly change just as the ESPN and Coaches polls do. You are right the committee chairman should at least periodically meet with the media throughout the season and most definitely the last two weeks of the rankings.

I think the Gophers getting the #1 ranking was a protest to the committee seedings by the coaches. I see no other way Minnesota gets 18 of 34 first place votes. But you shouldn''t win your conference tournament and fall from #12 in the rpi to outside the top 16 seeds like they did. Same thing happened to Baylor and TCU in football in 2014.

Absolutely home field is a big advantage but I have no problem with the teams with the best record against the strongest competition having that advantage. Unfortunately this season the Sooners were 1-5 vs the top 10 and 5-5 vs top 25. #8 seed Tennessee was 3-3 vs top ten and 16-6 vs top 25 with one of those wins over OU. I too think OU is a top 8 team but they did not prove that on the field of play. That is what it is. I must take off my crimson colored glasses and see what key wins and losses tell me despite not liking it.

I have no problem with the Vols hosting a super-regional over the Sooners. They earned that right. Had the Sooners gone 4-1 against the top ten we might be in position to justify hosting the super-regional but that arguement has an if an a but included in it. The position of preferring the Sooners despite their not having the big wins to document their superiority is the epitome of our personal bias. A system that would have give Minnesota the #1 seed despite their having a record against the top 10 of 0-2 and against the top 25 of 2-2 gives that system no credibility.

All ranking systems have their bias but for certain a system based on the subjective observation of experts only will have the greatest bias. Be it team bias, regional bias, conference bias, bias against the computers, home field bias, winning margin bias, etc. When you start asking for opinions a 52-53% agreement is a landslide despite 47-48% being in total disagreement. But for certain arguing about the bias of a ranking system is analogous to the tea party and liberals being in disagreement choosing to never reach consensus.

Instead don't complain. Provide a solution or suggest tweak to the existing system to improve it on a regular basis. Change is needed but complaining accomplishing nothing without a better alternative being provided. Tweak the road win, home win, neutral win values if documentation can support doing so. I suspect some form tweaking is analyzed annually by the committee and justified to the membership. Most definitely the committees' experts attempted to tweak the seedings vs rpi ranking this season hence the changes that affected Minnesota, James Madison and Louisiana Layfayette being left out and Utah, Kentucky being added plus the SEC automatic qualifier Mississippi.

Aside from the above every team in the final seedings was seeded within two places of their rpi ranking with the exception of Arizona up from 5 to 2, FSU up from 7 to 4 and Baylor down from 10 to 15 (Hmm no SEC teams). It appears to me the committee was allowing the "eye test" to have its impact in an attempt to provide a more accurate seeding to appease disgruntled fans. You just cannot make everyone happy but you can hope for getting 54% happy though only 49% is more likely. Grumbling is an American way of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_Percentage_Index#Basketball_formula

 

[Speedy17]

While I defend the rpi methodology I concur with you regarding the need for more transparency regarding the calculation of the methodology and media inquiry. But I would like you to confirm exactly what weight factors softball actually uses.

I can find sources that indicates the weighting factors for basketball are 0.6 for home and 1.4 for road while baseball's factors are 0.7 and 1.3 like you indicated. I find nothing for softball. Is it 0.7 and 1.3 or is it 0.6 and 1.4 or are the factors totally different. I would assume them to be the same as baseball. But who knows!

I think they should publish the calculation numbers for each school each week allowing the public to know the exact differential between every team in the rankings just as the two polls do. You are right the committee chairman should at least periodically meet with the media throughout the season and most definitely the last two weeks of the rankings.

I think the Gophers getting the #1 ranking was a protest to the committee seedings. I see no other way Minnesota gets 18 of 34 first place votes. You don't win your conference tournament and fall from #12 in the rpi to outside the top 16 seeds like they did. I can understand some of the impact with Ole Miss the #8 seed winning the tourney.

Absolutely home field is a big advantage but I have no problem with the teams with the best record against the strongest competition having that advantage. Unfortunately this season the Sooners were 1-5 vs the top 10 and 5-5 vs top 25. #8 seed Tennessee was 3-3 vs top ten and 16-6 vs top 25 with one of those wins over OU.

I have not problem with the Vols hosting a super-regional over the Sooners. They earned that right. Had the Sooners gone 4-1 against the top ten we might be in position to host the super-regional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_Percentage_Index#Basketball_formula

There is no indication that softball has included any home/road change in the RPI.

I am sorry but conference play should matter. In men's hoops, it is not all RPI rather it is rare that a team with a losing record in conference play makes the NCAA.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/history/atlarge

In softball, the SEC has redefined it. For example, Georgia went 6-18, Arkansas 7-17, Mizzou 7-16 (29-26 overall), South Carolina 8-15, Miss State 10-14, and Ole Miss 10-14. None of these teams were close to .500 in their conference. Ole Miss is seeded 12th and they are playing .416 ball in the SEC. This would never happen in any other sport. The softball RPI is flawed when you play the same bunch of teams.

As for Minnesota, the question is how do they go from #7 in the eyes of the committee on May 7 then win all of their games and the Big 10 title (remain #11 in the RPI) then fall to #17 in the eyes of the committee on May 15. I think ESPN wants those matchups - Alabama-Minnesota, Florida-Minnesota, and yes OU-Auburn for TV in the Supers. Just think, they get the #1 team rated by the coaches and the #1 RPI team playing against each other before the WCWS.

 

[sybarite]

I think the voters had a bit of a reason to protest. Minnesota didn't play the strongest of schedules, if you accept the rpi as the foundation of your argument. Can we really accept that?

Maryland----last place team in the Big Ten---4
at Florida---top of SEC---2

Surely, this can't be the only win for the lowly Big Ten over the powerful SEC.

Maryland 9
Missouri 8 at Missouri
In fairness, Missouri did beat Maryland 2-1 the previous day, in Missouri.

Penn State 7
LSU 3 at LSU
Again, LSU won the game the next day, 14-1. But, they were in Baton Rouge. Notice that these games are all in SEC country.

Michigan 1
Florida 2 (10) in Tampa. Again, we are in SEC country.

Michigan 0
Texas A&M 3 in Cathedral City Ca NOT in SEC country

Rutgers 1
Missouri 9 in Clearwater, FL SEC country

Michigan State 3-0
Georgia 4-8
In Athens GA, again SEC country

Ohio State 1
Texas A&M 9 in College Station

Illinois 0
LSU 3 Baton Rouge

Nebraska 2
Auburn 3
Puerto Vallarta

Nebraska 0
Tennessee 5 Cathedral City


Yes, the Big Ten only won three games against the SEC this year. All were at the home of the SEC losing team. Not ONE game was played at a Big Ten site.

Now, exactly how did the SEC get the reputation of power? Go they go on the road and beat all comers?