Softball

[Speedy17]

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?

Speaking of the RPI - OU beats Baylor 2 out of 3, wins the Big 12 playing the same number of games and same opponents by 4 games over Baylor, wins the Big 12 Tournament beating the team that beat Baylor (OSU), and the Sooners are still behind Baylor in the RPI. If it is the reference then Baylor should have won at least one of the two Big 12 Championships and they were not even close.

 

[scrybe]

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.

What the heck does that even mean???

And in my opinion the committee is very transparent in the way it seeds teams for the postseason.

 

[sybarite]

What the heck does that even mean???

And in my opinion the committee is very transparent in the way it seeds teams for the postseason.

Good question. I think the rpi has some explaining to do. I think the voters made a statement that they don't believe it. I certainly don't.

Penn State who beat LSU in Baton Rouge, is not in the tournament.

Pitt, who beat Kentucky twice, 3-1 and 6-3, in Orlando, FL, is not in the tournament.

Maryland, who beat Florida in Tampa, as well as Missouri in Columbia, is not in the tournament.

 

[SoonerSpock]

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.

Their is merit to the argument to exclude some teams with losing records. Perhaps there is a 4th weight instead of the present 3 that could attempt to address that need.

I agree from the fans perspective Minnesota dropping from #7 to #11 in the last rpi and then not seeded is a red flag. But it was not the rpi that bumped the Gophers it was the committees' "eye test". The rpi had them ranked #11 in its final ranking. I do think if with the rpi ranking they published the raw point totals for each team the fans would better understand ranking movements. After the Oregon vs FSU series the Ducks jumped 5 sport but the 'noles only fell 1 spot and that appears strange. However had the team point total been published we might have seen that the rpi rankings at that time had 5 teams in a virtual tie for the #2 position and the Oregon's movement up was warranted after their sweep. Without the team points it is a red flag. Ditto Minnesota falling from #7 to #11 while winning.

No question that TV has tremendous leverage on what transpires in college athletics and schools are short on cash and chasing the big bucks. But with regard to the TV match-ups you reference there is no quanitative analysis to justify the Sooners being ranked higher and what is illogical about where Auburn is ranked. Not everything is planned sometimes things just happen that way. To think otherwise is merely another bias. Yours against the system and the TV moguls and mine supporting the analytical justification of the system.

Don't forget your thinking that the teams should be ranked differently than the rpi system ranking without statistical evidence to the contrary is nothing more than a personal bias. Something the system tries to minimize as they realize they can not eliminate it.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Good question. I think the rpi has some explaining to do. I think the voters made a statement that they don't believe it. I certainly don't.

Penn State who beat LSU in Baton Rouge, is not in the tournament.

Pitt, who beat Kentucky twice, 3-1 and 6-3, in Orlando, FL, is not in the tournament.

Maryland, who beat Florida in Tampa, as well as Missouri in Columbia, is not in the tournament.

The rpi has its ills and needs tweaking and modification to address several issues. But the incidents you list are anomalies. OU losing two games to #63 Cal Poly scoring only 2 runs is the same. The rpi ranks team based on their ful season body of work with isolated good and bad games being exactly that isolated games that are factored in with the weight of just one game.

It has always been your nature to cite an isolated event or two and totally disregard the 55 applicable occurrences. Identify specifically about the system is wrong and a provide an example of what needs to be done to correct the problem. I imagine it will take a bright mind or several bright minds to derive those solutions. That being said the bright mind requirement put you and me on the sidelines listening to what Speedy who identifies specific problems while he is still seeking to find the difficult solution.

Rpi committee leadership need to present itself to the media a minimum of the last two rpi rankings and seeding ranking to justify why things changed and their logic behind their "eye test" decisions in the seedings that usurp the rpi rankings.

 

[SoonerSpock]

What the heck does that even mean???

And in my opinion the committee is very transparent in the way it seeds teams for the postseason.

Publish the weighting factors for each sport. They are available for basketball and baseball. Explain in detail how they take the rpi rankings and massage them to derive the final seedings. Only one school, Florida, was ranked and seeded the same. Why? Most were within a couple of slots in each but not the same. Do they note hot teams at season's end? Identify what impact teams won/loss record over the last 20 or 10 games has.

With the rpi rankings list the point total of their calculations for each school so the public can know if #3 UCLA trails #2 Oregon by 2 points 20 points or 200 points in the ranking. It would make it easier to understand ranking movements for the fans. Explain how/why losing records against quality teams significantly out weigh winning records against lessor opponents. I suspect that is the function of weighing opponents' winning percentage 50% and opponents' opponents winning percentage by 25% addresses that issue.

There is a reason OU's winning percentage accounts for only 25% of it rpi ranking. I would like to see it explained why and justified with examples. I think a more informed fan base would have a higher satisfaction with their work. Easy to ***** when ill informed.

Rpi committee leadership need to present itself to the media a minimum of the last two rpi rankings and seeding ranking to justify why things changed and their logic behind their "eye test" decisions in the seedings that usurp the rpi rankings.

 

[sybarite]

The rpi has its ills and needs tweaking and modification to address several issues. But the incidents you list are anomalies. OU losing two games to #63 Cal Poly scoring only 2 runs is the same. The rpi ranks team based on their ful season body of work with isolated good and bad games being exactly that isolated games that are factored in with the weight of just one game.

It has always been your nature to cite an isolated event or two and totally disregard the 55 applicable occurrences. Identify specifically about the system is wrong and a provide an example of what needs to be done to correct the problem. I imagine it will take a bright mind or several bright minds to derive those solutions. That being said the bright mind requirement put you and me on the sidelines listening to what Speedy who identifies specific problems while he is still seeking to find the difficult solution.

Rpi committee leadership need to present itself to the media a minimum of the last two rpi rankings and seeding ranking to justify why things changed and their logic behind their "eye test" decisions in the seedings that usurp the rpi rankings.

The question is why the anomalies don't seem to affect the seeding of the SEC teams. They obviously affect the seedings of others.

 

[Speedy17]

I agree from the fans perspective Minnesota dropping from #7 to #11 in the last rpi and then not seeded is a red flag. But it was not the rpi that bumped the Gophers it was the committees' "eye test". The rpi had them ranked #11 in its final ranking.

Sorry but this did not happen, Minnesota was ranked #12 in the RPI on May 7 and they moved up to #11 in the final RPI. The red flag is the that using the "eye test" that you mention, they were ranked by the committee #8 on April 22 and #7 on May 6 then #17 on May 15. In between May 6 and May 15, they went 6-0 and dropped from #7 to #17. Sounds like a lot of Alabama/SEC Hanky Panky to me.

Graham Hays‏ @grahamhays May 14
Even ESPNs top writer on ESPN W thinks the same way.

"In covering something like 40 brackets between sports, not sure I've ever seen worse committee blunder than unseeded Minnesota. Inexcusable."

 

[tycat947]

Sorry but this did not happen, Minnesota was ranked #12 in the RPI on May 7 and they moved up to #11 in the final RPI. The red flag is the that using the "eye test" that you mention, they were ranked by the committee #8 on April 22 and #7 on May 6 then #17 on May 15. In between May 6 and May 15, they went 6-0 and dropped from #7 to #17. Sounds like a lot of Alabama/SEC Hanky Panky to me.

Graham Hays‏ @grahamhays May 14
Even ESPNs top writer on ESPN W thinks the same way.

"In covering something like 40 brackets between sports, not sure I've ever seen worse committee blunder than unseeded Minnesota. Inexcusable."

This should be a huge red flag to everyone that isn't in the SEC/ PAC12. Really unbelievable.

Also, another fallacy with the rpi, is that every team seeded is the exact same team, every game, all season long! Is OU playing today, the same team which lost 5 one run games in the first month of the season? Hypocrite U may have beaten some of the top teams earlier in the year, but OU won 2 of 3 from them and won the conference race by four games. It seems like very little is taken into account with regards to injuries and also, improvement during the season. What is the percentage of home games versus road and neutral site games. There really doesn't seem to be this much bias in football or men's/women's basketball seedings.

 

[Speedy17]

By the way, the RPI was not the end all for this committee.

Seed 1 Florida RPI-#1 Difference - 0
Seed 2 Arizona RPI-#5 Difference - -3
Seed 3 Oregon RPI-#2 Difference - -1
Seed 4 FSU RPI-#7 Difference - -3
Seed 5 UCLA RPI-#3 Difference - +2
Seed 6 Wash RPI-#4 Difference- -2
Seed 7 Aub RPI-#6 Difference- -1
Seed 8 Tenn RPI-#9 Difference- -1
Seed 9 A&M RPI- #8 Difference- +1
Seed 10 OU RPI-#11 Difference- +1
Seed 11 Utah RPI-#19 Difference- +8
Seed 12 OMiss RPI-#18 Difference- +6
Seed 13 LSU RPI-#14 Difference- -1
Seed 14 Kent RPI-#17 Difference- +3
Seed 15 Baylor RPI-#10 Difference- -5
Seed 16 Ala RPI-#15 Difference- -1
Seed 17 Minn RPI-#11 Difference- -6
Seed 18 JMU RPI- #13 Difference- -5
Seed 19 ILL RPI- #27 Difference- +8
Seed 20 ULL RPI- #16 Difference- -4
Seed 21 ASU RPI- #22 Difference- +1
Seed 22 BYU RPI- #20 Difference- -2
Seed 23 Tulsa RPI- #25 Difference- -2
Seed 24 Tex St RPI- #29 Difference- -5
Seed 25 Ohio S RPI- #35 Difference- +10
Seed 26 Cal RPI- #24 Difference- -2
Seed 27 Mich RPI- #21 Difference- -6
Seed 28 Fuller RPI-#48 Difference- +20
Seed 29 UGA RPI-#26 Difference- -3
Seed 30 Mizz RPI-#31 Difference- +1
Seed 31 S Car RPI- #23 Difference- -8
Seed 32 FIU RPI- #38 Difference- -6

Using the RPI, the easiest bracket is UCLA's. Utah, Kentucky and Ole Miss really were seeded beyond their RPI

 

[Sooner Cal]

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.

Correctly stated. A 2-1 series split at home rewards both teams. Win one away game out of 3 and you get a lot of points. That win could be luck, or by 1 run with the 2 losses being run ruled. This is how a 20 loss SEC team gets in. Frankly, the only reason they didn't get 14 teams in, they only have 13 teams.

The thing is a joke as currently done, but so is just about everything else in the country so nobody cares.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Sorry but this did not happen, Minnesota was ranked #12 in the RPI on May 7 and they moved up to #11 in the final RPI. The red flag is the that using the "eye test" that you mention, they were ranked by the committee #8 on April 22 and #7 on May 6 then #17 on May 15. In between May 6 and May 15, they went 6-0 and dropped from #7 to #17. Sounds like a lot of Alabama/SEC Hanky Panky to me.

Graham Hays‏ @grahamhays May 14
Even ESPNs top writer on ESPN W thinks the same way.

"In covering something like 40 brackets between sports, not sure I've ever seen worse committee blunder than unseeded Minnesota. Inexcusable."

I again clarify the Gophers were not ranked #17 on May 15. They were ranked #11 on May 14 in the rpi. They were seeded by the committee using the "eye test" augmented by the May 14 rpi rankings on May 16.

It could be easy to justify Minnesota's rpi movement from #7 to #11 over 3 weeks based on SOS especially if we had the team points detail to follow. What needs an explanation is the committee's "eye test" movement from #11 rpi to unseeded two days after the the final rpi rankings of 5-14-17.

If the point totals of each team were published each week fans could track the movement and perhaps better understand the change in weekly rankings. The committee leadership should absolutely face the media to further explain such things as Minnesota dropping at least 6 spots in the seeding process.

It is the committee's absence of transparency that develops a perception by fans there is travesty in the rankings.

 

[SoonerSpock]

The question is why the anomalies don't seem to affect the seeding of the SEC teams. They obviously affect the seedings of others.

The anomalies do have an impact they count 0.7 for every home field win, 1.3 for every road win and 1.0 for every neutral field win. Correspondingly the losses count -0.6, -1.3 and -1.0. as do all the wins and losses of your opponents and also as do all the wins and losses of your opponent's opponents wins and losses. That is a massive amount of calculations for each team. Think the results of your 60 games. The result of your 37 opponents 60 games and the results 37 opponents' 37 opponents 60 games less all duplication which could mean the outcome of 5-6,000 games perhaps more could factor into the calculation of each teams rpi. This calculation factors in every game that has any factor on the comparison of teams including anomalies. Also any single games impact is minuscule.

 

[Speedy17]

I again clarify the Gophers were not ranked #17 on May 15. They were ranked #11 on May 14 in the rpi. They were seeded by the committee using the "eye test" augmented by the May 14 rpi rankings on May 16.

It could be easy to justify Minnesota's rpi movement from #7 to #11 over 3 weeks based on SOS especially if we had the team points detail to follow. What needs an explanation is the committee's "eye test" movement from #11 rpi to unseeded two days after the the final rpi rankings of 5-14-17.

If the point totals of each team were published each week fans could track the movement and perhaps better understand the change in weekly rankings. The committee leadership should absolutely face the media to further explain such things as Minnesota dropping at least 6 spots in the seeding process.

It is the committee's absence of transparency that develops a perception by fans there is travesty in the rankings.

You are intermingling the RPI and the Committee and changing the story.

I repeat - the Committee released an early projection of their rankings on April 22 that supposedly used the same criteria. It was a first look at the committee's rankings and Minnesota was #8. They followed this on May 6 with a second view that was released nationally and Minnesota was #7. On May 15, they released the bracket and Minnesota Was #17. These polls considered the RPI.

April 22 Ranking
http://www.ncaa.com/news/softball/a...ship-committee-announces-first-top-10-ranking

May 6
http://www.ncaa.com/news/softball/a...nship-sport-committee-announces-second-top-10

However, the RPI is a different poll. I repeat this is a different ranking. You are making an argument that Minnesota's RPI fell - it did not fall. They were never in the Top Ten in the RPI. It remained the same, in fact, it rose to #11. Yet, the committee had them in the Top Eight seeds.

That committee is catching hell right now because this was atrocious. If they had not released the early polls then they would be fine. Now they have to explain Minnesota dropping 10 spots from their ranking on May 7 and there is not an explanation. Minnesota went 14-0 between the first ranking and the NCAA bracket - they have no explanation and NO the Minnesota RPI did not change.


Carol Hutchins, Michigan Coach

What peeved Hutchins most were the committee’s midseason rankings, meant to use the same criteria utilized to determine the tournament field, which had the Gophers ranked seventh in the country just a week before the seedings were announced.

But the process to determine the rankings and the seedings were supposed to be the same, and the idea of the rankings was to give teams and fans an idea of where the nation’s top teams stood heading into the final week of play.

Hutchins said committees can be swayed to fit the agenda of whoever has the most influence, which is why she doesn’t like to serve on them.

“I think they just flipped and now they’re trying to cover their butt,” she said. “They are accountable and responsible, and they do need to answer to how they make these final selections and how they can make this drastic move. It is not the first time, it is not the second time nor the third time that the committee has come under fire for some of their selections, seedings, so forth. … This is … gross. It’s bigger than usual.”

So, no, Hutchins wasn’t buying what the selection committee’s statement was selling.

“The statement the NCAA made (Monday) night absolutely reminds me of another area of our society, in the government,” Hutchins said, “where they keep making big messes and then they try to clean it up on Twitter. It’s absolutely ridiculous. That’s a ridiculous statement.”

“We all know getting to the World Series is hard enough,” Hutchins said. “You earn the right, and you’ve earned it all year by what you’ve done, to put yourself in the best position, not just hosting, but by the seeding you get and the fact that you set yourself up hopefully to run into the very best teams at the end. And this committee, nobody understands it. I can tell you I don’t understand it.

“It’s about the body of work,” Hutchins said. “And you can argue for all of it where they totally belonged (in the seedings). I’m not going to go there. But I do know, for them not to be hosting on Friday, I just feel is unconscionable.”

 

[tycat947]

You are intermingling the RPI and the Committee and changing the story.

I repeat - the Committee released an early projection of their rankings on April 22 that supposedly used the same criteria. It was a first look at the committee's rankings and Minnesota was #8. They followed this on May 6 with a second view that was released nationally and Minnesota was #7. On May 15, they released the bracket and Minnesota Was #17. These polls considered the RPI.

April 22 Ranking
http://www.ncaa.com/news/softball/a...ship-committee-announces-first-top-10-ranking

May 6
http://www.ncaa.com/news/softball/a...nship-sport-committee-announces-second-top-10

However, the RPI is a different poll. I repeat this is a different ranking. You are making an argument that Minnesota's RPI fell - it did not fall. They were never in the Top Ten in the RPI. It remained the same, in fact, it rose to #11. Yet, the committee had them in the Top Eight seeds.

That committee is catching hell right now because this was atrocious. If they had not released the early polls then they would be fine. Now they have to explain Minnesota dropping 10 spots from their ranking on May 7 and there is not an explanation. Minnesota went 14-0 between the first ranking and the NCAA bracket - they have no explanation and NO the Minnesota RPI did not change.


Carol Hutchins, Michigan Coach

What peeved Hutchins most were the committee’s midseason rankings, meant to use the same criteria utilized to determine the tournament field, which had the Gophers ranked seventh in the country just a week before the seedings were announced.

But the process to determine the rankings and the seedings were supposed to be the same, and the idea of the rankings was to give teams and fans an idea of where the nation’s top teams stood heading into the final week of play.

Hutchins said committees can be swayed to fit the agenda of whoever has the most influence, which is why she doesn’t like to serve on them.

“I think they just flipped and now they’re trying to cover their butt,” she said. “They are accountable and responsible, and they do need to answer to how they make these final selections and how they can make this drastic move. It is not the first time, it is not the second time nor the third time that the committee has come under fire for some of their selections, seedings, so forth. … This is … gross. It’s bigger than usual.”

So, no, Hutchins wasn’t buying what the selection committee’s statement was selling.

“The statement the NCAA made (Monday) night absolutely reminds me of another area of our society, in the government,” Hutchins said, “where they keep making big messes and then they try to clean it up on Twitter. It’s absolutely ridiculous. That’s a ridiculous statement.”

“We all know getting to the World Series is hard enough,” Hutchins said. “You earn the right, and you’ve earned it all year by what you’ve done, to put yourself in the best position, not just hosting, but by the seeding you get and the fact that you set yourself up hopefully to run into the very best teams at the end. And this committee, nobody understands it. I can tell you I don’t understand it.

“It’s about the body of work,” Hutchins said. “And you can argue for all of it where they totally belonged (in the seedings). I’m not going to go there. But I do know, for them not to be hosting on Friday, I just feel is unconscionable.”

The committee should be catching hell!

Does anyone know the members of this committee?

 

[SoonerSpock]

There has definitely been confusion on my part. From the beginning of this thread I have only been defending the logic of the rpi calculations in their rpi rankings and their movement from week to week with a total disregard for the committee's rankings other than to mention its discrepancy from the final rpi poll of May 14. I interpreted your issue to be with the rpi not the committee. I guess I am just a slow study.

I acknowledged the committee's discrepancy was from their "eye test" and subjective in nature and that the committee should have to justify that discrepancy. I have totally misunderstood your issue as being only the difference between the committee's first ranking and their final ranking. I apologize. You have no argument from me. Your point confirms the need to remove the human element. They only screw things up.

The two rankings you referenced utilized subjective human factors like gut feel and whatever other political influence may have pertained and their bias glared. Although I do think they were attempting to accommodate the public and its dislike of the computer/math approach of the rpi forgetting it is their human element that is the base of the system bias.

I am a proponent of the computerized ranking over subjective human polls as it minimizes bias and can be tweaked for better performance without bringing the human element into play. And while margin of victory is exluded as a factor because of the gaming industry I would support its inclusion.

Again my bad. I totally concur with your assessment of the committee's two rankings.

 

[scrybe]

Correctly stated. A 2-1 series split at home rewards both teams. Win one away game out of 3 and you get a lot of points. That win could be luck, or by 1 run with the 2 losses being run ruled. This is how a 20 loss SEC team gets in. Frankly, the only reason they didn't get 14 teams in, they only have 13 teams.

The thing is a joke as currently done, but so is just about everything else in the country so nobody cares.

"Joke" is certainly a fitting and appropriate way to describe the seeding of the teams in this year's NCAA tournament.

You are intermingling the RPI and the Committee and changing the story.

I repeat - the Committee released an early projection of their rankings on April 22 that supposedly used the same criteria. It was a first look at the committee's rankings and Minnesota was #8. They followed this on May 6 with a second view that was released nationally and Minnesota was #7. On May 15, they released the bracket and Minnesota Was #17. These polls considered the RPI.

April 22 Ranking
http://www.ncaa.com/news/softball/a...ship-committee-announces-first-top-10-ranking

May 6
http://www.ncaa.com/news/softball/a...nship-sport-committee-announces-second-top-10

However, the RPI is a different poll. I repeat this is a different ranking. You are making an argument that Minnesota's RPI fell - it did not fall. They were never in the Top Ten in the RPI. It remained the same, in fact, it rose to #11. Yet, the committee had them in the Top Eight seeds.

That committee is catching hell right now because this was atrocious. If they had not released the early polls then they would be fine. Now they have to explain Minnesota dropping 10 spots from their ranking on May 7 and there is not an explanation. Minnesota went 14-0 between the first ranking and the NCAA bracket - they have no explanation and NO the Minnesota RPI did not change.


Carol Hutchins, Michigan Coach

What peeved Hutchins most were the committee’s midseason rankings, meant to use the same criteria utilized to determine the tournament field, which had the Gophers ranked seventh in the country just a week before the seedings were announced.

But the process to determine the rankings and the seedings were supposed to be the same, and the idea of the rankings was to give teams and fans an idea of where the nation’s top teams stood heading into the final week of play.

Hutchins said committees can be swayed to fit the agenda of whoever has the most influence, which is why she doesn’t like to serve on them.

“I think they just flipped and now they’re trying to cover their butt,” she said. “They are accountable and responsible, and they do need to answer to how they make these final selections and how they can make this drastic move. It is not the first time, it is not the second time nor the third time that the committee has come under fire for some of their selections, seedings, so forth. … This is … gross. It’s bigger than usual.”

So, no, Hutchins wasn’t buying what the selection committee’s statement was selling.

“The statement the NCAA made (Monday) night absolutely reminds me of another area of our society, in the government,” Hutchins said, “where they keep making big messes and then they try to clean it up on Twitter. It’s absolutely ridiculous. That’s a ridiculous statement.”

“We all know getting to the World Series is hard enough,” Hutchins said. “You earn the right, and you’ve earned it all year by what you’ve done, to put yourself in the best position, not just hosting, but by the seeding you get and the fact that you set yourself up hopefully to run into the very best teams at the end. And this committee, nobody understands it. I can tell you I don’t understand it.

“It’s about the body of work,” Hutchins said. “And you can argue for all of it where they totally belonged (in the seedings). I’m not going to go there. But I do know, for them not to be hosting on Friday, I just feel is unconscionable.”

Mr. Nail, meet Mr. Hammer.

Great post, Speedy. Of course, we can only assume that Carol Hutchins is yet to learn the indisputable truth about “statistical evidence” and “quantitative analysis,” as explained to us ad nauseum on this board.

It’s also apparent that anyone who has the audacity to question the NCAA committee (and certain other “experts”) regarding the process of determining tournament seeding, has a “personal bias” against all that is good and holy.

 

[Speedy17]

Again my bad. I totally concur with your assessment of the committee's two rankings.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I know that I come on strong about those rankings. The committee actually had 3 rankings and they totally reversed the first two with the final bracket.

I have problems with the RPI when it doesn't have controls. This season shows how the math can actually reward a team with little success. I believe that a team that is 6-18 or below .40 record in conference play without making their conference tourney should NOT be in the NCAA Tournament. I also believe a team with a below .500 record in conference should NOT be an NCAA seed - see Kentucky. I give Ole Miss a pass because they won 4 tough games to get to .500 (14-14) by winning the SEC Tourney.

I also believe it is completely unfair to teams in conferences beyond the SEC and Pac 12 when the RPI shows a team in the Top 30 simply because they play in the SEC. Yes, they played 24 games with Top 25 opponents. OU had the opportunity to play 3 games against a Top 25 opponent simply because they are a member of the Big 12. Hey, this impacts recruiting for talented young women because SEC teams can say "Come to Georgia, you are guaranteed a spot in the NCAA regardless of whether we are last place." The current RPI formula allows this situation and totally discriminates against conferences. Georgia went 6-18 in SEC play and is #26 in the RPI. Yeah, they played those Top 25 teams but they LOST, LOST, and LOST. I know in men's hoops that is a big consideration beyond the RPI is whether a team was .500 in conference play. The same situation usually goes in baseball.

 

[sybarite]

Again my bad. I totally concur with your assessment of the committee's two rankings.

Thanks, I know that I come on strong about those rankings. The committee actually had 3 rankings and they totally reversed the first two with the final bracket.

I have problems with the RPI when it doesn't have controls. This season shows how the math can actually reward a team with little success. I believe that a team that is 6-18 or below .40 record in conference play without making their conference tourney should NOT be in the NCAA Tournament. I also believe a team with a below .500 record in conference should NOT be an NCAA seed - see Kentucky. I give Ole Miss a pass because they won 4 tough games to get to .500 (14-14) by winning the SEC Tourney.

I also believe it is completely unfair to teams in conferences beyond the SEC and Pac 12 when the RPI shows a team in the Top 30 simply because they play in the SEC. Yes, they played 24 games with Top 25 opponents. OU had the opportunity to play 3 games against a Top 25 opponent simply because they are a member of the Big 12. Hey, this impacts recruiting for talented young women because SEC teams can say "Come to Georgia, you are guaranteed a spot in the NCAA regardless of whether we are last place." The current RPI formula allows this situation and totally discriminates against conferences. Georgia went 6-18 in SEC play and is #26 in the RPI. Yeah, they played those Top 25 teams but they LOST, LOST, and LOST. I know in men's hoops that is a big consideration beyond the RPI is whether a team was .500 in conference play. The same situation usually goes in baseball.[/QUOTE]Unfair is one way to put it. I think there is reason to question the formula for the rpi, dismiss it, and question why it was developed in this way.

 

[scrybe]

I've always believed it is dishonest for the NCAA and the voters to rank almost every SEC team in the Top 25 before the season even starts. By doing this, they are giving the SEC a giant headstart and making it a near certainty that SEC teams will dominate the weekly rankings, then later the RPI, and eventually the seedings for the postseason.

Few teams outside the SEC (and to a lesser degree the Pac 12) receive a fair shake when seeding time rolls around. Exceptions sometimes do occur for teams like OU and Michigan, both traditional powers that have earned at least some consideration for inclusion among the SEC elite. But where is the justice for teams like Minnesota?