Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 9     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
hartfootball

Registered:
Posts: 279
Reply with quote  #121 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSUsoftballfan
I just want to know how, of all teams, Georgia got up-seeded from their RPI. Lu pulled another one from her hind end, for at least the 3rd time that I can recall.

 the committee apparently doesn't put as much emphasis on the last two weeks like many of you had said but over the whole course of the season. uga has been good without gray, winning 4/5 conference series. this is why they are ranked 7th. now if they can only play like they did in the series that they won then they'll be ok. 
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,548
Reply with quote  #122 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSUsoftballfan


I just want to know how, of all teams, Georgia got up-seeded from their RPI. Lu pulled another one from her hind end, for at least the 3rd time that I can recall.


Sorry uga and Tennessee fans but that super regional setup pisses me off. One of those two teams who are talking with their aces out will be in OKC. Total BS.
john3298

Registered:
Posts: 35
Reply with quote  #123 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVille


Or Wisconsin?


Or Wisconsin. I wouldn't have been that upset if Wisconsin had been left out. They have potential, but under-performed for the middle part of the season. I think Pitt vs Wisconsin was a coin toss. 
hartfootball

Registered:
Posts: 279
Reply with quote  #124 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot
Sorry uga and Tennessee fans but that super regional setup pisses me off. One of those two teams who are talking with their aces out will be in OKC. Total BS.
say what you want but it hasn't surprised me at all! I do believe us and USC should've swapped though. 
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,548
Reply with quote  #125 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartfootball
say what you want but it hasn't surprised me at all! I do believe us and USC should've swapped though. 


Shocking. šŸ˜‚šŸ™„

*tanking
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 4,921
Reply with quote  #126 
I really disagree with the Committee chairperson when she said they don't consider Conference in the seedings at all.

I think the top 8 should be by pure merit, but then take a second step to look at 9-16 and be willing to move a team up or down 1 spot (except for 16 and 9, which could move only one way) to make more interesting Supers matchups.

Take UCLA at #3 hosting Arizona at #14.  Would anyone object in moving Arizona to 13 or 15 to avoid a re-do of a series we already saw this year?  I'm sure there are other re-matches that might be avoided by taking that move up or down 1 spot second review.

__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,548
Reply with quote  #127 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA
I really disagree with the Committee chairperson when she said they don't consider Conference in the seedings at all.

I think the top 8 should be by pure merit, but then take a second step to look at 9-16 and be willing to move a team up or down 1 spot (except for 16 and 9, which could move only one way) to make more interesting Supers matchups.

Take UCLA at #3 hosting Arizona at #14.  Would anyone object in moving Arizona to 13 or 15 to avoid a re-do of a series we already saw this year?  I'm sure there are other re-matches that might be avoided by taking that move up or down 1 spot second review.


Please avoid these stupid rematches.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 15,019
Reply with quote  #128 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachZ
3LT ... hmmmm Oklahoma/Arkansas super ....
BOTH are tough regionals, but that would be awesome!
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 4,921
Reply with quote  #129 
I also disagree with ASU being #8 instead of UGA.   With ASU at #7, you wouldn't have a PAC-PAC matchup for the first round in OKC.  Had they stuck with RPI, the first round in OKC would have been more diverse.
__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
Devin22

Registered:
Posts: 1,112
Reply with quote  #130 
Some possible interesting games will be FSU-Auburn and Texas A&M-Baylor and Georgia-California....
cuddlefuddle

Registered:
Posts: 196
Reply with quote  #131 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA
I really disagree with the Committee chairperson when she said they don't consider Conference in the seedings at all.

I think the top 8 should be by pure merit, but then take a second step to look at 9-16 and be willing to move a team up or down 1 spot (except for 16 and 9, which could move only one way) to make more interesting Supers matchups.

Take UCLA at #3 hosting Arizona at #14.  Would anyone object in moving Arizona to 13 or 15 to avoid a re-do of a series we already saw this year?  I'm sure there are other re-matches that might be avoided by taking that move up or down 1 spot second review.


I agree. Florida could have possibly hosted Arizona State, and Texas A&M to Los Angeles. Iā€™m so tired of all these rematches in conference.

The last time Florida hosted a non-SEC opponent was 2014 against Washington and it was great.
SoVerySleepy

Registered:
Posts: 407
Reply with quote  #132 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devin22
Some possible interesting games will be FSU-Auburn and Texas A&M-Baylor and Georgia-California....


I remember the last time Cal came to Athens...I was lucky enough to be in the stands for both of those games. Those were the days of Arioto and Henderson. Bears couldn't take the heat and humidity of the South and were blasted in back-to-back games. 

This year is obviously a new, altogether different year, but I like our chances. 

__________________
Et tu Brute?
hartfootball

Registered:
Posts: 279
Reply with quote  #133 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoVerySleepy


I remember the last time Cal came to Athens...I was lucky enough to be in the stands for both of those games. Those were the days of Arioto and Henderson. Bears couldn't take the heat and humidity of the South and were blasted in back-to-back games. 

This year is obviously a new, altogether different year, but I like our chances. 
I really do as well and I feel the best against Tennessee that I would against anyone in the supers. 
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #134 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
No, every 4 years.

  

They do serve 4 year terms individually. But not as a whole committee. Every year the Committee gets 3 new members to replace the 3 whose term expires. So at any given moment, there are 3 members in their 4th yr, 3 in their 3rd, 3 in their 2nd, and 3 newbies. 
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #135 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrot
Please avoid these stupid rematches.



I agree. I harp on this frequently. At least we didn't get an SEC rematch this time. 
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 15,019
Reply with quote  #136 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
No, every 4 years.

  

They do serve 4 year terms individually. But not as a whole committee. Every year the Committee gets 3 new members to replace the 3 whose term expires. So at any given moment, there are 3 members in their 4th yr, 3 in their 3rd, 3 in their 2nd, and 3 newbies. 
I see
Softballjunkie223

Registered:
Posts: 885
Reply with quote  #137 
If Pitt had beat fsu would they have made it to the NCAA tournament? Would who they have replaced if they had gotten in?
midwestfp

Registered:
Posts: 891
Reply with quote  #138 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softballjunkie223
If Pitt had beat fsu would they have made it to the NCAA tournament? Would who they have replaced if they had gotten in?


The chairwoman indicated that Wisconsin was the last team in, so I assume Wisconsin.  
midwestfp

Registered:
Posts: 891
Reply with quote  #139 
Once it was revealed that Auburn was being sent to the FSU regional, I paused the show and told my wife that a Kentucky regional with Michigan and Notre Dame was virtually guaranteed.  Predictable.  

As was Minnesota being sent to Washington.  There were several regionals I thought would be winnable for MN.  Washington was not one of them.  Kind of a shame because this year the Gophers really could have hosted had they played to their potential earlier. I saw Texas play once this year, a 5-4 loss to Oklahoma.  I thought they looked REALLY good.  No offense to any Georgia fans, but I wish we could trade places with Northwestern. Gophers beat them for the BIG title, and then the committee sends us to #5, and them to #7.  Okay.  
midwestfp

Registered:
Posts: 891
Reply with quote  #140 
Another thing I don't get.  I thought the strongest #2 was supposed to go to the #16 regional host.  Isn't that what happened last year when they sent Minnesota to #16 Alabama?  Either they view Michigan as the top #2 seed, or they just decided to change things this year.  
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 15,019
Reply with quote  #141 
A bus trip trumps ALL of that
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #142 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestfp
Another thing I don't get.  I thought the strongest #2 was supposed to go to the #16 regional host.  Isn't that what happened last year when they sent Minnesota to #16 Alabama?  Either they view Michigan as the top #2 seed, or they just decided to change things this year.  



The softball committee is completely inconsistent on this. Some years they seed the 2's somewhat like appropiate S-curve seeding. Some years it appears that its totally random (except for a few predictable, repeated bus trips by the same team to the same reegional. )
midwestfp

Registered:
Posts: 891
Reply with quote  #143 
I did appreciate that someone from the committee had the courage to answer questions on camera this year.  
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #144 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestfp
Another thing I don't get.  I thought the strongest #2 was supposed to go to the #16 regional host.  Isn't that what happened last year when they sent Minnesota to #16 Alabama?  Either they view Michigan as the top #2 seed, or they just decided to change things this year.  



By the way, I wish you all much good luck at Washington. Would love to welcome Minnesota back to Tuscaloosa for a Super Regional this time. We've now hosted a regional all 14 seasons since this format began. And we've won our regional all 13 times. That makes what they did to Minnesota last year even more egregious.

Anyway, last year Minnesota should have been at home hosting a regional against some team like BYU, which would have set up a SR with Wash. But they sent you to our place and that was the highest quality, most intense regional competition ever at Rhoads House.
And the truth is you all just happened to catch Osorio pitching at the very top of her game.

So ... beat Washington and come on back!
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #145 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestfp
I did appreciate that someone from the committee had the courage to answer questions on camera this year.  



Me too
trund

Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #146 
Would some expert here please explain to me why Florida was #2 and UCLA #3? The Bruins had half the losses the Gators did (4 vs 8), and half of those were at the #1 team in the country, with one other loss to the # 8 team. Is this about making sure that at least one SEC team is in the top 2? Or, is it just total ignoring of the year's results? 
sMurph

Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #147 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trund
Would some expert here please explain to me why Florida was #2 and UCLA #3? The Bruins had half the losses the Gators did (4 vs 8), and half of those were at the #1 team in the country, with one other loss to the # 8 team. Is this about making sure that at least one SEC team is in the top 2? Or, is it just total ignoring of the year's results? 




I will give it a shot, and try to point out both sides of the argument and what the Committee considers. It is easier to demonstrate rather than explain with lots of words. The over-arching goal of evaluating teams is the combination or "record" and "strength of schedule" or "difficulty level of achieving the record". I will use the top 4 teams and focus only one a couple key metrics. There are several others, but I'm just trying to convey the concept. 

Overall record
Oklahoma has the best record at 50-3
UCLA has the 2nd best record at 50-4
Oregon is 47-7
Florida is 50-8

Overall Strength of Schedule Ranking
Oregon #5
Florida #7
UCLA #18
Oklahoma #22


Games played vs Top 25 / Results

Florida played 33 games vs Top 25, with 27 Top 25 Wins, and 6 Losse
Oregon played 27 games vs Top 25, with 21 Top 25 Wins, and 6 Losses
UCLA played 18 games vs Top 25, with 15 Top 25 Wins, and 3 Losses
Oklahoma played 11 games vs Top 25, with 9 Wins, tand 2 Losses 

Most fans will emphasize the part that is favorable to their team as though that's it and that's obvious. A Florida fan may say "Listen we won 27 games against top 25 teams. We WON almost twice as many as you even played." A Tennessee fan might say that as well in comparison to FSU for example. But a Big 12 fan could say "of course you won more against the top 25. You get way more opportunities to do that with your conference schedule." So ... no, top 25 wins is not the end all. But it is a biggie with the Committee. 

Your post above is a perfect example of the other side of this issue. You basically declare that since UCLA has only 4 losses and Florida has 8, the only way the committee could have given Florida the 2 seed is to "make sure the SEC has 1 of the top 2 seeds" or "just totally ignoring this year's results." No, obviously "fewest losses" is not the only consideration (or Minnesota would have been #1 last year). The much higher number of games played vs top 25 is a big part of the reason Florida and Oregon have more of those wins. Likewise, the much lower number of games vs Top 25 teams has a big impact on why UCLA  and Oklahoma have fewer losses than Oregon and Florida. 

The data would project that if OU and UCLA swapped schedules with Florida and Oregon, OU and UCLA would likely have about 7 or 8 losses. And Florida and Oregon would have about 4 losses. That data projection also matches up with common sense - IMO 

My personal thoughts are that it has been a long time since there were 4 teams this good in NCAA Softball in the same season. Can't wait to watch the NCAAT and WCWS, and I'm happy my Bama team avoided any of the 4 in Regionals or Supers.   [smile]
nolefan

Registered:
Posts: 88
Reply with quote  #148 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softballjunkie223
If Pitt had beat fsu would they have made it to the NCAA tournament? Would who they have replaced if they had gotten in?


If Pitt beat FSU they would have been the conference champion and guaranteed a berth into the Regionals. Hard to say who they would have replaced but possibly Wisconsin?? - there were a few bubble teams but just saying one of them might have been Wisconsin.

__________________
N
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 15,019
Reply with quote  #149 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph




I will give it a shot, and try to point out both sides of the argument and what the Committee considers. It is easier to demonstrate rather than explain with lots of words. The over-arching goal of evaluating teams is the combination or "record" and "strength of schedule" or "difficulty level of achieving the record". I will use the top 4 teams and focus only one a couple key metrics. There are several others, but I'm just trying to convey the concept. 

Overall record
Oklahoma has the best record at 50-3
UCLA has the 2nd best record at 50-4
Oregon is 47-7
Florida is 50-8

Overall Strength of Schedule Ranking
Oregon #5
Florida #7
UCLA #18
Oklahoma #22


Games played vs Top 25 / Results

Florida played 33 games vs Top 25, with 27 Top 25 Wins, and 6 Losse
Oregon played 27 games vs Top 25, with 21 Top 25 Wins, and 6 Losses
UCLA played 18 games vs Top 25, with 15 Top 25 Wins, and 3 Losses
Oklahoma played 11 games vs Top 25, with 9 Wins, tand 2 Losses 

Most fans will emphasize the part that is favorable to their team as though that's it and that's obvious. A Florida fan may say "Listen we won 27 games against top 25 teams. We WON almost twice as many as you even played." A Tennessee fan might say that as well in comparison to FSU for example. But a Big 12 fan could say "of course you won more against the top 25. You get way more opportunities to do that with your conference schedule." So ... no, top 25 wins is not the end all. But it is a biggie with the Committee. 

Your post above is a perfect example of the other side of this issue. You basically declare that since UCLA has only 4 losses and Florida has 8, the only way the committee could have given Florida the 2 seed is to "make sure the SEC has 1 of the top 2 seeds" or "just totally ignoring this year's results." No, obviously "fewest losses" is not the only consideration (or Minnesota would have been #1 last year). The much higher number of games played vs top 25 is a big part of the reason Florida and Oregon have more of those wins. Likewise, the much lower number of games vs Top 25 teams has a big impact on why UCLA  and Oklahoma have fewer losses than Oregon and Florida. 

The data would project that if OU and UCLA swapped schedules with Florida and Oregon, OU and UCLA would likely have about 7 or 8 losses. And Florida and Oregon would have about 4 losses. That data projection also matches up with common sense - IMO 

My personal thoughts are that it has been a long time since there were 4 teams this good in NCAA Softball in the same season. Can't wait to watch the NCAAT and WCWS, and I'm happy my Bama team avoided any of the 4 in Regionals or Supers.   [smile]
And, winning the SEC regular season and SECT were big factors, too
LCITSH

Registered:
Posts: 2,724
Reply with quote  #150 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sMurph




I will give it a shot, and try to point out both sides of the argument and what the Committee considers. It is easier to demonstrate rather than explain with lots of words. The over-arching goal of evaluating teams is the combination or "record" and "strength of schedule" or "difficulty level of achieving the record". I will use the top 4 teams and focus only one a couple key metrics. There are several others, but I'm just trying to convey the concept. 

Overall record
Oklahoma has the best record at 50-3
UCLA has the 2nd best record at 50-4
Oregon is 47-7
Florida is 50-8

Overall Strength of Schedule Ranking
Oregon #5
Florida #7
UCLA #18
Oklahoma #22


Games played vs Top 25 / Results

Florida played 33 games vs Top 25, with 27 Top 25 Wins, and 6 Losse
Oregon played 27 games vs Top 25, with 21 Top 25 Wins, and 6 Losses
UCLA played 18 games vs Top 25, with 15 Top 25 Wins, and 3 Losses
Oklahoma played 11 games vs Top 25, with 9 Wins, tand 2 Losses 

Most fans will emphasize the part that is favorable to their team as though that's it and that's obvious. A Florida fan may say "Listen we won 27 games against top 25 teams. We WON almost twice as many as you even played." A Tennessee fan might say that as well in comparison to FSU for example. But a Big 12 fan could say "of course you won more against the top 25. You get way more opportunities to do that with your conference schedule." So ... no, top 25 wins is not the end all. But it is a biggie with the Committee. 

Your post above is a perfect example of the other side of this issue. You basically declare that since UCLA has only 4 losses and Florida has 8, the only way the committee could have given Florida the 2 seed is to "make sure the SEC has 1 of the top 2 seeds" or "just totally ignoring this year's results." No, obviously "fewest losses" is not the only consideration (or Minnesota would have been #1 last year). The much higher number of games played vs top 25 is a big part of the reason Florida and Oregon have more of those wins. Likewise, the much lower number of games vs Top 25 teams has a big impact on why UCLA  and Oklahoma have fewer losses than Oregon and Florida. 

The data would project that if OU and UCLA swapped schedules with Florida and Oregon, OU and UCLA would likely have about 7 or 8 losses. And Florida and Oregon would have about 4 losses. That data projection also matches up with common sense - IMO 

My personal thoughts are that it has been a long time since there were 4 teams this good in NCAA Softball in the same season. Can't wait to watch the NCAAT and WCWS, and I'm happy my Bama team avoided any of the 4 in Regionals or Supers.   [smile]


I agree with everything you said here. I have one other factor to add. The committee places a certain value strength to conference championships. When you add the tournament championship to the regular season championship, you get an added "bonus" (not a numerical value) to the equation. Florida was the #1 team from the #1 conference, UCLA was #2 from #2. I genuinely believe that if UCLA had swept Arizona State, thus being co-champion with Oregon, they likely would have been the #2 overall seed. In this year's case, there doesn't seem to be much difference between #2 and #3.

__________________
Terrell S. Hebert
Louisiana USSSA Church Coordinator
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.