Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 9     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next
RahOKU

Registered:
Posts: 1,734
Reply with quote  #151 

I've got no complaint with Oklahoma's seeding. I think #4 is fair enough.

That said, I will point out that the T25 records of the three teams seeded above the Sooners are to a degree data points about opportunities vs. the T25 afforded by regular conference scheduling. OU and schools in non-SEC/non-Pac leagues don't get a dozen or more games vs. T25 by virtue of regular conference scheduling, and their margin for error/failure is smaller. It's not a complaint, just an observation. I think the Sooners did pretty well in their T25 slate -- 9-2. A small number of T25 opportunities relative to the 1-3 seeds, and OU didn't win them all, so they're seeded behind UCLA. Accepted. 

Gasso historically likes a few T25 games in the early non-conf schedule and then builds momentum through to the post-season. She likes a T25 matchup in the off week during the conference schedule (one Big 12 team each week is on a bye in-conference), so they went to Oregon this year after going to Tennessee the year before. (I hope Oregon will return the visit next April.)  It's a model that accepts the seeding the NCAA committee bestows and makes the best of it. It has been a successful model, so I don't expect the coach to change it.

Good luck everyone in the fun-fun-fun part of the season.


__________________
"We Americans have good teeth and don't eat spotted dick." -- Columnist Kurt Schlichter
jayrot

Registered:
Posts: 17,756
Reply with quote  #152 
Game 1 at the Lexington regional:  The Chosen One vs. The Dark Horse

(maybe Beaub isn't really a dark horse, but didn't want to spend too much time thinking of another moniker).
1janiedough

Registered:
Posts: 3,585
Reply with quote  #153 
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? 



That's it exactly...you can BET that if a Pac is the one seed, an SEC will be the 2 seed, and if the SEC is the one seed, a Pac will be the 2 seed.  I looked back to 2010 and every year it has been either Pac or SEC as one and two, with the exception of Oklahoma in 2013 I believe.
AUWhiskey

Registered:
Posts: 159
Reply with quote  #154 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers334
I would not have even been mad if it was Baylor and they sent us there. I just don’t see any justification for allowing a team that won 1/3 of their conference game to host a regional.


Especially since we swept them.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,033
Reply with quote  #155 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RahOKU

I've got no complaint with Oklahoma's seeding. I think #4 is fair enough.

That said, I will point out that the T25 records of the three teams seeded above the Sooners are to a degree data points about opportunities vs. the T25 afforded by regular conference scheduling. OU and schools in non-SEC/non-Pac leagues don't get a dozen or more games vs. T25 by virtue of regular conference scheduling, and their margin for error/failure is smaller. It's not a complaint, just an observation. I think the Sooners did pretty well in their T25 slate -- 9-2. A small number of T25 opportunities relative to the 1-3 seeds, and OU didn't win them all, so they're seeded behind UCLA. Accepted. 

Gasso historically likes a few T25 games in the early non-conf schedule and then builds momentum through to the post-season. She likes a T25 matchup in the off week during the conference schedule (one Big 12 team each week is on a bye in-conference), so they went to Oregon this year after going to Tennessee the year before. (I hope Oregon will return the visit next April.)  It's a model that accepts the seeding the NCAA committee bestows and makes the best of it. It has been a successful model, so I don't expect the coach to change it.

Good luck everyone in the fun-fun-fun part of the season.

First, Oregon State was the one who promised the home-and-home.

And, I get it, they haven't already played the Sooners in Oklahoma multiple times.

If Oregon and Oklahoma both win their next six games, they will play again in Oklahoma.

I don't know if coach White will be taking them out there in 2019, but I won't blame them if they don't.

RahOKU

Registered:
Posts: 1,734
Reply with quote  #156 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
First, Oregon State was the one who promised the home-and-home.

And, I get it, they haven't already played the Sooners in Oklahoma multiple times.

If Oregon and Oklahoma both win their next six games, they will play again in Oklahoma.

I don't know if coach White will be taking them out there in 2019, but I won't blame them if they don't.



This is true. Oregon was an add-on. But really, Lefty, wouldn't it be the sporting thing to do, a little jaunt to Soonerland in mid-April 2019?

I'm not holding my breath on that, either.

__________________
"We Americans have good teeth and don't eat spotted dick." -- Columnist Kurt Schlichter
Devin22

Registered:
Posts: 1,265
Reply with quote  #157 
I like how Oregon matches up with Oklahoma....If these two do meet up in Oklahoma, it's going to be throw down heavy weight match....Oklahoma will be looking for pay back as they got beat, pushed around and shut out in the regular season by Oregon...Should be
good.... 
Devin22

Registered:
Posts: 1,265
Reply with quote  #158 
Oklahoma needs to get past Boston Univ first....Gasso may not show up.....[rofl]
CrowHop

Registered:
Posts: 257
Reply with quote  #159 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AUWhiskey


Especially since we swept them.


Losing to Mizzou absolutely killed Auburn.  That was devastating in the end.

__________________
Your pitcher is illegal.
oufanforever

Registered:
Posts: 57
Reply with quote  #160 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devin22
Oklahoma needs to get past Boston Univ first....Gasso may not show up.....[rofl]


At least it is not the flu season!!! We just might get out this round alive.

__________________
 
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,033
Reply with quote  #161 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RahOKU
This is true. Oregon was an add-on. But really, Lefty, wouldn't it be the sporting thing to do, a little jaunt to Soonerland in mid-April 2019? I'm not holding my breath on that, either.
Like I said.... .Oklahoma owes another visit before it is even.

LOL
RahOKU

Registered:
Posts: 1,734
Reply with quote  #162 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
Like I said.... .Oklahoma owes another visit before it is even.

LOL


Ha! Well played my friend.

But ... after this year's WCWS, OU might owe even more visits to the Emerald City to earn the return engagement from UO. 

[smile] 

__________________
"We Americans have good teeth and don't eat spotted dick." -- Columnist Kurt Schlichter
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,033
Reply with quote  #163 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RahOKU


Ha! Well played my friend.

But ... after this year's WCWS, OU might owe even more visits to the Emerald City to earn the return engagement from UO. 

[smile] 


That would be just tremendous!



scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #164 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sec_fan91
Kinda pissed about TN/UGA getting matched up.


I understand. But I'm guessing there will be a whole lot more of either TN or UGA fans (and maybe both) pissed if they don't get matched up in the SR.

By the way, 91, I believe your Gamecocks absolutely should have received the 8-seed.
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #165 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOBEAR
SEC treated very well by the committee.


Only thing missing from that post was "News Flash."
RahOKU

Registered:
Posts: 1,734
Reply with quote  #166 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrybe


I understand. But I'm guessing there will be a whole lot more of either TN or UGA fans (and maybe both) pissed if they don't get matched up in the SR.

By the way, 91, I believe your Gamecocks absolutely should have received the 8-seed.


If Pitt had gotten one more out on Saturday against FSU, South Carolina would've received that 8-seed -- and Pitt would've made the Big Dance.

Of course if the Gamecocks had found a way to get past Amanda Lorenz and Florida on Saturday night, that would've done it for them as well.

__________________
"We Americans have good teeth and don't eat spotted dick." -- Columnist Kurt Schlichter
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #167 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RahOKU


If Pitt had gotten one more out on Saturday against FSU, South Carolina would've received that 8-seed -- and Pitt would've made the Big Dance.

Of course if the Gamecocks had found a way to get past Amanda Lorenz and Florida on Saturday night, that would've done it for them as well.


Would a win in Norman have had the same effect?
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 5,145
Reply with quote  #168 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCITSH

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.
This doesn't bother me at all as a UCLA fan.  So assuming we make it to OKC, I'm only concerned about when we have to face the #1 seed.   As a #2 or #3 seed, it doesn't change that.  Dropping to #4 though would have hurt since that moves that matchup vs. #1 up a whole round, making the road tougher.   I can see that Florida played a tougher schedule, and I would personally rate the two teams about equal, both a fair distance behind Oregon, to me the prohibitive favorite.  

When Oregon whipped Oklahoma a couple of weeks ago that was just confirmation to me that they are the class of the PAC this year.  Look at what Oregon did this year -- they swept #5 seed UDub, they beat the #3 seed UCLA 2/3, they beat the #4 seed OK, and they beat the #8 seed ASU 2/3 and scoring of 14-5.    So they've already beat half of the Supers hosts.  The only thing they didn't do is split their own team in half and beat themselves (#1 seed) [biggrin]

In my perfect world UCLA makes it to OKC and beats FSU in round 1, faces Florida in round 2 and BunnyHop gets rattled by early inning IP calls (like in 2010 when Brombacher got nailed with IP calls a few times and fell apart), -- oh, I'm SOOO MEAN --  and Garcia throws a great game to beat Kleist in third round.

__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #169 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA
This doesn't bother me at all as a UCLA fan.  So assuming we make it to OKC, I'm only concerned about when we have to face the #1 seed.   As a #2 or #3 seed, it doesn't change that.  Dropping to #4 though moves that matchup an whole round, making the road tougher.   I can see that Florida played a tougher schedule, and I would personally rate the two teams about equal, both a fair distance behind Oregon, to me the prohibitive favorite.  When Oregon whipped Oklahoma a couple of weeks ago that was just confirmation to me that they are the class of the PAC this year.


Yep, that was a really big win for the Ducks.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,938
Reply with quote  #170 
How the final RPI compared to the seeds.

Teams that got the best deal from the committee (they were seeded higher than their RPI):

1.  +4  Arkansas  (RPI 17, seed 13)
2.  +4  Alabama  (RPI 16, seed 12)
3.  +3  Georgia  (RPI 10, seed 7)
4.  +3  Kentucky  (RPI 16, seed 13)
5.  +1  Florida  (RPI 3, seed 2)
6.  +1  Washington  (RPI 6, seed 5)

FIVE SEC teams got their seed boosted by the committee (and FOUR of them by at least THREE spots).
Really makes you wonder just how much pull the SEC has in all this... 

Strangest of all, in my view, is Georgia being boosted 3 spots...
when the injury to their star pitcher would suggest that they would likely be dropped rather than boosted.
What's up with that...???

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Teams that got the worst deal from the committee (they were seeded lower than their RPI):

1.  -4 or more  Baylor  (RPI 14, no seed)
2.  -2  Tennessee  (RPI 8, seed 10)
3.  -2  Arizona  (RPI 12, seed 14)
4.  -1  UCLA  (RPI 2, seed 3)
5.  -1  Florida State  (RPI 5, seed 6)
6.  -1  Arizona State  (RPI 7, seed 8)

And there is poor Baylor... getting screwed by the committee again. It seems to pretty much be an every year occurrence.
Only two other teams got moved down as much as TWO spots...  but Baylor got dropped at least FOUR spots (maybe even more).

There seems to be a pro SEC bias... and a anti everyone else not in the SEC bias... going on here.

And for some unknown reason... a strong dislike of Baylor.
What did Baylor do to you committee members..???
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 1,938
Reply with quote  #171 
The team with the highest RPI that did not get in was FGCU (#38 RPI)... 
while #50 RPI Wisconsin  did get in.

Three other teams with a higher RPI than Wisconsin did not get in:  Louisville #44,  Nebraska #45  and  Pittsburgh #48.
Sec_fan91

Registered:
Posts: 2,911
Reply with quote  #172 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrybe


I understand. But I'm guessing there will be a whole lot more of either TN or UGA fans (and maybe both) pissed if they don't get matched up in the SR.

By the way, 91, I believe your Gamecocks absolutely should have received the 8-seed.


Just not co doesn’t at all against G. Juarez. We struggled pretty hard against the lefty Bert from Furman.
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 5,145
Reply with quote  #173 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
The team with the highest RPI that did not get in was FGCU (#38 RPI)... 
while #50 RPI Wisconsin  did get in.

Three other teams with a higher RPI than Wisconsin did not get in:  Louisville #44,  Nebraska #45  and  Pittsburgh #48.
What I fail to understand about this is that SOS is a huge part of RPI.  So why take a much lower RPI team based on higher SOS.   Wasn't that already taken into account with RPI?

__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,033
Reply with quote  #174 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
The team with the highest RPI that did not get in was FGCU (#38 RPI)... 
while #50 RPI Wisconsin  did get in.

Three other teams with a higher RPI than Wisconsin did not get in:  Louisville #44,  Nebraska #45  and  Pittsburgh #48.
Baylor would be a drop of 3 or more
midwestfp

Registered:
Posts: 923
Reply with quote  #175 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DunninLA
What I fail to understand about this is that SOS is a huge part of RPI.  So why take a much lower RPI team based on higher SOS.   Wasn't that already taken into account with RPI?


99% of us were asking the same question last year when the committee made such a big deal about Minnesota's poor strength of schedule, even though the RPI already took that into consideration.  This committee just cannot get enough strength of schedule worked into their seedings and selections.  They seem to think that coaches can just unilaterally set their schedules, and that if a team like FGCU didn't schedule 6 SEC teams and 6 PAC 12 teams, well then it was on them.  
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #176 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestfp


99% of us were asking the same question last year when the committee made such a big deal about Minnesota's poor strength of schedule, even though the RPI already took that into consideration.  This committee just cannot get enough strength of schedule worked into their seedings and selections.  They seem to think that coaches can just unilaterally set their schedules, and that if a team like FGCU didn't schedule 6 SEC teams and 6 PAC 12 teams, well then it was on them.  


If members of the committee can actually read, that post should give them something to chew on.
Tigers334

Registered:
Posts: 373
Reply with quote  #177 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
How the final RPI compared to the seeds.

Teams that got the best deal from the committee (they were seeded higher than their RPI):

1.  +4  Arkansas  (RPI 17, seed 13)
2.  +4  Alabama  (RPI 16, seed 12)
3.  +3  Georgia  (RPI 10, seed 7)
4.  +3  Kentucky  (RPI 16, seed 13)
5.  +1  Florida  (RPI 3, seed 2)
6.  +1  Washington  (RPI 6, seed 5)

FIVE SEC teams got their seed boosted by the committee (and FOUR of them by at least THREE spots).
Really makes you wonder just how much pull the SEC has in all this... 

Strangest of all, in my view, is Georgia being boosted 3 spots...
when the injury to their star pitcher would suggest that they would likely be dropped rather than boosted.
What's up with that...???

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Teams that got the worst deal from the committee (they were seeded lower than their RPI):

1.  -4 or more  Baylor  (RPI 14, no seed)
2.  -2  Tennessee  (RPI 8, seed 10)
3.  -2  Arizona  (RPI 12, seed 14)
4.  -1  UCLA  (RPI 2, seed 3)
5.  -1  Florida State  (RPI 5, seed 6)
6.  -1  Arizona State  (RPI 7, seed 8)

And there is poor Baylor... getting screwed by the committee again. It seems to pretty much be an every year occurrence.
Only two other teams got moved down as much as TWO spots...  but Baylor got dropped at least FOUR spots (maybe even more).

There seems to be a pro SEC bias... and a anti everyone else not in the SEC bias... going on here.

And for some unknown reason... a strong dislike of Baylor.
What did Baylor do to you committee members..???


Except Auburn who was -3 last year and got to face the defending and eventual NCs in Supers and -9 this year somehow being a team in consideration for hosting and ending up having to travel to FSU.
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 1,338
Reply with quote  #178 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers334
Except Auburn who was -3 last year and got to face the defending and eventual NCs in Supers and -9 this year somehow being a team in consideration for hosting and ending up having to travel to FSU.


I hear ya, but shouldn't a 7-seed playing at home be able to handle a 10-seed that's on the road?
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 16,033
Reply with quote  #179 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers334
Except Auburn who was -3 last year and got to face the defending and eventual NCs in Supers and -9 this year somehow being a team in consideration for hosting and ending up having to travel to FSU.
Yeah, Auburn at 18RPI by rights would have been pathed to be No. 2 at the 15 seed, but not nearly the biggest mutation because of busing that I have ever seen
DunninLA

Registered:
Posts: 5,145
Reply with quote  #180 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestfp


99% of us were asking the same question last year when the committee made such a big deal about Minnesota's poor strength of schedule, even though the RPI already took that into consideration.  This committee just cannot get enough strength of schedule worked into their seedings and selections.  They seem to think that coaches can just unilaterally set their schedules, and that if a team like FGCU didn't schedule 6 SEC teams and 6 PAC 12 teams, well then it was on them.  
Well, then I'm with the 99%

I do think there are legit adjustments that can be made to not use exact RPI:

1. Momentum.   If a team was RPI 4 for the 2/3 of the season, and  now is RPI 8, then I'd say RIGHT NOW they are probaby an RPI 12 or so team.   And I think seedings should be based on expected outcomes at this time, not earlier in the season.   

2. Injuries (which really is a subset of momentum):  If the most impactful player on a team (usually a pitcher, but could also be the highest OPS hitter on a team) is injured, then that team might be currently playing like say a 20 RPI vs. a 10.  And the reverse holds.   Let's suppose UCLA's Garcia was out the first half of the season and UCLA's RPI when she returned was 18.   And then with a healthy Ace they went with two losses the second half of the season, with a total season RPI of 9.  Were I on the committee, I'd seed them in the 4-6 range, more or less, based on expected outcome in the post season with a healthy Garcia.

Let's take VaTech with Tincher.  Suppose she had a season ending injury a week before the season ended.   Would VaTech still have gotten a top 8 seed as they did with a healthy Tincher?  Or current day UCLA with Garcia, or ASU with Guarez.

Is a seeding a "reward" for a full season of work, or is it based upon the quality of a team at the time of the seeding?

Put another way, should a seeding reflect Vegas odds of postseason outcomes (let's pretend there are Vegas odds for college softball), or be the blend of an entire season?



__________________
qui tacet consentire videtur
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.