Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 8      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #91 
Yes, it sucks that Oklahoma, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Utah and Michigan are located in places where they can't naturally host better teams before conference play.

But, if you are in a deeply lopsided conference--and a conference where the best 5 wins for the bottom 43 percent of its teams average and 81 RPI is deeply lopsided--you must schedule decent teams away from home just to keep up.

26 gimme wins.... almost 50 percent of the schedule (44.8). Come on

The RPI pretty well ferrets out the teams who are playing cupcake schedules
LandLottery

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #92 
Sorry.  But, the point is that the SEC was "given" the rpi by not having the rpi lowered for home vs road games.

Your numbers are way off.  Go back and take the rpi from the NCAA site and compare it to OU's schedule.  You also continue to include conference games---when the entire point is non-conference games that lead to high conference rpis.

Confine yourself to discussion of non-conference games.
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 190
Reply with quote  #93 
Lefty, keep telling yourself that rankings and media bias have absolutely no influence on the NCAA and its so-called RPI formula.

If you're truly buying that argument, I've got a rain forest in North Dakota I'd really like to show you.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #94 
The POINT is who played the tougher schedule. And it ain't close. And polls have zero affect on RPI rankings. Get educated

And, Oklahoma won the natty
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 190
Reply with quote  #95 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
The POINT is who played the tougher schedule. And it ain't close. And polls have zero affect on RPI rankings. Get educated And, Oklahoma won the natty


Yes, and the Sooners will more than likely win it again next year; that is, if their RPI and seeding is high enough to get them into the playoffs. In fact, they could become the first No. 1 ranked team in history to not even make the postseason.

Sounds like you're ready to discuss that property in North Dakota.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 532
Reply with quote  #96 
<< No one in the top 12 in the final RPI had as many as Oklahoma's 26 100+ RPI opponents.
The awfulness of the Big 12 teams that fall into that category are detailed above. >> (3LT)

You two guys (3LT & LandLottery) are attempting to have a meaningful discussion... 
but LL is basing his argument on what takes place BEFORE conference play even begins - 
but 3LT refuses to focus on just that part of the schedule.

It is too bad you can't both agree on the parameters of this discussion... because it could be a good one.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #97 

The schedule is the schedule....period.

But, even say the selection show came after pre-conference play....

Through mid-March, Oklahoma was a hideous 5-7 against teams in the Top 50 of the RPI, while A&M was 10-1 against such teams at the time.

Other than a home-road imbalance, there is no aspect of Oklahoma's schedule that speaks for the Sooners being ranked ahead A&M, and critique of RPI based on THAT comparison is crazed, even that early.

HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 532
Reply with quote  #98 
It seems to me - that LL's main point it this: 
SEC teams are given an RPI number BEFORE conference play begins... 
that is unwarranted (or undeserved).
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #99 
Well, I just gave you TAMU 10-1 record vs. the top 50 on March 19.... you think those numbers are made up?
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,177
Reply with quote  #100 
3LT - take into consideration this point. It is hypothetical but I think this is what LandLottery is saying. If I take 10 Southland conference teams, and they schedule only home games against the weakest of MAAC, NEC, SWAC, and a couple of neutral site games against big 12 or big 10 opponents. If each of those 10 Southland conference teams comes out with gaudy non con records. After they have played each other, the OWP component, will have continued to rise artificially. It can provide a false level of strength because the teams at the top of the league will have insane W/L records which offset the weaker non con opponents records. So when 75ish% of the calculation is based on WP% and OWP% even the lowest teams in the league get the benefit of the artificial boost.

again that is an extreme example because no one believes the Southland conference teams are as good as SEC teams, but the illustrations shows how there can be and is some artificial inflation of RPI.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #101 

Records vs. RPI Top 50 on March 19

SEC and Big 12 teams
Florida 10-0
Texas A&M 10-1
Baylor 13-3
Auburn 10-3
Alabama 8-3
LSU 7-6
Kentucky 5-5
Georgia 4-4
Tennessee 4-5
Mississippi State 3-4
Oklahoma 5-7
Oklahoma State 3-5
Missouri 4-7
Arkansas 3-6
Iowa State 1-2
Texas 3-10

South Carolina 2-9
Texas Tech 1-6
Kansas 0-4
Mississippi 0-5



scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 190
Reply with quote  #102 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns

Records vs. RPI Top 50 on March 19

SEC and Big 12 teams
Florida 10-0
Texas A&M 10-1
Baylor 13-3
Auburn 10-3
Alabama 8-3
LSU 7-6
Kentucky 5-5
Georgia 4-4
Tennessee 4-5
Mississippi State 3-4
Oklahoma 5-7
Oklahoma State 3-5
Missouri 4-7
Arkansas 3-6
Iowa State 1-2
Texas 3-10

South Carolina 2-9
Texas Tech 1-6
Kansas 0-4
Mississippi 0-5





LOL. That's exactly the point. My RPI Top 50, and the RPI Top 50 of softball fans all over America would look entirely different. Therefore, the records you referenced above would be entirely different.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #103 
No. Your RPI Top 25 of Iowa State, Kansas and Texas Tech is yours alone.

But, funny stuff.
TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 2,714
Reply with quote  #104 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrybe


LOL. That's exactly the point. My RPI Top 50, and the RPI Top 50 of softball fans all over America would look entirely different. Therefore, the records you referenced above would be entirely different.


I was wrong and didn't do my research would have been a lot easier.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #105 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
3LT - take into consideration this point. It is hypothetical but I think this is what LandLottery is saying. If I take 10 Southland conference teams, and they schedule only home games against the weakest of MAAC, NEC, SWAC, and a couple of neutral site games against big 12 or big 10 opponents. If each of those 10 Southland conference teams comes out with gaudy non con records. After they have played each other, the OWP component, will have continued to rise artificially. It can provide a false level of strength because the teams at the top of the league will have insane W/L records which offset the weaker non con opponents records. So when 75ish% of the calculation is based on WP% and OWP% even the lowest teams in the league get the benefit of the artificial boost. again that is an extreme example because no one believes the Southland conference teams are as good as SEC teams, but the illustrations shows how there can be and is some artificial inflation of RPI.
He's talking about Texas A&M who, before conference play, was 19-1, with wins over FSU, Ohio State, Michigan, BYU and Arizona State, and, yes a loss to 79 Houston.

In what world does Oklahoma's pre-conference sked match up with that -- or most any other SEC team's?

Oklahoma was 24-7, with one T25 win against UCLA. Again 5-7 against the Top 50.

I don't get picking Texas A&M, of all teams, with the start they had

scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 190
Reply with quote  #106 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNarrator


I was wrong and didn't do my research would have been a lot easier.


What exactly do you narrate?  Lefty's temper tantrum when his mom tells him to go back to the basement and make his bed?
TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 2,714
Reply with quote  #107 
Just trying to help you not look like a complete idiot, but you seem bound and determined to do so.
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 190
Reply with quote  #108 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNarrator
Just trying to help you not look like a complete idiot, but you seem bound and determined to do so.


Idiot? That's a nice name to call someone on a message board.  I guess Lefty isn't the only one having a really hard time getting over the WCWS.

Take a deep breath, let it out, then smile. Feel better?

Life will always have its ups and downs.
TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 2,714
Reply with quote  #109 
I said you are looking like one, I have no idea if you are an idiot or not.

I have no dog in this fight, but you seem to not grasp some elementary facts about scheduling in college athletics and the RPI.  3LT is attempting to help you, but you keep digging a hole.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,177
Reply with quote  #110 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns

He's talking about Texas A&M who, before conference play, was 19-1, with wins over FSU, Ohio State, Michigan, BYU and Arizona State, and, yes a loss to 79 Houston.

In what world does Oklahoma's pre-conference sked match up with that -- or most any other SEC team's?

Oklahoma was 24-7, with one T25 win against UCLA. Again 5-7 against the Top 50.

I don't get picking Texas A&M, of all teams, with the start they had



I don't want to speak for him, and I don't know that he is correct, an RPI expert would have to jump in. But what I believe he is saying is that the SEC school's RPIs were higher, due to the fact SEC schools benefited from having similar OOC schedules. He is using A&M as an example. They had a very good record in the non-con. He provided a list of teams they beat, and while a few were really good, most weren't. Then he brings up the point that most of those games were at home. Now that, in and of itself, is not a big deal. However, if all the other teams in the league schedule similarly and were able to have good OOC records, their records in league play became somewhat irrelevant. So when a team loses 2 of 3 games to another team in league, they are getting credit for a top 15-50 win. He is saying that the RPI ranking, again right or wrong, was calculated based on OOC Schedules, similar to what A&M played.

He is arguing how the RPI is calculated is flawed, you are arguing strength of schedule based on the RPI. That is where the impasse begins.


Damn I'm tired.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #111 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
I don't want to speak for him, and I don't know that he is correct, an RPI expert would have to jump in. But what I believe he is saying is that the SEC school's RPIs were higher, due to the fact SEC schools benefited from having similar OOC schedules. He is using A&M as an example. They had a very good record in the non-con. He provided a list of teams they beat, and while a few were really good, most weren't. Then he brings up the point that most of those games were at home. Now that, in and of itself, is not a big deal. However, if all the other teams in the league schedule similarly and were able to have good OOC records, their records in league play became somewhat irrelevant. So when a team loses 2 of 3 games to another team in league, they are getting credit for a top 15-50 win. He is saying that the RPI ranking, again right or wrong, was calculated based on OOC Schedules, similar to what A&M played. He is arguing how the RPI is calculated is flawed, you are arguing strength of schedule based on the RPI. That is where the impasse begins. Damn I'm tired.
You literally didn't touch on a single fact that I posted.... That was a superior pre-conference schedule by A&M (and likely most other SEC teams') to Oklahoma's.

I listed all of those pre-conference-play records against T50 teams.

And, then.... the four Big 12 haves play Texas Tech, Kansas and Iowa State. I posted THEIR evidence of capability and then posted that for the worst three teams in the SEC. It's a Mike Tyson-Michael Spinks mismatch.

I guess I get some tweens not addressing all that data.... but I am surprised by usual adults in the room avoiding it. Very tiring, indeed
scrybe

Registered:
Posts: 190
Reply with quote  #112 
Constantly defending a flawed/broken system of calculating RPI is likely what's tiring you so, Lefty.

That's got to be even more tiring than MadDogsDad, et al, trying to teach you a thing or two. [wink]
LandLottery

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #113 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
You literally didn't touch on a single fact that I posted.... That was a superior pre-conference schedule by A&M (and likely most other SEC teams') to Oklahoma's.

I listed all of those pre-conference-play records against T50 teams.

And, then.... the four Big 12 haves play Texas Tech, Kansas and Iowa State. I posted THEIR evidence of capability and then posted that for the worst three teams in the SEC. It's a Mike Tyson-Michael Spinks mismatch.

I guess I get some tweens not addressing all that data.... but I am surprised by usual adults in the room avoiding it. Very tiring, indeed

The problem is that you didn't post a single fact.  You posted the assumption that the SEC claims as a superior pre-conference schedule.  MadDog has seen my point, and I have made it clear that this discussion does not accept your parameters.  I have indicated that it must be confined to non-conference.

Then, I have made it clear that A&M (selected because they have the typical SEC-type schedule) played 74% of their games at home.

I am not willing to give them a pass on such a biased home-road schedule.  The rpi must be modified to adjust to the probability of wins at home and on the road.

Then, you make the claim that OU played a weak schedule.
---fact:  A&M played 47% of its preconference schedule against teams of 100+
---fact:  Oklahoma played 28.95% of its pre-conference against 100+ teams.

So, A&M played more weak teams as an absolute number, as a percentage, and they played them at home.

I'm not even addressing the fact that there were only about two teams on the A&M schedule that were likely to beat anyone.  Michigan, Ohio State, Arizona State---not this year, especially early.  Michigan was rebuilding after losing their ace and three best hitters.

I'm not willing to accept an rpi based on such data.  The rpi must be adjusted for strength of opponent and road/home.  Playing half your pre-conference schedule against 100+ teams in College Station?  Really?  You can't sell me that as a valid foundation for an rpi.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #114 
On selection day, A&M 6-5 against teams who FINISHED the season in the Top 10. Oklahoma 3-5.

There is NO way you slice it that makes it a better schedule for Oklahoma.

Not one

MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,177
Reply with quote  #115 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
You literally didn't touch on a single fact that I posted.... That was a superior pre-conference schedule by A&M (and likely most other SEC teams') to Oklahoma's.

I listed all of those pre-conference-play records against T50 teams.

And, then.... the four Big 12 haves play Texas Tech, Kansas and Iowa State. I posted THEIR evidence of capability and then posted that for the worst three teams in the SEC. It's a Mike Tyson-Michael Spinks mismatch.

I guess I get some tweens not addressing all that data.... but I am surprised by usual adults in the room avoiding it. Very tiring, indeed



But I wasn't addressing your facts. I understand what you are saying.

I was addressing what LandLottery was saying in a futile attempt to get you to look at something from someone else's perspective. He may not be correct and his premise may be filled with holes but I can understand his argument.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #116 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
He provided a list of teams they beat, and while a few were really good, most weren't.

The list of teams I gave that Oklahoma beat who demonstrably suck dwarfs the such number for TAMU.

Sorry, but if you are worse than RPI 100, you are remedial.

And the teams that most people would consider good (you know, finished top 10... or beat up on other T25s... or swept the No. 3 team in the other's conference, outscoring them 25-3... take your pick) that were beaten by the Aggies dwarfs that number for Oklahoma

3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #117 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
But I wasn't addressing your facts. I understand what you are saying. I was addressing what LandLottery was saying in a futile attempt to get you to look at something from someone else's perspective. He may not be correct and his premise may be filled with holes but I can understand his argument.
But it wasn't a hypothetical... he was using Texas A&M.... the info is in concrete.

I mean, EVERY team wins most of their games against inferior teams...I'll agree to that extent.

I tried going to the ridiculous corner of the OOC-only games discussion. I put up the superior W-L records of the SEC to the Big 12 against OOC top 50 teams, and the SEC against the Big 12 head-to-head.

There is on-field proof that the SEC's bottom three are universes better than the Big 12 car wrecks that take up 42 percent of that conference's schedule, and that proven excellence is evident at almost every turn

But LOL at 'his premise may be filled with holes'

That is when the adult is supposed to take the lollipop from the boy

EDITED at 4:57
LandLottery

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #118 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
But it wasn't a hypothetical... he was using Texas A&M.... the info is in concrete.

I mean, EVERY team wins most of their games against inferior teams...I'll agree to that extent.

I tried going to the ridiculous corner of the OOC-only games discussion. I put up the superior W-L records of the SEC to the Big 12 against OOC top 50 teams, and the SEC against the Big 12 head-to-head.

There is on-field proof that the SEC's bottom three are universes better than the Big 12 car wrecks that take up 42 percent of that conference's schedule, and that proven excellence is evident at almost every turn

But LOL at 'his premise may be filled with holes'

That is when the adult is supposed to take the lollipop from the boy

EDITED at 4:57
At no point have you added anything to the discussion that wasn't known.  You want to isolate your facts to top fifty teams or false claims about OU's record against 100+ teams.  Did you actually even look that up?

Confine yourself to the topic at hand: 

---is it legitimate to ignore home/road in the rpi?
---is it legitimate to schedule half of your games---at home against 100+ teams?

If you don't start penalizing teams in the rpi for staying at home, I would advise OU to stay in Norman and play only teams that can't beat you in Norman.  Your rpi will rise.  Actually, the SEC wasn't the only group of teams to do this. Oregon's pre-conference was a joke.

Of course, OU might not learn to play tougher which might mean that they wouldn't win three national titles in four years.  But, they would have a better rpi.

rudymartinez

Registered:
Posts: 258
Reply with quote  #119 
Once again thanks for your topical video clips Lefty. Where would we be without them.
Drop_Curve

Registered:
Posts: 170
Reply with quote  #120 
Can we agree stop talking about TAMU in any BIG12 threads since ya know they're a part of the SEC. Also, why does Baylor need a pitching transfer? I was expecting them to develop Langkamp into something special
__________________
Jacob Thomas Adkins
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: